MF-40.76C-43,32 Plus Posp4, DESCRIPT.ORS College Curribulum; *College Faity; Doctoral Ea
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 113-469 * JC 7.50 490 1 ibTHOR Braver, Florence B. TITLE The' Humanaties in Two-Year Colle ges: The Faculty in , Review.' , . INSTITUTION California Univ., Los An(geles. 'ERIC Clearinghouse for - _ Junior Coll..Information.rCenter for the Study of Community Colleges, Los Angeles, Calif. - /, spot's AGENCY National Endowtent for the Humanities.(NfAH), , Washington, D.C.; National anst. of Editation (DHBW), Washing4oh, D.C. PUB DATE 75 ,e 6 NOE A 52p. 9 "4' FD' S PRICE j . MF-40.76C-43,32 Plus Posp4, DESCRIPT.ORS College Curribulum; *College FaIty; Doctoral ea. I . Dkgrees; Graduate *Study;*Humanities;*Humanities Instruction; Inservite-Teacher-Education; Job /Satisfactionl *Junior Colleges; *Literature Reviews; Part Time Teachers;,,,Teacher-Attitudes; Teacher Qualifications; Teacher SalarieS A r ABSTkACT monograph reviews the faculty teachingthe two-year*Colleges:"their backgronnds and preparation, involvement with inservice training, job satisfactionrattitudes and values, and-approaches to curriculum and ilistruction. Information was deriVed by an ektensive search ;of the literature. Materials were .identified by scanning 34 sets, of bibliographic indexes for, Ilications of the past 10 years, along with the cataltgues of the bCIA UniversityLibrary,and by asking association and institutional , -heads for unreported studies. lle'preparation.sequenceleading to a specialized competence is frequentlyseen as inappropriate for the tasks of teaching in an open-door/institution. Hold4rs of doctorate degrees have difficulty in obtaining_positionS(because they are priced too high. Part-4time faculty paid at a relatively low hourly rate are being empioyed_in increasing numbers. But opportunities are Opening for constructivefinservice training. The major foundations. and federal funding agencies are becomingincreasinglyaware of, faculty in these institutions '. And, most important, a profeesional.. consciousness i developiag Within the fadulty as,they form their own subgroups within the major disciplinary orgamizations and seek to take control of theconditions of their work: A bibliography is appended. (NH8) ************************************************************,*********** Documents acquired by-ERIC include many informal unpublished .* materials not available fromother sources.'ERIC makes 'very effort' * * 'to obtain the best copy available, nevertheless, items.pf marginal * * reproducibility are.olten encountered and this affects the, quality*' ,,* of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available * * via the ERIC Document Reproduttion Service (EDRS). EDRS is not * respons.ible'fOr the quality of the original docutent. Reproductions * * supplied by EDRS are the hest that ca* be made from the original. ************************************************0 ********************** 441.S DEPARTMENT OF HEA4TH EDUCVION 84ELFAREI NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF .0.. EDUCATION THIS TIOCUMENT HAS SEEN REPRO, DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN AI ING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS C STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE Of EDUCATION POSITIONa OR POLICY sr, The Humanities in Two-Year Colleges The Faculty i$ Review 4 Fall, 1975 4 V Center for the Study of -Community Colleges ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges. University of California Los Angeles 90024 I. V -44 1 I I 0 k _ . the-material-in this paper was prepared under a grant from the national- Endowment for the Humanities and.published PUY- suant to a-contract with the National-Institute of Education, U.S. Department of -Health, Education, and Welfare. Contractors undertaking such 'projects undervgovenunent sponsorship are encouraged to express freely- their judgInent in ;professional- and technical matters. Prior -to publication, the manuscript was sub- 'pitted to the National EndOwinent for the Humanitiesfor revieW and- deteripination of professional competence. This pub- -1ation'has met. such-standards. Points of view or opinions, how- ever, do not 'necessarily represent the official view oropinions of either the National Endowment for the Humanities or the National Institute of Education. This paper may be reproduced for further distribution at will. f a4 de, r , .Prefese;' HUmanities edircationin two-year colleges cove rs a broad field. Facultyt,Audentsadministrators and trustees, as well as curriculum and instruction are only a few of the maft categories that may be subsumed under this general heading, /Ach remains to be known abobt the humanities in this now very laige segment of higher education. Who are the people involved? and to what extent? What relatiorkships exist among -the Various groups of individuals who teach and learn the humanities? What are the . patternsof .urriculum and instruction? Thisrtionograph reviews the faculty teaching-the humanities: .their backgrounds and preparation, involvement with in-service training; satisfaction, attitudes and values; and approaches to curriculum and instruction. Other reviews in this series oover the literature discussing the humanities curriculum and strkdenis in the humanities. Information for all three reviews was dehved from an extensive search of the literature. Materials were identified by scanning 34 sgts of bibliographic indexes ( listed in the Appench,N) for publications of the past ten years; asking the heads of 77 'professional associations and 59 institutional organizations for studies they might.have made, but which were n\ot reported in the literature; and by utilizing the catalogues and inter-library loan service of the UCLA University Library. Approximately 800 dOcuments were .located and abstracted. In all, the information contained in more than 200 of them is summarized herein and in the,previouSly published papers. These reviews stem from a- project conceived by Arthur M. Cohen and Florence B. Brawer. The literature search was done by Joli Adams arid Deborah Crandall, assisted by William Coheri. Ms. Crandall provided the bibliography. The manuscript was drafted by Florence B. Drawer and revised and edited by Arthur M. Cohen. Illustrations are by William Cohen. Publication was ,ftylcoordinated by Sue Scesinger.... All the reviewsre prepared by staff members of the Center for the Study of Community Colleges under a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities, a Federal agency estab- I . r .r , , 4, . , . fished by Congress to support research, education, and public activities in the hiimanities. They are disseminated by the ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges pursuant toa contract' with the NationatInstitute of Education, The support of both these agenciesis; gratefully aknowledged. kgrHuR M. COIigN University of California; Los Angeles er r' a A introduction At the core of every schoolfrom kindergarten through the graduate institution lies the faculty. Except for the students' peers, they are the people with whom students have the most contact, the figures who command the most authority by virtue of their positions if not their actual personage. And although they may lament their own impotency in institutional go% erance, they exercise powerful positions within their own domain. Although faculty were typically ignored earlier in written reports about academia researchers and writers...found college presidents and students far more interesting more recently they haye become popular targets ,of attention. Sanford's American College (1962) was the first widely disseminated book that looked at faculty in higher education while Kelley and Wilbur (1970), Garrison (1967), Brewer (1968), and Cohen and Brewer (1969; 1972) addressed the pro, iously ignored community col- lege instructors. Little by little, then, the faculty members, so im- portant to a college's functioning, are being recognized in the literature. Their strengths and weaknesses are noted, orie,ntation to work cited, and functioning as mature professionals described. Despite the centricity of the faculty; information pertaining to people teaching in particular disciplines is capricious. Much is known abOut some aspects Of the faculty, very little abOut others. This is not surprising because there are practically no longitudi- nal data. bases on which a researcher might draw. Most reported studies are one-shot affairs. a dissertation(awn or thesis writt'en IV a graduate student, a compilation di together by a protesional .1. ti i 4 4 ) ; association; a report fromlocal or state education agency, Each investigator asks his orhe own- questions, oftenprepares a unique survey-instrument, and fine's the sample population in his/her ' own way. Data are comp led but with little attention to compara- ... -bilityor to the amalgam tion of repretentative profiles. .. The clegth'of info&ion in many-areas5nd the conflicting and inconsistent report in, others seem to stem from severalgen- eral problemsNneom ete data bales, the still evolving role of two-year colleges, th paucity of analysts addressing two-year ..college education, aninadectuate definition of phenomena under surveillance. T iese matters are not peculiarto the study of ... community and jun or colleges but they do loom 1e in the context 6f a major li erature review. ,. Nevertheless,-the summer and fall of,19i4'we reviewed the literature in order o determine just-what is known and what needs to be known abotit two-year college fgculty teaching the human- ities. A modest amountior information was disclosed, much of which is embedded in ,,broader studies of faculty.initigher educa- tion and much that must be inferred