University Microfilms International 300 N
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “ Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been film ed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University Microfilms International 300 N. ZEEB RD.. ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106 8222077 DiBiasio, Daniel Anthony MAKING THE MOST OF PROGRAM REVIEW: A STUDY OF THE ORIGINS, OPERATIONS, AND OUTCOMES OF PROGRAM REVIEW AT THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY The Ohio Stale University Ph.D. 1982 University Microfilms International300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M I 48106 Copyright 1982 by DiBiasio, Daniel Anthony All Rights Reserved PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V . 1. Glossy photographs or pages ______ 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print ______ 3. Photographs with dark background ______ I 4. Illustrations are poor copy ______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original copy ______ 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page ______ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages ^ 8. Print exceeds margin requirements ______ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine______ 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print ______ 11. Page(s) ____________lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page(s) ____________seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. Two pages numbered ____________. Text follows. 14. Curling and wrinkled pages ______ 15. Other __________________________________________________________________________ University Microfilms International MAKING THE MOST OF PROGRAM REVIEW: A STUDY OF THE ORIGINS, OPERATIONS, AND OUTCOMES OF PROGRAM REVIEW AT THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University by Daniel Anthony DiBiasio, B.A., M.A. rk ic ★ ★ ★ The Ohio State University 1982 Reading Committee: Approved By Dr. Donald P. Sanders Dr. George P. Ecker Dr. Robert J. Silverman Donald P. Sanders College of Education ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to acknowledge my deep appreciation and indebtedness to the following persons; their assistance attests to the interdependent nature of scholarly inquiry: Dr. Donald P. Sanders, who "inherited" me and whose advice and counsel have been invaluable, Dr. George P. Ecker, for his high professional standards and for his friendship, Dr. Robert J. Silverman, for his critical s p irit and for his commitment to improving higher education, Ohio State's program review "staff"— Drs. Robert G. Arns, William Poland, Terry Roark, William Unger, and Robin Wilson, for their interest and support, especially to Dr. William Poland, who gave his time generously and who enriched my doctoral studies immeasurably. I t was indeed my good fortune to have worked with him, The Graduate School Staff — particularly Dr. Jean Girves, for helping me believe I could successfully complete this project and Miss Karen Kreutzfeld, for her s k illfu l typing and incomparable patience, Mr. and Mrs. Anthony J. DiBiasio, J r., for being parents every son should have, and Chris, whose unconditional love provided so much support, encouragement, and understanding. VITA April 19, 1949 ......................... Born - Cleveland, Ohio 1971 .................................................. B.A., Ohio Wesleyan University Delaware, Ohio 1972 .............................................. M.A., The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 1972-1974 ...................................... English Teacher, Bay Village High School, Bay Village, Ohio 1974-1978 .................................. College Administrator, Rocky Mountain College, B illings, Montana 1978-1979 .................................. Graduate Administrative Associate, University College, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1979-1982 .................................. Graduate Research Associate, The Graduate School, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio PUBLICATIONS "Assessing Quality in Graduate Programs: An Internal Quality Indicator," Research in Higher Education, 1982, 16, pp. 99-114 (with J. Girves and W. Poland). FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Higher Education Studies in Administration and Organization of Higher Education. Dr. George P. Ecker, Dr. D. A. Severino, and Dr. Robert J. Silverman Studies in Curriculum. Dr. Judith Ayers and Dr. Philip L. Smith Studies in Educational Development. Dr. Donald P. Sanders i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................ ii VITA.......................................................................................................................... i i i LIST OF TABLES..................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................... .... vii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1 The Setting: Program Review at The Ohio State University ........................................................... 1 The Study: Purpose and Description ................. 2 The Context: Program Review Activities in American Higher Education .............................. 7 I I . LITERATURE SURVEY.................................................................... 23 Theoretical Literature .............................................. 23 Program Review: Processes and Procedures . 32 Program Review Outcomes .......................................... 62 I I I . RESEARCH METHODS .................................................................... 69 Introduction ............................................................... 69 Constant Comparative Method .................................. 70 Sample Selection ....................................................... 73 Procedure ....................................................................... 75 Other Research Methods .......................................... 79 Limitations ................................................................... 83 IV. ORIGINS AND OPERATIONS....................................................... 85 The Origins of Program Review .............................. 85 The Operations of Program Review ..................... 100 V. OUTCOMES..................................................................................... 118 i v VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.................................................... 150 Summation ........................................................................ 150 Conclusions................................................................... 155 Considerations for Future Research ..................... 171 In Conclusion............................................................... 173 APPENDIXES A. References for Data Reported in Table 4, Chapter I I (p. 6 7 ) ................................................................... 175 B. Distribution of Program Sample of Organizational Unit (N = 2 7 ) ............................................................................ 178 C. The Ohio State University, Memorandum of Introduction ............................................................................ 179 D. The Ohio State University, Letter of Invitation . 180 E. The Ohio State University, Interview Guide ................... 182 F. The Ohio State University, Presentations and Publications Related to Program Review .......................... 183 G. The Ohio State University, 1978 Guide for Program R eview ers .................................................................................... 184 H. References