Showing papers in "The Journal of Higher Education in 2000"

The Influence of Active Learning on the College Student Departure Process: Toward a Revision of Tinto's Theory

Abstract: (2000). The Influence of Active Learning on the College Student Departure Process. The Journal of Higher Education: Vol. 71, No. 5, pp. 569-590.

Differences in the Decision to Attend College among African Americans, Hispanics, and Whites

Abstract: (2000). Differences in the Decision to Attend College among African Americans, Hispanics, and Whites. The Journal of Higher Education: Vol. 71, The Shape of Diversity, pp. 117-141.

Learning to Lead in Higher Education

Abstract: Learning to Lead in Higher Education, by Paul Ramsden. New York: Routledge, 1998. 288 pp. $75.00 (24.99) Is academic leadership an oxymoron or a serious field of study? Until 20 years ago the major works on academic leadership focused on the roles of presidents and chief academic officers. The literature on academic department chairs was silent, with most of the information and attention coming from anecdotal speeches, professional papers, popular journal articles, a couple of text-type books, and a few data-based studies. Two decades ago the main reference for department chairs was Allen Tucker's Chairing the Academic Department (1981). Through the 1980s the academic department chair remained the least studied and most misunderstood position in the academy. Although many education scholars wrote about the organization and governance of higher education, relatively little was known about those who led and supported academic units. In addition, the management role of the department chair has no parallel in business and industry, or education for that matter. Typical faculty manuals at most colleges and universiti es provide a list of chairs' duties and responsibilities but do not provide insight into department leadership. The 1990s brought an onslaught of new publications shedding light on the overshadowed role of department chair. In 1990 John Creswell and his colleagues introduced The Academic Chairperson's Handbook, followed by Gmelch and Miskin's Leadership Skills for Department Chairs (1993), Ann Lucas's Strengthening Leadership: A Team-Building Guide for Chairs in Colleges and Universities (1994), Mary Lou Higgerson's Communication Skills for Department Chairs (1996), and Irene Hecht and her colleagues' recently released The Department Chair as Academic Leader (1999). Australian scholars extrapolated the role of the department head from English and American writings and studies until the release of Moses and Roe's (1990) ground-breaking work on Australian department heads and Sarros and Gmelch's replication of American department chair research in Australia (1996). Within this context Paul Ramsden's book Learning to Lead in Higher Education represents the second major work written for academic department leaders based on the Australian experience. Whereas Moses and Roe illuminated the world of the chair/head within the department, Ramsden looks at the role as part of a larger institutional nexus. In the introductory chapter Ramsden posits a simple three-stage systems model of presage-process-product to understand the challenges faced by academic leaders. Chapter 2 empirically addresses the presage or environmental factors of changing external forces on higher education (knowledge differentiation, mass higher education, and reduced public funding) and internal characteristics of universities (academic values and culture). Chapter 3 explores aspects of the academic outcomes or products constituting the third part of the model, underscoring the leader's job to increase productivity. He follows up in Chapters 4 and 5 with evidence suggesting that departmental leadership and intellectual climate can influence the output of research productivity and effective teaching. Chapter 6 concludes Part I with an inconclusive exploration of whether there are any useful leadership principles common to both university and other organizations. Ramsden postulates a series of principles characterizing competent academic leadership: a dynamic process, an outcomes-focused agenda, a phenomenon of both personal and organizational development, a relationship between leaders and followers, and a personal transformation process through reflection and learning. The second and third parts of the book attempt to demonstrate ways to manage in order to improve the context of academic work. Ramsden argues (unconvincingly in the opinion of this reviewer) that the framework for improving university teaching is similar to the practice of academic leadership. …

The Changing Face of Accountability: Monitoring and Assessing Institutional Performance in Higher Education

Abstract: (2000). The Changing Face of Accountability. The Journal of Higher Education: Vol. 71, No. 4, pp. 411-431.

Exploring the Scholarship of Teaching

Abstract: Ever since Boyer (1990) introduced his notion of the scholarship of teaching, its precise meaning, implications (Menges & Weimer, 1996), and assessment (Glassick, Huber, & Maeroff, 1997) have remained unresolved issues. In this article we explore the scholarship of teaching as both learning and knowing about teaching and make suggestions for how it can be demonstrated and assessed. We first provide a brief background to the notion of scholarship. We support the view that the development of scholarship in teaching is a process comprised of reflection on experience-based knowledge and research-based knowledge on teaching. Secondly, in order to develop a model that explains how faculty develop scholarship in teaching, we use Mezirow's (1991) concepts of content, process, and premise reflection as a framework to derive three essential domains of knowledge about teaching--instructional, pedagogical, and curricular. Thirdly, we combine content, process, and premise reflection and Habermas's (1971) instrumental, co mmunicative, and emancipatory knowledge within the instructional, pedagogical, and curricular domains to suggest that developing scholarship in teaching is comprised of nine distinct kinds of learning. We illustrate how each of the nine kinds of learning is consistent with the premise that developing scholarship in teaching involves faculty reflecting on research-based knowledge as well as their own experience-based knowledge (Menges & Weimer, 1996) in ways that can be peer reviewed. Fourthly, we suggest possible indicators for the nine components of scholarship. Finally, we examine our model in relation to standards of scholarly work (Glassick, Huber, & Maeroff, 1997; Merton, 1973). Background Since Boyer (1990) and Rice (1991) first introduced the notion of the scholarship of teaching, a considerable literature has been developing (Cunsolo, Elrick, Middleton, & Roy, 1996; Diamond & Adam, 1993; Edgerton, Hutchings, & Quinlan, 1991; Kreber & Cranton, 1997; Menges & Weimer, 1996; Morehead & Shedd, 1996; Paulsen & Feldman, 1995; Taylor, 1993; Richlin, 1993; Weimer, 1992). Based on this literature and our experience as faculty developers, we distinguish three perspectives. The first perspective on the scholarship of teaching is parallel to the traditional conceptualization of scholarship as discovery research in that faculty conduct research and create visible products such as journal articles, conference presentations, or textbooks on teaching in their discipline. Research on teaching and learning is viewed as one important aspect of the scholarship of teaching. This perspective is similar to Boyer's (1990) and Rice's (1991) vision of the scholarship of teaching that includes: knowledge of effective ways to represent subjects; the ability to draw the various strands of the field together in a coherent and purposeful way; and cognizance of ways that make the subject more accessible, interesting, and meaningful to students. Whether or not the scholar of teaching is also an effective teacher, though presumably taken for granted by Boyer and his followers, is not the major focus for proponents of this perspective. Teaching effectiveness is inferred from the product that was creat ed; it is the product that is the indicator of scholarship. In the second perspective, the scholarship of teaching is equated with excellence in teaching, as evidenced by teaching awards or outstanding evaluations of teaching. The assumption underlying this perspective is that excellent teachers--as identified, for example, by student ratings or peer reviews--hold extensive knowledge about teaching and learning. Although this may be the case, particularly with respect to experience-based implicit knowledge, excellent teachers may or may not be able to articulate what they do in educational terms. More recently, a third perspective has emerged. Scholars of teaching take a scholarly approach to teaching by applying educational theory and research to their practice (Menges & Weimer, 1996). …

Institutionalization of Service Learning in Higher Education

Abstract: (2000). Institutionalization of Service Learning in Higher Education. The Journal of Higher Education: Vol. 71, No. 3, pp. 273-290.

Is There Gender Bias in Student Evaluations of Teaching

Abstract: Given the widespread use of student evaluations of teaching for tenure and promotion decisions, it is important to be aware of possible bias in the evaluations. One definition of bias is if a teacher or course characteristic affects teacher evaluations, either positively or negatively, but is unrelated to criteria of good teaching, such as increased student learning. Class size, for example, affects evaluations in that teachers of classes with under 15 students get higher evaluations. But if students learn more in small classes than they do in large classes, perhaps because small classes allow for more personal attention, then class size is not truly biasing the evaluations; rather, the evaluations are reflecting increased learning. A second, more general, definition of bias is when a known characteristic of students systematically affects their ratings of teachers. The gender of the student, particularly how it interacts with the gender of the teacher, is an example of this possible bias in student evaluations. Do male students tend to rate women teachers lower than men teachers because of a gender bias, especially in fields that are male dominated, such as the natural sciences? Do female students judge women teachers to be more effective than men because they feel more comfortable with them? These are important questions that directly affect the validity of the evaluations when used for personnel decisions. Ideally student evaluations should be related to what they learn from a teacher and not to gender or to other personal characteristics of the teacher (e.g., age, ethnicity). Studies that have investigated gender bias have thus far produced conflicting results. Some studies have found no (or extremely small) differences between the evaluation of female and male instructors on the basis of student gender alone (Basow & Distenfeld, 1985; Basow & Howe, 1987; Bennett, 1982; Elmore & LaPointe, 1974; Harris, 1975; Kaschak, 1981). Other studies reported gender bias, with male students rating female instructors lower than male instructors (Basow & Silberg, 1987; Etaugh & Riley, 1983; Kaschak, 1978; Lombardo & Tocci, 1979; Paludi & Bauer, 1983). Two studies conducted in actual classrooms did not report gender bias in overall evaluations. Bennett's (1982) used a course evaluation questionnaire that included teaching performance ratings, perceptual orientation scales, and indicators of the degree and context of student-instructor interaction. Her data included the evaluations of 11 female and 28 male instructors by 253 students enrolled in nonscience introductory courses at a liberal arts college. Female and male students did not differentiate between faculty members of different gender. Although there was no evidence of direct bias in formal student evaluations of instructors, there was evidence of gender related differences in regard to student-instructor relationships and instructor warmth, support, and accessibility. Elmore and LaPointe (1974) found no interaction between faculty gender and student gender in their analysis of 38 pairs of courses (paired on the basis of course number and gender of instructor) evaluated by 1,259 students. The courses were selected from a variety of departments and colleges within one research university. No attempts were made, however, to compare results from various disciplines or results for students in the same classes. Research that reported gender bias included Basow and Silberg's (1987) study of 16 pairs of instructors (paired on rank, discipline, and years of experience), in which male students rated female instructors less favorably than male instructors. Similar results by Kaschak (1978) and Lombardo and Tocci (1979) were found in a simulated rather than actual classroom setting. In these studies female students saw no difference in the effectiveness of male and female teachers. Feldman conducted two reviews of students' views of male and female college teachers. …

Ties That Bind: A Social Network Approach to Understanding Student Integration and Persistence

Abstract: A Social Network Approach to Understanding Student Integration and Persistence Introduction Astin's (1993, P. 398) claim that peers are "the single most potent source of influence" in the lives of college students comes after decades of theoretical and empirical research examining the integrative nature of student experiences on the college campus. Review of the classic work of Newcomb (1943, 1962) and Newcomb and Wilson (1966), or the more contemporary observations of Horowitz (1987) or Moffatt (1989) demonstrates why student peer culture plays such a central contextual role in the understanding of a variety of college outcomes (e.g., Antrobus, Dobbelaer, & Salzinger, 1988; Chickering, 1974; Husband, 1976; Nora & Rendon, 1990; Stage, 1989; Terenzini & Pascarella, 1977). One outcome theorized to be dramatically affected by student peer culture is persistence. Much of the student persistence literature places great emphasis on student integration into campus subcultures (Spady, 1971; Tinto, 1993). Two major comprehensive conceptual models of student persistence have emerged from the various theoretical perspectives on this phenomenon, Bean's Student Attrition Model (1980, 1982, 1983, 1990) and Tinto's Student Integration Model (1975, 1987, 1993). Although Tinto's integration model places a greater emphasis on the role of within-institution peer culture than Bean's organizational model, which emphasizes the role that external forces play in the persistence process, considerable overlap exists between the two, especially in terms of the role of organizational factors and commitment to the institution (Cabrera, Casteneda, Nora, & Hengstler, 1992). In both models, student commitment to the institution is theorized to be affected by peers' attitudes and pressures. Bean theorizes that among other potential modifiers, the encouragement of close friends may enhance a sense of commitment to the institution (institutional fit and quality). Tinto postulates a similar relationship, namely that the higher the level of social integration the greater will be the commitment to the institution. As integration is the central feature of the Tinto model it has therefore been carefully elaborated both conceptually and empirically. This should not discount the theoretical role of social structure in Bean's model, for friendships, or social ties, are presumed to impact the extent of students' shared group values, support structure, and affinity for the institution in both models--simply in different ways. As many have pointed out, the operational measurement of the manifold dimensions of peer culture is often elusive. Adequate measurement of the effects of these important influences requires knowledge of students' individual group identifications as well as their desires for group affiliation, membership, and, ultimately, acceptance (Astin, 1993; Kuh, 1995; Newcomb, 1943, 1962; Newcomb & Wilson, 1966). The purpose of this study is to begin to explore such subcultural effects by assessing the role of student social structure in the persistence process. Specifically, I explore the effects of social integration from a social network perspective: a perspective that enables determination of subgroup membership and of the characteristics of relationships to and within those subgroups. My concern in this article is to take a first step toward a more appropriate empirical elaboration of the integration constructs central to these models. Accordingly, this study is exploratory in nature and is designed to examine the effects of structural integration on factors theorized to be central in the persistence process. Of the two major theories of student persistence, Tinto's Student Integration Model (1993) will be used as the framework for the development of a method that will enable the specification of a model incorporating a number of social network characteristics. Although similarities exist between Bean's and Tinto's theories, especially in terms of the posited relationships between integration and persistence, the Tinto model was chosen as a framework due to its particular theoretical underpinning and the large volume of work explicating is theory. …

Grouping in the Dark: What College Students Learn from Group Projects

Abstract: What College Students Learn from Group Projects More and more college and university faculty are assigning students to work in groups to solve real-world or simulated problems (Gamson, 1994). The trend toward classroom teamwork has been stimulated by students, prospective employers of college graduates, accrediting agencies, and educators who advocate cooperative learning. Many students, particularly the growing population of returning adults, appreciate interactive learning experiences (Watkins, 1990). As companies rely more on teams to improve productivity (Schilder, 1992), they also emphasize the need for college graduates to be skilled in teamwork and effective communication (Coleman, 1996). Accrediting agencies also stress the importance of group experiences for students. New criteria established by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), for example, require engineering programs to demonstrate that graduates have "an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams" and "an ability to communicate effectively" (ABET, 1997). Seve ral educators who have investigated the benefits of peer group learning experiences for elementary and secondary school students also advocate that college students collaborate as they learn (Bosworth & Hamilton, 1994; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991, 1998). The umbrella term "collaborative learning" refers to a variety of instructional practices that encourage students to work together as they apply course material to answer questions, solve problems, or create a product (Smith & MacGregor, 1992). Research conducted with college students indicates that participation in group projects promotes students' academic achievement, persistence in college, and positive attitudes about learning (Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1997). Students are more likely to attain positive outcomes from group experiences when instructors provide students with information and guidance about how to work together (Bosworth & Hamilton, 1994). The types of guidance instructors should provide are specified clearly by proponents of "cooperative learning" such as Johnson and Johnson (1994) and Slavin (1983) who maintain that group work will enhance learning more than individual work only if instructors structure assignments to meet specific conditions. These conditions include providing instruction about interpersonal skills, encouraging positive interdependence among students, making individual goal achievement dependent upon attainment of group goals, and encouraging students to reflect on the group process (Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Slavin, 1983). With proper guidance, students will hold all members accountable for group performance, support each others' learning, share leadership, and monitor their efforts to improve the group's performance. When instructors fail to provide such guidance, Johnson and Johnson (1994) argue that students will not hold other group members accountable, have little commitment to other group members' learning, work alone as much as possible, only recognize a team leader appointed by the instructor, and fail to assess the quality of the group's progress. The conditions for group learning in higher education settings rarely meet the standards advocated by cooperative learning scholars. Few faculty have either extensive experience working in groups themselves or formal training about how to manage groups. As a result, many well-intentioned faculty assign group projects without providing students the information and guidance prescribed by cooperative learning advocates. A survey conducted with participants in group projects at a single university found that many students had negative reactions to group learning experiences. Students were particularly frustrated when they believed that the instructor had poor group skills or shirked responsibility for helping the groups (Fiechtner & Davis, 1984-85). The survey also revealed that many students, nevertheless, perceived that some of their group experiences were positive. …

Faculty Time Allocation: A Study of Change over Twenty Years.

Abstract: A Study of Change Over Twenty Years Previous research suggests that research productivity at the institutional level has been steadily increasing over time and that an institution's place in the hierarchy influences the nature of that change (Bentley & Blackburn, 1990; Dey, Milem, & Berger, 1997). The findings from these studies indicate that faculty at all types of postsecondary educational institutions are spending increasingly more time engaged in activities associated with publication and research, but the extent of these increases is partially dependent upon the institutional setting in which faculty work. At the same time, many observers of American higher education, inside and outside of the postsecondary enterprise, have become increasingly concerned about how faculty spend their time (Bok, 1992; Boyer, 1990; Cage, 1991; Massy & Zemsky, 1994). Studies also demonstrate that institutional type, among other factors, influences the ways in which faculty allocate their time and effort among the various facets of the academic role (Fairweath er, 1993a; Jacobson, 1992; Tierney & Rhoads, 1993). Indeed, Jacobson (1992) suggests that "institutional drift," or the attempts by professors employed at institutions located in the middle and lower levels of the hierarchy of American postsecondary institutions to emulate the work characteristics of their peers at research universities, is the primary cause behind the increase of faculty activities in the area of research and writing. Given the previous findings by Dey et al. (1997) regarding the increase of publication productivity throughout the institutional hierarchy, and given the increasing concern about the ways in which faculty spend their time (Bok, 1992; Boyer, 1990; Cage, 1991; Ewell, 1994; Jacobson, 1992), it is clear that more empirical evidence is needed to adequately assess the changing nature of the academic role over time. Building upon the assumption that institutional type influences faculty role performance, this study uses previous theory and research that address issues of institutional stratification to examine changes in the amounts of time faculty spent engaged in teaching, advising, and research activities at the institutional level over a twenty-year period. Conceptual Background Scholars have long been interested in the factors affecting the way individual faculty members, departments, and institutions divide the various responsibilities associated with the faculty role (e.g., Bowen & Schuster, 1986; Boyer, 1990; Braxton & Berger, 1996; Clark, 1987; Feldman, 1987; Finkelstein, 1984; Massy & Zemsky; 1994; Newman, 1985; Volkwein & Carbone, 1994). Scholars have also been interested in examining how different types of institutions impact the purposes of higher education (Bowen & Schuster, 1986) and in investigating conditions that foster diverse missions among postsecondary institutions (Birnbaum, 1983). It has been noted that external forces exert opposing pressures on faculty at the institutional, departmental, and individual levels to spend more time on either teaching or research (Braxton & Berger, 1996). For example, state legislators and public opinion frequently mandate that faculty focus on teaching, whereas patrons of research (e.g., private industry and foundations, federal re search organizations) promote and reward research activity and productivity. Given the recent evidence that faculty at all types of institutions are becoming more productive in terms of publication (Dey et al., 1997) and considering the growing concern regarding the accountability of faculty time (Massy & Zemsky, 1994), researchers and policymakers have compelling reasons for wanting to know more about how increased publication productivity relates to other aspects of the faculty role. This is particularly true regarding the role played by institutional type as a major source of influence on academic role performance. …

The Life Cycle of Academic Management Fads.

Abstract: Institutions of higher education are always under pressure to become more efficient and effective. In response, many have attempted (either voluntarily or under mandate) to adopt new management systems and processes that were originally designed to meet the needs of (presumably) more efficient business or governmental organizations. One contemporary observer, referring to "the hum of corporate buzzwords" in the academy, has commented that "a person would be hard pressed these days to find a college that doesn't claim to be evaluating or reshaping itself through one of these approaches" (Nicklin, 1995, p. A33). This "hum" is not new; it has been a feature of the higher education landscape for at least the past forty years. Among the first of these processes was the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS), initially developed by Rand for use by the Defense Department and adopted by many higher education institutions in the early 1960s. Among the most recent are Business Process Reengineering (BPR), and Benchmarking. In between, business management scholars have documented over two dozen management innovations that were proposed between 1950 and 1990 (Pascale, 1990), some of which were adopted by institutions of higher education. The development and advocacy of new management approaches in both nonacademic and academic management continues, and at an increasing pace. In the business sector these new ideas are often "presented as universally applicable quick-fix solutions--along with the obligatory and explicit caution that their recommendations are not quick fixes and will require substantial management understanding and commitment. As many managers will attest, the result has been a dazzling array of what are often perceived as management fads--fads that frequently become discredited soon after they have been widely propagated" (Eccles & Nohria, 1992, p. 7). Many of these management innovations, when adopted by higher education, also exhibit the characteristics that led Allen and Chaffee (1981) to define them as fads; they are usually borrowed from other settings, applied without full consideration of their limitations, presented either as complex or deceptively simple, rely on jargon, and emphasize rational decision making. Following Allen and Chaffee, I use the term "fads" to refer collectively and non-pejoratively to certain higher education management innovations enjoying brief popularity, a use consistent with the definition in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (p. 444) of a fad as "a practice or interest followed for a time with exaggerated zeal." Not all management innovations are fads. Some (for example, fund accounting) may diffuse and be adopted rapidly through institutional networks to become an accepted part of the system. On the other hand, fads, by definition, are ultimately not widely adopted throughout an organizational system. This study is grounded in two basic propositions: first, that it is possible to use the literature to trace the evolution of a management fad from the time of its creation to its eventual abandonment and second, that management fads may diffuse between nonacademic and academic systems. These are not novel notions. Informal observations of one or both of them have been noted previously by higher education scholars. For example, commenting on the movement of management innovations between the nonacademic and academic sectors, Baldridge and Okimi (1982) said "Every six months, it seems, a new fad sweeps through management circles. First it strikes the business community, then government, and finally education. Think back a few years and the mind stumbles on the carcasses of fads once touted as the newest 'scientific' way to manage an organization." These fads may "arrive at higher education's doorstep five years after their trial in business, often just as corporations are discarding them" (Marchese, 1991, p. 7) . Once the fad has been introduced into higher education, a standard sequence is suggested: "First, the system will be widely acclaimed in the higher education literature; institutions will eagerly ask how best to implement it. …

How to Succeed in School without Really Learning: The Credentials Race in American Education

Abstract: How to Succeed in School Without Really Learning: The Credentials Race in American Education, by David Labaree. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997. 328 PP. $35.00 David Labaree adds to a very large body of literature that criticizes American schooling. In How to Succeed in School Without Really Learning he describes the relationship and contradictions between social mobility (private good), social efficiency, and democratic equality (public good). His thesis is that the pursuit of credentials (grades, degrees, etc.), as private good, has come to dominate and actually hinder students from acquiring knowledge and learning skills that would make them better citizens and better contributers to the capitalist economy. Labaree follows the earlier credential theorists, Boudon (1974) Collins (1979) and Brown (1995), adding information from his historical case study of an American high school. His arguments are clear and cogent, but for readers who anticipate new solutions to education's "crisis" there may be disappointment. In the final chapter, Labaree simply states: "Social mobility, I conclude, needs to be balanced by democratic equality and social efficiency, or else we wi ll continue to reproduce an educational system that is mired in consumerism and credentialism." The formula by which such a balance is to be achieved is not provided by Labaree. To be sure, credentialist theory has much to offer in describing the state of professionalism in American schooling today, and Labaree lays out its major themes clearly and concisely in his first chapter. In his next three chapters he focuses upon "the sorting and selecting of students within schools" by examining the historical roots, consequences, and implications of that process. This is followed by an analysis of education stratification from a market perspective. "From this perspective, the processes of selection and stratification that characterize education are the result not simply of societal needs but of individual demands, as individual consumers pursue symbolic advantages that will enhance their competitive position. The logic that governs these processes is that of the market." Labaree states that "arguments most often found in the literature [ldots] draw on either human capital theory or social reproduction theory," a practice he finds to be inadequate. But this is an unnecessary simplification of a large body of literature that has much to offer as well as to reject. Though he is rightly concerned about the slight of individual agency, Labaree's market individualism takes the other extreme, which is equally insufficient as an approach aimed at describing the "root causes" of education's woes. Consistent with liberalism, Labaree accepts the contradiction between corporate and democratic values as necessary and wants to promote both. That corporate capitalism undermines both political and educational democracy is well documented (e.g., Barrow, 1990; Callahan, 1962; Hollinger, 1996; Lustig, 1982; Ophuls, 1997; Weinstein, 1968). Rather than attempting to balance the conflicting goals by putting social needs above personal desires, a better solution is to make the two identical (Benedict, 1992). But Labaree gives no credence to the possibility of a democratic economic system that meets, as Bowles and Gintis (1992) phrase it, "the demanding criteria of fostering fundamental fairness, the dignity of the human person, and enhanced social participation" (p. 3). A major contention of Labaree is "that the central problems with education in the United States are not pedagogical or organizational or social or cultural in nature but are fundamentally political." Labaree claims a tie to Weber, but does not seem to appreciate that "class, status, and party" have to be grasped as phenomena of the distribution of power (Giddens, 1982). Thus, completely absent is any discussion of the influence of corporate power on schooling in particular and society as a whole (e. …

Inside the Undergraduate College Classroom: Faculty and Students Differ on the Meaning of Student Participation

Abstract: (2000). Inside the Undergraduate College Classroom. The Journal of Higher Education: Vol. 71, No. 3, pp. 342-362.

The responsive university : restructuring for high performance

Abstract: The Responsive University: Restructuring for High Performance, edited by William G. Tierney. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. 162+ pp. $29.95 We are indeed witnessing an explosion in higher education research: on employee motivation, faculty work, leadership, governance, the role of the modern university, managing various schools, units, and divisions. Clark Ken's old adage, the only thing many in academe share in common are grievances over parking, should be amended. We share an unending propensity to study, dissect, promote, reevaluate, champion, and analyze, both ourselves and our institutions. Many who comment on work and culture in academic environments stand somewhere on a "crisis" continuum. On one end of the spectrum are those who bemoan the state of higher education, its lack of accountability, declining public support, perceived inefficiencies in teaching, research, service, and the like. On the other end are those who find that faculty, by and large, are pleased with the work environment, our institutions have not been bought by foreign competitors, and, yes, certain sectors of academe are indeed robust, and enrollments are climbing (but graduate students are organizing!). Why are so many reluctant to admit that, in spite of the culture wars, politicization, legislative incursions, and apparent loss of leadership, American colleges and universities, as organizations, are, by and large, healthy, fulfill an important and recognized societal niche, are desirable places to work, and are still viewed, throughout the world, as the best models to emulate? Set in this context is The Responsive University. It sits somewhere in the middle of the crisis continuum, although leaning decidedly toward a more optimistic end. As Kent Keith says in his excellent summary chapter, "This book is about getting out of the box, it is about rethinking fundamental assumptions that worked late in the twentieth century but can trap and immobilize our institutions in the twenty-first century" (p. 162). We are offered a glimmer of hope, the possibility of redemption, tempered by the notion that whatever works well in the present will probably not work in the future. Nevertheless, despite the deluge of studies reevaluating academe, I enjoyed this book and found myself arguing with its premises as I lurched through my daily routine of meetings with lawyers, promotion and tenure committees, accountants, housing directors, faculty, police, and gardeners. The notion of a responsive university holds great attraction to individuals who, like myself, are actually responsible for administering academic organizations, and who, like most senior executives, are forced to spend the majority of our time responding to others' agendas, not promoting our own solutions or ideas. Themes stressed in this book include service to students and society, tenure, internal decision making, governmental policy, and institutional accountability. Treatment of issues is innovative. The authors identify an emerging university, one that is "responsive," e.g., responsive to those being served--students, parents, businesses, nonprofit organizations. Each chapter, in its own fashion, stresses that "public s" will judge the university in terms of the quality of relationship and, as well, by the outcomes of those relationships. Responsiveness, in this context, includes a service orientation, proactive and outcome-oriented relationships between faculty members and administrators, e.g., those that support planning and evaluation processes, lateral decision-making structures, and the like. The idea that higher education should focus on outcomes relevant to the needs of those who work and live beyond campus walls is thoughtfully stated. Ellen Earle Chaffee argues that we must be unafraid to use the term "customers." William Tierney, editor and author, suggests we look past arguments over tenure and seek to encourage faculty to meet performance goals. …

Successful Service-Learning Programs. New Models of Excellence in Higher Education.

Abstract: About the Editor. Contributors. Foreword. Preface. Acknowledgments. 1. Introduction: A New Model of Excellence. 2. On the Shoulders of Giants: Building on a Tradition of Experimental Education at Augsburg College. 3. Curriculum and Community Connection: The Center for Service-Learning at Bates College. 4. Redrawing the Bottom Line: The Bentley Service-Learning Project. 5. Community College and Service-Learning: A Natural at Brevard Community College. 6. Rediscovering our Heritage: Community Service and the Historically Black University. 7. Communal Participatory Action Research & Strategic Academically Based Community Service: The Work of Penn's Center for Community Partnerships. 8. Comprehensive Design of Community Service: New Understanding, Options, and Vitality in Student Learning at Portland State University. 9. Making a Major Commitment: Public and Community Service at Providence College. 10. Santa Clara University's Eastside Project: A Pilgrimage Toward our own Humanity. 11. We Make the Road by Walking: Building Service-Learning in and out of the Curriculum at the University of Utah.

Constructing Academic Inadequacy: African American Athletes' Stories of Schooling

Abstract: (2000). Constructing Academic Inadequacy. The Journal of Higher Education: Vol. 71, The Shape of Diversity, pp. 223-246.

Morale Matters: Midlevel Administrators and Their Intent To Leave.

Abstract: The "morale" of faculty and staff is often used to characterize the quality of academic life within a particular campus or institution. Typically those commenting on morale have an intuitive sense that an individual's morale is "high," or the morale of the administrative staff is "low," or that the faculty's morale has "plummeted." These comments often refer broadly to the level of well-being that an individual or group is experiencing in reference to their worklife (Johnsrud, 1996). We frequently hear references to "morale," but it is not a well-defined or precisely measured concept. Nor is it clear what effect morale has on behavior. Again, it makes intuitive sense that the higher the morale, the higher the performance, but there is little empirical data. Lindgren (1982) has argued that administrators increase their effectiveness when they are personally affirmed. Similarly, Johnsrud and Rosser (1997, 1999a) have shown that morale is related to administrators' intent to leave their positions. Despite the seeming efficacy of morale, however, there is little agreement as to its definition or understanding of its impact. The purposes of this study are: (1) to define the construct of "morale" empirically and examine it within a broader theory of how organizations affect individuals and (2) to further investigate its construct validity by proposing and testing a multilevel model concerning the impact of morale on administrators' intentions to leave their positions.

The department chair as academic leader

Abstract: This important new work will help department chairs, faculty, and administrators understand and address the increasing complexity of relationships within higher education, as well as the growing influence of external factors. The Department Chair as Academic Leader is a completely updated revision of Allan Tucker's seminal contribution, Chairing the Academic Department, last published in 1992. This work reflects the approach used in the ACE Workshops for Division and Department Chairs and Deans.

Latinos and Education: A Critical Reader.

Abstract: TABLES OF CONTENTS I. HISTORY, POLITICS, & ECONOMICS 1. The Ideology and Practice of Empire: The U.S., Mexico, and the Education of Mexican Immigrants Gilbert G. Gonzalez 2. Puerto Rican Politics in the United States: Examination of Major Perspectives and Theories Edgardo Melendez 3. Latina/o: Historical and Material Dimensions Peter McLaren and Nathalia E. Jaramillo II. CONSTRUCTING IDENTITIES 4. Movimiento de Rebeldia Y Las Culturas que Traicionan Gloria Andualdua 5. Latino/"Hispanic"-Who Needs a Name/: The Case against a Standardized Terminology Martha E. Gimenez 6. Capitalist Schooling and Constructing Young Latino Masculinities Rodolfo D. Torres and Alexandro Jose Gradilla 7. Dis-connections in "American" Citizenship and the Post/neo-colonial: People of Mexican Descent and Whitestream Pedagogy and Curriculum. Luis Urrieta III. LANGUAGE & SCHOOLING 8. The Struggle for Language Rights: Naming and Interrogating the Colonial Legacy of "English Only" Lilia I. Bartolome 9. The Politics of Restrictive Language Policies: A Postcolonial Analysis of Language and Schooling Antonia Darder and Miren Uriarte 10. Como Hablar en Silencio (Like Speaking in Silence): Issues of Language, Culture, and Identity of Central Americans in Los Angeles Magaly Lavadenz 11. Entre la Espada y la Pared: Critical Educators, Bilingual Education, and Education Reform Edward M. Olivos & Carmen E. Quintana de Valladolid IV. TRANSFORMING EPISTEMOLOGIES 12. Toward an Epistemology of a Brown Body Cindy Cruz 13. Thinking Latina/o Education with and from Chicana/Latina Feminist Cultural Studies Sofia Villenas 14. (Re)Imagining New Narratives of Racial, Labor, and Environmental Power for Latina/o Students Yvette Lapayese V. EMANCIPATORY PEDAGOGIES 15. RicanStructuring the Discourse and Promoting School Success: Extending a Theory for Culturally Responsive Pedagogy for Diasporicans Jason G. Irizarry and Rene Antrop-Gonzalez 16. A Social Justice Approach to Achievement: Guiding Latina/o Students Toward Educational Attainment with a Challenging, Socially Relevant Curriculum Julio Cammarota 17. Critical Xicana/Xicano Educators: Is it enough to be a Person of Color? Margarita Ines Berta-Avila VI. LATINO IMMIGRANT YOUTH 18. Latino Youth: Immigration, Education, and the Future Pedro A. Noguera 19. Swimming: On Oxygen, Resistance and Possibility for Immigrant Youth under Siege Michelle Fine, Reva Jaffe-Walter, Pedro Pedraza, Valerie Futch, & Brett Stoudt 20. "I Can't Go to College because I Don't Have Papers": Incorporation Patterns of Latino Undocumented Youth Leisy Janet Abrego VII. COMMUNITY, RESISTANCE, & ACTIVISM 21. Culture, Literacy, and Power in Family-Community-School-Relationships Concha Delgado Gaitan 22. Practicing Citizenship: Latino Parents Broadening Notions of Citizenship through Participatory Research Emma H. Fuentes 23. From Hip-Hop to Humanization: Batey Urbano as a Space for Latino Youth Culture and Community Action Nilda Flores-Gonzalez, Matthew Rodriguez, and Michael Rodriguez-Muniz 24. Nine Reflections for Academic Activists Raul Fernandez

Strategic Change in Colleges and Universities

Abstract: (2000). Strategic Change in Colleges and Universities. The Journal of Higher Education: Vol. 71, No. 4, pp. 507-510.

To Keep or Not To Keep Performance Funding: Signals from Stakeholders.

Abstract: Signals from Stakeholders Introduction Performance funding for public colleges and universities, which ties state funding to institutional performance, shows the conflicting characteristics of popularity and volatility. By 1999, 16 states had performance funding, and 9 more appeared likely to adopt it, but 4 states had already abandoned their efforts (Burke & Modarresi, 1999). Although increasingly popular in state capitals, performance funding remains highly controversial in academic circles. The former focus on its abstract appeal for encouraging external accountability and institutional improvement; the latter fixate on its perplexing problems of conception and implementation. The mix of popularity and instability of performance funding raises intriguing questions. Why did some states keep while others quit performance funding? And, what characteristics distinguish stable from unstable programs? This study surveys state and campus policymakers for signals that supply some tentative answers to these questions. The purpose of this article is not to argue for or argue against the validity or desirability of performance funding but to identify some of the characteristics that seem to separate stable from unstable programs. Accountability: A Paradigm Shift Performance funding for public colleges and universities is only the latest in a series of efforts by states to ensure accountability for campus performance. Only organizations that are fully self-sufficient can claim complete autonomy and avoid external accountability. Public colleges and universities that receive a majority, or a sizable portion, of their resources from state government must respond to the concerns of state officials and the taxpaying public. Accountability is a challenge, not a choice, for state colleges and universities. The real question with accountability for public higher education is not whether, but for what and how. The goal of accountability changed dramatically in the mid-1980s. It moved from accounting for expenditures to demonstrating performance. The shift came from two sources. First, leaders of public colleges and universities had long argued that the nature of higher education differed dramatically from that of state agencies; it depended on the creativity and initiatives of faculty professionals, who require considerable autonomy to produce desirable achievements. The second source stemmed from the movement to reinvent government. It urged governments to concentrate on results rather than regulations to improve performance. Many states and their campuses struck a tacit bargain: states granted increased autonomy to public colleges and universities in return for credible evidence of improved performance. The method of ensuring the new accountability moved progressively from assessing, to reporting, and--most recently--to funding performance. The methods changed, because state officials thought that public campuses often failed to keep their side of the bargain. Outcomes assessment dominated accountability in the last half of the 1980s. Unfortunately, it produced only external observance on many campuses and did not provide the credible and comparable evidence of institutional performance that governors and legislators desired (Ewell, 1996). In response, many states turned to performance reporting in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Ruppert, 1994). These reports recorded institutional results on a common set of indicators. The national recession in the early 1990s and the resulting decline in state revenues meant that the indicators in performance reporting added efficiency to the quality measures that appeared in assessment plans. Performance reporting relied on information alone to encourage improved efficien cy and effectiveness. It lacked financial consequences for institutions with good or poor performance (Ruppert, 1994). Moving from performance reporting to funding seemed a logical step to state officials, but it represented a large leap to campus leaders. …

What Business Wants from Higher Education

Abstract: Chapter 1 Foreword Chapter 2 Life as We Know It Chapter 3 The Flexible Organization Chapter 4 Finding the Added Value Chapter 5 Changes to Come Chapter 6 Profiling the Customer Chapter 7 Information Technology as a Change Agent Chapter 8 Global Interdependence Chapter 9 What We Will Need Chapter 10 What Business Needs Chapter 11 The Learning Environment Chapter 12 The Early Years Chapter 13 Philosophies Guiding Change Chapter 14 Learning as the Core Value Chapter 15 The Enlightened Organization Chapter 16 Welcoming Change

Learning about Social Diversity: The Undergraduate Experience and Intergroup Tolerance.

Abstract: The Undergraduate Experience and Intergroup Tolerance Past research on the effects of a liberal arts education has generally supported the ubiquitous view that students develop more liberal sociopolitical attitudes across the duration of their undergraduate education (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991) In this article we highlight evidence to the contrary and introduce recent research designed to assess changes in intergroup tolerance across a single semester of undergraduate education In particular, we examine how shifts in feelings about social groups are affected by undergraduate experiences that focus on social diversity A sizeable body of research conducted over the past three decades has generally found that a liberal arts education is associated with an increase in humanitarianism and a sense of civic responsibility (Astin, 1977; Pascarella, Ethington, & Smart, 1988); a greater interest in and more liberal attitudes toward a variety of social and political issues (Anderson & Bryjak, 1989; Astin, 1977; Astin & Kent, 1983; Gallup, 1975; Hall, Rodeghier, & Useem, 1986; Nosow & Robertson, 1973; Rich, 1976; 1977); and greater regard for civil rights and higher levels of tolerance related to social, racial, and ethnic diversity (Chickering, 1970; Finney, 1974; Nunn, Crockett, & Williams, 1978; Rich, 1980; Winter, McClelland, & Stewart, 1981) Some of this work has taken a cross-sectional approach, comparing groups of students at different points in their education For example, college graduates have been compared with high-school graduates and have been found to be more tolerant of social nonconformity (Nunn et al, 1978) Bas ed on a cohort of 1964 high-school graduates, Montero (1975) found that those who went on to complete four years of undergraduate education were subsequently more supportive of civil liberties than those who did not Anderson and Bryjak (1989) compared students from four different years of undergraduate education and found a positive relationship between class standing and awareness of social issues Their findings also suggest a positive association between level of awareness and the degree to which students adopted liberal views of these issues Longitudinal studies have similarly found evidence of a liberalizing trend across the undergraduate years Students' attitudes, values, and political views generally shift away from conservatism and traditionalism, and toward liberalism, during their tenure as undergraduates (eg, Alwin, Cohen, & Newcomb, 1991; Newcomb, Koenig, Flacks, & Warwick, 1967) Threats to this view of a liberal arts education have typically included arguments that it is the broader social environment, rather than college per se, which has a liberalizing effect on young people (Rich, 1977) or that apparent links between level of education and tolerance do not extend beyond abstract principles to the endorsement of governmental policy or action (Jackman, 1978) Others have shown that a shift toward greater liberalism or tolerance does not occur among all students but that certain subgroups of students are especially likely to exhibit shifts in their values and attitudes (eg, Astin & Kent, 1983; Chickering, 1970; Rich, 1976; 1980) In particular, Rich (1976; 1977) has reported that an important predictor of liberalism among students is the number of courses they have taken in which social and political issues are predominant Students' self-reports of the number of such classes taken were positively related to their liberalism as well as their knowledge about local and international politics In contrast to the substantial body of evidence that a liberal arts education fosters increased liberalism, there have been some findings of little or no change among undergraduate populations (McClintock & Turner, 1962; Plant, 1965) More recently, researchers have been suggesting that although substantial shifts toward a more liberal world view may have been characteristic of undergraduate education in the past, in the current environment such shifts are not as large as has previously been found (Dey, 1989; Wilder, Hoyt, Surbeck, Wilder, & Carney, 1986) …

Pluralistic Leadership: Incorporating Diverse Voices

Abstract: Various studies have illustrated the inability of hierarchical models (i.e., chain of command, top-level decision making, control, etc.) of leadership for meeting the challenges facing higher education institutions (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993). Challenges, such as cost containment, accountability to the public, globalization, integrating technology, and measuring of student outcomes, require more participatory forms of leadership than have existed in the past (Rosener, 1990). As institutions have realized this and expanded leadership to include more individuals, there has been limited examination of how leadership might be interpreted differently by groups and individuals on college campuses, in particular, faculty, other levels of administration, and staff. Participatory leadership models, which rely on interdependence and collective efforts, necessitate that campus participants feel included in the leadership process and emphasize communication throughout the organization as critical for organizational success (Astin & Leland, 1991; Bensimon & Neumann, 1993; Rosener, 1990; Tierney, 1989). Similar to hierarchical leadership models, participatory models assume a common leadership reality for all individuals within the organization. However, recent research illustrates that the assumption of a common understanding of leadership will result in significant challenges for organizations. For example, a growing body of scholarship provides evidence that women enact, think about, and interpret leadership differently

Information Technology Use and Cognitive Outcomes in the First Year of College

Abstract: Introduction It appears clear that computers or information technology have the potential to fundamentally alter the face of teaching and learning in American postsecondary education (Green, 1996; Kozma & Johnston, 1991; Kuh & Vesper, 1999; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1998; Upcraft, Terenzini, & Kruger, 1999; West, 1996). The promise is, indeed, great. As suggested by Kuh and Vesper: Used appropriately and in concert with powerful pedagogical approaches, technology is supposed to enhance student learning productivity. It does this by enriching synchronous classroom activities and providing students with engaging self-paced and asynchronous learning opportunities that enable students to learn more than they would otherwise at costs ultimately equal to or below that of traditional classroom based instruction. (1999, p. 1) Based on recent dramatic increases in instructional computer use in American colleges and universities, it would appear that the promise of information technology has a considerable amount of logical appeal. For example, a recent report issued by The Institute for Higher Education Policy (1999) indicated the extent to which computer use in postsecondary instruction has increased in just the last few years. Based on data from the 1998 National Survey of Information Technology in Higher Education, the Report indicated that in 1994 about 8% of postsecondary classes used e-mail. This increased to 44% by 1998. Similarly, the percentage of classes reporting that they used internet resources increased from 15% in 1996 to 30% in 1998. By 1998 it was estimated that 46% of all institutions had a mandatory student information technology (computer use) fee. Paralleling documented increases in the classroom use of computers is evidence suggesting substantial increases over time in student familiarity with computers. In analyses of several, large, multi-institutional cohorts of undergraduates, Kuh, Connolly, and Vesper (1998) report that in the mid-1980s about 32% of college seniors reported making substantial progress in becoming familiar with computers during college. By the late 1990s this jumped to nearly 60%. Of course, access to and use of computers and information technology is not uniform across institutional types or among different kinds of students. Both access and use appear to be positively linked with wealth and prestige at the institutional level, and with socioeconomic status and with being Caucasian or Asian American at the individual student level (Gladieux & Swail, 1999). Despite institutional or socioeconomic inequities in computer access or use, it is clear that information technology is likely to have a massive impact on how colleges and universities conduct their future business, both in and outside the classroom. Both Gladieux and Swail (1999) and Green (1997) have argued that high-school graduates bound for postsecondary institutions are increasingly part of an "information age" in which success in a competitive world economy is seen as inextricably dependent on computers and information technology. Indeed Green (1997, p. 9), as cited by Gladieux and Swail (1999) has suggested that colleges and universities engage in "a kind of educational malpractice" if they fail to incorporate technological training in the instructional process. Others, such as Ehrmann (1995), have suggested that a college or university can no longer ignore the potential instructional use of technology and still maintain institutional viability. Although there is little doubt that computers and information technology are, and will become, increasingly powerful influences on how instruction and teaching are delivered in American colleges and universities, there is still some question as to their unique impact on students' overall cognitive or intellectual growth during college (Ehrmann, 1995; Kuh & Vesper, 1999). As argued by Green, "We need to be honest about the gap between aspirations and performance; . …

Dual-Career Couples: Keeping Them Together.

Abstract: Introduction A significant proportion of today's current and aspiring academics are in dual-career partnerships. One survey indicated that 80% of faculty had spouses or partners who were working professionals (Didion, 1996). Based on data from a national faculty survey, Astin and Milem (1997) report that 35% of male faculty and 40% of female faculty are partnered with other academics. There is also some evidence that dual-career couple issues are of greater concern to newer faculty than to their senior colleagues (Finkelstein, Seal, & Schuster, 1998). In addition, Burke (1988), in her study of the academic labor market at research universities, concluded, "The spouse employment issue [is] now much more pronounced" (p. 78). Burke continues, "Spouse employment was a factor in almost 20 percent of the appointments and resignations" (p. 78). Because of the growing concern regarding dual-career couples in academia, organizations such as the Association of Governing Boards have called for institutions to consider addressing th e needs of partnered professionals (1995). Academic couples face an extremely difficult task, namely finding two positions that will permit both partners to live in the same geographic region, to address their professional goals, and to meet the day to-day needs of running a household which, in many cases, includes caring for children or elderly parents. Prior research, though scarce, provides some important insights into the phenomenon of dual-career couples. Several studies discuss a range of benefits and barriers facing one type of dual-career partnership, that in which an academic couple shares a single faculty position (Berger, Foster, Wallston, & Wright, 1977; Didion, 1996). The literature also addresses the unique professional and personal challenges faced by dual-career couples who commute between two geographically distant institutions (Bruce, 1990; Sorcinelli & Near, 1989;) as well as those encountered by couples working in the same academic department (Wilson, 1998) or institution (Wilson, 1996). Some literature focuses on how members of a dual-career couple perceive the job search and on what issues the couple considers in selecting and remaining in an academic position (Gee, 1991; Innis-Dagg, 1993; Schneider, 1998). We know that members of a dual-career couple face a significant amount of stress that affects their job and life satisfaction (Sorcinelli & Near, 1989). This stress has a different impact on men and women faculty. Specifically, existing research suggests that academic women in dual-career couples are more likely than males to subordinate their career development to their spouses or partners (Aisenberg & Harrington, 1988). Further, women are more likely than men to face negative professional consequences when they change academic jobs in order to advance their husbands' career (McElrath, 1992). Not only do men and women experience dual-career couple issues differently, the available literature also suggests that unmarried heterosexual couples and partners in same-sex relationship (Miller & Skeen, 1997) as well as African American couples (Perkins, 1997) may face different professional and personnel issues than do white, married heterosexuals. Despite the obvious stresses, a study by Bellas (1997) comparing th e productivity of academic couples with other faculty members concluded that there is little difference between the two groups. There is very little research literature that addresses the policy aspects of dual-career couples. One study, conducted by Loeb (1997), examines the impact of a comprehensive spousal hiring policy at a single institution--the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. Although there are no national studies specifically on dual-career-couple policies and practices in institutions of higher education, Shoben (1997) examines the issue of dual-career policies from a legal perspective. Specifically, she traces the rise of antinepotism rules and their relationship to today's programs for partners. …

When the Tail Wags the Dog: Perceptions of Learning and Grade Orientation in, and by, Contemporary College Students and Faculty.

Abstract: Perceptions of Learning and Grade Orientation in, and by, Contemporary College Students and Faculty According to most college catalogues, the major purpose of higher education is to provide students with access to significant ideas, innovative technologies, and new ways of thinking. Though such goals are advocated in formal and promotional materials, there is often a strong subtext emphasizing the significance of grades and grade point averages (Becker, Geer, & Hughes, 1968; Goulden & Griffin, 1997). One consequence to this joint emphasis is that students may construe their college careers in terms of the learning they attain, the grades they receive, or some combination of the two. Although learning for its own sake is publically offered as the desired outcome of higher education, some students come to focus on attaining a good grade even to the exclusion of learning course material; for example, when a student hires someone to write a term paper. Grades, rather than learning, become the primary objective of many students; the appearance of achievement becomes more important than the achievement itself. To evaluate systematically the effects learning orientation and grade orientation have on contemporary college students, Eison, Pollio, and Milton (1982) developed the LOGO II scale. Most investigations using the LOGO II report low negative correlations between learning orientation (LO) and grade orientation (GO) indices, suggesting that the orientations are relatively independent. [1] Factor analytic studies of LOGO II reveal that learning-oriented students regard college largely as an opportunity to acquire new information that is personally relevant and intrinsically rewarding. In addition, students producing high LO scores are found to possess a wide variety of positive educational attributes, including effective study skills, low levels of test anxiety, above average reasoning abilities, and high levels of self motivation. On the other hand, grade-oriented students view college as a crucible in which they must endure continual testing and evaluation. Students producing high GO scores are also found to have poor study habits, high test anxiety, below average Scholastic Aptitude Test scores, and low grade point averages (Beck, Rorrer-Woody, & Pierce, 1991; Milton, Pollio, & Eison, 1986). High learning-oriented and high grade-oriented individuals thus seem to represent two different student types, not only in terms of a relative emphasis on grades and learning but also in terms of other personal and educational characteristics (for additional results, see Eison & Pollio, 1985; Pollio, 1992). Instructor attitudes toward grades and learning also may be expected to affect the ways in which students experience themselves and the college environment: that is, classroom practices of different instructors may promote (or de-emphasize) grades or learning. To evaluate instructor orientations toward learning and grades, Eison, Janzow, and Pollio (1993) developed a companion questionnaire to the LOGO II, the LOGO F scale. As in the case of LOGO II, correlational studies indicate a low, but statistically significant, negative relationship between LO and GO scores on LOGO F. Factor analytic studies found that learning-oriented instructors tend to be more flexible in their teaching and evaluation practices, set a higher premium on class discussion, and place greater value on cooperation between students than do less learning-oriented instructors. High grade-oriented professors, on the other hand, tend to believe that grades are good predictors of success in later life, are very concerned about grade inflation , teach to the "best and brightest," and value grades as incentives (Eison, Janzow, & Pollio, 1993; Pollio, 1992). Learning and grade orientations also would seem to contribute to the ways in which students think of themselves, their professors, and the ways in which students and professors interact with one another. …

Public and private financing of higher education : shaping public policy for the future

Abstract: This text offers analysis of the issues facing higher education funding. These issues include: the health of public finance and budgeting at state and federal levels; a perspective on privatization in terms of impact on colleges and universities; and trends and policy implications.

Sexual Harassment in the 1990s: A University-Wide Survey of Female Faculty, Administrators, Staff, and Students.

Abstract: A University-wide Survey of Female Faculty, Administrators, Staff, and Students Introduction Much of the existing research examining sexual harassment was conducted when awareness of sexual harassment was low and policies were uncommon. Several factors in recent years may have affected the prevalence of sexual harassment on university campuses. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protected employees (including student employees) at academic institutions from sexual harassment, however, sex discrimination against students was not prohibited. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the struggle against sex bias and discrimination in schools and universities intensified (see Shoop, 1997). This led to the passage of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which applied Title VII standards to Title IX. Specifically, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs or activities that receive federal financial aid. Although Title IX law has evolved slowly and had Little early enforcement, it is now the primary tool against sexual harassment ( Shoop, 1997). Beginning in 1976 with students from Yale University, students have sued their institutions for failing to stop discriminatory behavior including sexual harassment (see McKinney & Maroules, 1991; Sandler, 1997; Shoop, 1997, Watts, 1996). More recently, in Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that institutions could be sued for compensatory damages for intentional violation of Title IX. As a result of litigation and changes in the law, as well as recent events such as the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, the Navy "Tailhook" scandal, accusations of sexual harassment toward female military recruits, and sexual harassment allegations against President Clinton, academic institutions increasingly have responded by developing policies concerning sexual harassment. The purpose of the present research was to examine the experiences of women in academia in a university that has a publicized policy and procedures regarding sexual harassment. Prevalence of Sexual Harassment in Academia Most studies report that between 20% and 40% of undergraduate and graduate women experience some form of sexual harassment while a student (Benson & Thomson, 1982; Cammaert, 1985; Dziech & Weiner, 1984; Fitzgerald et al., 1988; Glaser & Thorpe, 1986; McKinney, Olson, & Satterfield, 1988; see Rubin & Borgers, 1990; Sandler, 1997). In her study of 356 graduate women at a major East Coast public university, Schneider (1987) reported that 60% of female graduate students surveyed reported having been sexually harassed by a male professor. Although the figures reported by Schneider are higher than found in most studies, this is not the only research to report higher percentages (e.g., Wilson & Krauss, 1983). Studies of both male and female faculty members report that anywhere between 6% and 50% experience behaviors that they consider sexual harassment at some point in their careers (Carroll & Ellis, 1989; Fitzgerald et al., 1988; Grauerholz, 1989, 1996; Gruber, 1990; McKinney, 1990; Seals, 1997). Combining the prevalence of male and female faculty members may be misleading, however, because women experience more sexual harassment than men, and women are more likely to consider gender harassment and sexual attention as harassment than are men (Adams, Kottke, & Padgitt, 1983; Carroll & Ellis, 1989; Fitzgerald & Ormerod, 1991; Lott, Reilly, & Howard, 1982; Malovich & Stake, 1990; Padgitt & Padgitt, 1986; Valentine-French & Radtke, 1989). Seals (1997) suggests that approximately 40% of female faculty at colleges or universities report experiencing sexual harassment by other faculty members or staff at some point in their tenure, whereas Fitzgerald and Shullman (1993) estimate that as many as one-half of all female f aculty experience sexual harassment during the course of their education or academic career. …