Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Faculty and administration perception of ideal teaching department role Robertson, William Donovan 1979

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A8 R63.pdf [ 6.26MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055789.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055789-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055789-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055789-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055789-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055789-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055789-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055789-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055789.ris

Full Text

FACULTY AND  ADMINISTRATION  PERCEPTION OF IDEAL TEACHING DEPARTMENT ROLE by WILLIAM DONOVAN ROBERTSON B.Ed., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia,  1963  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER.OF ARTS  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department o f Higher Education)  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1979  © , W i l l iam Donovan Robertson, 1979  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the  requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and study.  I f u r t h e r agree  t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  I t i s understood  that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n  Department o f Higher E d u c a t i o n The  U n i v e r s i t y o f B r t i s h Columbia  2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T  1W5  November 23, 1979  permission.  ii  ABSTRACT  T h e r e a r e few s t u d i e s attitudes  influence  institutions. educational  o f how  learning  teaching  department  i n post-secondary  education  The dynamic i n t e r p l a y o f g r o u p s i n  institutions  has been p o o r l y  documented.  t h e members o f a d e p a r t m e n t d i s p l a y a c o l l e c t i v e o f view toward understanding of  t h e i r r o l e as a t e a c h i n g  o f what e l e m e n t s c o n t r i b u t e  point  t h e n an  to the c r e a t i o n  t h a t v i e w w o u l d be u s e f u l b o t h i n t h e p r e v e n t i o n  resolution of high  of i n s t i t u t i o n a l  operating  style.  a specific  therefore  to p r o v i d e attitudes.  the departmental  and c o n f l i c t  i t i s operating  and o t h e r s  eventually  any d e p a r t m e n t a l  correlate with  the e v a l u a t i o n  in institutional  It  appraisal  a department's  i t sperceived  processes  and  ideal  instruments  a n a l y s i s a r e seldom  any q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a on p e r c e p t i o n s This  disagree,  result.  a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f how w e l l  However, used  influences  fashion  seems e s s e n t i a l t h a t  include  commonly  strongly  and a c c e p t a b l e  observable a c t i v i t i e s role.  and i n t h e p r o v i s i o n  I f a department b e l i e v e s  misunderstandings  should  conflict  and  quality instruction.  Role perception  in  unit,  If  able  and  s t u d y e x a m i n e s one p o s s i b l e p r o c e s s f o r  m e a s u r i n g g r o u p a t t i t u d e s and  perceptions.  iii  0-methodology has had  increasing application  measuring p e r c e p t i o n s o f i n d i v i d u a l s  and was  measure group p e r c e p t i o n s i n t h i s study. Q-sort was  accordance  departmental  used.  item  Items were s e l e c t e d i n  The  first  l e v e l s and the t h i r d had f i v e . The Q-sort was  of  theoretical  a t t i t t i d e , departmental  and i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . two  An 80  with a three-independent-variable  construct —  had  used to  c o n s t r u c t e d from s e l e c t e d statements  teaching department a c t i v i t i e s .  in  administered  motivation,  two v a r i a b l e s each A 2x2x5 d e s i g n  to a s t r a t i f i e d  was  sample  of 79 s u b j e c t s drawn from a l l l e v e l s o f the academic community of the B r i t i s h Columbia I n s t i t u t e o f Technology. The data were subjected to c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s and computational  other  methods to i s o l a t e and d e s c r i b e group  characteristics.  Two  s t r o n g l y dichotomous Types, l a b e l l e d as  and as C o n s e r v a t i v e , were i d e n t i f i e d . to v a r y i n g degrees the concept  of  Liberal  Both Types  accepted  Student-centred  a c t i v i t i e s over Department-centred.  Most deans, C o n t i n u i n g  E d u c a t i o n s t a f f , E n g i n e e r i n g and Nursing f a c u l t y ,  and  l i b r a r i a n s were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the L i b e r a l Type,  and  department heads, Business  and H e a l t h f a c u l t y ,  and  Student  S e r v i c e s s t a f f were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the C o n s e r v a t i v e Type. Those who  had most d i r e c t c o n t a c t w i t h students,  except  iv  t h o s e who  had f u r t h e r  studies  Conservative  i n attitude  removed  the classroom.  from  b e t w e e n Type and s u b j e c t  Q-methodology was differences and,  i n attitude  therefore,  analysis  tool.  than  i n e d u c a t i o n , were more t h o s e who  T h e r e were no  age, l e n g t h  found  were  correlations  of service,  t o be u s e f u l  among b o t h  somewhat  or  in identifying  i n d i v i d u a l s and  t o h a v e p o t e n t i a l as an  gender.  groups  institutional  V  TABLE OF CONTENTS  ABSTRACT  i i  LIST OF TABLES  viii  LIST OF FIGURES  ix  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  x  1  2  INTRODUCTION 1.1  Purpose o f the Study  1  1.2  Rationale  1  1.3  Statement o f the Problem  5  1.4  Research Hypotheses  7  f o r the Study  1.41  General Hypotheses  7  1.42  S p e c i f i c Hypotheses  8  1.5  D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms  9  1.6  E x p e r i m e n t a l Design  11  1.7  L i m i t a t i o n s o f the Study  11  1.8  Summary  12  REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.1  O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Theory and Departmental Role  2.2  3  13  A p p l i c a t i o n o f Q-Methodology to Evaluation  23  2.3  Q-Methodology  26  2.4  Summary  33  METHODOLOGY 3.1  Introduction  35  vi  METHODOLOGY (Continued)  4  3.2  Questions to be Answered  36  3.3  Study Sample  37  3.4  Design o f the Study  39  3.5  O-Theory  45  3.6  The Study Instrument  51  3.7  Data C o l l e c t i o n  52  3.8  Data A n a l y s i s Techniques  55  3.9  Summary  57  ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.1  Introduction  ..  58  4.2  F u r t h e r Steps i n A n a l y s i s  58  4.3  R e s u l t s o f the A n a l y s i s  60  4.4  D e s c r i p t i o n o f Group ;and Type Characteristics  4.5  62  D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Types W i t h i n  Subject  Population 4.6  .  71  D i s c r i m i n a t i o n Among Types by Item Preference  4.7 5  6  76  Summary  80  DISCUSSION OF DATA 5.1  Introduction  5.2  Comparison  5.3  I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the Data  92  5.4  I m p l i c a t i o n s o f the Data  98  5.5  Summary  99  of Results  82 to Hypotheses  ..  82  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY 6.1  Conclusions 6.11  Q-Sort  6.12  Identification of Conflict Potential  100 100 . 100  vii  CONCLUSIONS (Continued) 6.13  Concensus Development  6.14  Student Contact  101  and P e r c e p t i o n  Differences 6.15 6.2  Department-Centred A t t i t u d e s  Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Study 6.21  ... 104 104  6.22  Transient Effects  6.23  Role P e r c e p t i o n and Work Groups 105  6.24  Role P e r c e p t i o n o f Other I n s t i t u t i o n a l Members  7  . 103  Impact o f Studies i n Education on Role P e r c e p t i o n  6.3  102  Summary  105  106 106  RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1  O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Development  109  7.2  Organizational Planning  110  7.3  P o t e n t i a l f o r Abuse  I l l  7.4  Summary  I l l  BIBLIOGRAPHY  113  APPENDICES A  Dominant Loadings Summary  119  B  C e l l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n By Item Number  120  C  Sample P o p u l a t i o n Demography  121  D  Range Of A l l Items  122  E  Q-Sort Items  123  F  Cluster Analysis S t a t i s t i c s  129  G  Z-Scores F o r Nineteen  H  Q-Sort I n s t r u c t i o n s  Cluster-Item Array  . 130 134  viii  TABLES  TABLE  Page  1  Subject S e l e c t i o n  2  Q-Sort Item Contingency Table  43  3  Q-Sort Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n  54  4  Type A C h a r a c t e r i s t i c I t e m s  63  5  Type B C h a r a c t e r i s t i c  Items  66  6  Type C C h a r a c t e r i s t i c  Items  70  7  Subject D i s t r i b u t i o n Among Type By I n s t i t u t i o n a l Role  72  Subject D i s t r i b u t i o n Among Type By Educational Training  73  Subject D i s t r i b u t i o n Among Type By Length o f S e r v i c e  75  Subject D i s t r i b u t i o n Among Type By Gender o f Subject  75  8 9 10 11  Contingency Table  38  c  P r i o r i t y Comparison o f Items Among Types  ..  77  ix  FIGURES  FIGURE  Page  1  Items d i s c r i m i n a t i n g among the three Types  2  Loading p a t t e r n s among Groups by independent variables  . 142 145  X  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  The  author wishes  to express h i s g r a t i t u d e t o :  1) h i s A d v i s o r y Committee, D r . J o h n D. D e n n i s o n , D r . W a l t e r B. B o l d t ,  :  .  and D r . Seong-Soo L e e f o r t h e i r  g u i d a n c e and p a t i e n c e , 2) t h e f a c u l t y Institute interest  and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n  at the B r i t i s h  o f Technology f o r t h e i r  Columbia  c o o p e r a t i o n and  i n the study,  3) Sharon, L i s a ,  C a t h y , a n d Ross  f o rtheir  s u p p o r t when i t seemed t h e s t u d y w o u l d  good  humor and  n e v e r end.  1 (  Chapter  1  INTRODUCTION  1.1  Purpose  This ceived  o f t h e Study  s t u d y h a s two p u r p o s e s  role  o f an i d e a l  teaching  related  to the per-  department  i n a two-  year post-secondary education i n s t i t u t i o n , the B r i t i s h a)  Columbia  to determine of  exist  among  the British  i f any i d e n t i f i e d  differences  significantly  tional  or to the professional  role  to the organizatraining  the observers.  Rationale  f o r the Study  organizations  and e x t e r n a l  the past.  ident-  Columbia  are r e l a t e d  Educational  in  within  i np e r c e p t i o n s  o f Technology,  to determine  of  internal  i fdifferences  groups  Institute  1.4  o f Technology:  the departmental role  ifiable  b)  Institute  specifically,  With  groups  t h e advent  a r e b e i n g e v a l u a t e d by  m o r e now t h a n a t a n y t i m e of collective  bargaining,  2  faculty  unions,  turn-over funding  support,  appraisal  i s now  be  and  a  grade  point  their  completion  Learning  The  attitudes,  to  Conflicts  are  constituencies  institution  and,  very  role  should  o f what  that  overall  institutional  traditional as  hours,  of  a  average  is a  partially  ignored  the  student  more p r e d i c t i v e  data.  relate  with  institutional  institutional  perception  ratios  of  measurable more  important  they  are  partial  or  honours  students  are  interactive  interactions,  because  on  l e a r n i n g environment  These  with  area,  irrelevant are  process  that  is  elements  perceptions,  difficult  to  is  count  —  of  data.  that  expectations  no  than  instruments  and  to  predictive  a l l static  —  of  degrees,  applications is  faculty  beginning  rank.  dynamic,  or  dollars,  and  reliance  good  evaluation pattern  people,  awards,  unjustified  Staff  restricted  disenchantment  the  staff  objectives.  courses, an  low  common-place.  within  " t h i n g s " such  continue data.  and  continue  counting events,  role  salaries,  programmes,  the  i t should  activities  To  of  different  how  student  becoming  Each  different  likely,  and  legislation,  faculty  educational  inevitable. a  rights  rates, high  traditional  has  equal  tend  quantify.  only  static  to This  be  3  study  focuses  on d i f f e r e n c e s  relationships role  o f those  differences  i n role  of  misunderstanding,  of  relative institutional action  different because  role  were  students funding  are insisting  danger  these  forces  may  organizational spective mentation  push  Faculty  of that  groups  on competent  there  are  may  systems  appear  are seeking  accountability.  into  a  data,  uniform  or p o l i c i e s  t o be good data  produce  that  from  The  the per-  but the imple-  additional  for collecting  interactions,  equity,  o f 'the i n s t i t u t i o n .  quantitative  are available  are  planning  of sufficient  an i n s t i t u t i o n  d e s i g n may  on t h e dynamic  conflict  i n s t r u c t i o n , and  fiscal  t o many members  design  independ-  sharply  However,  and a r e  i n the absence  of the usual  techniques  data  roles  of administrative  unacceptable  l e d to  times  In particular, administrators  a r e demanding  i s that  application  seldom  with  sources  During  and growth,  few c o n s t r a i n t s .  change.  agencies  are potential  and groups  institutional  institutional  If  institutional  and c o n f l i c t .  affluence  perceptions  constraints.  re-examining  are  to the  perception  mistrust,  of individuals  there  now m a n y  The  and t h e  of the perceiver.  Differences  ent  i n perception  on t h e  problems.  quantitative  perceptions,  4  different  or  ified  used.  and  mixed  institutional zational Task  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e systems  If  the  tasks  theory  —  —  linked  and  both  a  the  identification  system  should  be  fundamental  tasks  and  i s to  must  role be  can  of  perception  are  in  to  the  organi-  clearly  considered  just-  matched  tenet  be  be  identified. closely  institutional  planning.  The  b u r e a u c r a t i c model  pyramidal planning  c y c l e s , and static  statistics,  and  the  will  receives  been in  the  is  a  has  even b e t t e r  model's based  where  future,  critical  departmental techniques Counting  Five  of  on  year  done  or  a  job  process where  the  historical,  Questions  historical  asked data  i n the  While  is  i t s focus  seldom  with to  past  future providing i t  a t t i t u d e s , student are  good  stating  on  rife  a l l attempting  i t i s before  flaw.  systems,  are  facilities.  planning knowing  plans  rhetoric  i n the  a d d i t i o n a l funds  and  and  data.  institution be  information  its  objectives i s well-suited for  p r o j e c t i o n s , and  bureaucratic logical  governance with  s t r u c t u r e , management  collecting  prove  of  theoretically  institution  where  about  teaching  i n very  i s easy,  i t will  has go  quantitative  attrition,  except  the  data  quality,  and  grading  general  evaluating  the  terms.  5  quality ments  or  ducing broad mine  of  the  techniques  cues  for  i f  to  measure  An  or  key  teaching ception  the  other  of  conflict  crisis  1.3  be  intervention  Statement  of  There  few  are  or  secondary  education  focused  credentials, graduate  that  role.  on  other  used  to  tying on  to  identify  and  to  subject  deter-  effective  extended their If  own  success-  differences be  the  ideal  in  role,  per-  background,  potential  solutions  pro-  for  to  be  differences  characteristic,  sources  sought  before  necessary.  Problem  of  how  influence  institutions.  readily  strength  is  groups.  perceive  based  studies  as  study  about  of  for  available  shown  hold  instru-  even  groups  By  becomes  research  this  or  can be  identified  the  are  Few  individuals  groups  philosophies  placements  institutional  be  or  discriminating may  in  patterns  attitudes  been  been  could  personnel  group  or  which  a c t i v i t i e s  department to  of  has  not.  quality  objective  perceptions  Q-methodology  what  evaluating  is  investigation  perceptions  activities  in  for  Q-methodology,  examining  environment  further  application.  in  ful,  learning  obtainable  grants,  learning  of  weakness  department in  post-  Most  attention  data  such  entrance  evidence or  teaching  as  has faculty  requirements,  departmental (Carrter,  and  and  1966).  The  6  dynamic has  interplay  been  Usual  poorly  of  documented  institutional  isolation  or  and  If  the  of  view  in  members  of  toward  a  their  provision  Role  mental tions  high  observers,  operating and  how  the  fashion  it  and"if  department then  is  or  both  unit, the  both  in  the  conflict  and  the  Individual a major  w i l l  and part  group in  p r i o r i t i e s react  to  who  and  a  must in  If  specific draw its  a  expecta-  the and  setting in  events  deter-  generated and  depart-  department and  acceptable  services  from  administration  conflict  and  depart-  department-department,  in  in  instruction.  influences  and  then  to  useful  i n s t i t u t i o n a l  collective  strongly  involved  misunderstandings  a  members  play  in  relations.  teaching  be  1977) .  inter-  department  operating  are  ignore  contribute  inter-action.  others  departments  display  a  Enderud,  of  department  ment-administration believes  of  objectives  department-student,  would  quality  style.  preferences  departmental  mining by  of  as  elements  resolution  perception,  department  of  that  what  role  philosophy  the  and  department  creation  and  examine  total  institutions  1970 and  student-departmental  of  prevention  educational  (Dressel,  an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of  in  evaluations  institutions  departmental  point  groups  eventually  that disagree  result.  7  It  therefore  appraisal  seems  should  department's perceived vary  evaluation What  is  observable  within  required  create  and  individual  has  would  been  group  have  this  the  role  post-secondary  local  test  an  ideal  well  with  its roles  standardized  application. that  measures  information  instruments. in  have  application  measuring  common  teaching  pools Q-  used  some  a  in  activity  department  — in  in a  institution.  Research  This  of  of  a  process  should  how  departmental  l i t t l e  successfully  perceptions  of  institutions  evaluation  and  departmental  correlate  since  can u t i l i z e  perceptions  measuring case  that  activities  among  an  any  examination  However,  and  is  an  that  i n s t i t u t i o n - s p e c i f i c  methodology  1 • 4-  role.  instrument  perceptions to  include  ideal  widely  essential  study  Hypotheses  has  a  series  of  general  and  specific  hypotheses:  1.41  General  1.411  Hypotheses  Q-analysis in  techniques  institutional  can  be  analysis  to  preferred  operational  teaching  departments.  used identify  behaviors  of  8  1.412  The  perceptions  department w i l l  vary  within  1.42  Specific  1.421  a  the  are  preferred  identifiable  single  institution.  having  similar  groups  basis  more  of  on  ferred  their  or  Differences  the role  activities basis  in  perception  among  of  subjects  Administrators together  the  their  who  institutional  different  w i l l in  pre-  activities  with  with  of  d i s c i p l i n e .  by  preferred  on  length  differentiated  more  of  than  gender,  departmental  observed  perceptions  departmental  institutional  service,  be  teaching  among  cluster  their  1.423  a c t i v i t i e s  preferred  w i l l  1.422  which  Hypotheses  Subjects of  of  w i l l are  association  tend  to  groups.  cluster  their  perception  of  departmental  activities  than  faculty  administrative  in  their  centres.  respective  9  1.424  Clusters  of  subjects  perceptions activities  of  preferred  w i l l  basis  of  being  either  be  1.425  a c t i v i t i e s  Subjects  in  who with  groups  which  ness who  with are  l i t t l e  students prefer  primarily  B.C.T.T.  the  B r i t i s h  a  two-year,  on  rated  the as  or  either  Liberal  to  or  w i l l  no  teaching  cluster  departmental change  more  than  and w i l l  opensubjects  instructors.  Terms  Columbia  Institute  post-secondary,  Diploma-granting  career-oriented and  have  students  of  supported,  and  related  Definition  Technology,  are  Student-centred  that  a c t i v i t i e s  -  departmental  Conservative.  contact  1.5  similar  differentiated  Department-centred, or  having  programmes  institution in  Business,  of publicly providing Engineering,  Health.  Continuing part-time (Business,  Education students,  -  the  Division  including  Engineering,  and  responsible  Continuing  Health),  for  Education  Industry  Services,  10  and  Programme D e v e l o p m e n t d e p a r t m e n t s .  abbreviation  f o r the f u l l  Core D i v i s i o n Chemistry,  Divisional  - an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  An  name.  grouping of  E n g l i s h , Mathematics,  and P h y s i c s  departments. Philosophy  - the a t t i t u d e  or point-of-view o f the  subjects u n d e r l y i n g t h e i r reasons  f o r demonstrating  their  observed behavior.  sense  as i n t h e s t u d y o f p h i l o s o p h y .  Q-score  - a weighted  Z-scores  from  each  cluster  each  cluster,  Not used  i n the s t r i c t e s t  score produced  a series  of related  by grouping  clusters,  s c o r e b y t h e number o f s u b j e c t s i n summing  the weighted  s c o r e s , and  d i v i d i n g b y t h e number o f s u b j e c t s i n v o l v e d related Q-sort  weighting  i n the  clusters. - the rank-ordering i n a  patterns  of a series  pre-determined  o f items based  on a common  referent. Q-techniques based  - a systemnin p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h  on t e s t i n g  samples. persons  singular propositions with small  F a c t o r a n a l y t i c a l methods a r e u s e d a n d rather  than t e s t s  are correlated.  11  1.6  Experimental  A  process  was  from observations activities. by  A  a balanced  attitudes,  on  1.7  a  replicates.  design  A  and  the  scored  and  analyzed  The  process  transferrable departmental  to  the  used any  lines.  specific  t o B.C.I.T.  However,  the  sort  to  t o any  by  the  The  f i t the  design  in  s e l e c t e d to  with  individual  statements  subjects'  into  Q-  a mod-  responses  Study  was  the  Q-sort  should  be  i n s t i t u t i o n organized  Q-sort  teaching  B.C.I.T.  Statements  computer.  teaching  instrument  developed.  s u b j e c t s was  to create  The  departmental  a l l t e a c h i n g - r e l a t e d groups  pattern.  L i m i t a t i o n s of  to  Q-sort  characterized  design.  were presented  required to curve  items  incorporated  of  a  department  a c t i v i t i e s was  sample of  Subjects  normal  apply  that  schematic  representation of  sort kits  were  teaching  o b s e r v a t i o n s were c r e a t e d  B.C.I.T.  ified  B.C.I.T.  m o t i v a t i o n , and  based  at  of  block  2 provides  provide  established for generating  s t r u c t u r e d sample of  Table  four  Design  used  i n this  departmental  designed  teaching  t o be  study  on is  activities. general  department  and  enough may,  12  therefore, other  be t r a n s f e r r a b l e ,  i n s t i t u t i o n s that  with  teach  some m o d i f i c a t i o n  s i m i l a r programmes  to  to  B.C.I.T.  1.8  Summary  Q - m e t h o d o l o g y may organizational data  analysis.  on p e r c e p t i o n s  essential their  preferred  activities  groups'  with of  respect  t h e group  become  o f group  will  likely  to the position rather  as  increasingly  such  teaching  reflect  obtain  data are  conflict  behavior  o f an i d e a l  i s and w i l l  members.  Such  can i d e n t i f y groups  preferences  "ideal"  i t can  behavior.  structures  Q-analysis  perceptions  what  Specifically,  o f group  organizational  differing  of  applications i n  i fi n s t i t u t i o n s are to avoid  formalized.  The  have u s e f u l  which  have  as t h e  department.  some common b e l i e f  vary than  significantly the training  13  Chapter  REVIEW  2.1  The  of  literature  is  dominated  Weber  in  have  past  is  of  three by  provided  empirical  models.  The  of  research  data  both  were  based  by  on  for  as a  and  c l a s s i c a l  model  in  higher  in  which  competence."'" studies  Likert  of  (1961) of  In organ-  have  administrative  concentrate  on  success-  be  examined  obtained.  Primary  government  bureaucratic  by  bureaucratic  readily  be  and  described  variety to  could  could  commercial the  the  technical  such  the  administration  reject  tended  that  funds  of  Role  theory of  well  sociological  data  research  model  collegial  researchers  organizations  which  the  decades  izations  ful  to  attained  Departmental  considerations  Studies  tended  favour  authority  by  and  organizational  hierarchical  (1947).  education  the  LITERATURE  Theory  bureaucratic,  model  THE  Organizational  design  Max  OF  2  model.  and  sources  organizations Likert  for  —  proposed  J. Victor Baldridge, "Introduction: Models of U n i v e r s i t y Governance - B u r e a c r a t i c , Collegial, and P o l i t i c a l , " Academic Governance, ed. J . Victor Baldridge (Berkeley: M c C u t c h a n , 1 9 7 1 ) , p. 6.  14  a  four-system  bureaucratic  model  containing  organization  to  a range  a  highly  from  the  classic  democratic,  2 collegial  structure.  variations forms  of  in  Other  researchers  most  organization  through  functional  effective be  type  to  have  to  cover and  to  structures.  the  their  design or  maintain  for even  one  of  sub-units.  the  Contingency  enough  variety  operational  advocates  inappropriate  provided  investigated  respond  structural  largely  model  organizations  "form-fits-function"  most may  organization  found  the  and  in  L i k e r t ' s  a b i l i t y challenges theorists  that  the  organization  destructive  for  3 another the  organization.  organization  change, external  perhaps  of  Mayhew  higher  radically,  speculated  education as  a  in  1972  institutions  result  of  growth  that would and  forces.  Not only the form but the substance of admini s t r a t i o n and governance i s changing. Histori c a l l y , i n s t i t u t i o n s have used r a t h e r primitive t e c h n i q u e s of b u d g e t i n g , p l a n n i n g , and d e c i s i o n making. Plans r a r e l y extended beyond a year, and b u d g e t i n g c o n s i s t e d of e s t i m a t i n g income a n d d i v i d i n g i t among c o m p e t i n g d e p a r t m e n t s and d i v i s i o n s . Once a g a i n , s i z e and r a p i d growth broke the system, and i n s t i t u t i o n s are  York:  R e n s i s L i k e r t , New P a t t e r n s o f M a n a g e m e n t McGraw-Hill, 1961), pp. 222-236. ' Likert,  p.  9.  (New  15  s e a r c h i n g f o r b e t t e r management p r o c e d u r e s . Program, p l a n n i n g , and budgeting systems have been recommended, as have computer-based simulation models. There is considerable i n t e r e s t i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l theory and hope that lessons from other large enterprises can be a p p l i e d to e d u c a t i o n . ^  Riley p o l i t i c a l in  which  ates. a  model the  Burns  direct  and  and  the  democratic  to  well  rapidly to  and  departments.  1984,"  from  a  have  from The  postulated  higher  that  increased  It  group  Mature  that  in  of  higher  purchasing,  types  organizational  of  needs  service  functions operating because  G . M . S t a l k e r , The Tavistock, 196lT~  the  functions  of  functions  of  budgeting, of  teaching  groups their  L e w i s B. Mayhew, " H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n E d u c a t i o n a l R e c o r d , Summer, 1 9 7 2 , p.  ^ Tom B u r n s a n d Innovation (London:  of  education  services,  two  of  task-oriented  which  the  academic  is  institutions  separated  the  there  i n s t a b i l i t y  education  organization  oper-  effectiveness  appears  small  a  education  bargaining  argue  increased  higher  large  computer  personnel  different  a  for  for  (1961)  and  have  group  between  differentiated.  organizations planning,  power  s t r u c t u r e . ~*  evolution  colleagues are  of  Stalker  environment  grow  (1977)  organization  relationship  task  is  of  concept  the  natural  Baldridge  have different  Toward 218.  Management of pp. 121-125.  16  operating tional  conditions.  designers  variations s t i l l the  on  different  organization.  or  models ing  a  teaching into  in  one  structure  to  each  and  and type  as  formal  of  and  Peter York:  on  the  the group  and  exist.  models  education  formal  or  operating  the  operation  two of  a  interacting  service  is  the  their  the of  and  the  higher  examines  describe  c o l l e g i a l  key  of  recognize  combination  bureaucratic  faculty.  functional  to  A  often  complete  Baldridge  a  operation that  plus  problem of  concentrates  teaching  have  core  a  A major  two  philosophies  Baldridge  teach-  p o l i t i -  departments  structure  in  which  service  positions.  any The  groups  cipline-differentiated  (New  overall  whole.  describe  used  other  departments  The  form  structure.  can be  with  within  the  Likert  department  cally  accommodate  structure.  invisible  organiza-  to  perceptions  Likert  facing  how  cohesive  adequately  o f f i c i a l  problem  communication problems  Both not  a  attracted  attendant  do  each  maintain  people  is  The  teaching  organization  organization has  of  M . B l a u , On t h e N a t u r e Wiley, 1974), p. 16.  Two  of  the  teaching  traditionally  departments.  is  been major  by  faculty disstudies  Organizations  17  by  Dressel  role and  of  teaching  questioned  along lack  (1970)  departments  the  departmental of  empirical  and what  expressed the  to  key  academics.  from the focus Good  (1977) in  examined  American  conventional  wisdom  lines.  both  data  processes  departments  was  and McHenry  or  bad  on  They how  departments.  for  was  activities  academics  universities organizing  identified  departments  procedures  researchers  of  the  operated  distinguished A that and  make good  common the  the  good  belief  department  allegiances  of  departments.  The department i s b o t h the r e f u g e and support of the professor. The d e p a r t m e n t p r o v i d e s his working space: an o f f i c e , an adjacent classroom or s e m i n a r , and ( f o r the s c i e n t i s t ) a well-equipped laboratory. The d e p a r t m e n t also s a n c t i o n s h i s c o u r s e o r s e m i n a r , and may p r o vide the f i n a n c i a l support for his research and doctoral candidates. The p r o f e s s o r l o o k s to the u n i v e r s i t y f o r h i s r e s e a r c h and doctoral candidates. The p r o f e s s o r l o o k s t o t h e univers i t y f o r a p a r k i n g p l a c e , a l t h o u g h he believes that i f u n i v e r s i t i e s were w e l l run each departm e n t w o u l d h a v e i t s own f a c i l i t i e s surrounded by p a r k i n g p l a c e s r e s t r i c t e d to the departmental staff. The d e p a r t m e n t e x i s t s to n u r t u r e t h e professor, and the u n i v e r s i t y exists primarily to nurture the departments. C o l l e g e s and their deans screen the departments, i n t h e name o f academic freedom, from the i n t e r f e r e n c e of c e n t r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , a n d may e v e n b e helpful i n a c q u i r i n g more r e s o u r c e s and g r e a t e r autonomy f o r t h e department.  P a u l L. D r e s s e l , F. C r a i g J o h n s o n , and P h i l i p M. M a r c u s , The C o n f i d e n c e C r i s i s : An A n a l y s i s of Univers i t y Departments (San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass, 1970), pp. 4 - 5 .  18  The  data  departmental  suggest  role  identification Dressel  found  identified or  about  equally  Senior, toward  with that  —  departments faculty —  about  faculty  university  Perceptions as  related  were  members  by  selected  with  tenured the  and'importance  themselves  department  otherwise.  to  faculty  extremely  varied.  polled  d i s c i p l i n e ,  discipline  and  on  how  they  university,  and  15% s e l e c t i n g were  of  department  university.  more  closely  younger  faculty  oriented toward  their  within  d i s -  g discipline.  Major  variations  were  found  ciplines.  A p p r o x i m a t e l y 10 p e r c e n t o f t h e m a t h e m a t i c s f a c u l t i e s chose the u n i v e r s i t y as a r e f e r e n c e g r o u p w h e r e a s 35 p e r c e n t o f t h e b u s i n e s s administration staff did so. Psychology had the highest proportion of s t a f f s e l e c t i n g d i s c i p l i n e as a r e f e r e n c e g r o u p , w i t h approxi m a t e l y 55 p e r c e n t d o i n g s o ; o n l y 30 p e r cent of the e l e c t r i c a l engineers chose the department as t h e i r r e f e r e n c e group, whereas only 15 p e r c e n t o f t h e s t a f f o f b u s i n e s s administration did so. T h e s e same d a t a c a n b e e x a m i n e d i n another fashion, t h a t i s , the amount of disagreement w i t h i n each d i s c i p l i n e . H e r e we f o u n d that h i s t o r y and c h e m i s t r y seemed l e a s t a g r e e d on t h e i r proper o r i e n t a t i o n , whereas psychology and b u s i n e s s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n had the most internal agreement.9  8 9  Dressel,  p.  78.  Dressel,  p.  78.  19  Faculty with the highest discipline orientat i o n tended t o be found i n departments w h i c h h a v e b o t h a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h p r o p o r t i o n o f new appointments and a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of resignations of tenure track f a c u l t y . The p r o p o r t i o n o f f a c u l t y members i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e d i s c i p l i n e was t h e i r m a j o r r e f e r e n c e g r o u p was c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h t h e p r o p o r t i o n who r e p o r t e d t h e p r e s t i g e o f p r o s p e c t i v e d e p a r t m e n t s as a p r i m a r y r e a s o n f o r a c c e p t i n g a n o t h e r p o s i t i o n . No r e l a t i o n s h i p was f o u n d b e t w e e n " h a v i n g more t i m e t o p u r s u e my own i n t e r e s t s " o r " m a k i n g m o r e m o n e y " a n d the d i s c i p l i n a r y o r i e n t a t i o n . The o r i e n t a t i o n t o t h e d i s c i p l i n e was n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e amount o f e m p h a s i s t h a t these departments p l a c e d upon undergraduate i n s t r u c t i o n , undergraduate advising, i n s t r u c t i o n of undergraduate nonmajors, expressing departmental views t o t h e u n i v e r s i t y , and f u r t h e r i n g the careers o f younger s t a f f . T h e r e was a l s o a negative c o r r e l a t i o n between the d i s c i p l i n e o r i e n t a t i o n and t h e f e e l i n g t h a t undergraduate i n s t r u c t i o n s h o u l d be e m p h a s i z e d b u t b o t h graduate i n s t r u c t i o n and b a s i c research were positively related.10  The service  data  and d i s c i p l i n e  identification. be  clearly  Also,  indicate that rank or length are major  i n d i c a t o r s o f group  role identification  appears t o  s t r o n g l y r e l a t e d t o group o r d i s c i p l i n e  tion.  The l a c k o f s e r i o u s  ments and t h e p a t t e r n s Dressel  support  Dressel,  the contention  p. 79.  identifica-  disagreements w i t h i n  o f group  of  identification i n this  study  departfound  that  by  20  teaching and  tend  to have d i s t i n c t i v e  unable or  departments  to determine  the d i s c i p l i n e  attitudes  All have  examination  operating  the prime  b o t h were  the studies  examined  cited  the behavior  and  literature  on  ing  education  not  quantitative research  Baldridge study ance  i s limited, of graduate  research, other of  The  public  operating  student-teacher  continually  cited  Dressel,  p.  studies.  their  administermost  Dressel  that  the d i s c i p l i n e ,  There  i s an  the teaching/learning the classroom  to and  absence  of teaching  the sole  import-  relative  on  within  Dressel's  show t h e  teaching  and  and  even  the impact  interaction,  public-  experience  on  as b e i n g  who  growing  and  However,  statistics  activities.''"''"  71.  limit  is a  and p e r s o n a l  service, advancing  styles  and o t h e r s  However,  and u n d e r g r a d u a t e  research  influential.  There  exceptions.  citing  departmental  any b r o a d  ment  on o p i n i o n  are notable  structure  administrative  institutions.  are based  was  i n establishing  of organizing  ations on  Dressel  o f departments  of the departments. the problems  factor  by Dressel  to the structure  cohesive  styles.  clearly  activities  higher  internally  i f the organizational  was  although  t o be  departprocess. are  jurisdiction  21  of  the  instructor  examination. 1970 and  but  iated on  This  the  rights  good  perceptions  role  cited  perceived be  makes  ideal to  are  be  ceptions  what  would  the  staff  department. members  and  well  teaching-related achieve  a  good  real  exists.  How  resolution  Jenks a  study  of  to  of  sharp  evaluation.  may  to  a  quite good  of  a  a l l the  measure  observer  (1970)  used  and  be  in  of  or  a  than English  over  of  which to  preferences,  is  perceived  what  is  c i v i l  per-  encouraged  than  can  department  What  actually  c r i t i c a l  to  the  conflict.  Stephenson's  role-perception-based  data  department  perceptions  perception-based  the  different  studies  important.  assoc-  staff  differences  In  are  departments  history  should  educa-  variations  and  administrators  a c t i v i t i e s  become  more  have  to  organizational  teaching  Students  may  If  similar  of  students  have  perceptions be  v a l i d ,  that  a c t i v i t i e s  and  prior  accountability  departments.  constitutes  Senior  may  accepted  imperative  what  found.  department  institutional  educational  activities  engineering of  been  it  know  to  administrative  earlier  expected  of  teaching of  open  have  rise  organizations with  not  may  rapid  consumer  tional  and  Q-methodology  problems  in  a  in  personnel  22  department o f a m a n u f a c t u r i n g Q-sort i n s t r u m e n t s  corporation.  He found  t o be more u s e f u l t h a n more  common r e s e a r c h i n s t r u m e n t s  such as q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i n 12  d e a l i n g w i t h s p e c i f i c o r g a n i z a t i o n a l problems .  Rinn  (1961) t e s t e d Q-methodology i n a study o f p e r c e p t i o n s i n group b e h a v i o r .  S u b j e c t s o b s e r v e d and d e s c r i b e d  the i n t e r p e r s o n a l b e h a v i o r groups.  o f t h e members o f t h e i r  "The o p e r a t i n g assumption was t h a t what was  p e r c e i v e d and what was r e a l were t h e same f o r t h e members i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r  situation.  A t i s s u e was t h e  q u e s t i o n o f how much members would agree on t h e ' r e a l i t y ' of t h e s i t u a t i o n .  S i n c e they were d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r  group r a t h e r t h a n themselves i t was assumed t h a t t h e 13 b i a s o f ' s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y ' w o u l d be m i n i m a l . " s t r u c t u r e d t h e study a l o n g t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l l y and t h e o r e t i c a l  l i n e s expounded by Stephenson.  Rinn  rigourous The study  t e s t e d "whether c e r t a i n t h e o r e t i c a l l y d e f i n e d dimensions o f group b e h a v i o r would be v e r i f i e d by means o f Q-techn i q u e operation'.'^  He found t h a t Q-methodology had -  Stephen R. Jenks, "An A c t i o n - R e s e a r c h Approach t o O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Change," J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e , 6:2:135, 1970. 13 John L. R i n n , "Q-Methodology: An A p p l i c a t i o n t o Group Phenomena," E d u c a t i o n a l and' P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement, 11:2:316, 1961": R i n n , p. 317.  23  a p p l i c a t i o n s to the study o f group b e h a v i o r p r o v i d i n g the i n v e s t i g a t o r proceeded from a t h e o r y s t a t e d i n terms of a f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n and a p p l i e d a p p r o p r i a t e f a c t o r a n a l y t i c procedures  t o the d a t a . " ^  Rinn  supported  Stephenson's p o s i t i o n t h a t c l o s e adherence t o F i s h e r ' s a p p l i c a t i o n o f b a l a n c e d f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n s can y i e l d useful results.^ may  W h i l e Stephenson's and Rinn's  n o t conform t o f o r m a l e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n  procedures criteria  s t a t e d by Campbell and S t a n l e y (1963), t h e r e i s c l e a r l y an e x p e r i m e n t a l methodology based on l o g i c ,  structure,  and t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s .  2.2  A p p l i c a t i o n o f Q-Methodology to E v a l u a t i o n  S t u f f l e b e a m (1971) r e v i e w e d  the a p p l i c a t i o n o f  the Campbell and S t a n l e y model o f e x p e r i m e n t a l t o the CIPP E v a l u a t i o n Model.  design  He argued t h a t "the g e n e r a l  p r i n c i p l e o f e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n can and s h o u l d be used i n c e r t a i n k i n d s o f i n p u t and p r o d u c t e v a l u a t i o n situations".''"''  R i n n , p.  He a l s o c i t e d "common measuring d e v i c e s  328.  W i l l i a m Stephenson, The Study o f B e h a v i o r : QTechnique and I t s Methodology (Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1953), p. 103. 17 D a n i e l L. S t u f f l e b e a m , "The Use o f E x p e r i m e n t a l Design i n E d u c a t i o n a l E v a l u a t i o n , " J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Measurement, 8:4:272, W i n t e r , 1971.  24  and  common  success  for  identifying  "Experimental  standards"  significant  design  - 1  "  as  0  often  information  studies  may  be  being for  said  inadequate  the  to  evaluator.  yield  correct  19 answers  to  examine  the  ives  set  groups  the  wrong  results  for  those  through  philosophy  (1977)  used and  level  courses".  many  Q-sort  a b i l i t y 20  change  in  has  argued  for  of  the  both  techniques.  He  drawn  a basic  that  and  and  distinction  8  Stufflebeam,  p.  271.  1  9  Stufflebeam,  p.  271.  large in  singular  person.  Wood  the  of  "know-  graduate  allowed  him  to  compare  actual  to  recommendations  make  procedures. of  the  Scriven  the  qualitative  rejecting  conventional  while  with  similar  evaluate  without  from  is  one  technique  social  1  dealing  teachers  to  object-  testing  understanding  design  and  to  of  c r i t e r i a ,  noted  research  with  c r i t e r i a ,  evaluation methods  eliminated,  tests  of  to  against  This  concept  Q-sort  increased  proposed  than  tests.  curricula  quantitative  evaluation  rather  technique  The  with  He  individual  competencies  performance  for  aspects  persons  through the  performance  each  Stephenson's  ledge  establish  of  standardized  to  propositions  questions."  the research  distinction  science  research  remains.  between is  being  "Evaluation  20 Randy Wood, A Use o f t h e Q - S o r t T e c h n i q u e in Educational Evaluation ( E R I C D o c u m e n t ED 1 2 8 3 6 0 , January 1977), p. 4.  25  research  must,  exactly have  the  for  typically,  kind  years  of  been  produce  as  a  conclusion  statement  that  taught  illegitimate,  is  social  scientists a  judgement  21 of  value,  on  an  worth,  analysis  subjects.  on  concept  of  merit,"  many  Evaluation  operation draws  or  of  Q-methodology  such i s  judgements  not  Q-methodology,  Q-analysis  for  only but  made  central  also,  judgemental  by  to  when  Scriven's  goal-free  evaluation  is  (1975)  who  described  the  Q-methodology  tional  testing  and  programme  of  the the  of  use  based  appropriate,  data. echoed  is  by  Redburn in  educa-  evaluation.  Q-factor analysis ... i s most appropriate for use i n c l i n i c a l or educational situations where a v a i l a b l e t o p o l o g i e s and s c a l e s seem i n a d e q u a t e , where the p s y c h o l o g i c a l dynamics of learning or treatment are not w e l l understood, or where i t is desirable to avoid a n t i c i p a t i n g the p r e c i s e d i r e c t i o n and c h a r a c t e r of program impact. In short, t h i s measurement approach i s i n v i t e d i n most i f not a l l small group c l i n i c a l and e d u c a t i o n a l program categories. 9  Redburn  (1975)lists  methodology tion.  One  to of  six  possible  educational particular  applications  testing  interest  Michael Scriven, "Evaluation Procedures':' ( d r a f t f o r a volume i n t i o n a l e v a l u a t i o n , November, 1973)  and to  of  programme  this  study  9  Qevaluai s :  Perspectives and AERA s e r i e s on e d u c a -  22 F. S t e v e n s R e d b u r n , "Q F a c t o r A n a l y s i s : Applicat i o n s To E d u c a t i o n a l T e s t i n g and P r o g r a m E v a l u a t i o n , " E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement, 35:768, 1975.  26  To s p e c i f y c o n f l i c t s o f v i e w p o i n t among i n s t r u c t o r s o r o t h e r program p e r s o n n e l f o r the purpose o f a s s e s s i n g t h e impacts o f these c o n f l i c t s , or simply to c l a r i f y the nature of such c o n f l i c t s so they can be t a k e n i n t o account or c a l l e d t o t h e a t t e n t i o n o f s t u d e n t s o r c l i e n t s . 2 3  While not e x t e n s i v e , the l i t e r a t u r e  clearly  shows t h e r e i s a p l a c e i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l e v a l u a t i o n f o r Q-methodology p a r t i c u l a r l y i f t h e e v a l u a t i o n d e s i g n i s based b o t h on some t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and a f o r m a l s t r u c t u r e such as advocated  2.3  by F i s h e r .  Q-Methodology  A l t h o u g h some r e f e r e n c e s t o Q-methodology appear as e a r l y as 1935, t h e d e f i n i t i v e document on Q-method25 ology i s Stephenson's 1953 p u b l i c a t i o n "The Study o f 23 2 A-  Redburn, p. 776.  C y r i l B u r t , "The R e c i p r o c i t y P r i n c i p l e , " S c i e n c e , Psychology, and Communication, ed. Steven R. Brown and Donald J . Brenner (New York: Teachers C o l l e g e P r e s s , 1972), p.43. 25 C y r i l Burt i n the " R e c i p r o c i t y P r i n c i p l e " described how Q-technique was named. Stephenson was one o f a number o f p s y c h o l o g i s t s who worked w i t h B u r t d u r i n g t h e 1930's i n a study o f d e l i n q u e n t s over a 10 y e a r p e r i o d . P a r t o f t h e study i n v o l v e d e s t i m a t i n g a r t i s t i c a p p r e c i a t i o n s o f t h e subj e c t s . V a r i o u s forms o f rank o r d e r t e c h n i q u e s were used. C o r r e l a t i o n s among persons were made and normal f a c t o r i a l procedures were a p p l i e d . " I n o u r l a b o r a t o r y s l a n g we r e f e r r e d t o M i s s Watson's s t u d i e s o f s i n g l e persons t e s t e d on s u c c e s s i v e o c c a s i o n s as i n s t a n c e s o f '0 t e c h n i q u e , ' and t o t h e s t u d i e s o f a e s t h e t i c p r e f e r e n c e s i n w h i c h persons were c o r r e l a t e d as i n s t a n c e s o f 'P t e c h n i q u e . ' To d i s t i n g u i s h h i s m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e method o f c o r r e l a t i n g persons, Dr. Stephenson i n t r o d u c e d t h e u s e f u l phrase 'Q t e c h n i q u e . ' (p.., 44) .  27  Behavior:  Q-Technique and i t s Methodology".^  His  0  p r o p o s a l s were a major departure from c o n v e n t i o n a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l measurement p r a c t i c e s based on the work o f Thurstone, Pearson, C a t t e l l , and Spearman.  Stephen-  son's techniques have been c h a l l e n g e d as n o n - s c i e n t i f i c (Cattell,  1951) or s t a t i s t i c a l l y suspect (Cronbach and  G l e s e r , 1954).  D e s p i t e e a r l y c r i t i c i s m s , Q-methodology  has gained wider acceptance i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l measurement and has been used i n communication 1972; Freeman, 1974;  studies  (MacLean,  Stephenson, 1967), e d u c a t i o n a l  e v a l u a t i o n (Redburn, 1975; Wood, 1977), a t t i t u d e measurement (Huff, 1964; K e r l i n g e r and Pedhazur,  1967),  psychotherapy (Cartwright, 1972; Rogers, 1972), and perception i d e n t i f i c a t i o n B o l d t , 1978).  (Whetstone, 1967; Housego and  Brown's e x t e n s i v e b i b l i o g r a p h y  (1968) on  Q-methodology i s a p a r t i a l i n d i c a t i o n o f i t s growing acceptance as a l e g i t i m a t e  methodology.  Q-methodology i s based on a form o f m u l t i v a r i a t e 27 a n a l y s i s c a l l e d dependency  analysis.  t e s t items, s u b j e c t s , data m a t r i c e s , and  I t involves statistical  a n a l y s i s as does the more commonly used form o f m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s , interdependency a n a l y s i s . Stephenson, pp. 30-46. Stephenson, p. 30.  In i n t e r -  28  dependency  analysis,  data  from  a  data  matrix  correlations  That  i s ,  the  with  each  row  test  item  scores,  columns This  i f  of  form  In small in  small  Also,  matrix  the  of  in  carefully  kept  on  a  "In given  R,  a l l  the  item.  In  person  deviates  that  person.  sought  set  the  and are  In  is  the  focus  is  the  summary:  on  mean on  sought are to  as  R-technique.  are  sought  items,  are  correlated.  collected the  dealt  test with  a l l a  sorted,  a l l  are  ranked  cluster  on  item  other  normative;  anal-  deviates  persons  given  quite  independently.  person  the  in  items  how  is  the  correlations  and  how  in  correlated.  pattern  of  subject's  a  compared,  mean of R  the  form  has  are  are  tests.  normally  R-analysis  focus  are  items  test  resulting  the  and  referred  matrices  items  from  subject  the  collect  conventional  data matrix and  to  the  among  in  test  not  In  from  up  one  a pre-determined  item Q,  in  often  the  separate  Q-analysis,  yzed.  is  the  fashions.  to  and  tests  The  Subjects,  data  according  of are  subjects  different  In  used  correlations  analysis  rows. the  are  is  matrix.  Q-analysis,  number  the  number  subjects  representing  the of  many  of  items Q  that a  given  for  is  „28 ipsative.  A l b e r t D. T a l b o t t , A B r i e f I n t r o d u c t i o n And at the Annual Meeting of  "Q T e c h n i q u e A n d I t s Methodology: Consideration'"' (paper presented t h e A E R A , New Y o r k , 1971), p. 4.  29  Much been  on  cess,  the  and  states items  of  the  the  of  about of  the  populations sorts  into  statements,  Q-methodology  items,  s t a t i s t i c a l methods  subject  consisted  debate  construction  that a  the  in  the  item  used.  sorting  order.  single  words,  pro-  Stephenson  Q-methodology  rank  has  are  Items  the  have  photographs, 29  descriptions,  art  objects,  Quarter,  Kennedy,  and  of  and  of  order  statements sort  the  sort) of  duced  in a  was  finer  to  ideal-image ideal-sort that  that  was but  that  correlation  statements  discriminations  to  were be  (1972)  confirm  care  should  taken  construction  S t ep hen's o n ,  p.  bias  63.  not  into  a  not  order different  significant  adjectives than  did  more  made and  to  (self-  with  alternated  Kerlinger  or  asked  was  Both  author  were  effect both  The  order  be  using  self-image  adjectives. that  the  (ideal-sort).  results  s e l f - i d e a l  postulated  allowed  Q-sorting,  their  sorting  higher  in  t r a i t s .  examined  according  found  the  items  (1967)  Subjects  and  They  Laxer  personality  adjectives.  their  self-sort  groups.  It  and  items  and  factor  form  and  statements.  precise  than  Talbott to  and  did (1971)  introduce  statements.  pro-  30  Brown forcing  of  (1971)  the  item  tribution  pattern.  which  items  the  important  reviewed  than  sorting He  debate  into  a  concluded  appear the  the  in  the  regarding  predetermined  that  the  order  distribution  distribution  the  shape  in  is  disin  much  more  determining  30 factor  types.  (1956)  compared  "the  forced  provided that  it  There form  procedure  forced  useful  as A  to  out  question  U  no  can of  quasi-normal  to  and  the  unforced to  over  another  methods  the  purposes  of  the  of  and  procedure"  recommend  specific  some  reported  distribution  the  be  Block  discrimination"  evidence  distribution  of  that  sorting  and more  firm  that  that  S t e v e n R. in Q-Technique," 8:4:286, Winter, J  a  noted  free  superior  choice 32  grow  any  versus with  or  be  advice  should  (1972)  s t a b i l i t y  "equal  appears  Talbott's data  forced  greater was  of  Kerlinger  one  and  c o l l e c t i n  project  is  found. concern  to  researchers  who  Brown, "The F o r c e d - F r e e Distinction Journal of Educational Measurement, 1971.  31 F r e d R. K e r l i n g e r , "Q M e t h o d o l o g y i n Behavioral Research," Science, Psychology, and Communication, ed. S t e v e n R. B r o w n a n d D o n a l d J . B r e n n e r (New Y o r k : T e a c h e r s C o l l e g e P r e s s , 1 9 7 2 ) , p. 18. Talbott,  p.  6.  as  31  wish  to  jects  use  or  a  single  several  retest  s t a b i l i t y  Hilden  (1958)  acceptable Haskell  with  emotional  over  an  use  measure  for  the  of  period  an  needs  of  the  items  made  use  cultural form  of  choice,  a  of  Survey  of  found  the  t r i a l s  of  Interpersonal  the  results  same to  which  test be  In  each  evidence  when  test-retest No  to  items  used  of  (a  item as  interchangeable  suggests  subjects  create  Kikuchi  results  each  criterion  created  good  Values  reported  a  Q-instruments the  making  situations  or  The  and  studies.  children  as  necessary  Gordon  compared  in  of  instruments.  are  indices.  their  measuring  adapted  produce  reported  reported  operating  assembled  test  of  s t a b i l i t y  was  processes  They  standardized and  of  test-  a l l in  sub-  (1972),  test-retest  researcher.  characteristic  research. the  use  the  population  this  (1972)  Q-instrument  r e l i a b i l i t y  individually) They  in  used  treatment  in  of  the  (1978),  psychotherapy.  or  competently  subject  the  instrument  sort  acceptable  of  is  a method  Rogers  s t a b i l i t y  psychological  large  as  Q-instruments  the  with  in  group  Kerlinger  Q-instruments  time  a  subject,  Boldt  s t a b i l i t y  that  results  and  problems.  change,  unique  one  with  instrument.  Housego  with  of  of  with  the  used  18 m o n t h  measurement to  of  s t a b i l i t y  change  extensive  times  and  (1979)  behavior  Q-instrument  (1970)  i n a  crossJapanese  forced is a but  considered Q-instrument. favoured  32  the Q-sort because i t p e r m i t t e d  "the easy a d d i t i o n ,  d e l e t i o n , or s u b s t i t u t i o n o f s c a l e s w i t h o u t  the n e c e s s i t y  33 o f r e c o n s t i t u t i n g the e n t i r e  instrument".  I n a r e v i e w of the main o b j e c t i o n s t o  statistical  p r o c e d u r e s used i n Q-methodology, K e r l i n g e r (1972) n o t e d t h a t Q i s a form o f rank o r d e r i n g a n a l y s i s , and,  there-  f o r e , cannot be s u b j e c t e d t o s t a t i s t i c a l methods commonly used w i t h n o r m a t i v e d a t a .  Q-sorting, along  with"ranking  and f o r c e d c h o i c e methods, are c l a s s i f i e d as i p s a t i v e methods and have the means and 3 As u b j e c t s of the same.  standard  Conventional  d e v i a t i o n s of a l l  t e s t s of s i g n i f i c a n c e  based on v a r i a t i o n s o f means cannot be a p p l i e d .  Similarly,  the l a c k o f independence o f each i t e m a f f e c t s the degrees of freedom t h a t are assumed i n a n a l y s i s of calculations.  variance  K e r l i n g e r (1972) suggested t h a t w h i l e  the  s t a t i s t i c a l o b j e c t i o n s have some v a l i d i t y , the l a r g e number o f p o s s i b i l i t i e s i n the t y p i c a l Q-sort o f 60 t o  Leonard V. Gordon and A k i o K i k u c h i , "The Compara b i l i t y o f the F o r c e d - C h o i c e and Q-Sort Measurement Approaches: An O t h e r - C u l t u r a l Study," The J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 81:138, 1970. J  T h i s p r o v i d e s a r e a d y check on the a c c u r a c y o f the t r a n s c r i p t i o n o f d a t a from o r i g i n a l sources t o computer cards or memory. U n l e s s p e r f e c t l y b a l a n c e d by a n o t h e r e r r o r i n e x a c t l y the c o r r e c t l o c a t i o n and of e x a c t l y the c o r r e c t magnitude, any t r a n s c r i p t i o n e r r o r s produce changes i n s u b j e c t s c o r e means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s .  33  80  items  makes  recommended accepted, the  test  accepted  2.4  the  that  and of  error  the  significance  0.05  by to  slight.  error  be  He  recognized,  reducing  the  level  for  0.01 from  the  commonly  level.  Summary  on  structures  to  c o l l e g i a l  the  more  many  revealed cation  of  assist of  events major the  than  in  can  exploratory  in  Kerlinger,  p.  14.  in  what  of  which  focuses  apply  well  considerations an  occurs,  and  of  academic only  w i l l  university  attitude  explain departments  role  i d e n t i f i -  members.  be  applied in  particularly  studies  not  philosophies  s p e c i f i c a l l y is  occur  Studies  department  It  does  explaining  differences  organizations  when  which  occur.  theory  Although  underlying  Q-methodology  perception.  processes  processes  examination  why  organizational  organizations.  p o l i t i c a l  organization  of  possible  anticipated  Conventional  an  introduced  are  the  to  the  evaluation  measurement  useful  involved.  in  small  While  the  of  role  groups Q-sort  34  p r o c e s s has been used  produced  considerable  debate, Q - s o r t i n g  s u c c e s s f u l l y i n many p e r c e p t i o n ,  and p s y c h o t h e r a p y  studies.  has  communication,  35  Chapter  3  METHODOLOGY  3.1  Introduction  This Members of ted  study  of  which  is  teaching  on  teaching Previous  (1970)  sixteen  evaluator's of  studies,  r e a l i t y  while  interesting  those  institutions  of  such  the  within are  as  should  perceptions be  by  the  not  improve  as  survey  independent  members'  departments. and  associa-  them  Dressel's  department  subjective to  perceptions.  varying  report  their  wishing  of  c l a s s i f i e d  universities,  perception  have  a c t i v i t i e s  departments  "ideal". of  analysis  departments  teaching-related  with  ception  based  per-  The  very  results,  useful  departmental  for teaching  performance.  The develop  Q-methodology  research  institution quantitative based  on  Fisher's  be  Stephenson  instruments  department.  information  on  that The  of  individuals  theories  of  research  procedures,  systematically  are  collected  be  or  and  to  can of  to an  produce  questions  groups.  By  applying  selecting  perception and  used  specific  variety  design  behavior  can  instruments  a wide  behavior  s t a t i s t i c a l can  or  of  proper  information  analyzed.  36  3.2  Questions  to  Dressel's  data  ences  in  the  departments  be  Answered  show  strong  organizational having  philosophical  structures  different  d i f f e r -  employed  discipline  by  origins.  Departments i n p r o f e s s i o n a l schools tended more toward the a u t o c r a t i c and p a t e r n a l i s t i c pattern, those i n chemistry, history, and psychology preferring the democratic bureaucracy, and mathematics and E n g l i s h departments representing a m i x t u r e between an o l i g a r c h y and democracy.36  There into of  was  no  indication  differences  the  ceive  respective a  department? dual  on  institutions  and  staff  teaching  graphic ideal  are  and  activities?  Dressel,  the  p.  are  41.  and  Do  an in  the  the  different  viewpoint  students re-  from  a  "oligarchic" universities  teaching  almost  translate  students  no  with  applicable  research  backgrounds  characteristics  of  an  than ideal  instructors,  administrators?  Are  there  to  perception  variations  but  Which a  few  in  a c t i v i t i e s of  the  to  role  of  department?  These  for  education  from  have  What  relationships  teaching  which  somewhat  heads,  of  findings  research  from  preferences  services  type  than  with  department  department  or  Dressel's  emphasis  those  departments.  department  Are  universities?  of  quality  two-year have  how  educational  types  different  "paternalistic"  their  in  of  any of  demothe  are  consensus  possible  questions  37  that  can  be  questions data  are  point  3.3  asked  almost  to  Study  other  made up  population sense  to  Burnaby, the  or  Based  on  a.  related  be  collected.  suggested  Other  as  the  academic  of  population  instrument. be  used  In  to  be  this  i n the  a l l instructors, administrators  They were to  drawn  conform  to  at  the  items  study,  conventional  that  perceptions  contingency  academic the  a  t a b l e was  by  B.C.I.T.  structured of  in  of  factors  individuals,  created.  represent-  types  some d e m o g r a p h i c  held  service  s y s t e m a t i c a l l y from  a l l possible variations  hypothesis to  the  subjects.  population  sample  selection  to  Canada.  ative  be  research  s u b j e c t s were  total  to  are  possibilities.  sample w i l l  refer  personnel,  data  certain  considered  the  and  The  the  Sample  Stephenson that  before  a  personnel. might  subject  38  Table 1 Subject S e l e c t i o n Contingency  Table  E d u c a t i o n a l Background Division  Business  Gender  Business Commerce Law  Education Arts  Health Biological Sciences  Engineer Physical Science  Male Female  nil  nil  nil  Male  Core  nil  Female  Enginr g  Male  1  Health  Female  nil  Male  nil  Female  nil  nil  The purpose o f the contingency a l l p o s s i b l e combinations  t a b l e was to ensure t h a t  o f f a c t o r s were c o n s i d e r e d when  s e l e c t i n g the members o f the sample.  I t became  very q u i c k l y t h a t there were some c e l l s  obvious  i n the t a b l e t h a t  were not r e p r e s e n t e d i n the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n . for  nil  There were,  i n s t a n c e , no i n s t r u c t o r s i n the H e a l t h D i v i s i o n whose  c r e d e n t i a l s showed formal t r a i n i n g i n business s u b j e c t s . There were no female business i n the p h y s i c a l s c i e n c e s .  instructors with  training  Of the 32 p o s s i b l e c e l l s  empty and are noted as " n i l " i n Table 1.  9 were  39  Using 63  current  subjects  this  group  was drawn a  represented  f i n a l every  only  16 o f  each  had only  person of  five  from  l i s t  the  element  one person  largest  to  a l l  9 library  administrators (education).  ranged  i n  Dean  3.4  the  sample  Design  The  from  of  design  organizational  is  the  used  theory  and i n  to  They  7  each To  but  cells case  this  departments  within  the  group  a l l  Education and 5  and  senior  vice-principal  was 7 9 .  were i n  rank the  and length  faculty  administrative for  five  instructor.  provided  '  drawn  the principal  B.C.I.T.  From  heads  staff  of  the design  6 Continuing  of  ranks.  The m i s s i n g  21 department  a variety at  i n  unavailable.  s i x were  two h a d been  of  or  considered  Forty  a n d 33 i n  rank  c e l l s .  group  was drawn.  category  sample  Twenty  down  or  and c o u n s e l l i n g  factors  B.C.I.T.  fication  subjects  7 Deans,  total  tentative  instructor  smallest  including The  Other  the  a  identified  was added  Divisions,  at  the  of  was i l l , on l e a v e ,  faculty,  time  l i s t s ,  t h e 23 p o s s i b l e  instructors  from  staff  years A  i n Appendix  of  c l a s s i positions. or  less  complete  break-  C.  Study  i n  this  study  and Fisherian  has roots factorial  both  and  i n  designs.  40  Stephenson's Q-methodology i s used t o o p e r a t i o n a l i z e the  design.  Many models have been proposed to e x p l a i n s o c i o l o g y of o r g a n i z a t i o n s .  The m a j o r i t y o f the models  are based on government and c o r p o r a t e 37 L i k e r t ' s f o u r system model  the  organizations.  c o n s i s t i n g of E x p l o i t i v e  A u t h o r i t a t i v e , Benevolent A u t h o r i t a t i v e , C o n s u l t a t i v e , and P a r t i c i p a t i v e systems i s w e l l known. another system —  Laissez Faire —  He  suggested  but l e a v e s i t out  h i s model p o s s i b l y because i t i s u n o r g a n i z e d and, f o r e , by d e f i n i t i o n , o u t s i d e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f tions.  Blau  (1974) m a i n t a i n s the t y p e o f  seen i s a f u n c t i o n of s t r u c t u r e and  of  there-  organiza-  organization  s i z e and not o f p e r s o n -  a l i t i e s or c o n s c i o u s d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g of those i n the 38 operating  l e v e l o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n .  N e i t h e r of t h e s e  two views i s w e l l a c c e p t e d by o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s o c i o l o g i s t s studying  academic o r g a n i z a t i o n s .  Baldridge  a t h r e e element model f o r u n i v e r s i t i e s — C o l l e g i a l , and P o l i t i c a l . may  (1971) proposed Bureaucratic,  He n o t e d t h a t the u n i v e r s i t y  be a l l o f these depending on time, a c t i v i t i e s ,  personalities.  Enderud (1977) b u i l t on the  3 7  L i k e r t , p.  3 8  B l a u , p.  223 325.  and  Baldridge  41  model — and  to  produce  Organized  a  phase  Anarchy,  Bureaucracy.  model with  P o l i t i c a l  Enderud  four  phases  Organization,  stated  that  or  elements  Collegium,  while  university  39 organizations  are  survive.  phase  making  The  patterns  sumably  some  preferences  or  for  as  they  attempts  through  of  the  etical  basis  observed  and  behaviors  A l l  or  more  such  as  discipline  within  (1970)  in  ization.  of  the  phases  show the  that  those  familiar  decision phases.  exhibit on  Pre-  stronger  some  strength  teaching  Oligarchic,  and L a i s s e z - F a i r e than  how  to  of  observable a  dominant  group.  characterised  other  enough  four  based or  well  a  without range  t i t l e s  of  departments  Democraticany  apparent  styles  had  approximated  theor-  been  the  s e e n . ^  the  particularly action  each  to  organization  Autocratic-Paternalistic,  Bureaucratic,  function  one  clique  Dressel  model  move  parts  characteristic member  archaic  models  when  the  selecting This  observed  participants  or  study  invoke  directing  also  have  the  u t i l i z e s  the  range  some  shape  of  concept,  freedom their  a model with  of organ-  four  Harald Gjessing Enderud, Four Faces of Leadership In An Academic O r g a n i z a t i o n (Copenhagen: Arnold Busck, 1977), p. 66. Dressel,  p.  42.  42  elements.  They  Laissez-Faire, to  describe  However,  could  be  the type  that  o f behavior  Liberal  (Experimental)  —  and t e a c h i n g  or  Department-Centred.  to  those  objectives  is  created  Oligarchic, The  when  and f o u r  respectively.  control teaching  the question  elements  objectives  to use  2  design  Laissez-Faire, are generated.  and C o n s e r v a t i v e ,  could  Liberal/Experimental with  of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l  process,  an openness  and an acceptance  agrees  instructor  for learning,  evaluating  to external  with  a pre-determined i s considered  other.  They  The  that  the students  learning  the  t o new i s an  Conservative/Authoritarian  maintaining using  only  o r group  a r e l i a n c e on t h e tested  standards,  o u t l i n e and schedule. t o be  be  and A u t h o r i t a r i a n  to share  methods,  similar  i s debated.  a 2 x  and A u t o c r a t i c  are  are a willingness  philosophy  the  o f whether  The a t t r i b u t e s o f t h e  activity.  sophy  elements  labels of Experimental  individual  to  philosophy  Student-Centred  approximating  Liberal  exhibit.  (Authoritarian)  —  and m o t i v a t i o n  Paternalistic,  alternate  philosophy  or motivation  as  theoretical  departmental  or teaching  two p h i l o s o p h i e s ,  given  the departments  The m o t i v a t i o n  philosophy  such  and A u t o c r a t i c  or Conservative  emphasis  implied  combining  terms  an u n d e r l y i n g  relates to basic  —  By  with  Oligarchic, Paternalistic,  the labels obscure  construct  learning  identified  " b e t t e r " o r "more  are descriptive  only.  procedures, and  teaching  Neither  philo-  correct"  than  43  The without  elements  some a c t i v i t i e s  activities Revise  are d i f f i c u l t  —  —  to observe.  Plan, Research,  are b u i l t  t o examine  into  Five teaching-related  Instruct,  factorial  Fisher.  Using Philosophy, •Motivation,  for  d e s i g n as recommended by  variables  each v a r i a b l e ,  the contingency  and  and  a 2 x 2 x 5  Stephenson  arid"Activities  providing a series  the d e s i g n takes  table  the form  of  and  -as  levels  given i n  below.  Table Q-Sort  Evaluate,  the d e s i g n to produce  balanced  independent  quantitatively  2  Item C o n t i n g e n c y  Table  Activities Philosophy Motivation P l a n •Research" Instruct • E v i r a t e I I £n  "S"  Liberal "a"  Conservative "b"  -Revise  Student centred "c"  ace  acf  acg  ach  aci  Department centred "d"  ade  adf  adg  adh  adi  Student centred "c"  bee  bef  beg  bch  bci  Department centred "d"  bde  bdf  bdg  bdh  bdi  44  T h i s d e s i g n produced twenty c o m b i n a t i o n s o f independent v a r i a b l e s one l e v e l a t a time.  Four statements were  s e l e c t e d f o r each o f t h e twenty c e l l s i n t h e d e s i g n u s i n g the p r o c e d u r e d e t a i l e d i n 3.6.  The d e s i g n c o r r e s p o n d s c l o s e l y w i t h t h e models recommended by Stephenson. "artificially,  That i s , i t i s composed  i n s t e a d o f s e l e c t i n g i t a t random from a  parent-universe". ^ 1  The t h e o r y s t a t e d i n t h e d e s i g n i s  o n l y one o f many t h a t c o u l d be c r e a t e d t o examine mental perceptions.  depart-  From Stephenson's v i e w p o i n t t h e  i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r i s n o t how v a l i d t h e t h e o r y might be b u t t h a t some t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t based on l o g i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s was used i n t h e r e s e a r c h . framework  The d e s i g n p r o v i d e s a  t h a t ensures " t h a t each e f f e c t f o r any l e v e l ...  i s represented equally"  i n the research instrument.  f o l l o w i n g Stephenson's model c l o s e l y t h e Q - s o r t i n g and a n a l y s i s can f o l l o w Stephenson's recommendations  with  o n l y minor v a r i a t i o n s t o accommodate i n s t r u m e n t  size,  s u b j e c t p o p u l a t i o n , and computer programmes.  Stephenson, p. 66. Stephenson, p. 67.  By  45  The  a s s u m p t i o n s made  is  a direct  of  departments  their  or  and t h a t  that  The  design  but  the items,  institution,  3.5  other  and t h e i r  towards  their  derived  apply  since  t o almost  they  related  role i n  from the  perceptions.  o f the design  clothe the design  could  philosophy  of i d e n t i f y i n g v a r i a t i o n s i n departmental  main r e s t r i c t i o n s  items  there  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e and  the Q-instrument  group p h i l o s o p h i e s  the  in  or their  i s capable  The  are that  r e l a t i o n s h i p between o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  a t t i t u d e s and perceptions  teaching, design  i n the design  than  a r e more i n  i n the design  any t e a c h i n g  were drawn from a  may make t h e i n s t r u m e n t  itself.  department  particular  i n part  unacceptable  institutions.  Q-Theory  Stephenson describes  Q-methodology a s :  "a method by w h i c h an i n d i v i d u a l c a n m o d e l f o r h i m s e l f what h i s a t t i t u d e o f mind i s about complicated topics, issues, or situations. Its primary concern therefore i s with a person's s u b j e c t i v i t y a s h e d e s c r i b e s i t , n o t a s we (psychologists or onlookers) i n f e r i t . ATI measurements i n Q a r e c e n t r a l t o t h e person — the s c a l e s , so t o speak, a r e i n t h e person's own m i n d . The method begins w i t h data f o r a s i n g l e case and then proceeds by comparing i t with data from others. I t begins w i t h what one p e r s o n m o d e l s a b o u t h i m s e l f a n d c o m p a r e s  46  t h i s w i t h models p r o v i d e d by o t h e r s . These ^~ models are then s u b j e c t e d to f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . "  I n o p e r a t i o n a l terms, Q-methodology employs a process  of r a n k - o r d e r i n g a s e r i e s of t h e o r y - r e l a t e d s t a t e -  ments or i t e m s .  S u b j e c t s s o r t the items a c c o r d i n g to  one  or more r e f e r e n t s such as s e l f - i d e a l , s e l f - p r e s e n t , or group-perception.  F a c t o r a n a l y s i s i s used t o e x p l o r e  the  d a t a c o l l e c t e d and t o i d e n t i f y c l u s t e r s o f s u b j e c t s w i t h s i m i l a r perceptions.  Because the s o r t i n g p r o c e s s  requires  t h a t the s u b j e c t s make i n t e r - i t e m comparisons w h i l e ranko r d e r i n g the i t e m s , an i n s t r u m e n t w i t h even a few  items  can produce u s e f u l d a t a f o r q u a n t i t a t i v e comparison i n a r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t time. "performing  Redburn (1975) noted the  subject  a Q-sort of 'n' statements w i l l make, i n  e f f e c t , % [ n ( n - l ) ] comparisons between p a i r s o f statements i n l i t t l e more time than i s r e q u i r e d t o respond t o independent s c a l e i t e m s " .  4 4  For an 80 i t e m  'n  1  instrument  such as used i n t h i s study, the number of d e c i s i o n s r e q u i r e d of the s u b j e c t , c o n s c i o u s l y and u n c o n s c i o u s l y ,  could  W i l l i a m Stephenson, The P l a y Theory of Mass Communication (Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1967), p. 5. ( T h i s p u b l i c a t i o n i s h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as P l a y Theory.) 4 3  4 4  Redburn, p.  769.  47  approach t h e t h e o r e t i c a l maximum o f 3,160.  I n a non-Q  use o f t h e same i n s t r u m e n t , i n w h i c h each i t e m would be c o n s i d e r e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y , o n l y 80 d e c i s i o n s would be r e q u i r e d and much l e s s data c o u l d be o b t a i n e d .  As n o t e d i n Chapter  One, Q-methodology u t i l i z e s  F i s h e r ' s concept o f u s i n g b a l a n c e d f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n s t o s t r u c t u r e samples and i n s t r u m e n t s .  Although s t r u c t u r e d  i n s t r u m e n t s a r e n o t always found i n r e p o r t e d the s t r u c t u r i n g has s e v e r a l advantages.  Q-research,  I t requires a  l o g i c a l approach be taken t o s t a t i n g t h e t h e o r y u n d e r l y i n g the study and t h e i n s t r u m e n t , ensures  t h a t t h e b i a s e s and  e r r o r s i n t r o d u c e d d u r i n g the c r e a t i o n o f the items a r e r e c o g n i z e d and accounted  f o r , provides the necessary  balance  o f p o s i t i v e , n e u t r a l , and n e g a t i v e items i n t h e i n s t r u m e n t , and g i v e s a p a t t e r n f o r e n l a r g i n g o r m o d i f y i n g t h e i n s t r u ment.  Stephenson s t a t e d t h a t t h e t h e o r y i s more i m p o r t a n t  as an a i d t o c r e a t i n g t h e i n s t r u m e n t than as a h y p o t h e s i s t o be p r o v e n . S i n c e  the s u b j e c t s a r e unaware o f t h e under-  l y i n g t h e o r y o r t h e form o f t h e i n s t r u m e n t d e s i g n , they a r e a b l e o n l y t o r e a c t t o t h e i n s t r u m e n t items a c c o r d i n g t o p r e determined  instructions.  The r e s u l t a n t p a t t e r n o f rank-  o r d e r e d c h o i c e s may p r o v i d e t h e r e s e a r c h e r w i t h some i n s i g h t i n t o t h e t h i n k i n g , p h i l o s o p h i e s , p e r c e p t i o n s , and o t h e r ^  Stephenson, P l a y Theory, p. 20.  48  psychological  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the s u b j e c t that  p a r t l y r e l a t e d to the theory. s u b j e c t s "are apt to p r o j e c t ,  During the s o r t i n g to d i s p l a c e  are only process  a f f e c t , to  r a t i o n a l i z e , and to do much e l s e i n a dynamic manner, i n r e l a t i o n to e f f e c t s which are q u i t e those o f the Q-sample s t r u c t u r e . analysis  We want to be f r e e , i n  o f Q-sorts t o make use o f what the i n d i v i d u a l  a c t u a l l y does i n those r e s p e c t s " .  The the  d i f f e r e n t from  use o f f a c t o r a n a l y s i s  data a n a l y s i s  46  techniques t o a s s i s t i n  i s a l o g i c a l e x t e n s i o n o f Stephenson's  philosophy o f s t r u c t u r i n g ' i n s t r u m e n t s and measuring s u b j e c t understanding. rather  He argues f o r the use o f abductive i n f e r e n c e  than d e d u c t i v e reasoning i n a n a l y z i n g Q-sort  results.^  Proper s t a t i s t i c a l  treatment o f the Q-sort  data u s i n g a combination o f f a c t o r a n a l y s i s analysis  or c l u s t e r  and s p e c i a l i z e d Q - a n a l y s i s programmes y i e l d s  groupings i n which are c o l l e c t e d s u b j e c t s who have made similar sorting decisions. represents a hypothetical  Each grouping or c l u s t e r person whose s o r t i n g  c o r r e l a t e e x a c t l y w i t h the d e c i s i o n s that  cluster.  characteristic of  A c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x i s then produced.  46  Stephenson, Play Theory, p. 2 0 . ^  decisions  Stephenson, P l a y Theory, p.  20.  Ih  49  most s i t u a t i o n s , s u b j e c t s c o r r e l a t e w e l l w i t h one or more c l u s t e r s although there i s n o r m a l l y some degree of c o r r e l a t i o n , u s u a l l y q u i t e low, w i t h a l l c l u s t e r s by the computer.  The c l u s t e r s '  l o a d i n g s are converted  to standard scores and examined f o r d i s c r i m i n a t i n g concensus items.  found  and  C l u s t e r s are i n t e r p r e t e d by c o n s i d e r i n g  which items score h i g h e s t and lowest i n each c l u s t e r and i f any p a t t e r n s of item choice are p r e s e n t .  The p a t t e r n s  can be r e l a t e d back to the o r i g i n a l , u n d e r l y i n g theory or to some new  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t has become obvious  from the s o r t i n g p a t t e r n s .  Stephenson's use of f a c t o r a n a l y s i s employs a procedure at the c o r r e l a t i o n stage t h a t has generated  the  major amount of c r i t i c i s m and debate i n the p s y c h o l o g i c a l measurement community about Q-methodology.  Traditional  f a c t o r a n a l y s i s c o r r e l a t e s t e s t items t h a t , i n the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix, normally occupy the columns. c o r r e l a t e s persons  or the rows of the matrix.  Stephenson  With the  l o a d i n g s converted to standard s c o r e s , a l l scores i n the m a t r i x are comparable because they a l l have a mean of zero, a standard d e v i a t i o n of 1.0, argued  and are pure numbers.  Stephenson  t h a t the "zero on a l l s c a l e s i s the same a b s o l u t e  v a l u e f o r everyone"  and t h a t a l l the i n f o r m a t i o n i n the  50  scores  "bulges  tained  i n the dispersion  variance".^  out or distends  He  refers  about  from  i t —  zero,  to this  i t i s a l l con-  that  i s , i n the  e f f e c t as t h e d i s t e n s i v e  zero.  The are  zero  directly  point  and  the information  r e l a t e d t o the s e l e c t i o n of items  shape o f the s o r t i n g p a t t e r n . chosen  so t h a t  each subject  a decision referent Discriminations inherent  if  forced,  scores not  with,  The  able  are c a r e f u l l y to rank  them  an  few d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s w o u l d be p o s s i b l e ,  or  little  little  the subject  with  disagree.  I f a l l items had  validity.  meaning  usually  and i n t e r v a l  f l a t t e n e d curve  data  appears  The  standard  and comparisons  By r e q u i r i n g a l l s u b j e c t s  discrimination  to the  or  would have  point  be  items  and  e i t h e r agreed  predetermined pattern, a zero  will  are then p o s s i b l e .  would have  b e made.  The  s u c h as a g r e e , n e u t r a l ,  characteristic that  disagreed  dispersion  to sort  196.  to a  a f l a t t e n e d normal are automatically  to increase  curve, generated.  inter-item  and t h e t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y  S t e p h e n s o n , p.  could  of the  51  instrument p r o v i d i n g that at l e a s t ten categories are 49 s p e c i f i e d i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n p a t t e r n . 3.6  The Study Instrument —  Q-Sort  Items  Items were based on the t h e o r y d i s p l a y e d i n the 2 x 2 x 5  d e s i g n d i s c u s s e d i n 3.4.  Statements such as  " I n s t r u c t o r s s c h e d u l e t e s t s a t r e g u l a r i n t e r v a l s " were w r i t t e n t o r e f l e c t t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f each o f the 20 cells.  A minimum o f s i x s t a t e m e n t s was g e n e r a t e d f o r  each c e l l .  Statements were w r i t t e n from'knowledge  type o f a c t i v i t y p o s s i b l e i n most t e a c h i n g a t B.C.I.T.  departments  Each statement was examined f o r b i a s cues  o r language p e c u l i a r i t i e s t h a t would i n t r o d u c e errors.  o f the  sorting  The p o p u l a t i o n o f i t e m s was p r e s e n t e d t o a j u r y  o f 12 B.C.I.T. s t a f f members known t o have a good understanding  o f d e p a r t m e n t a l a c t i v i t i e s a t B.C.I.T. and t o be  p r e c i s e i n t h e i r use o f language.  The j u r y members were  asked t o i d e n t i f y any ambiguous or m i s l e a d i n g and t o suggest w o r d i n g improvements. recommendations,  statements  Based on t h e i r  the i t e m s were m o d i f i e d  and f o u r s t a t e -  ments p e r c e l l were s e l e c t e d f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the f i n a l 49  Norman H. L i v e s o n and Thomas F. N i c h o l s , " D i s c r i m i n a t i o n and R e l i a b i l i t y i n Q-Sort P e r s o n a l i t y D e s c r i p t i o n s , " J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 52:2:163, 1956; L e o n a r d Freeman, Q-Method 20 Years L a t e r : I t s Use's and Abuses I n Communications R e s e a r c h (ERIC Document ED 095 580, J a n u a r y 1975), pp. 16-17; Stephenson, p. 60.  52  instrument check  for  entially were 7 x  of  charged in  cm i n  individual  cards  in  into  an  of  Q-sort  a  3.7  card for  reference  listed  for  affected  to  the  secure  cue  format. paper  sorting.  E.  on The  any  The  statements  and  then  card  pot-  the  cut  were  into  had  a  The  statements  were  to  f i n a l  statements  The  cards  a  rectangles  back.  distribution  given  remove  into  Each its  to  words.  capitals  weight  randomly  shuffled subjects  and as  placed  part  Collection  for  research  evaluation  suspicion. by  collection  or  and  were  k i t .  potential some  (IBM)  Appendix  envelope  Data  with  statements  language  number  Institutional a  of  horizontal  onto  generated  The  terminology  Orator  reproduced  are  items.  uniformity  typed 5.5  80  the  results  unless  research. broad  Those  they  of have  is  that  usually  groups the  be  been  seen  viewed  that  may  consulted special  cooperation  having  many  they  or  have was  subjects  may  resist  care and  as  by  feel  research  Consequently,  institutional  can  be  data assented  taken  support  for  to this  s tudy.  Preliminary administration  discussions  staff  of  were  B.C.I.T.  held  and w i t h  with  senior  members  of  the  53  executive  of  bargaining Letters the  for  for  the  from  their  support  were  sent  was  scheduled  to  begin.  were  Staff  staff  Collective  as  a means  either  (the  and  departmental  the  Society  faculty  study the  Staff  the  the  in  a  agent  collection  agreement because  B.C.I.T.  requesting  data  support  the  of  received  Society  was  Agreement  opposing  technical  and  evaluation  staff).  well  before  Letters  retained.  process  is  could  study  or  c r i t i c a l  specified  have of  of The  particularly  and  the  legal  been  used  launching  grievance.  study  Deans  and  department  intent  and  process  Individuals visited  in  separately  outlined. given  a  and  set  a  time  Each  Q-sort of  l i m i t  on the  subjects the  person  who  agreed  10 d a y s to  were  potential  study  their  study  kits  and or  six  to  return  complete the  l i s t  apparently  returned  k i t  discussed  and  sorting  to  become  the  (Appendix  guaranteed subject  of  briefed  cooperation  sample  the  consisting  were  their  and  k i t  and  and  s t r a t i f i e d  instructions  of  convenience A l l  the  heads  80  the  anonymity.  interested  them u n s o r t e d .  a  sorting  declined  was  requested.  in  3.3  process  They  with  the  to  were  were  given  at  their cards.  two  persons  participate  subjects Four  of  was  cards  sorted  Only  were  subject  statement  H).  the  on  in  retained  the  six  a  54  thought  they  data  the  79  to  had missed computing  subjects.  demographic part  of  centre.  group  for  Q-sorts  submission  were  supplied  was r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  groups  of  of  i n  the  over  a  a l l  the  by  the  educational  B.C.I.T.  The shown  This  the deadline  80 s t a t e m e n t s  were  sorted  13 p o i n t  scale  below.  Table Q-Sort  Frequency  Strongly Agree  Score Frequency  were  to  you believe  "What  9 9  instructed-  teaching  department  provided  i n Appendix  Distribution  Strongly Disagree  Neutral  13 12 1 1 10 1 2 4 7  Subjects  3  to at H.  be  8 7 6 11 12 11  to  sort  5 9  the  4 7  2 2  statements  the operational  B.C.I.T."  3 4  Detailed  style  1 1  (n=80)  i n of  reference an  instructions  ideal are  55  3.8  Data  Analysis  Subjects' according  Techniques  s e l e c t i o n s were  to the scale  uter  cards.  item  s e l e c t i o n s f o r each  subjects  A  i n Table  set of three  were  analyzed  programmes  —  programmes  provided  tations  UBC  since  analysis  Correlations culated  and  diagonal and at  t h e two  from  two  were  an eigenvalue  clusters  of  i n the matrix  a  of variables that  used  relationships.  patterns  factor  were  cal-  prepared.  The  Eigenvalues  a cutoff point set  varimax  the reference  number be u s e d  from  to each  to explain  method axes  other  factor  t h e many  of factors or  The p r o c e d u r e  The p r i n c i p a l  The normal  to rotate  the  compu-  perspectives.  to extract  could  which were u n r e l a t e d  used  of the  matrix-was  smaller  factors  used.  computer  o f t h e two  approached  sorting  a l l 79  1.0.  pattern  was  Use  comp-  the weighted  from  the v a l i d i t y  calculated with  a n a l y s i s was  orthogonal.  researcher  analysis  s e t a t 1.0's.  sorting  being  data  statistical  subjects'  was  The  FAN.  intercorrelation  eigenvectors  variables  on  the  represented  factor  programmes  of the matrix  Factor  two  a n d UBC  different  among an  subject.  a check  by  3 and t r a n s f e r r e d t o  cards  using  FACTO  scored  —  identified described  solution  of rotation  i n factor  subject  space  as  method was  then  to reveal  56  any b a s i c s t r u c t u r e h i d d e n i n t h e p a t t e r n produced by t h e p r i n c i p a l f a c t o r method.  The r o t a t e d c l u s t e r m a t r i x was reduced  t o a "one-  l o a d i n g - p e r - s u b j e c t " r o t a t e d c l u s t e r m a t r i x by d e l e t i n g a l l but the dominant l o a d i n g f o r each s u b j e c t .  Each  s u b j e c t was then a s s o c i a t e d w i t h o n l y one c l u s t e r .  Each  c l u s t e r e x t r a c t e d by the a n a l y s i s was c o r r e l a t e d w i t h each i t e m i n an a r r a y o f w e i g h t e d  i t e m responses  i t e m p r e f e r e n c e s c o u l d be observed subjects.The scores.  so t h a t the  f o r each c l u s t e r o f  i t e m w e i g h t i n g s were c o n v e r t e d t o Z-  Those items w i t h Z-scores  above 1.0 o r below  -1.0 were a n a l y z e d c l u s t e r by c l u s t e r i n r e l a t i o n t o the experimental design (Table3).  Those c l u s t e r s t h a t were  A w e i g h t i n g c o n s t a n t (W) was c a l c u l a t e d f o r each s u b j e c t from the s u b j e c t ' s h i g h e s t f a c t o r l o a d i n g and the formula: u  Si  2" where a = h i g h e s t f a c t o r l o a d i n g 1 - a The w e i g h t i n g c o n s t a n t was a p p l i e d t o each i t e m s c o r e f o r a l l persons h i g h l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each f a c t o r o r c l u s t e r and a l l the w e i g h t e d s o l u t i o n s f o r each i t e m were summed. W =  WS^  = (Score-^ ^ x W^)  + (Score-^ ^ x Mi^) + ( S c o r e ^  where: Score ^ ^ = s c o r e on i t e m 1 f o r s u b j e c t 1 Score i  = x  s c o r e on i t e m 1 f o r s u b j e c t x  = weighting constant f o r person 1 WS  1  = weighted  score f o r item 1  x  x  W) x  57  found to have s i m i l a r scores i n r e l a t i o n to the  design  were combined i n t o a small number of groups and  their  Z-scores weighted again on the b a s i s of the number of s u b j e c t s from each c l u s t e r were combined i n t o the  new  groups.  3.9  Summary  The  s u b j e c t s i n t h i s study were s e l e c t e d from  members o f the B.C.I.T. s t a f f so that a l l groups i n the academic l i n e would be r e p r e s e n t e d . c i p l i n e , experience, considered  r o l e , and  Gender, d i s -  department were a l l  i n the s t r u c t u r i n g o f the p o p u l a t i o n  sample.  Seventy nine s u b j e c t s were chosen.  The  Q-sort was  c r e a t e d to conform to a t h e o r e t i c a l  c o n s t r u c t based on independent v a r i a b l e s of M o t i v a t i o n , and A c t i v i t i e s , department.  a l l a p p l i e d to a  A 20 c e l l design was  c r e a t e d and  Philosophy, teaching fo€r  items per c e l l generated i n accordance w i t h the The  Q - s o r t i n g was  test  theory.  done over a 13 p o i n t s c a l e u s i n g as a  r e f e r e n t the s u b j e c t s ' p e r c e p t i o n of the a c t i v i t i e s an i d e a l teaching department at B.C.I.T.  The  of  results  were subjected to f a c t o r a n a l y s i s to produce c l u s t e r s of subjects with s i m i l a r s o r t i n g patterns.  58  Chapter  4  ANALYSIS OF DATA  4.1  Introduction  The computer was programmed t o s e l e c t a l l c l u s t e r s h a v i n g e i g e n v a l u e s o f 1.0 o r g r e a t e r . were produced.  Nineteen  clusters  A l t h o u g h a s m a l l e r number o f clus.ters c o u l d  have been s p e c i f i e d , t h e i n t e n t was t o i d e n t i f y as many c l u s t e r s as p o s s i b l e , t o determine what i t e m s e l e c t i o n p a t t e r n s were produced, and then t o i n t e g r a t e t h e c l u s t e r r e s u l t s w i t h the experimental design.  Because no c e l l  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n was p r o v i d e d w i t h each i t e m , t h e programme could not provide the necessary design to c l u s t e r and e x t e n s i v e hand c a l c u l a t i o n s were r e q u i r e d .  correlation  Based on  c o r r e l a t i o n s r e l a t e d t o t h e d e s i g n , c l u s t e r s were combined i n t o a s m a l l e r number o f groups and t h e groups i n t o Types.  4.2  F u r t h e r Steps i n A n a l y s i s  The Z-scores for  final  s t e p s o f t h e computer a n a l y s i s produced  f o r a l l items and d u s t e r s , r a n k - o r d e r e d  a l l Z-scores  Z-scores  above 0.30 o r below -0.30, and d i f f e r e n c e  s c o r e s f o r p a i r s o f items t a k e n from o p p o s i t e ends o f ranko r d e r e d Z-score l i s t s f o r a l l p a i r s o f c l u s t e r s .  F o r each  of t h e 19 c l u s t e r s , l i s t s were p r e p a r e d o f a l l items  having  59  Z-scores g r e a t e r than 1.0 and l e s s than -1.0.  The c e l l  r e f e r e n c e s f o r a l l o f these s e l e c t e d items were i d e n t i fied.  For example, item 10 was one o f the f o u r items  a l l o c a t e d t o the "bee" c e l l i n the experimental d e s i g n . Z-scores were then c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the c e l l s . cell  C e l l by  c a l c u l a t i o n o f Z-scores proved to be a non-productive  method o f e x t r a c t i n g u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n from the data. Z-scores were then summed f o r each o f the f o l l o w i n g  levels  and p a i r s o f l e v e l s i n the d e s i g n : ac, ad, be, bd, a, b, c, d, e, f , g, h,  i .  The r e s u l t s o f that summation are noted i n Appendix A.  P a t t e r n s o f l o a d i n g s were i d e n t i f i e d and c l u s t e r s w i t h s i m i l a r Z-score p a t t e r n s were combined on a weighted b a s i s w i t h the weighting b e i n g determined by the number of  s u b j e c t s i n the combined c l u s t e r s .  P a t t e r n s were sought  i n the d e s i g n l e v e l s : a, b, c, d, ac, ad, be, bd. w h i l e the a c t i v i t y l e v e l s were t e m p o r a r i l y i g n o r e d .  Sufficient  s i m i l a r i t i e s among the 19 c l u s t e r s were found w i t h i n the 8 l e v e l s above that the 19 c l u s t e r s were reduced to 6 groups. The 6 groups  are d e s c r i b e d i n Appendix A.  New  Q-scores  60  were produced  f o r each group by s e l e c t i n g from each  c l u s t e r those items having weighted Z-scores above and below -1.0.  1.0  Those scores were re-weighted on the  b a s i s of the number o f s u b j e c t s i n each of the c l u s t e r s combined i n t o the new  groups.  As a r e s u l t o f the  new  combinations and w e i g h t i n g s , some items had t h e i r scores move to between 1.0 from the l i s t the  and -1.0.  Those items were removed  o f those c o n s i d e r e d to be c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of  group.  4.3  R e s u l t s of the A n a l y s i s  The computer a n a l y s i s produced 19 c l u s t e r s  which  r e p r e s e n t e d a cummulated p r o p o r t i o n o f eigenvalues o f 0.945.  The f a c t o r s o l u t i o n accounted f o r 78.9  the  t o t a l v a r i a n c e i n f a c t o r space.  the  r e s u l t s of various s t a t i s t i c a l  of  Appendix  percent o f F records  t e s t s conducted as p a r t  the a n a l y s i s .  F u r t h e r examination of the s i x groups formed the  19 c l u s t e r s r e v e a l e d that three Types  c o u l d be  from extracted.  The Types were based on v a r i a t i o n s i n l o a d i n g p a t t e r n s w i t h i n departmental p h i l o s o p h y ("a" and "b") C'c" and "d") .  and m o t i v a t i o n  61  Two  of the three Types contained groups  by d i f f e r e n c e s i n a c t i v i t y l e v e l s — and " i " .  distinguished  "e", " f " , "g", "h",  Type A contained groups 1 and 2 which  contain  c l u s t e r s 9, 18, 3, and 8, and 10, 1, 5, and 17 r e s p e c t i v e l y . Both groups had strong p o s i t i v e Q-scores on "be" and and strong n e g a t i v e scores on "ac", "a", and "h".  "b"  They  were d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from each other by having group 1 w i t h a l a r g e score on "e" but not "g" and group 2 h a v i n g the r e v e r s e on "e" and "g" to group 1.  The b a s i c p h i l o s o p h i e s  and m o t i v a t i o n s of the two groups were found to be  similar  but the a c t i v i t i e s each group r a t e d h i g h e s t were d i f f e r e n t . In a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n , groups 3, 4 and 5 were combined  to  form Type B and group 6 alone formed Type C.  Q - a n a l y s i s n o r m a l l y makes use of concensus items to show s i m i l a r i t y and d i f f e r e n c e p a t t e r n s among the f a c t o r s and types.  An a n a l y s i s o f the ranges o f item Z-score  l o a d i n g s showed that there were no concensus items i f concensus items are d e f i n e d as those having a range of l e s s than 1.0  i n Z-score across a l l c l u s t e r s .  f o r a l l items i s g i v e n i n Appendix D.  The range  Another form o f con-  census d e f i n i t i o n could be to i d e n t i f y those items which were s i g n i f i c a n t items (above 1.0 or below -1.0) groups.  Only two items f i t t e d that c r i t e r i o n .  for a l l Item 57,  "Course o b j e c t i v e s are given to students at the s t a r t of the  62  term" appears i n a l l s i x groups above Z-score o f 1.0  and  i t e m 65, "Student grades are used as a gauge of i n s t r u c t i o n a l s u c c e s s " , appears i n a l l s i x groups below -1.0.  Twenty  t h r e e o t h e r items w i t h b o t h p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e s i g n i f i c a n t l o a d i n g s were unique t o o n l y one group. i n the group a n a l y s i s s e c t i o n 4.3 a r e summarized i n T a b l e 4.  as unique items and  A l l s i x groups c o n t a i n at l e a s t  two u n i q u e items w i t h group 4 c o n t a i n i n g  4,4  They a r e i d e n t i f i e d  10.  D e s c r i p t i o n o f Group and Type C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  As n o t e d i n 4.2,  Type A l o a d e d s t r o n g l y p o s i t i v e l y  on "be" and n e g a t i v e l y on " a c " .  Dominant a c t i v i t y l o a d i n g s  were p o s i t i v e on "e" f o r group 1 and "g" f o r group 2 and n e g a t i v e l y on "h" f o r b o t h groups.  R e l a t e d t o the e x p e r i -  mental d e s i g n i n T a b l e 2, these l o a d i n g s i n d i c a t e a type t h a t i s c o n s e r v a t i v e and s t u d e n t - c e n t r e d i n o u t l o o k . c o m b i n a t i o n c o u l d be termed p a t e r n a l i s t i c .  The  This  items  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h i s type r e f l e c t the a t t i t u d e o f a department  t h a t wants t o be i n c o n t r o l o f a c a r e f u l l y  o r g a n i z e d program t h a t w i l l guide the s t u d e n t s t o g o a l s p r e - d e t e r m i n e d by the department.  N i n e t e e n o f the 31 s u b j e c t s  w h i c h c o l l e c t e d i n t h i s Type had h i g h p o s i t i v e Q-scores f o r  63  p l a n n i n g as a departmental a c t i v i t y and n e g a t i v e Q-scores for evaluation.  The o t h e r 1 2 - r e t a i n e d the v e r y n e g a t i v e 0-  scores f o r e v a l u a t i o n but were p o s i t i v e to i n s t r u c t i o n and ignored planning;  Table -4- compares t h e : d i f f e r e n c e s i n items  s e l e c t e d by the two groups w i t h i n Type A. Table  4  Type A C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Items  A.  P o s i t i v e Q-Scores 1.  2.  (Items Agreed With)  Common Items 21  Course standards are s e t h i g h enough to guarantee that graduates w i l l be of h i g h q u a l i t y  56  Department plans course changes when i t can i d e n t i f y new employment opport u n i t i e s f o r graduates  57  Course o b j e c t i v e s are g i v e n to students at the s t a r t o f each term  Planners 60  A v a i l a b l e job openings f o r graduates are used to determine enrolment l e v e l targets  38  I n d u s t r y surveys are used to a i d i n curriculum design  27  P l a n n i n g i s based on long-term d e p a r t mental o b j e c t i v e s  64  3.  B.  Instructors 42  I n s t r u c t i o n i s c a r e f u l l y scheduled so a l l t o p i c s can be t a u g h t by the end o f term  59  I n s t r u c t o r s p r o v i d e a model f o r students to f o l l o w  32  I n s t r u c t i o n i s c a r e f u l l y paced so s t u d e n t s can complete the e s s e n t i a l c o u r s e o b j e c t i v e s by term end  46  Course o b j e c t i v e s are based h e a v i l y on the e x p e r i e n c e o f the i n s t r u c t o r s  N e g a t i v e Q-Scores (Items D i s a g r e e d With) 1.  Common Items 2  2.  3.  C l a s s marks a r e a d j u s t e d i f they are e i t h e r lower o r h i g h e r than expected  63  Students a r e graded by comparing t h e i r work a g a i n s t t h a t o f t h e i r c l a s s m a t e s  72  Students can s e l e c t a v a r i e t y o f s t a r t i n g l e v e l s i n t h e i r courses  65  Student grades are used as a gauge o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l success  Planners 41  Students c o l l e c t d a t a f o r i n s t r u c t o r ' s research projects  80  A l l s t u d e n t s can a c h i e v e a f i r s t c l a s s s t a n d i n g i f they master s t a t e d learning objectives  9  Course o b j e c t i v e s are j o i n t l y s e t by i n s t r u c t o r and s t u d e n t s  Instructors 68  Any proposed c o u r s e changes a r e i n p i l o t groups  checked  65  51  I n s t r u c t o r s and students c o o p e r a t i v e l y seek new methods of r e a c h i n g course obj e c t i v e s  8  Quiz marks are expected to range from v e r y low to v e r y h i g h w i t h an average of about 65 percent.  Type B contained groups 3, 4, and 5.having 15, and 12 s u b j e c t s r e s p e c t i v e l y .  The  17,  dominant p h i l o s o p h y  and m o t i v a t i o n l o a d i n g s were r e v e r s e d compared w i t h those of Type A.  Subjects i n Type B were p o s i t i v e to  L i b e r a l and P l a n n i n g and n e g a t i v e to both and E v a l u a t i o n .  Group 4 was  Conservative  n o t a b l e i n having the h i g h e s t  Q-scores of a l l s i x groups and having the only l a r g e Q-score on "ac", L i b e r a l and Student-centred. was  Group 3  d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from group 4 by having a n e g a t i v e  Q-score on "ac" and a h i g h e r Q-score on "ad". Q-scores,  Group 5  i n most cases, were found to l i e somewhat between  those of groups 3 and 4. of a l l 6 groups on "be"  Group 5 had —  the l a r g e s t Q-score  C o n s e r v a t i v e and  'Student-centred.  However, the s i n g l e l e v e l Q-score p a t t e r n s were p a r a l l e l i f v a r i a b l e i n s i z e o f the s c o r e s . l a r g e s t number, 10, to any group.  Group 4 a l s o had  the  of s i g n i f i c a n t items t h a t were unique  Type B c o u l d be d e s c r i b e d as having marked  l i b e r a l attitudes,  s u p p o r t i n g p l a n n i n g , and  disliking  66  evaluation.  A l s o , about two  t h i r d s of the s u b j e c t s were  s t r o n g supporters of a s t u d e n t - c e n t r e d p h i l o s o p h y  while  the other t h i r d had no strong tendencies toward e i t h e r s t u d e n t - c e n t r e d or department-centred compares the d i f f e r e n c e s i n items  attitudes.  Table  s e l e c t e d by the three  groups w i t h i n Type B.  Table  5  Type B C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Items  A.  Positive 1.  2.  Q-Scores (Items Agreed With)  Common Items 57  Course o b j e c t i v e s are g i v e n to students at the s t a r t of each term  69  T e s t s are based on s t a t e d course obj e c t i v e s  38  Industry surveys are used to a i d i n curriculum design  Liberal —  somewhat Department-centred  29  Department members c o l l e c t i v e l y p l a n programme changes  27  P l a n n i n g i s based on long-term departmental o b j e c t i v e s  25  I n s t r u c t i o n a l goals are set to meet work-place requirements  56  Department plans course changes when i t can i d e n t i f y new employment opport u n i t i e s f o r graduates  79  Laboratory e x e r c i s e s are w e l l i n t e grated i n t o l e c t u r e m a t e r i a l s .  5  67  3.  Liberal — 80  A l l students can achieve a f i r s t c l a s s s t a n d i n g i f they master s t a t e d learning objectives  55  I n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s are designed to meet a wide range of student needs  51  I n s t r u c t o r s and students c o o p e r a t i v e l y seek new methods of r e a c h i n g course obj e c t i v e s  72  Students can s e l e c t a v a r i e t y of s t a r t i n g l e v e l s i n t h e i r courses  54  Several d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques are used i n each course  1 4.  Student suggestions f o r course changes are c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r e d by i n s t r u c t o r s  Liberal — 32  B.  s t r o n g l y Student-centred  Student-centred —  Paternalistic  I n s t r u c t i o n i s c a r e f u l l y p'acedJ so students can complete the e s s e n t i a l o b j e c t i v e s by term end  course  27  P l a n n i n g i s based on long-term departmental o b j e c t i v e s  25  I n s t r u c t i o n a l goals are set to meet work-place requirements  61  Student e v a l u a t i o n of i n s t r u c t o r s i s an accepted departmental p r a c t i c e  59  I n s t r u c t o r s p r o v i d e a model f o r students to f o l l o w  Negative Q-Scores (Items Disagreed With)_ 1.  Common Items 63 8  41  Students are graded by comparing t h e i r work a g a i n s t that of t h e i r classmates Quiz marks are expected to range from v e r y low to v e r y h i g h w i t h an average of about 65 percent Students c o l l e c t data f o r i n s t r u c t o r ' s research project  68  10  2  C l a s s marks a r e a d j u s t e d i f they a r e e i t h e r lower or h i g h e r than expected  4  Students a r e r e q u i r e d to submit at l e a s t one assignment per course each week  15 2.  4.  Students a r e r e q u i r e d to a t t e n d a l l classes unless i l l  Liberal — 9  3.  E a r l y term t e s t s have h i g h enough standards that poor students are convinced to drop out q u i c k l y  somewhat Department-centred  Course o b j e c t i v e s a r e j o i n t l y s e t by i n s t r u c t o r s and students  22  Student grades a r e analyzed to determine the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f i n s t r u c t o r t e a c h i n g methods  53  Second year enrolment t a r g e t s are s e t to be lower than f i r s t year enrolment targets  Liberal —  s t r o n g l y Student-centred  64  Changes i n c u r r i c u l u m a r e a u t h o r i z e d by the department head  36  T o p i c s f o r student p r o j e c t s are chosen by the department  34  New i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods are implemented when a m a j o r i t y o f the department agrees  65  Student grades a r e used as a gauge o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l success  Liberal —  Student-centred —  Paternalistic  12  F i n a l grades c o n t a i n p r o v i s i o n f o r some d i s c r e t i o n a r y marks f o r student a t t i t u d e  71  I n s t r u c t o r s i d e n t i f y p o t e n t i a l jobs f o r t h e i r best students  23  Teaching a s s i s t a n t s a r e used i n some c l a s s e s to reduce i n s t r u c t o r l o a d  69  Type C contained  group 6 and had  only 4 s u b j e c t s .  T h i s group could have been d i s c a r d e d except i t contained one key  s u b j e c t and had  s e v e r a l f e a t u r e s that were d i s t i n c t  from the other 5 groups.  The  Q-score p a t t e r n was  similar  to t h a t of group 2 i n Type A but w i t h s e v e r a l d i s t i n c t differences.  The  Q-score f o r "ad" was  n e g a t i v e Q-score of a l l s i x groups.  the  strongest  A l s o , Type C  contained  the only group to have a p o s i t i v e Q-score f o r "bd".  In  the a c t i v i t y l e v e l s , Type C had  the l a r g e s t p o s i t i v e Q-score  on " f " and  Q-score on " i " .  the l a r g e s t n e g a t i v e  Subjects  i n t h i s type c o u l d be d e s c r i b e d as c o n s e r v a t i v e and student-centred. and  They supported  research-oriented  somewhat activities  d i s l i k e d making changes ( r e v i s i o n ) i n t h e i r planned  activities. Type C.  Table  6 lists  the statements t y p i c a l  of  70  Table 6 Type C C h a r a c t e r i s t i c  A.  B.  Items  P o s i t i v e Q-Scores (Items A g r e e d With) 66  Students a r e t o l d a t t h e s t a r t o f term what t h e p a s s i n g s t a n d a r d s a r e  40  Students a r e encouraged t o use t h e l i b r a r y t o i n v e s t i g a t e open-ended problems  45  Proposed i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s are c l e a r l y o u t l i n e d t o s t u d e n t s before classes begin  48  Class timetables are organized to p e r m i t some independent s t u d y  18  Students can n e g o t i a t e t h e d e t a i l s o f major assignments w i t h t h e i r instructors  Negative Q-Scores;(Items.Disagreed  With)  2  C l a s s marks a r e a d j u s t e d i f they a r e e i t h e r lower o r h i g h e r than expected  19  Course s t a n d a r d s a r e based on c u r r e n t job requirements  8  Any proposed c o u r s e changes a r e checked i n p i l o t groups  46  Course o b j e c t i v e s a r e based h e a v i l y on t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e i n s t r u c t o r s  72  Students can s e l e c t a v a r i e t y o f s t a r t i n g l e v e l s i n t h e i r courses  71  4.5  D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Types W i t h i n Subject P o p u l a t i o n  The d i s t r i b u t i o n of s u b j e c t s among the three was c o r r e l a t e d  w i t h demographic data on the s u b j e c t s .  Tables  7, 8, 9, and 10 compare the expected w i t h the  actual  d i s t r i b u t i o n among the Types and demographic  variables.  types  The expected  d i s t r i b u t i o n was generated  the number o f s u b j e c t s i n each category  from  ( i . e . there were  7 deans) and the percent of s u b j e c t s i n each Type. Table  7 examines the r e l a t i o n s h i p s  between the s u b j e c t s '  i n s t i t u t i o n a l r o l e and t h e i r Type.  The two summary l i n e s f o r both " A l l Deans and Heads" and " A l l F a c u l t y " show a Type d i s t r i b u t i o n that has an almost p e r f e c t ution.  c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h the t o t a l s u b j e c t d i s t r i b -  The two groups appeared to have s i m i l a r  attitudes  when i n s t i t u t e , d i v i s i o n or s u b j e c t d i s t i n c t i o n s are ignored.  When each demographic l e v e l was  examined  s e p a r a t e l y , the department heads of the Business and E n g i n e e r i n g D i v i s i o n ,  Division  and the f a c u l t y of the H e a l t h  D i v i s i o n were seen to be over-represented  i n Type A and  the deans, s e n i o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f , and the c o n t i n u i n g education department heads and f a c u l t y i n Type A.  under-represented  However, i n Type B, the p a t t e r n was  reversed.  72  Table 7 Subject D i s t r i b u t i o n  Among Type By I n s t i t u t i o n a l Role  Type C  Type B  Type A  Expected Found Expected Found Expected Found T o t a l s  Role Dean  2.7  1  3.9  5  0.4  1  7  Business Head  1.6  3  2.2  0  0.2  1  4  Core Head  1.6  2  2.2  2  0.2  0  4  Engineering Head  1.6  3  2.2  1  0.2  0  4  Health Head  1.6  3  2.2  1  0.2  0  4  Cont. Ed. Head  1.2  0  1.7  3  0.2  0  3  Other Admin Head  2.0  1  2.8  4  0.3  0  5  Business Faculty  3.5  4  5.0  4  0.5  1  9  Core Faculty  2.4  2  3.3  4  0.3  0  6  Engineering Faculty  3.5  4  5.0  4  0.5  1  9  Health Faculty  3.5  5  5.0  4  0.5  0  9  Cont. Ed. Faculty  2.4  0  3.3  6  0.3  0  6  Other Faculty  3.5  3  5.0  6  0.5  0  9  A l l Deans & Heads  12.5  13  17.8  17  1.6  2  32  F a c u l t y 18.4  18  26.2  27  2.4  2  47  All  73  The  a c t u a l and a n t i c i p a t e d d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r Type C were  so small t h a t few u s e f u l demographic judgements could be made except  t h a t no l a r g e departures  from a n t i c i p a t e d  p a t t e r n s were observed.  Departments-heads o f Core and H e a l t h  and  Core, E n g i n e e r i n g ,  f a c u l t y o f Business,  and Support  (e.g. L i b r a r y , C o u n s e l l i n g ) D i v i s i o n s were d i s t r i b u t e d among the three Types c l o s e to the average values f o r the whole p o p u l a t i o n .  R e l a t i o n s h i p s between e d u c a t i o n a l background and Type p r e f e r e n c e are shown i n Table 8.  The number o f  e n t r i e s i s l a r g e r than the number o f s u b j e c t s because some s u b j e c t s had formal t r a i n i n g i n two or more o f the f i v e c r i t e r i a used.  Table 8 Subject D i s t r i b u t i o n Among Type By E d u c a t i o n a l T r a i n i n g  Education  Expected  Found Expected  Commerce/ Law  6.3  7  Education  9.0  7  Arts  4.7  2  Health/BioSciences  7.4  Engineering Phys. S c i  11.4  Type C  Type B  Type A  12 9  8.9 12.8 6.7 10.6 16.2  Found Expected  Found T o t a l  0.8  2  16  15  1.2  1  23  8  0.6  2  12  7  1.0  0  19  1.5  1  29  7  19  74  Subjects physical and  with  A,  and those  backgrounds with  i n education,  s c i e n c e s , and g e n e r a l  librarianship)  Type  training  were  education,  were with  found  arts  or biological  over-represented.  over-represented  while  commerce,  were  appeared  t o be o v e r - r e p r e s e n t e d  judgements  Table  showed  10  tained  three  what  was  population could  compares  small  and  were biological arts  C although the  enough  times  than  t o make  expected,  Type  with  p o p u l a t i o n except  over  subjects with 5 years  distribution  would  from  Neither  the pattern  Type  C  con-  less  than  5  years  a  reversal  o n l y m a l e s when t h e  suggest  t o appear i n that  preference  that  experience,  and c o n t a i n e d  Type  preference.  Q-score differences  a s many  with  be expected  length of service  gender w i t h  by t h e whole  experience of  9 compares  any s i g n i f i c a n t  displayed  C were  sciences  difficult.  Table and  i n Type  subjects  Commerce, l a w , a n d i n Type  i n  sciences  law, h e a l t h ,  under-represented.  expected  journalism  B,  I n Type  or physical  sciences  numbers  (including  t o be u n d e r - r e p r e s e n t e d  health,  engineering,  engineering,  at least  Type.  one  female  75  Table 9 S u b j e c t D i s t r i b u t i o n Among Types By L e n g t h o f S e r v i c e  Time.  Type C  Type B  Type A  Expected Found E x p e c t e d Found E x p e c t e d Found T o t a l  Under 5 years  9.0  7  12.8  13  1.2  3  23  5 years Si over  22.0  24  31.2  31  2.9  1  56  T a b l e 10 S u b j e c t D i s t r i b u t i o n Among Types By Gender o f S u b j e c t  Type C Type B Type A Gender. . Expected Found Expected. Found Expected Found T o t a l Female Male  5.9  6  8.4  9  0.8  0  15  25.1  25  35.6  35  3.3  4  64  The r e s u l t s o f t h e a n a l y s i s o f Type by demographic l e v e l i n d i c a t e d that c o n s e r v a t i v e a t t i t u d e s are accepted more by B u s i n e s s , H e a l t h , and E n g i n e e r i n g heads, H e a l t h f a c u l t y , and those w i t h h e a l t h , and b i o l o g i c a l s c i e n c e s  76  background than by any other group.  Liberal  attitudes  were more a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the deans, other s e n i o r admini s t r a t i v e s t a f f , C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n heads and  faculty,  and those w i t h backgrounds i n education, e n g i n e e r i n g , p h y s i c a l s c i e n c e s , and, p o s s i b l y ,  4.6  arts.  D i s c r i m i n a t i o n Among Types by Item P r e f e r e n c e  As noted i n 4.3,  there were no concensus  items  i d e n t i f i e d f o r a l l c l u s t e r s but a number of items were shared among the c l u s t e r s making up a group or a Type. The Types were examined to i d e n t i f y items which d i s c r i m i n a t e d one Type from the other two.  Three-way  comparisons of items having e i t h e r h i g h or low were made. isons.  priority  Table 11 and F i g u r e 1 summarize those compar-  77  Table 11 P r i o r i t y Comparison o f Items Among Types  More than Types B and C, Type A puts h i g h p r i o r i t y on: 60  A v a i l a b l e j o b openings f o r graduates are used to determine enrolment l e v e l t a r g e t s  42  I n s t r u c t i o n i s c a r e f u l l y scheduled so a l l t o p i c s can be taught by the end o f term  More than Types B and C, Type A puts low p r i o r i t y on: 80  A l l students can achieve a f i r s t c l a s s s t a n d i n g i f they master s t a t e d l e a r n i n g objectives  14  Teaching p r o c e s s e s - a r e a u t o m a t i c a l l y , reviewed when c l a s s marks a r e lower than expected  72  Students can s e l e c t a v a r i e t y o f s t a r t i n g l e v e l s i n t h e i r courses  More than Types A and C, Type B puts h i g h p r i o r i t y on: 54  S e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques are used i n each course  1  Student suggestions f o r course changes are c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r e d by i n s t r u c t o r s  72  Students can s e l e c t a v a r i e t y o f s t a r t i n g l e v e l s i n t h e i r courses  80  A l l students can achieve a f i r s t c l a s s standing i f they master s t a t e d l e a r n i n g obj e c t i v e s  61  Student e v a l u a t i o n of i n s t r u c t o r s i s an accepted departmental p r a c t i c e  78  29  Departmental members c o l l e c t i v e l y p l a n programme changes  55  I n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s a r e designed to meet a wide range o f student needs  51  I n s t r u c t o r s and students c o o p e r a t i v e l y seek new methods o f r e a c h i n g course o b j e c t i v e s  25  I n s t r u c t i o n a l goals a r e s e t to meet workp l a c e requirements.  79  Laboratory e x e r c i s e s are w e l l into lecture materials  integrated  More than Types A and C, Type B puts low p r i o r i t y on: 12  F i n a l grades c o n t a i n p r o v i s i o n s f o r some d i s c r e t i o n a r y marks f o r student a t t i t u d e  53  Second year enrolment t a r g e t s are s e t to be lower than f i r s t year enrolment t a r g e t s  22  Student grades are analyzed to determine the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f i n s t r u c t o r t e a c h i n g methods  71  Instructors i d e n t i f y p o t e n t i a l jobs f o r t h e i r b e s t graduates  23  Teaching a s s i s t a n t s are used i n some c l a s s e s to reduce i n s t r u c t o r l o a d  36  T o p i c s f o r student p r o j e c t s are chosen by the department  64  Changes i n c u r r i c u l u m are a u t h o r i z e d by the department head  More than Types A and B, Type C puts h i g h p r i o r i t y on: 66  Students a r e t o l d a t the s t a r t o f term what the p a s s i n g standards a r e  48  C l a s s t i m e t a b l e s a r e o r g a n i z e d to permit some independent study  45  Proposed i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s are c l e a r l y o u t l i n e d to students b e f o r e c l a s s e s b e g i n  79  40  Students are encouraged to use the l i b r a r y to i n v e s t i g a t e open-ended problems  18  Students can n e g o t i a t e the d e t a i l s of major assignments w i t h t h e i r i n s t r u c t o r s  More than Types A and B, Type C puts low p r i o r i t y 19  Course standards requirements  54  Several d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l are used i n each course  The  items  on:  are based on c u r r e n t job techniques  l i s t e d i n Table 11 are the only  items  i n the l i s t o f 80 items which f i t each o f the 6 c a t e g o r i e s . The number as w e l l as the c h o i c e of items of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the three Types. c o n t a i n a mixture  of l i b e r a l and  i s an  indication  Type A  choices  c o n s e r v a t i v e items  have a s l i g h t p r e f e r e n c e f o r c o n s e r v a t i v e items.  but  There  i s a l a c k of d e f i n i t i o n i n the p r e f e r e n c e s , no strong b i a s e s that would produce h i g h Q-scores f o r s p e c i f i c items. the s m a l l number of h i g h and  low p r i o r i t y items.  c h o i c e o f the p r i o r i t y items  confirms  Hence  The  the e a r l i e r d e s c r i p -  t i o n of Type A as p r e f e r r i n g to be i n c o n t r o l of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n and not w i s h i n g  to i n c o r p o r a t e  f l e x i b l e methods i n t o t h e i r t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s . l a r g e number of both high and  The  low p r i o r i t y items f o r  Type B i s a r e f l e c t i o n o f the strong Q-scores seen i n  very  80  Appendix A.  A l s o , the s t r o n g p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s  between Type A and B can be seen i n the c h o i c e o f Type A low p r i o r i t y list  items which a l l appear i n the h i g h  o f Type B.  p r i o r i t y items  S i m i l a r l y , one o f Type C's two low are on the Type B h i g h p r i o r i t y  The  choice o f items  for  p r o g r e s s i v e , student-centred behaviors  of  paternalistic,  behaviors.  priority  list.  f o r Type B c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e support and a r e j e c t i o n  i n s t r u c t o r or department-centred  Type C items s e l e c t e d a r e s i m i l a r i n many  r e s p e c t s to those o f Type B i n the h i g h p r i o r i t y  list  but tend to be s l i g h t l y more organized and c o n t r o l l e d by the department.  The b i a s e s o f Type C appear t o be i n  favour o f p r o v i d i n g the students w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n and some f l e x i b i l i t y  i n the l e a r n i n g environment but on the  department's terms and not those o f the student.  4,. 7  Summary  The  computer r e s u l t s provided  s u b j e c t s having  19 c l u s t e r s o f  similar sorting patterns.  Z-scores  were  produced f o r a l l items w i t h i n each c l u s t e r and c o r r e l a t i o n s made between item ranks and the c e l l s i n the t h e o r e t i c a l design.  Based on the c e l l to c l u s t e r p a t t e r n c o r r e l a t i o n s ,  the 19 c l u s t e r s were combined i n t o 6 groups and new weighted Q-scores were produced from the Z-scores. n e g a t i v e weighting  P o s i t i v e and  p a t t e r n s on group items were e s t a b l i s h e d  81  and  the  their were but  6 groups were  reduced  Relationships  w e r e made b e t w e e n  Types found  and not  discipline,  working  demographic t o be role,  p a t t e r n s were  to 3  data.  correlated  subjects  Gender  with  professional correlated  Types.  and  sorting  experience patterns  development,  with  sorting  and  and  patterns.  82  Chapter 5 DISCUSSION OF DATA  5.1  Introduction  Institutional lying  e v a l u a t i o n g e n e r a l l y has  o b j e c t i v e the g a i n i n g of s u f f i c i e n t  t i o n on i n s t i t u t i o n a l  useful  informa-  a c t i v i t i e s that the o r g a n i z a t i o n  can improve i t s e l f or i t s a c t i v i t i e s . institutional  as an under-  change are strong.  upon o b j e c t i v e s and c l e a r l y  Pressures  for  But change without  d e f i n e d goals i s dangerous,  o f t e n l e a d i n g to major i n s t i t u t i o n a l  conflicts.  f l i c t p r e v e n t i o n or r e s o l u t i o n can be achieved  I f conthrough  knowledge of i n s t i t u t i o n a l p e r c e p t i o n s and b e l i e f s , this  agreed  then  study, which i s based on p e r c e p t i o n measurement,  the p o t e n t i a l f o r r e d u c i n g c o n f l i c t and institutional  5.2  in assisting  has in  development.  Comparison of R e s u l t s to Hypotheses  In g e n e r a l , the s u b j e c t c l u s t e r s , trends, and  item  c h o i c e s were i n agreement w i t h the hypotheses.  The  clearly  Hypothesis  supported  the two  general hypotheses.  results  1.411, Q - a n a l y s i s techniques can be used i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l a n a l y s i s to i d e n t i f y p r e f e r r e d o p e r a t i o n a l behavi o r s of t e a c h i n g departments,  83  i s the prime o p e r a t i o n a l hypothesis concerning the v a l i d i t y of  the Q-sort process as a technique of  evaluation.  institutional  I f t h i s hypothesis had been i n v a l i d , a l l  other r e s u l t s would have been meaningless. t h i s h y p o t h e s i s was the chosen  an assumption  Implicit in  that i f the process  and  instrument c o u l d separate a s m a l l number o f  s u b j e c t c l u s t e r s from the t e s t p o p u l a t i o n , and the explana t i o n s g i v e n were g e n e r a l l y i n accord w i t h both knowledge and i n t u i t i o n of the i n s t i t u t i o n the h y p o t h e s i s was  proven.  or group examined, then  I f the r e s u l t s c o u l d not be  r e l a t e d to some l o g i c a l c o n s t r u c t , then no  generalizations  could be drawn and the process and/or the instrument c o u l d not be a p p l i e d to i n s t i t u t i o n a l this  development.  However, i n  study l o g i c a l c l u s t e r p a t t e r n s were observed  reasonable g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s could be drawn.  and  Preferred  o p e r a t i o n a l behaviors of t e a c h i n g departments were  clearly  identified  logical  f o r two major groups of s u b j e c t s h a v i n g  within-group r e f e r e n t s . as Type A and Type B.  These two groups were  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the two  were d e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n 4.4 i n s e c t i o n 4.5.  identified Types  and the membership o f both  The hypothesis was  accepted.  Hypothesis 1.412, The p e r c e p t i o n s of which t e a c h i n g department a c t i v i t i e s are p r e f e r r e d w i l l v a r y among i d e n t i f i a b l e groups w i t h i n a s i n g l e i n s t i t u t i o n ,  84  i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to 1.411.  I f the second  hypothesis  had been r e j e c t e d w h i l e the f i r s t hypothesis had been accepted,  the r e s u l t s of the Q-sort would have been  i n t e r e s t i n g but o f l i t t l e use.  I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a  s e r i e s o f p r e f e r r e d behaviors alone i s not  sufficient  f o r the i n f o r m a t i o n to be used by the i n s t i t u t i o n .  Until  those p r e f e r e n c e s can be l i n k e d i n some l o g i c a l manner to groups or i n d i v i d u a l s they cannot be e x p l a i n e d or understood  and,  t h e r e f o r e , remain o n l y as  a t t r i b u t e d , perhaps,  curiosities  to s u b j e c t i d i o s y n c r a s i e s and  not  to any i n s t i t u t i o n - r e l a t e d a t t r i b u t e s of the s u b j e c t s . This hypothesis was  accepted because the two major Types  contained s u b j e c t c l u s t e r s t h a t were s t r o n g l y r e l a t e d to departmental,  d i v i s i o n a l , and f u n c t i o n a l assignments  of the s u b j e c t s and the p r e f e r e n c e s of the two Types were clearly  different.  The  s p e c i f i c hypotheses  by the data. hypotheses  The observed  were g e n e r a l l y supported  trends e s t a b l i s h e d the o v e r a l l  v a l i d i t y but a l s o r e v e a l e d enough exceptions  to the trends that the hypotheses on the understanding  c o u l d be accepted o n l y  that the acceptance was  based  on  strong trends but t h a t i n d i v i d u a l exceptions c o u l d be expected answers.  to occur w i t h r e g u l a r i t y . Hypothesis  1.421,  There we're no a b s o l u t e  85  Subjects having s i m i l a r p e r c e p t i o n s of p r e f e r r e d departmental a c t i v i t i e s w i l l c l u s t e r more on the b a s i s of t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n a l r o l e than on the b a s i s of t h e i r gender, l e n g t h o f s e r v i c e , or d i s c i p l i n e , was  based on an assumption t h a t s u b j e c t s who  worked  together  would develop s i m i l a r a t t i t u d e s that would be  independent  of the s u b j e c t s ' o r i g i n a l d i s c i p l i n e or other  personal  variables.  item  The  r e s u l t s showed c l u s t e r i n g and  which were t i e d s t r o n g l y to i n s t i t u t i o n a l r o l e and  choices some-  what to d i s c i p l i n e but not to gender or l e n g t h of s e r v i c e . Tables  10 and 9 show the closeness of the match between  the a n t i c i p a t e d and gender and  a c t u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of s u b j e c t s  l e n g t h of s e r v i c e .  Since the a n t i c i p a t e d  d i s t r i b u t i o n s were based on data from a l l the the closeness  subjects,  of match could be e x p l a i n e d by random  d i s t r i b u t i o n of s u b j e c t choices r a t h e r than by any r e l a t i o n s h i p to Type. was  considered  by  inherent  D i s c i p l i n e or academic background  to be a d i f f e r e n t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n from  departmental grouping  or i n s t i t u t i o n a l r o l e because many  s u b j e c t s were i n departments or r o l e s t h a t c o u l d not correlated with t h e i r o r i g i n a l d i s c i p l i n e . Table  be  As noted i n  8, some d i s c i p l i n e - r e l a t e d trends were observed i n  the d i s t r i b u t i o n of s u b j e c t s among the three Types. the groups having  In  a commerce or law background, the v a r i a - ~  t i o n s between expected and a c t u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n among Types were.found to be  small except that Type B was  slightly  86  under-represented.  However, when the s u b j e c t s  collecting  i n each Type were examined, i t was noted t h a t o f the 7 s u b j e c t s i n Type A, 6 were making d i r e c t use of t h e i r discipline, primarily  as i n s t r u c t o r s ,  but o f the 7 s u b j e c t s  i n Type B, only 3 were as d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d w i t h d i s c i p l i n e as were those i n Type A. i n education,  their  For those w i t h  training  there was observed a s l i g h t t r e n d away from  Type A and toward Type B.  Of the 7 education  subjects i n  Type A only 4 made r e g u l a r use of t h e i r education i n c o n t r a s t w i t h the 15 e d u c a t i o n use o f t h e i r t r a i n i n g .  training  s u b j e c t s who made r e g u l a r  A l l s u b j e c t s w i t h a r t s backgrounds  used t h e i r t r a i n i n g r e g u l a r l y  and no adjustments to the  s l i g h t trend away from Type A could be made on the b a s i s of use.  A l l s u b j e c t s i n the h e a l t h and b i o l o g i c a l  groups were found to be r e g u l a r users o f t h e i r  sciences  training.  The trend f o r t h i s group was s t r o n g l y toward Type A and away from Type B w i t h no r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n Type C. engineering  and p h y s i c a l s c i e n c e s groups showed  away from Type A and toward Type B.  However,  t h e i r t r a i n i n g were found to be a l a r g e r  trends  those  percent  The  using  (8 o f 9)  of the s u b j e c t s c o l l e c t i n g i n Type A than i n Type B (12 o f 19).  A s i d e from the obvious trends d i s p l a y e d i n Table 8, there was found to be a trend r e l a t e d  to the use o f  87  e d u c a t i o n a l background.  Subjects no longer making  e x t e n s i v e use of t h e i r o r i g i n a l d i s c i p l i n e were more o f t e n c o l l e c t e d i n Type B (11 S's) or Type C (none).  than i n Type A (5  S's)  A l s o , of these 16 s u b j e c t s , 3 of the  5 i n Type A had moved i n t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e work as had the 11 i n Type B.  8 of  These data r e i n f o r c e d the trends estab-  l i s h e d f o r the grouping of s u b j e c t s on the b a s i s of t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r o l e s as noted i n Table 7.  I t was  anti-  c i p a t e d t h a t where s u b j e c t s were members of a d i s t i n c t working group r a t h e r than being i n d i v i d u a l s l o o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d i n an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e u n i t ,  there would be an i n c r e a s e d  p r o b a b i l i t y of commonality i n p e r c e p t i o n and,  thus, of  appearing i n the same c l u s t e r a f t e r the Q-sort. . T h i s the case. who  was  Of the 7 deans and 5 s e n i o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f  work together or i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h each other, 9  were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Type B, 2 w i t h Type A, and 1 w i t h Type C.  Each of the 3 s u b j e c t s not i n Type B was  found  e i t h e r to be somewhat removed from the core of a c t i v i t i e s of the main group or to have a unique r o l e w i t h i n the i n s t i t u t i o n that c o u l d tend to a l t e r t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n of departmental  roles.  Of the other " r o l e " groups i d e n t -  i f i e d i n Table 7, only the C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n heads and C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n f a c u l t y are known to work c o n s i s t e n t l y both as separate u n i t s and as combined u n i t s . e x c l u s i v e l y i n Type B.  Both c l u s t e r  Heads of Business, Core,  Engineering  88  and H e a l t h a l s o work as separate groups but l e s s so as groups of heads than was  found to be the case f o r the  deans and C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n heads.  I t was  interesting  to note that w h i l e the heads o f Business, Core, E n g i n e e r i n g , and H e a l t h seldom work together they tended to c l u s t e r w i t h i n Type A (11 of 16) and t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e deans a l l c l u s t e r e d w i t h Type B s u b j e c t s .  On the b a s i s of these  c l u s t e r p a t t e r n s the h y p o t h e s i s i n 1.421 valid.  was  accepted as  Gender and l e n g t h of s e r v i c e could not be t i e d to  Type, and r o l e more than d i s c i p l i n e was  seen as the major  p r e d i c t o r of Type l o c a t i o n .  Hypothesis 1.422, D i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r c e p t i o n of p r e f e r r e d departmental a c t i v i t i e s w i l l be observed among s u b j e c t s who are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by t h e i r a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h d i f f e r e n t groups, i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to h y p o t h e s i s 1.421.  While  an  examination of s u b j e c t c l u s t e r i n g on the b a s i s of i n s t i t u t i o n a l r o l e r e v e a l e d trends of s i m i l a r p e r c e p t i o n s among s u b j e c t s w i t h i n a s i n g l e group, more u s e f u l data were r e v e a l e d b e f o r e the Types were formed groups  and c l u s t e r s .  were i d e n t i f i e d .  from the combination of r e l a t e d  During the i n i t i a l a n a l y s i s 19  Four of the 7 s u b j e c t s who  management courses were l o c a t e d i n c l u s t e r 9.  clusters  taught b u s i n e s s This cluster  89  e v e n t u a l l y became p a r t of group 1.  The other three  s u b j e c t s were l o c a t e d i n 3 separate c l u s t e r s , none of which was  combined i n t o a common group, and were l a t e r  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Types B and C. heads who  The  7 Health f a c u l t y  and  were not i n v o l v e d i n the Nursing programmes a l l  appeared i n Type A and a l l 5 Nursing programme s u b j e c t s appeared i n Type B. to Student  Three of the 4 s u b j e c t s i n or r e l a t e d  S e r v i c e s c l u s t e r e d i n Type A w h i l e 3 of 4  l i b r a r i a n s c l u s t e r e d i n Type B.  The  f a c u l t y a l l c l u s t e r e d i n Type B.  6 Continuing  Subjects from  and B i o l o g i c a l Sciences departments tended Type A,  Education  Chemistry  to c l u s t e r i n  s u b j e c t s from E n g l i s h and P h y s i c s departments: i n  Type B, and  s u b j e c t s from Mathematics, F o r e s t r y , Survey,  E l e c t r o n i c s , and Operations Management departments were s p l i t between Type A and Type B.  However, the numbers of  s u b j e c t s i n each o f the l a s t 9 departments were small enough that the trends d i s p l a y e d c o u l d not be accepted i n g or r e j e c t i n g hypothesis  1.422.  as  support-  D e s p i t e the u n c e r t a i n t y  c r e a t e d by the small number o f s u b j e c t s i n some of the departments, the g e n e r a l trends f o r groups having numbers o f s u b j e c t s were s u f f i c i e n t l y toward the  larger identifi-  c a t i o n of s p e c i f i c groups w i t h e i t h e r Type A or Type B, that the hypothesis was  Hypothesis  1.423,  accepted.  90  A d m i n i s t r a t o r s w i l l tend to c l u s t e r more together i n t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n of p r e f e r r e d departmental a c t i v i t i e s than w i t h the f a c u l t y i n t h e i r r e s p e c t ive administrative centres, had  an i n t e r e s t i n g i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t e i t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s  develop a d i f f e r e n t p e r c e p t i o n o f p r e f e r r e d departmental a c t i v i t i e s or they become s e l e c t e d as a d m i n i s t r a t o r s because they h o l d d i f f e r e n t p e r c e p t i o n s they a d m i n i s t e r .  T h i s hypothesis  than the personnel  d e a l t w i t h the r e l a t i o n -  ship o f department heads t o f a c u l t y , and t h e r e f o r e ,  data  i n v o l v i n g deans and other s e n i o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f were excluded. one  Of the 13 departments which had both the head and  or more f a c u l t y i n the s u b j e c t p o p u l a t i o n , 4 departments  had both head and a l l f a c u l t y i n a common Type (3 were i n Type B and 1 i n Type A).  S i x departments had t h e i r  faculty  and head i n d i f f e r e n t Types and 3 departments had the head and  some f a c u l t y i n one Type and other f a c u l t y i n another  Type.  There were i n s u f f i c i e n t data e i t h e r to accept  r e j e c t the h y p o t h e s i s .  or to  However, i t was noted t h a t the  f o u r departments that had both head and a l l f a c u l t y i n a common Type e i t h e r made a s p e c i a l e f f o r t to operate  as a  department-of-the-whole ( E n g l i s h ) , o r made e x t e n s i v e use o f small work teams (Programme Development and E n g l i s h ) , or was  very d i s c i p l i n e - o r i e n t e d w i t h no strong departmental  t i e s t o other centres i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n ( P h y s i c s ) , or had j u s t completed a major a n a l y s i s o f departmental m i s s i o n (Psychiatric  Nursing).  91 Hypothesis  1.424,  C l u s t e r s of s u b j e c t s having s i m i l a r p e r c e p t i o n s of p r e f e r r e d departmental a c t i v i t i e s w i l l be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d on the b a s i s of a c t i v i t i e s which are r a t e d as being e i t h e r Student-centred or Department-centred, and e i t h e r L i b e r a l or Conservative was r e l a t e d t o the o r g a n i z a t i o n theory i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the study design.  The 6 groups i d e n t i f i e d i n Appendix A  were c l e a r l y a s s o c i a t e d t o v a r y i n g degrees w i t h each o f the four hypothesized l e v e l s w i t h each b e i n g dominant f o r one or more groups.  The appearance of dominances f o r  a l l f o u r l e v e l s and the r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f the s u b j e c t s c o n t r i b u t i n g to the dominances were accepted as evidence t h a t there were at l e a s t two l e v e l s o f p h i l o s o p h y and o f m o t i v a t i o n o p e r a t i n g w i t h i n the p o p u l a t i o n examined.  The  l a b e l s used, L i b e r a l , C o n s e r v a t i v e , Student-centred, and Department-centred, accurate.  were convenient but not: n e c e s s a r i l y  However, s i n c e the v a l i d i t y o f the terms was  not a t i s s u e , they were r e t a i n e d as convenient  labels.  On the b a s i s of having c l u s t e r s o f r e l a t e d s u b j e c t s which could be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d through the degree o f t h e i r acceptance or r e j e c t i o n of a l l f o u r o f the l e v e l s noted, the h y p o t h e s i s was  accepted.  Hypothesis  1.425,  92  Subjects who have l i t t l e or no t e a c h i n g c o n t a c t w i t h students w i l l c l u s t e r i n groups t h a t pref e r departmental a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t e d to change and openness w i t h students more than w i l l - s u b j e c t s who are p r i m a r i l y teachers, was accepted as proven because Type A which d i s p l a y e d more c o n s e r v a t i v e and l e s s s t u d e n t - c e n t r e d  characteristics  than d i d Type B was dominated by s u b j e c t s w i t h f u l l or p a r t i a l teaching assignments (26 o f 31 s u b j e c t s ) w h i l e Type B had a m a j o r i t y o f non-teaching of 44) .  personnel  (24 out  Type C was somewhat l i k e Type A and had .3 teachers  to 1 non-teacher.  The r e s u l t s appeared  to c o n f i r m  suggest-  ions made by s u b j e c t s d u r i n g the study t h a t those who were c l o s e s t to the students would be l e s s open to new ideas or t o student p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the i n s t r u c t i o n a l  process  than would those whose d i s t a n c e from the process gave them enough s e c u r i t y to support more f l e x i b l e or p r o g r e s s i v e concepts.  5.3  I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the Data  In attempting t o e x p l a i n why more s u b j e c t s c l u s t e r e d i n Type B than i n Type A and n o t i n g that formal s t u d i e s in  education were common f o r many more Type B s u b j e c t s  than f o r those i n Type A or C, the p a t t e r n o f a c q u i s i t i o n of the education experience was examined.  Few o f the  s u b j e c t s (.8 of 79) had an education background when they  93 were h i r e d .  H i r i n g p o l i c y was  well-prepared  i n t h e i r d i s c i p l i n e and who  p r a c t i c a l experience. Twenty one  to r e c r u i t s t a f f who had  were  extensive  Few were p r o f e s s i o n a l t e a c h e r s .  of the s u b j e c t s are known to have  continued  t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l development through formal s t u d i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y d u r i n g the past f i v e y e a r s .  Ten percent  (3  s u b j e c t s ) o f Type A s u b j e c t s took graduate l e v e l s t u d i e s i n education and 7 percent original discipline. w i t h 32 percent  (2 s u b j e c t s ) continued  Type B s u b j e c t s were v e r y a c t i v e  (14 s u b j e c t s ) working e i t h e r on Diplomas  i n A d u l t Education  or Masters Degrees i n E d u c a t i o n .  of the 4 s u b j e c t s i n Type C had A d u l t Education degree.  and another  Only 3 Type A and  Bachelor's  zero Type C s u b j e c t s compared  the past f i v e years although  taken any  form of l e a v e d u r i n g  extensive opportunities f o r  e d u c a t i o n a l and work experience  leave had been a v a i l a b l e .  not evident from the data was  whether s u b j e c t  a t t i t u d e s i n Type B l e d many to begin graduate  education  programmes or the a t t i t u d e s were an outgrowth of programmes.  One  completed a Diploma i n  a s o c i a l science  w i t h 13 Type B s u b j e c t s had  What was  in their  those  S u b j e c t i v e data c o l l e c t e d i n d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h '  the s u b j e c t s d u r i n g the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the Q-sort,  suggested  t h a t the a d d i t i o n a l s t u d i e s were undertaken because of a p e r s o n a l need f o r more i n f o r m a t i o n on the e d u c a t i o n a l process  and t h a t the experiences  produced obvious a t t i t u d e  changes that the s u b j e c t s r e c o g n i z e d w i t h i n themselves.  94  In an examination  of the a c t i v i t i e s , Plan,  Research,  I n s t r u c t , E v a l u a t e , and Revise that had been i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the Q-sort  items, a l l three Types showed s i m i l a r  p r e f e r e n c e s w i t h a few e x c e p t i o n s . group 1 — —  composed of  p r i m a r i l y department heads and Business  and group 2 —  faculty  p r i m a r i l y i n s t r u c t o r s or t e a c h i n g depart-  ment heads i n E n g i n e e r i n g and H e a l t h 1 was  Type A was  (not N u r s i n g ) .  Group  s h a r p l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d from group 2 by having a v e r y -  strong emphasis on p l a n n i n g and l i t t l e Group 2 was  on  instruction.  a complete r e v e r s a l , emphasizing  and i g n o r i n g p l a n n i n g .  These r e s u l t s were as  instruction expected  s i n c e group 1 contained 10 department heads whose p a r t i c u l a r departments r e q u i r e c o n s i d e r a b l e p l a n n i n g or c o o r d i n a t i o n and 4 i n s t r u c t o r s whose courses the p l a n n i n g process.  i n v o l v e the t e a c h i n g o f  Only 4 s u b j e c t s i n group 1 c o u l d not  r e a d i l y be i d e n t i f i e d w i t h a continued use of the p l a n n i n g process.  I t was  n a t u r a l f o r the m a j o r i t y of the s u b j e c t s  i n t h i s group to show the p r e f e r e n c e s they d i d because i t was  a r e f l e c t i o n of what was  daily activities. had  Similarly,  a major focus of t h e i r  9 of 11 s u b j e c t s i n group 2  i n s t r u c t i o n and not p l a n n i n g or the t e a c h i n g o f p l a n n i n g  as a major p a r t of t h e i r  activities.  Type B contained groups 3, 4, and which was  5.  s t r o n g l y s u p p o r t i v e of p l a n n i n g and  Group 3 slightly  n e g a t i v e toward i n s t r u c t i o n contained 15 s u b j e c t s , 12 of  95  whom were p l a n n e r s , c o o r d i n a t o r s , or teachers who  used  p l a n n i n g i n t h e i r courses.  of  Group 4 was  a mixture  C o n t i n u i n g Education s t a f f and i n s t r u c t o r s and the m a j o r i t y of s u b j e c t s who  contained  had an e d u c a t i o n background.  T h i s group showed no strong p r e f e r e n c e s i n a c t i v i t i e s except  f o r having a s l i g h t l y p o s i t i v e p r e f e r e n c e to r e s e a r c h  w h i l e groups 1, 2, 3, and 5 were n e g a t i v e . i n t e r e s t i n g weightings  Group 4 had  on the "Philosophy" and " M o t i v a t i o n "  independent v a r i a b l e s —  having the l a r g e s t p o s i t i v e  n e g a t i v e l o a d i n g s of any group.  Those s u b j e c t s had  and extremely  d e f i n i t e and p a r a l l e l views on what a good t e a c h i n g department should and should not do. cant items  The number of unique or  s e l e c t e d by t h i s group was  of any group.  The  10,  only common experience  the l a r g e s t number t h a t c o u l d be  i d e n t i f i e d among the members o f t h i s group was studies i n education.  their  formal  T h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s were f o r l i b e r a l ,  student-centred a c t i v i t i e s , educator.  signifi-  the s t e r e o t y p e o f the p r o g r e s s i v e  Perhaps the p r e f e r e n c e s were a r e f l e c t i o n of  the a t t i t u d e s members of t h i s group c o u l d have a c q u i r e d through  t h e i r education s t u d i e s r a t h e r than from t h e i r  work experience. who  I f not, others w i t h s i m i l a r work  appeared i n other groups would have tended  experience  to c l u s t e r  w i t h those i n group 4 or those i n group 4 would have migrated and  2.  to other r o l e - o r i e n t e d c l u s t e r s such as groups 1  96  Group 5 c o n s i s t e d o f the m a j o r i t y o f the deans, some H e a l t h and Core department heads, and some nonteaching s t a f f .  The p r e f e r e n c e s  o f t h i s group p a r a l l e l e d  those o f Group 4 but at a reduced l e v e l f o r most  activities.  A l s o , r e s e a r c h appeared n e g a t i v e l y and i n s t r u c t was more p o s i t i v e l y accepted  than f o r Group 4.  T h i s group  contained  only one f u l l - t i m e i n s t r u c t o r and one s u b j e c t who had formal s t u d i e s i n education.  Yet the p r e f e r e n c e  trends  are s i m i l a r , though l e s s pronounced t o t h a t o f Group 4 w i t h i t s heavy c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f s u b j e c t s w i t h backgrounds.  education  Even w i t h the l a c k o f s u b j e c t s w i t h a c t i v e  teaching r o l e s ,  the i n s t r u c t a c t i v i t y p r e f e r e n c e was h i g h e r  than t h a t f o r Group 4.  A p o s s i b l e explanation i s that  Group 5 was dominated by s e n i o r education  administrators  who would be expected to take a p o s i t i o n s u p p o r t i n g the student,  i f necessary  at the expense o f the departments.  P a r t o f a dean's r o l e was to maximize the e d u c a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s p o s s i b l e w i t h i n the d i v i s i o n a l manpower a v a i l a b l e .  I t was  not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t there were strong d i f f e r e n c e s i n perceptions between  the academic deans  (Group 5) and the  m a j o r i t y o f the academic department heads  Group 6 contained Business  one non-academic  (Group 1 ) .  dean, one  department head, and two i n s t r u c t o r s .  The a c t i v i t y  trends f o r t h i s group p a r a l l e l e d those o f Groups 1 and 2  97  but enough item and  specific activity differences  e x i s t e d to warrant the c r e a t i o n of a t h i r d Type. most unique a c t i v i t y p a t t e r n f o r t h i s group was strong p r e f e r e n c e  The the  f o r r e s e a r c h when a l l other groups  were e i t h e r n e g a t i v e or only s l i g h t l y p o s i t i v e to that a c t i v i t y .  Three o f the f o u r s u b j e c t s e i t h e r had  j u s t l e f t r e s e a r c h - o r i e n t e d a c t i v i t i e s or used  research  extensively i n their position.  In g e n e r a l trends, i t was favoured and  noted that no  groups  department-centred a c t i v i t i e s although  3 were v e r y c l o s e to a balance  p o s i t i v e toward and  items n e g a t i v e  department-centred a c t i v i t i e s . the s t u d e n t - c e n t r e d  Groups 1  p o i n t between items toward the concept of  T h i s t r e n d i s echoed i n  a c t i v i t i e s i n which Groups 1, 2, and  are s i m i l a r l y near a balance  p o i n t between n e g a t i v e  3  and  p o s i t i v e loading.  A l l groups favoured  p l a n n i n g but a l l r e j e c t e d evalua-  t i o n as d e s i r a b l e a c t i v i t i e s . on two  considerations.  The  T h i s was  thought to be based  i n s t i t u t e had p l a c e d  emphasis on the departmental, d i v i s i o n a l , and  great  institute  p l a n n i n g process,  complete w i t h t r a i n i n g workshops f o r a l l  deans, heads, and  senior s t a f f .  i n g at the time of the study. e v a l u a t i o n had  The  process  had been peak-  A l s o , major debates  j u s t been completed w i t h the process  on of  98  s t a f f and departmental  evaluation being described e i t h e r  i n the c o l l e c t i v e agreement or i n i n s t i t u t e p o l i c y . was  a c o n s i d e r a b l e f e e l i n g of r e s i s t a n c e to the  of e v a l u a t i n g anything but students. of i n t e r e s t was  toward e v a l u a t i o n .  concept  A possible point  that those groups having  p r e f e r e n c e f o r r e s e a r c h had  There  the s t r o n g e s t  the l e a s t n e g a t i v e  C u r i o u s l y , those who  had  preference  least  negative  f e e l i n g s about e v a l u a t i o n had the s t r o n g e s t n e g a t i v e f e e l i n g toward r e v i s e .  5.4  I m p l i c a t i o n s o f the Data  The  data i d e n t i f i e d groups which should be  able  to work w e l l together because of compatible a t t i t u d e s toward p r e f e r r e d departmental  behavior.  In g e n e r a l terms,  the p e r c e p t i o n s of Continuing Education, a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f , Nursing,  Core and  were found to be s i m i l a r and d i s t i n c t  Engineering  from those  Business, Health, and most non-Continuing department heads. p l a n n i n g without  deans and s e n i o r  Education  F u r t h e r , the strong b i a s found a p a r a l l e l acceptance  i n d i c a t e d a p o t e n t i a l problem area.  of  toward  of e v a l u a t i o n  99  5.5  Summary  A l l hypotheses were accepted except  1.423 which  d e a l t w i t h the separate c l u s t e r i n g of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and t h e i r f a c u l t y . support  While there were some i n d i c a t i o n s to  the h y p o t h e s i s , the sample was too small f o r  d e f i n i t i v e answers to be g i v e n .  Two d i s t i n c t i v e Types, L i b e r a l and C o n s e r v a t i v e , were i d e n t i f i e d .  Almost a l l s u b j e c t s supported  c e n t r e d over Department-centred a c t i v i t i e s .  Student-  Most deans,  C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n s t a f f , E n g i n e e r i n g and Nursing  faculty  and l i b r a r i a n s were i n the L i b e r a l Type and department heads, Business  and H e a l t h f a c u l t y , and student s e r v i c e s  s t a f f were i n the C o n s e r v a t i v e Type.  Most personnel who  had undertaken f u r t h e r s t u d i e s i n education, c l u s t e r e d i n the L i b e r a l Type.  Those who had most d i r e c t  w i t h students, except  contact  those who had education s t u d i e s ,  were more Conservative i n a t t i t u d e than those who were somewhat removed from the classroom.  Few s u b j e c t s r a t e d i n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s h i g h l y but many s t r o n g l y supported p l a n n i n g .  E v a l u a t i o n was  g i v e n a v e r y low score as were items d e a l i n g w i t h i n the t e a c h i n g process.  revision  100  Chapter 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY  6.1  Conclusions  6.11  Q-Sort  The Q-methodology o f Stephenson was found to be u s e f u l i n i d e n t i f y i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i tude among e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s t a f f , and t h e r e f o r e , to have p o t e n t i a l as an i n s t i t u t i o n a l evaluation tool.  The Q-sort developed  for this  study was found to be capable o f f i n e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s and c o u l d r e a d i l y be adapted  f o r use i n other educa-  t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s that provide s i m i l a r careero r i e n t e d programmes.  6.12  I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of C o n f l i c t  Potential  Two opposing p h i l o s o p h i e s r e l a t e d to the involvement  of students i n the i n s t r u c t i o n a l pro-  cess were i d e n t i f i e d among the i n s t r u c t o r s , the non-teaching  f a c u l t y , and the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f .  The p h i l o s o p h y l a b e l l e d C o n s e r v a t i v e was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the m a j o r i t y o f i n s t r u c t o r s and many department  101  heads.  The o p p o s i t e philosophy,  labelled  Liberal,  was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a l l the academic d i v i s i o n deans, a l l the C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n group, and most o f those who had some formal s t u d i e s i n education.  Many o f the members o f the L i b e r a l  group e i t h e r d i r e c t the a c t i v i t i e s or u t i l i z e the r e s o u r c e s o f members o f the C o n s e r v a t i v e group. D i r e c t i o n and u t i l i z a t i o n r e q u i r e acceptance  i f not  agreement on the p a r t o f the department head and i n s t r u c t o r s to r e c e i v e d i r e c t i o n and to p r o v i d e services.  When the p e r c e p t i o n s o f the groups  differ  on such a b a s i c i s s u e as the r o l e o f the student i n the i n s t r u c t i o n a l process or how the student and department w i l l i n t e r a c t , and on which a c t i v i t i e s should have p r i o r i t y ,  conflict  i s a normal outcome  u n l e s s the d i f f e r e n c e s are r e c o g n i z e d and compensat i o n s made.  6.13  Concensus Development  While concensus i n p e r c e p t i o n o f departmental r o l e can e x i s t among s u b j e c t s because of s t r o n g similarities i n professional training,  concensus  among s u b j e c t s w i t h a d i v e r s e range o f p r o f e s s i o n a l  102  t r a i n i n g can be developed p h i l o s o p h i e s of a new, extended While  involvement  the concept  account  through exposure to the  common d i s c i p l i n e or i n p l a n n i n g or work  through  groups.  of d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d concensus can  f o r a l a r g e number of c l u s t e r s i n t h i s  study, i t cannot  e x p l a i n why  the c l u s t e r s were  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r Type, or more importa n t l y , why  they should be d i s t r i b u t e d between o n l y  two Types and not among as many Types as there were distinct disciplines.  A possible explanation f o r  the c o l l e c t i o n i n one Type of such a l a r g e percent of s u b j e c t s who  had added the d i s c i p l i n e of education  to t h e i r o r i g i n a l d i v e r s e s u b j e c t of d i s c i p l i n e s , i s t h a t the o l d d i s c i p l i n e which d e a l t w i t h what students should l e a r n was than the new  Student  to them  d i s c i p l i n e which d e a l t w i t h how  students should  6.14  l e s s important  the  learn.  Contact and P e r c e p t i o n D i f f e r e n c e s  Subjects who  had continued contact w i t h  students were g e n e r a l l y found to have a more c o n s e r v a t i v e p e r c e p t i o n of the departmental than d i d those who  role  were i n d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d w i t h  103  students or who  had no s p e c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r  student performance.  I t appears as i f those whose'.  performance and r e p u t a t i o n c o u l d be most d i r e c t l y t i e d to student a c t i v i t i e s wished to have f i r m cont r o l over as many s t u d e n t - r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s as possible.  was  Those whose r o l e and r e p u t a t i o n were  t i e d l e s s to student progress  and more to o r g a n i z a -  t i o n of r e s o u r c e s , development of programmes, or to p l a n n i n g of a c t i v i t i e s appeared more w i l l i n g experiment w i t h new  ideas and  to  to take a more open  a t t i t u d e toward students and t h e i r involvement the l e a r n i n g process.  Exceptions  mainly  had  who  i n s t r u c t o r s who  had  to t h i s t r e n d were  l i b e r a l perceptions  a c q u i r e d education as a second  and  discipline.  Whether or not the education and p e r c e p t i o n cause and e f f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p c o u l d not be However, education was  in  has determined.  c o n s i d e r e d to be a moderating  i n f l u e n c e on r o l e p e r c e p t i o n because i t d e - m y s t i f i e d the l e a r n i n g process  6.15  and encouraged change.  Department-Centred A t t i t u d e s  The data confirmed support  t h a t there was  no  general  of a department-centred p h i l o s o p h y among  the s u b j e c t s examined.  However, the group which  c o n t a i n e d the m a j o r i t y of department heads was  the  104  o n l y group t h a t d i d not have a sharp between department-centred  and  distinction  student-centred  p h i l o s o p h i e s , being s l i g h t l y p o s i t i v e to both.  6.2  Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Study  6.21  Impact of S t u d i e s i n E d u c a t i o n on Perception  The  Role  study r e v e a l e d a r e l a t i o n s h i p between  one major c l u s t e r and t h e i r r e c e n t involvement graduate  l e v e l s t u d i e s i n education.  not be determined  was  in  What c o u l d  whether the c l u s t e r i n g  was  a r e s u l t of the e d u c a t i o n or the common i n t e r e s t i n f u r t h e r s t u d i e s , s p e c i f i c a l l y i n education, l e d to the c l u s t e r i n g .  A l o n g i t u d i n a l study of t h i s  group and o f c o t h e r groups o f e d u c a t i o n a l p e r s o n n e l should be undertaken to determine i f i n c r e a s e d encouragement should be g i v e n to e d u c a t i o n a l l e a v e w i t h s t u d i e s i n e d u c a t i o n as a prime reason f o r g r a n t i n g the l e a v e or i f there i s no  relation  between education s t u d i e s and changes i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l philosophy.  105  6.22  Transient Effects  The v e r y strong p r e f e r e n c e f o r P l a n n i n g  and  the n e g a t i v e p r e f e r e n c e f o r E v a l u a t i o n and R e v i s i o n found i n t h i s study may,  i n the case of P l a n n i n g  and E v a l u a t i o n , have been r e l a t e d which w i l l be l e s s important  to l o c a l  i n the f u t u r e than  they were at the time of data c o l l e c t i o n . s t r o n g p o l a r i t y found may I t i s important  or may  to determine  e f f e c t or an i n d i c a t i o n i n the p a r t i c u l a r  not be  The  unusual.  i f i t is a  transient  of something more s e r i o u s  i n s t i t u t i o n s t u d i e d and to other  o r g a n i z a t i o n s where s i m i l a r b i a s e s may  6.23  events  exist.  Role P e r c e p t i o n and Work Groups  T h i s study should be repeated w i t h  larger  samples of s u b j e c t s drawn from the same i n s t i t u t i o n to determine  i f the mixed trends f o r departments  and working groups can be s u b s t a n t i a t e d .  Groups  and departments which worked together appeared have some i n t e r n a l  consistency related  to  to t h e i r per-  c e p t i o n of the r o l e of an i d e a l t e a c h i n g department. Subjects from departments which, on the s u r f a c e ,  106  had  l e s s involvement  w i t h within-department working  groups o f t e n had major d i f f e r e n c e s i n r o l e p e r c e p t i o n . Whole departments and working groups should be examined so t h a t sampling  i s n o t an i s s u e i n the  results.  6.24  Role P e r c e p t i o n o f Other I n s t i t u t i o n Members  T h i s study was l i m i t e d to those s t a f f who were i n v o l v e d w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n , instruction,  student  t i o n of i n s t r u c t i o n . students,  services,  d i r e c t support of or the a d m i n i s t r a -  No data were c o l l e c t e d  from  c l e r i c a l s t a f f , a d v i s o r y committees, non-  e d u c a t i o n a l s e r v i c e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , board o f governors,  or the p u b l i c .  I t would prove not only  i n t e r e s t i n g but v a l u a b l e t o know what p a t t e r n s o f p e r c e p t i o n r e g a r d i n g the r o l e o f an i d e a l  teaching  department e x i s t among other i n s t i t u t i o n members who make up the m a j o r i t y o f the i n s t i t u t i o n population.  6.3  Summary  T h i s study was able to c o n f i r m the suggestions of r e s e a r c h e r s such as Rinn and Jenks that Q-methodology  107  has  a p p l i c a t i o n s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l development.  Q-sort of  created  subjects  role  of  an  type  the  the  subjects  to  identify  at  somewhat  opposing  ideal  teaching  department.  consisted  of most  instructional  included  staff,  able  with  Conservative heads,  was  most  of  from  deans  who  and  The  type  called  Liberal  administrative  and  further  the  department  The  senior  staff,  had  types on  i n s t r u c t o r s and  Education  a l l groups  two  philosophies  d e l i v e r y group.  the  Continuing  least  The  most  of  studies  those  in  education.  Most tion  of  collected  philosophy conflict  of  those in  T h e r e was least, if  their were  found  attitudes. plan as  to  to  of  may  that  agreement  perception  of  to  together.  be  discipline  that  or,  at  developed that  education  overlays  studies  Liberal  d e l i b e r a t e l y work  develop  concensus  departmental  in  potential for  correlated with  groups  able  the  can  instruc-  differences  concensus  Further  positively  be  administer The  contain  common new  discipline. be  or  c o n t i n u a l l y work  indication  a  plan group.  groups  must  Similarly,  together their  two  levels  acquire  original  would  Liberal  they  an  reasonable  subjects  the  these  because  who  role.  and  attitudes  108  Those process were  and  least  sharing lay  in  subjects who  had  likely  of  that  their  were  support  power,  effect, or  giving  cues  provided  tion  appear  studies by  this  study.  and  on  willingness  procedures.  A  by  to the  outside  The  trends created  be  Those whose roles  share  power  of  a  power were  classroom  their  undertaken  Further  to  employ  by  be  data  line.  staff,  from  of to  to  studies  sub-  follow in  these  and  entire  be  and  by  undertaken  should  be  explored subjects  Potential subjects  governing  are  and  studies  profiles  able  students, advisory  would  which would  institution.  to  Also,  including  development  per-  instructional  substantiated.  extended  departmental the  should  educa-  role  flexible  sampling  organizational  clerical  useful  can  departments  academic  to  development  extremely  the  power  implied  a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p on  whole the  contribute  bodies. the  problems  public,  that  students  l o n g i t u d i n a l study  i f these  evaluating  from  classroom  programming  the  should  have  possible  or  away  to  determine  of  teaching  colleagues.  Further  ception  share  students.  have  to'the  activities  administrative to  closest  greatest  power w i t h  prepared  ordinates  the  to  generally in  who  permit be  109  Chapter 7 RECOMMENDATIONS  7.1  Or gahi z at iona1 Development  While processes which have a p p l i c a t i o n can r e a d i l y be taught  such as p l a n n i n g and e v a l u a t i o n t o both i n s t r u c t i o n and management t o i n s t i t u t i o n members, they w i l l not  produce a smoothly running  o r g a n i z a t i o n i f i n d i v i d u a l and  group a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s are: ignored.  This  study  i d e n t i f i e d a d i f f e r e n c e i n b a s i c philosophy between having r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r departmental  those  development and  those w i t h r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r d i v i s i o n a l and i n s t i t u t e development.  The backgrounds and r e c e n t experiences o f  the i n d i v i d u a l s different.  a r e s i m i l a r but the p e r c e p t i o n s are  Any o r g a n i z a t i o n , and an e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a -  t i o n w i t h i t s c o l l e g i a l atmosphere i n p a r t i c u l a r ,  should  c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f group a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s b e f o r e attempting  t o implement a s i n g l e  system o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n which might be a p p r o p r i a t e and acceptable  f o r one group but not f o r another.  The Q-sort  process has p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r i d e n t i f y i n g areas o f agreement and disagreement among groups as w e l l as i n d i v i d u a l s and should be c o n s i d e r e d as a p o s s i b l e t o o l t o a i d i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l development.  I t should have p a r t i c u l a r  application  110  when  cooperation  work  group  7.2  is  well the  described main  more  in  be  ment  or on  them  specific In  process  group  (the  ideas  and  other  major  concepts  differences a  will in  to  group  focus into as  objectives  to  a more and  as  a  the  the  quite  reveal  issues with  finances,  on  will  high  easy  low  respons-  built  can  not  be  from  a  lock-step  a l l the results. only  on  on  The  concensus  them. toward  them. and  higher  One  accepted  cool  identified  into  of i n s t r u c t i o n  priority  priority  and  agree-  group  had  move  was  the  organization be  items  flexibility  implementors)  this  along  rate,  agreement  practice,  basic  d e c i s i o n makers)  relatively (the  In  on  process  been  i n d i v i d u a l i z e d approach.  desired  can  the  instructors could  not  produce  attention  of  increased  and  have  i n d i v i d u a l and  study.some  of  a  or  fashion,  study  assembled  literature.  growth  i s no  non-threatening  this  newly  process  i t i s u n l i k e l y there  placed such  planning  such  planners  placed  and  the  there  this  students  learning key  If  implications  that  is  questions  mission,  ibilities.  of  incorporated  accommodations. roles  a  Planning  administrative  difficulty  obvious  within  desired.  mechanics  w h i c h must  in  concensus  Organizational  ~ The  so  and  The the  Unless  resolved  level  process and  these  planning used  contention  Ill  issues,  and t h e i n d i v i d u a l s and g r o u p s  changes i n a t t i t u d e s w i t h  7.3  t i m e o r e x p o s u r e t o new  ideas.  P o t e n t i a l f o r Abuse  Because Q-sort  techniques  e x a m i n i n g how an i n d i v i d u a l d e p e n d i n g on t h e t y p e s should  involved.  the f r e e l y  and t h e u s i n g  i n group p r o c e s s e s  individual balanced  agrees  thinks  The a c q u i s i t i o n  individual's beliefs assist  have t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r  of questions  be used o n l y w i t h  persons  and  involved, but also,  a b o u t many  that a r e p u t , they given  consent o f the  of information  c a n o n l y be j u s t i f i e d  t o b e made.  l e a d e r s h i p must e x i s t w i t h i n  on an  of that information to  that the p o t e n t i a l r i s k s  by the gains  issues  i f the  a r e more t h a n  A l a r g e amount o f t r u s t the group b e f o r e  such  s t u d i e s a r e attempted.  7.4  Summary  Q - m e t h o d o l o g y i s o n l y one o f many p o s s i b l e t o o l s available  for collecting  izational  e v a l u a t i o n and d e v e l o p m e n t .  can  r e a d i l y be c r e a t e d  tions,  and b e c a u s e t h e y  impressions,  data which can a s s i s t  or modified can explore  Because  for specific beneath  q u a n t i t a t i v e data not normally  i n organQ-sorts situa-  surface a v a i l a b l e c a n be  112  collected. to why  The  further  cues  behaviors  aspects riate  of  use  process broad  data or,  only  provide  possibly,  occur.  However,  Q-methodology w i t h of  data,  which  must  permits  interpretations  Q-methodology analysis  of  group  explored  as  a  be  some  the  can  have  dynamics  legitimate  and  part  potential Any  collection  used  broad thus of  as  lead to  underlying psychological  recognized.  be  can  suggestions  the  open-ended must  cues which  with  for  inapprop-  evaluation of  data  and  discretion.  implications should  be  institutional  for  actively evaluation.  113  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Periodicals  Brown, Steven R. " B i b l i o g r a p h y on Q-Technique and I t s Methodology," P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s . 26:587-613, 1968. Brown, Steven R. "The Forced-Free D i s t i n c t i o n i n Q Technique." J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Measurement. 8:4:283-6, Winter, 1971. Cronbach, L . J . "Course Improvement Through E v a l u a t i o n . " Teachers C o l l e g e Record. 64:672-82, 1963. Gordon, Leonard V. and Akio K i k u c h i . "The Comparability o f the Forced-Choice and Q-Sort Measurement Approaches: An O t h e r - C u l t u r e Study." The J o u r n a l of S o c i a l Psychology. 81:137-44, 1970. Haas, Eugene and L i n d a C o l l e n . " A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r a c t i c e s i n U n i v e r s i t y Departments." A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Quarterly. 8:1:44-60, June 1963. H a s k e l l , Stephen C a r l e . "A Time-Referenced Q-Sort Technique For E v a l u a t i n g B e h a v i o r a l Change." American J o u r n a l of O r t h o p s y c h i a t r y . 49:1:109-19, January T9~79~. H i l d e n , A r n o l d H. "Q-Sort C o r r e l a t i o n : S t a b i l i t y and Random Choice o f Statements." J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g Psychology. 22:1:45-50, 1958. Housego, B.E. and W.B. Boldt. " P r i o r i t i e s o f Teacher Behaviors as P e r c e i v e d by Student-Teachers i n a School Based Program: An E x p l o r a t o r y Study." A l b e r t a J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Research. 24:1:53-65, March 1978. Jenks, Stephen R. "An Action-Research Approach to Organi z a t i o n a l Change." The J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d Behavioral Science. 6:2:131-150, 1970. K e r l i n g e r , Fred R. "A Q V a l i d a t i o n of the S t r u c t u r e of S o c i a l A t t i t u d e s . " E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement. 32:981-995, 1972.  114  L i v e s o n , Norman H. and Thomas F. N i c h o l s . " D i s c r i m i n a t i o n and R e l i a b i l i t y i n Q-Sort P e r s o n a l i t y D e s c r i p t i o n s . " J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology. 52:2:159-165, 1956. Mayhew, L o u i s B. "Higher E d u c a t i o n - Toward 1984." E d u c a t i o n a l Record. 53:215-21, Summer, 1972. Mix,  M a r j o r i e C. "The 'Other P r o f e s s i o n a l s ' i n U n i v e r s i t y Governance." E d u c a t i o n a l Record. 53:331-6, F a l l , 1972.  Quarter, Jack, D.R. Kennedy, and R.M. Laxer. "Effect of Order and Form i n the Q-Sort." P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports. 20:893-894, 1967. Redburn, F. Stevens. "Q F a c t o r A n a l y s i s : A p p l i c a t i o n s To E d u c a t i o n a l T e s t i n g And Program E v a l u a t i o n . " E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement. 35:767-778, 1975. Rinn, John L. "Q Methodology: An A p p l i c a t i o n to Group Phenomena." E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement. 21:2:315-329, 1961. Scriven, Michael. "Pros and Cons About Goal Free E v a l u a t i o n . " E v a l u a t i o n Comment. 3:1-4, 1972. Stake, Robert. " O b j e c t i v e s , P r i o r i t i e s and Other Judgement Data." Review o f E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 4:181-212, 1970. Stephenson, W i l l i a m . In O - S o r t i n g . " 1963.  "Independency And O p e r a t i o n a l i s m The P s y c h o l o g i c a l Record. 13:269-272,  Stufflebeam, D a n i e l L. "The Use o f Experimental Design In Educational Evaluation." Journal of Educational Measurement. 8:4:267-274, Winter, 1971.  ERIC Documents, Reports,  and Theses  Behm, Robert J . and W i l l i a m J . S c h i l l , The Examination of Intra-Group Agreement o f Q-Sort Responses. U.S., E d u c a t i o n a l Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 131 103, March 1977.  115  Boyd, R i c h a r d S. Student A t t i t u d e s arid Teacher Judgement of Student A t t i t u d e . U.S., E d u c a t i o n a l Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 016 270, October 1968. C a r r t e r , A l l a n M. Education. Education,  An Assessment o f the Q u a l i t y i n Graduate Washington: American C o u n c i l on 1966.  Freeman, Leonard. Q-Method' 20 Years L a t e r : I t s Uses And Abuses In Communications' Research. U.S., E d u c a t i o n a l Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 095 580, January 1975. G r i f f i t h s , Stephen J . "An I n v e s t i g a t i o n of the Goals o f the L a b o r a t o r y Programme i n Secondary School Chemistry Courses i n B r i t i s h Columbia." M.A. t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1974. Heikkinen, M i c h a e l W. The Teaching S t y l e Q-Sort: A D e s c r i p t i o n Of I t s Uses In A s s e s s i n g Teaching S t y l e . U.S., E d u c a t i o n a l Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 151 351, June 1978. Huff, George P. E v a l u a t i o n Of A t t i t u d e s To Teaching. E d u c a t i o n a l Resources I n f o r m a t i o n Center, ERIC Document ED 003 843, 1964.  U.S.,  K e r l i n g e r , Fred N. and E l a z a r J . Pedhazur. A t t i t u d e s And P e r c e p t i o n s Of D e s i r a b l e T r a i t s And Behaviors Of Teachers. F i n a l Report. U.S., E d u c a t i o n a l Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 019 742, September 1967. MacLean, Malcolm S. J r . , Thomas Danbury, and A l b e r t D. Talbott. C i v i l Defense B e l i e f P a t t e r n s : (VIII) T e c h n i c a l Summary. E x c e r p t s From Report. U.S., O f f i c e o f C i v i l Defense, Department of Defense, Contract #: OCD-OS-62-19, 1964. Scriven, Michael, " E v a l u a t i o n P e r s p e c t i v e s and Procedures," D r a f t prepared f o r AERA s e r i e s on E d u c a t i o n a l E v a l u a t i o n , 1973. (Xeroxed.) Smith,  Inez L. A t t i t u d e s Toward E d u c a t i o n Arid General S o c i a l A t t i t u d e s - A "Q" Study. U.S., E d u c a t i o n a l Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 013 498, February, 1967.  116  T a l b o t t , A l b e r t D. "Q Technique And I t s Methodology: A B r i e f I n t r o d u c t i o n And C o n s i d e r a t i o n . " Paper presented at the meeting of AERA, New York, February, 1971. W i l l i a m s , Dwight A. J r . Mass Media Preference P a t t e r n s : A Cross-Media Study"! U.S., E d u c a t i o n a l Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 049 611, A p r i l 1971, Wood,, Randy. A Use o f the Q-Sort Technique i n E d u c a t i o n a l E v a l u a t i o n . U.S., E d u c a t i o n a l Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 128 360, January 1977.  Books  B a l d r i d g e , J . V i c t o r , ed. Academic Governance - Research on I n s t i t u t i o n a l P o l i t i c s and D e c i s i o n Making. Berkeley: McCutchan, 1971. ______  David V. C u r t i s , George Ecker, and Gary L. R i l e y . A N a t i o n a l Study o f Academic Management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978.  B l a l o c k , H.M., J r . , ed. Causal Models i n the S o c i a l Sciences. Chicago: A l d i n e - A t h e r t o n , 1971. Blau, Peter M. On the Nature of O r g a n i z a t i o n s . York: John Wiley, 1974. ________  New  and R i c h a r d A. Schoenherr. The S t r u c t u r e of Organizations. New York: B a s i c Books, 1971.  B o r i c h , Gary D., ed. E v a l u a t i n g E d u c a t i o n a l Programs and Products. Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : Educational Technology P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1974. Browder, L e s l e y H., J r . , W i l l i a m A. A t k i n s , J r . , and E s i n Kaya. Developing an E d u c a t i o n a l l y Accountable Program. Berkeley: McCutchan, 1973. Brown, Steven R. and Donald J . Brenner, eds. Science, Psychology and Communications: Essays Honoring W i l l i a m Stephenson. New York: Teachers C o l l e g e Press, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1972.  117  Burns, Tom and G.M. S t a l k e r . The Management of London: T a v i s t o c k P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1961. Burt,  Innovation.  Cyril. The F a c t o r s o f the Mind: An I n t r o d u c t i o n to F a c t o r - A n a l y s i s i n Psychology. London: U n i v e r s i t y of London Press, 1940.  Campbell, Donald T. and J u l i a n C. S t a n l e y . Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs For Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963. D r e s s e l , Paul L. and o t h e r s . E v a l u a t i o n i n Higher Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n , 1961. ________  Education.  F. C r a i g Johnson, and P h i l i p M. Marcus. The Confidence C r i s i s : An A n a l y s i s of U n i v e r s i t y Departments. San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass, 1970.  Enderud, Harald G j e s s i n g . Four Faces Of Leadership In An Academic O r g a n i z a t i o n ! Copenhagen: A r n o l d Busck, 1977 . G r i f f i t h s , D.E., ed. Developing taxonomies of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behavior i n e d u c a t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969. H e i n l e i n , A l b e r t C , ed. D e c i s i o n Models i n Academic Administration. Kent, Ohio: Kent State U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1973. Hodgkinson, Harold L. and B l c h a r d L. Meeth, eds. Power and A u t h o r i t y - Transformations of Campus Governance. San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass, 1971. L i k e r t , Rensis. New McGraw-Hill,  Patterns 1961.  of Management.  McHenry, Dean E. Academic Departments. Jossey-Bass" 1967 .  San  New  York:  Francisco:  M i l l e r , R i c h a r d I. E v a l u a t i n g F a c u l t y Performance. Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972. M i l l e t t , John D. New S t r u c t u r e s o f Campus Power. Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978.  San San  R i l e y , Gary L. and J . V i c t o r B a l d r i d g e . Governing Academic I n s t i t u t i o n s - New Problems New P e r s p e c t i v e s . Berkeley: McCutchan, 1977.  118  Stephenson, W i l l i a m . The P l a y Theory o f Mass Communication. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago Press, 1967. . The Study o f Behavior: Q-Technique and I t s MetKodoTogy. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago P r e s s , 1953. Stufflebeam, D.E., and o t h e r s . Educational Evaluation and Decision-Making. Itasca, I l l i n o i s : Peacock,  W7T.  Worthen, B.R. and J.R. Sanders. E d u c a t i o n a l E v a l u a t i o n Theory and P r a c t i c e . Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones, 1973. Webber, Max. The Theory o f S o c i a l and Economic O r g a n i z a t i o n , t r a n s . by T a l c o t t Parsons and Algo Henderson. New York: Free Press, 1947.  APPENDIX A DOMINANT LOADINGS SUMMARY  Factors  S's  ac  be  ad  9,18,3,8  19  10,1,5,17  -5.10  5.58  3.87  -3.35  12  -4.87  5.84  -0.46  6,19,14,12  15  -2.77  3.87  5.29  2,16  17  10.44  2.37  1.75 -17.25  11,15  12  0.59  6.21  1.66 -11.41  1.74  1.16  4,7,13  -2.76  bd  b  c  d  e  -1.24  2.23  0.48  0.52  6.78  -1.70  0.89  -5.46 -1.19  -1.82  -5.33  4.02  0.99  -2.28  0.63  -2.55  6.62  -3.97 -2.03  -5.44  2.52  -1.57  1.10  -0.14  6.87  -0.66 -0.28  12.81 -15.51  3.39  0.46  0.08  -2.22 -2.31  -1-20  1.26  -5.63 -0.89  3.08 -1.16  -0.45 -5.12  0.17  a  12.19 -14.89 2.26  -5.37  6.97  -9.75  4.22  -1.02  1.33  2.90  -2.60  3.96  f  g  h  -5.42  0.44  ,_,  120  APPENDIX B CELL IDENTIFICATION BY ITEM NUMBER Item Number  C e l l Type  Item Number  C e l l Type  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  aci bdi bci bdg bdi bci bee bdh ach bdh adh bdh adf bci bdg aci adi acg adg bdf bde bef bdg bef bee adi ade acf bde ade beh beg adg bdi beg bdf bdh bef bci acf  41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80  bdf bdg adf ach adg bdg ade acg ace adf acf bef bde acg ace bee bee adf beg bde ach ace beh bdi adh beh aci adi adh acf bdf ace beh adh aci acg adi ade adg ach  a b c d e  = = = = =  Liberal/Experimental Conservative/Authoritarian Student-centred Department-centred Plan  f g h i  = = = =  Research Instruct Evaluate Revise  APPENDIX C SAMPLE POPULATION DEMOGRAPHY  Administrator  Faculty  Male  Female  Under 5 Years  Five Years & over  Business  5  9  13  1  5  9  Core  5  6  9  2  2  9  Engineering  5  9  13  1  4  10  Health  5  9  8  6  4  10  Administration  5  1  6  0  2  4  Support  2  8  6  4  5  5  Continuing Education  4  6  9  1  4  6  6  10  14  2  6  10  11  24  23  12  13  22  8  11  12  7  7  12  14  15  28  1  4  25  6  17  18  5  26  30  46  10  A. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Group  B. Background* Commerce/Law Education/Arts H e a l t h / B i o Sciences Engineering/Phys  Sci  C. Length o f S e r v i c e Under 5 years F i v e years & over  _ _  _  —  --  * Background t o t a l s are h i g h e r than subject t o t a l s because some s u b j e c t s have a mixed or m u l t i p l e background and appear s e v e r a l times i n the l i s t i n g .  122  APPENDIX D RANGE OF ALL ITEMS #  Range  Range  #  Range  if  Range  1  2.88  21  5.30  41  5.32  61  3.48  2  4.13  22  3.27  42  3.39  62  2.88  3  1.73  23  3.11  43  2.68  63  4.70  4  3.08  24  3.13  44  3.76  64  2.96  5  2.57  25  4.94  45  3.47  65  4.00  6  2.84  26  3.04  46  3.68  66  3.66  7  2.88  27  4.05  47  2.69  67  3.59  8  3.99  28  3.10  48  3.37  68  3.13  9  3.90  29  3.89  49  2.99  69  4.19  10  4.75  30  2.58  50  2.22  70  2.08  11  3.35  31  2.46  51  3.20  71  3.17  12  3.07  32  3.94  52  2.32  72  4.81  13  2.70  33  2.80  53  4.02  73  2.15  14  2.24  34  2.75  54  3.11  74  3.08  15  4.08  35  2.15  55  3.32  75  2.10  16  2.75  36  3.53  56  3.64  76  2.45  17  2.85  37  2.35  57  4.43  77  2.66  18  4.00  38  4.12  58  1.97  78  2.62  19  4.01  39  3.40  59  4.45  79  3.44  20  2.27  40  2.76  60  4.00  80  3.68  64.07  130.74  198.77  263.6/80  Average  NOTE:  A l l values given are Z-scores  = 3.30  123 APPENDIX E  Q-Sort  Items  1  Student suggestions f o r course changes a r e c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r e d by i n s t r u c t o r s .  2  C l a s s marks a r e a d j u s t e d i f they are e i t h e r lower or h i g h e r than expected.  3  F.equired r e a d i n g l i s t s  4  Students a r e r e q u i r e d to submit a t l e a s t one assignment per course each week.  •5  Refinements are made to departmental a f t e r each t e s t c y c l e .  6  L a b o r a t o r y e x e r c i s e s are r e g u l a r l y reviewed to ensure they a r e as p r a c t i c a l as p o s s i b l e .  7  Assignment dates are c o o r d i n a t e d among c l a s s e s at the b e g i n n i n g o f each term.  8  Quiz marks are expected to range from very low to v e r y h i g h w i t h an average o f about 65 p e r c e n t .  9  Course o b j e c t i v e s are j o i n t l y and students.  a r e r e v i s e d each year.  tests  s e t by i n s t r u c t o r  10  E a r l y term t e s t s have h i g h enough standards that poor students are convinced to drop out quickly.  11  Department members a r e i n v i t e d to e v a l u a t e other member's t e a c h i n g s k i l l s .  12  F i n a l grades c o n t a i n p r o v i s i o n s f o r some d i s c r e t i o n a r y marks f o r student a t t i t u d e .  13  I n s t r u c t o r s organize modest student r e s e a r c h problems.  14  Teaching processes are a u t o m a t i c a l l y reviewed when c l a s s marks are lower than expected.  15  Students are r e q u i r e d to a t t e n d a l l c l a s s e s unless i l l .  124 APPENDIX E (Continued)  Q-Sort Items  16  C u r r i c u l u m r e v i s i o n s are based on an a n a l y s i s of apparent student needs.  17  Course o u t l i n e s are r e v i s e d each year.  18  Students can n e g o t i a t e the d e t a i l s o f major assignments w i t h t h e i r i n s t r u c t o r s .  19  Course standards are based on c u r r e n t job reauirements.  20  The department encourages i n s t r u c t o r s to conduct modest departmental r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s .  21  Course standards are set h i g h enough to guarantee that graduates w i l l be o f h i g h q u a l i t y .  22  Student grades are analyzed to determine the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f i n s t r u c t o r t e a c h i n g methods.  23  Teaching a s s i s t a n t s are used i n some c l a s s e s to reduce i n s t r u c t o r l o a d .  24  The department of graduates.  25  I n s t r u c t i o n a l goals are set to meet work-place requirements.  26  The department changes course content only when i t can prove students w i l l b e n e f i t from the changes.  27  P l a n n i n g i s based on long-term departmental obj e c t i v e s .  28  C u r r i c u l u m changes are made only a f t e r the department documents the advantages to be gained by the students.  29  Departmental members c o l l e c t i v e l y o l a n programme changes.  c o l l e c t s data on job placement  125 APPENDIX E (Continued)  Q-Sort Items  30  Departmental c u r r i c u l u m committees c u r r i c u l u m changes.  approve  31  Students are r e a u i r e d to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the e v a l u a t i o n of t h e i r i n s t r u c t o r s .  32  I n s t r u c t i o n i s c a r e f u l l y paced so students can complete the e s s e n t i a l course o b j e c t i v e s by term end.  33  Team t e a c h i n g i s used.  34  New i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods are implemented a m a j o r i t y o f the department agrees.  35  I n s t r u c t o r s p r o v i d e c a r e f u l l y s e l e c t e d supplemental r e a d i n g l i s t s .  36  T o p i c s f o r student p r o j e c t s are chosen by the department.  37  I n s t r u c t o r s schedule t e s t s at r e g u l a r  38  I n d u s t r y surveys are used to a i d i n c u r r i c u l u m design.  39  Course o u t l i n e s are a l t e r e d during the course i f necessary to improve i n s t r u c t i o n .  40  Students are encouraged to use the l i b r a r y t o i n v e s t i g a t e open-ended problems.  41  Students c o l l e c t data f o r i n s t r u c t o r ' s proj ects.  42  I n s t r u c t i o n i s c a r e f u l l y scheduled so a l l t o p i c s can be taught by the end o f term.  43  Some departmental funds are p r o v i d e d f o r approved student p r o j e c t s .  44  Student s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n c o n t r i b u t e s to term marks.  when  intervals.  research  126 APPENDIX E  Q-Sort  (Continued)  Items  45  Proposed i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s are c l e a r l y o u t l i n e d to students b e f o r e c l a s s e s begin.  46  Course o b j e c t i v e s are based h e a v i l y on the experience o f the i n s t r u c t o r s .  47  Changes to c u r r i c u l u m are phased i n c a r e f u l l y .  48  C l a s s t i m e t a b l e s are organized to permit some independent study.  49  I n s t r u c t o r s r e v i s e t e s t dates when students are overloaded w i t h work.  50  Student p r o j e c t p r o p o s a l s are approved by instructors.  51  I n s t r u c t o r s and students c o o p e r a t i v e l y seek new methods o f r e a c h i n g course o b j e c t i v e s .  52  Students are r e q u i r e d to undertake research projects.  53  Second year enrolment t a r g e t s are s e t to be lower than f i r s t year enrolment t a r g e t s .  54  S e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques a r e used i n each course.  55  I n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s a r e designed to meet a wide range o f student needs.  56  Department plans course changes when i t can i d e n t i f y new employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r graduates.  57  Course o b j e c t i v e s are g i v e n to students a t the s t a r t o f each term.  58  New i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods are t e s t e d i n c l a s s .  59  I n s t r u c t o r s p r o v i d e a model f o r students to follow.  small  127 APPENDIX E (Continued)  Q-Sort Items  60  A v a i l a b l e job openings f o r graduates are used to determine enrolment l e v e l t a r g e t s .  61  Student e v a l u a t i o n of i n s t r u c t o r s i s an accepted departmental p r a c t i c e .  62  P r o j e c t s are planned j o i n t l y by students and instructors.  63  Students are graded by comparing t h e i r work a g a i n s t that o f t h e i r classmates.  64  Changes i n c u r r i c u l u m are a u t h o r i z e d by the department head.  65  Student grades are used as a gauge o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l success.  66  Students are t o l d at the s t a r t of term what the p a s s i n g standards are.  67  Student r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s are f u l l members o f programme r e v i s i o n committees.  68  Any proposed course changes are checked i n p i l o t groups.  69  T e s t s are based on s t a t e d course o b j e c t i v e s .  70  S t u d e n t - s e l e c t e d r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s are an i n t e g r a l p a r t of the programme.  71  I n s t r u c t o r s i d e n t i f y p o t e n t i a l jobs f o r t h e i r best graduates.  72  Students can s e l e c t a v a r i e t y o f s t a r t i n g l e v e l s i n t h e i r courses.  73  Homework assignment marks are i n c l u d e d i n f i n a l grades.  74  Each i n s t r u c t o r ' s end-of-term marks are reviewed by a departmental marks review committee.  128 APPENDIX E  (Continued)  Q-Sort Items  75  Causes o f student f a i l u r e are examined to see i f changes i n c u r r i c u l u m are needed.  76  P r o v i s i o n i s made f o r easy access to remedial instruction.  77  Changes i n course content are made only a f t e r c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n by a departmental review committee.  78  I n s t r u c t o r s i n i t i a t e p l a n n i n g f o r new programmes  79  L a b o r a t o r y e x e r c i s e s are w e l l i n t e g r a t e d lecture material.  80  A l l students can achieve a f i r s t c l a s s standing i f they master s t a t e d l e a r n i n g o b j e c t i v e s .  into  129  APPENDIX F  CLUSTER ANALYSIS STATISTICS  Eigenvalues 26.10396 2.28632 1.50325 1.22206  6.04173 2.08901 1.49236 1.14303  3.45223 1.94759 1.44895 1.09331  and c o n t i n u i n g f o r another to 0.00001.  2.80632 1.79645 1.33678 1.05581  58 eigenvalues down  Cumulative  P r o p o r t i o n o f Eigenvalues  0.33044 0.54738 0.66135 0.74745  0.40692 0.57382 0.68025 0.76192  0.45062 0.59847 0.69859 0.77576  2.55142 1.66781 1.30129 0.97048  0.48614 0.62121 0.71551 0.78912  0.51844 0.64233 0.73198  terminated a f t e r 19 v l a u e s to correspond to 19 c l u s t e r s taken w i t h eigenvalues g r e a t e r than 1.0000 3.  B a r t l e t t ' s Test f o r N o n - I d e n t i t y C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x Chi-Square = 6,427.9 Degrees o f freedom = 3,160 C h i - p r o b a b i l i t y = -0.0  4.  K a i s e r - M e y e r - O l k i n Measure o f Sampling Adequacy O v e r a l l measure = 0.99994 Range i n v a l u e s is" 0.99999 to 0.99973  5.  T e s t o f Adequate F a c t o r i n g With 19 F a c t o r s Chi-Square = 3,684.5 Degrees o f freedom = 1,830 C h i - p r o b a b i l i t y = -0.0  APPENDIX  G  Z-SCORES  FOR N I N E T E E N  CLUSTER-ITEM  8  9  10  11  15  16  18  19  1  1.218  1.128  -0.111  0.431  0.557  -0.350  -1.177  0.240  0.846  1.018  0.986  0.000  0.784  -1.674  0.440  0.784  -0.404  0.000  -0.345  2  -2.144  -2.172  -0.771  -1.977  -1.916  1.735  -0.392  1.710  -1.969  -1.638  -1.070  -0.784  1.961  -0.039  -0.397  0.000  0.214  -0.903  -0.891  3  0.906  0.006  -0.380  0.773  -0.461  -0.506  0.000  -0.603  0.524  1.133  -0.146  0.392  0.392  0.786  0.000  -0.392  0.230  0.477  -0.442  4  •0.906  -1.468  -1.515  -1.027  -0.195  1.504  0.784  0.591  -0.978  1.271  -1.304  -0.784  1.177  1.230  -1.582  -0.784  1.369  -1.395  -1.332  5  0.293  0.227  -0.946  -0.519  0.387  0.049  -1.569  -0.410  -0.911  -1.395  -0.248  -0.784  0.392  0.444  0.174  -1.177  0.995  -0.238  -1.182  6  0.000  0.660  1.418  -0.331  1.334  -0.963  0.000  -1.295  1.188  0.926  0.521  0.784  -0.784  -0.583  0.572  -0.784  -1.509  0.936  1.205  7  0.751  0.132  0.954  1.027  0.151  0.179  1.569  0.172  0.556  -0.818  0.636  -1.569  0.784  -0.648  1.143  0.000  1.313  -0.185  0.277  8  -0.595  -2.193  -1.236  -1.458  -0.129  1.748  0.784  -0.160  -1.155  -1.480  -1.450  -0.784  1.569  0.990  -1.492  -0.392  1.900  0.441  -0.602  9  -1.218  0.689  -1.883  -0.950  -0.357  0.770  -0.392  1.951  -0.705  -0.818  -1.095  -0.392  0.000  0.990  0.174  -0.784  1.435  -1.139  -1.953  10  -1.988  -2.093  -0.352  1.204  0.595  2.398  -2.353  1.189  -1.700  -1.403  -1.746  0.392  -0.392  1.878  -1.317  -1.961  1.005  0.221  -1.002  11  -0.293  0.202  -1.293  -0.088  0.446  0.784  -1.569  0.659  0.639  -0.656  0.430  1.177  0.392  -1.369  -1.137  1.177  0.796  -0.053  0.456  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  12  ARRAY  13  14  17  12  0.156  -1.481  0.571  1.116  -0.864  0.687  -0.784  -1.543  -0.642  0.423  -1.397  0.392  -1.961  0.546  -0.878  -1.568  -0.795  -1.174  -0.168  13  0.604  -0.321  0.281  1.039  -1.708  0.622  -0.392  -0.161  -0.689  0.141  -0.735  0.784  0.392  -0.102  -0.614  -0.392  0.304  -0.035  0.208  14  0.010  0.227  -1.460  -1.293  -1.305  0.699  0.000  -0.917  -0.554  -0.942  -0.277  0.000  -0.000  0.102  -0.048  0.784  0.696  -0.221  0.297  15  •0.165  -1.757  0.549  -0.088  -0.137  1.524  -1.177  1.736  0.035  1.471  -1.819  1.177  -0.784  2.257  -0.307  -0.784  0.805  2.039  -0.593  16  1.228  0.348  0.017  -1.027  0.059  0.607  0.392  0.642  0.055  -0.620  0.181  0.392  0.000  1.165  -1.011  0.392  -0.422  0.018  1.520  17  1.676  0.017  -0.481  -0.165  0.918  -0.260  -0.785  -0.925  0.787  -0.230  0.500  0.392  -1.177  -1.027  0.000  0.392  0.300  1.156  1.037  18  -0.458  0.771  0.349  1.458  -0.063  -0.004  0.392  0.450  0.097  -0.686  0.000  0.000  0.784  -0.204  -0.174  0.784  1.722  -2.277  -0.949  19  -0.916  0.356  1.548  -1.723  0.071  -1.297  -1.177  -0.271  -0.284  0.437  0.023  -0.784  1.569  0.102  -1.492  -0.784  -0.226  2.295  -0.276  20  -0.741  -0.640  -0.285  -0.596  -1.093  -0.237  1.177  0.049  -0.884  0.397  -0.116  0.784  0.392  -0.065  0.614  1.177  0.335  -0.918  0.551  21  1.237  -0.070  2.678  1.900  0.993  -1.227  -1.177  -2.627  0.797  2.209  2.140  2.353  -2.353  1.128  2.503  2.353  -2.391  0.662  2.705  22  -1.686  -0.883  -1.686  0.331  1.019  0.738  0.392  -0.508  -0.285  -0.315  -0.871  -0.392  1.569  0.546  0.572  -1.569  0.570  -0.680  -1.703  23  0.302  -0.442  0.110  -0.342  0.564  0.892  0.392  0.957  -0.851  0.059  -1.050  1.177  0.000  -0.583  -1.931  -0.392  -0.778  -0.971  -0.066  24  1.053  -0.137  1.064  0.265  -1.257  0.262  -1.177  0.089  0.857  -0.223  0.702  -1.177  -1.177  -0.749  1.450  -1.177  -0.565  0.662  -0.141  W O  APPENDIX G 1  2  3  4  5  Z-SCORES FOR NINETEEN CLUSTER-ITEM ARRAY 6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  2.313  1.903  25  -0.760  0.650  -0.122  -0.077  0.990  -1.274  0 . 000  -0.350  1.033  2.479  1 . 382  0.000  -1.569  - 0 . 102  0 . 662  -0.784  -2.435  -0.137  -0.123  -1.184  -0.177  0.140  -0.898  0.000  0.288  1.472  0.686  0 . 636  0.784  -1.569  0 . 990  - 0 . 481  -1.177  -0.378  0.441  -0.1.67  26  -0.302  0.413  0.641  -0.177  0.221  -2.069  0 . 000  -0.048  1.980  - 0 . 623  1 . 766  1.569  -0.784  0 . 481  - 0 . 307  0.000  -0.496  0.238  1.046  27  1.530  -0.211  -0.675  0.000  -0.326  -0.847  0 . 392  -0.497  1.528  -0.867  0 . 871  -1.177  0.000  -0.102  - 0 . 174  -1.569  -0.018  -0.203  1.364  28  0.458  0.576  0.282  -0.596  -0.642  -1.756  0 . 392  0.957  0.751  -0.876  0 . 595  -0.784  -1.961  - 1 . 230  1 . 931  -1.177  -0.696  0.900  1.372  29  0.614  -0.388  -0.964  -0.342  -0.180  -0.656  0 . 000  0.603  0.747  -0.867  0 . 640  0.784  • 0.000  -0.823  0 . 746  0.784  -0.391  1.615  1.191  30  0.358  -0.763  -0.265  1.061  0.895 - 0 . 3 9 2  -1.103  1.136  0 . 023  - 0 . 038  -0.392  -0.392  - 0 . 379  - 1 . 317  0.000  -0.256  -0.129  0.321  0.406  31  2.281  1.004  0.900  0.862  2.478  0 . 392  -1.211  -0.027  0 . 125  1 . 485  1.177  -0.000  - 0 . 749  1 . ,143  0.392  -0.022  -0.459  0.718  32  -0.034  -0.303  -0.088  0.695  0.318 - 1 . 5 6 9  -0.957  -0.917  0 . 000  - 0 . 694  -0.392  -0.392  - 0 . 786  1 . ,227  -0.392  0.238  0.041  -1.072  -1.087  33  -0.458  -1.050  -0.732  -0.265  0.313  0 . 0 3 4 - 0 . 392  0.641  -0.758  - 0 . 785  -0.848  -1.569  1.177  - 0 . 000  0. ,614  0.000  0.796  -0.203  -0.450  34  -0.002  0.041  -0.165  0.967  - 0 . 5 5 9 - 1 . 177  -0.691  -0.023  0 . 620  0 . 295  0.784  0.784  0 . 583  0.439  0.392  0.635  0.440  0.614  0.477  35  -1.276  -0.538  -0.608  -1.405  0.648  0 . ,000  -0.371  -1.409  0.463  -0.768  -1.961  0.784  1 . ,572  - 1 , .185  -0.392  0.491  -0.818  -0.318  0.68 0  36  -0.020  0.950  1.081  0.137  1 . .177  -0.155  -0.067  0 . 803  0. .169  0.784  -0.392  - 1 . .128  0,.264  1.177  0.261  -0.188  0.165  -0.714  -1.174  37  1.167  1.495  0.519  -1.016  -2.155  0. .784  -0.808  1.199  0. .726  1.807  1.961  -0.000  - 1 . .230  1 .624  0.784  1.359  1.962  0.741  -0.235  38  -0.131  -0.773  -1.349  0.406  0.. 0 0 0  0.350  0:545  0,.651  0..185  -1.569  -0.784  - 0 .379  -0.222  1.177  0.992  1.013  1.174  1.832  -0.887  39  -0.038  1.977  -0.315  -0.779  1.177  -0.586  0.726  1.389  - 0 .166  0.392  0.784  0.481  1 .053  0.392  0.051  1.115  -0.680  1.228  -0.565  AO  -1.961  0.000  -0.851  1 . 3 0 5 - 0 .392  2.755  -1.981  - 0 .975  - 2 .557  0.392  0.392  1 .914  - 1 .757  -1.177  -1.818  -1.809  -0.936  -1.062  0.526  41  -0.685  2.097  1 .961  -0.635  -0.496  1 .405  0 .955  1.177  0.784  1 .434  0 .000  -1.291  0.194  -0.609  0.423  -0.459  1.384  -0.784  42  0.612  1.039  -1.319  0.508 - 1 .569  -0.853  -0.200  0 .397  - 0 .319  0.784  -0.000  - 0 .444  - 0 .920  -1.139  -0.276  -0.134  1.113  0.156  0.784  43  -0.354  0.060  1.803 - 1 .961  1.156  -1.445  - 1 .356  - 0 .920  -0.392  -1.569  0 .139  -0.746  -1.177  - 1 . 4 67  -0.021  -2.181  -1.377  -0.623  1.513  44  1.222  1.204  1.674  -1.118  2 .253  -0.160  0.765  0 .677  0 .911  1.569  -0.748  - 0 .851  1.185  -0.831  0.611  1.214  0.936  -0.156  0.000  45  -1.812  0.258  1.947  - 0 .784  1.761  0.137  1 .109  -0.803  0.000  -0.392  0 .953  - 0 .529  1.961  -0.692  0.191  0.680  -0.010  -1.379  -1.721  46  0.431  -0.744  -0.758  - 0 .392  0.200  1.264  - 1 .182  0 .612  0.392  1.177  - 0 .000  -0.132  0.680  1.124  1.135  0.230  1.511  -0.126  0.784  47  1.800  -0.037  -0.290  1 .177  -0.143  -0.356  - 0 .254  0 .585  -1.569  0.392  0 .379  0.874  0.447  0.418  -0.697  0.662  0.639  0.156  0.392  48  -0.058  0.764  0.392  -0.659  -0.410  -0.413  - 0 .023  0.392  -0.392  - 0 .684  - 2 .238  -0.375  0.290  0.673  0.238  0.200  0.156  0.760  0.000  49  -1.457  -1.203  APPENDIX G 1  2  3  4  5  Z-SCORES F O R N I N E T E E N C L U S T E R - I T E M A R R A Y 6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  50  0.906  0.186  0.410  1.293  -0.930  -0.362  0.000  -0.908  0.281  0.479  -0.021  1.177  1.177  -0.786  -0.307  0.784  -0.356  0.035  0.662  51  -0.770  1.572  -1.049  0.508  -1.583  -0.299  -0.392  1.013  -0.024  -1.248  -0.026  -0.392  0.392  -0.000  1.624  0.392  1.169  -0.221  -0.605  52  0.312  -0.374  -0.383  0.785  -0.930  0.092  1.177  -1.141  0.068  1.083  -0.352  1.177  1.177  0.102  -0.307  0.392  0.391  -0.715  0.720  53  -1.530  -1.495  0.601  -0.862  1.019  0.977  -0.784  0.691  -0.620  -0.679  -2.024  -2.353  -0.784  0.721  -1.011  -0.392  1.678  -1.651  -1.946  54  1.062  1.200  0.451  -0.862  0.769  -0.506  -0.784  -0.691  -0.634  0.423  -0.019  -1.177  -0.392  0.065  1.931  1.177  -0.905  -0.715  -0.386  55  -1.667  1.648  0.372  -0.773  0.979  -0.091  1.569  0.298  -0.386  0.656  0.605  -1.177  -0.784  1.369  0.439  1.177  -0.548  -1.103  0.433  56  1.384  0.491  1.719  0.519  0.456  -1.499  0.392  0.104  1.869  0.421  -0.196  -0.784  -0.392  0.037  1.360  0.392  -1.765  1.615  1.599  57  1.072  1.833  1.342  2.231  2.450  -1.781  1.961  -0.994  1.563  0.411  1.940  1.961  0.784  -1.979  1.185  1.961  -0.905  2.057  0.799  58  0.302  0.117  0.076  -0.254  -0.160  0.775  -0.784  0.884  -0.693  -0.512  -0.714  0.000  -0.392  -0.342  1.185  0.000  0.813  0.936  -0.021  59  0.604  0.218  1.599  -1.027  1.208  0.488  0.392  1.311  -0.899  2.488  1.313  0.392  0.392  1.332  -0.571  -1.961  0.787  -0.238  -0.200  60  1.355  0.124  2.244  -0.254  -1.065  -0.535  -0.784  -1.759  1.444  -0.026  0.676  0.000  -1.177  0.037  0.794  -0.392  -0.983  0.697  -0.832  61  0.010  0.746  0.082  0.342  0.320  -0.267  0.000  -1.865  1.212  0.254  1.138  0.000  -1.177  -1.914  0.704  1.569  0.374  0.406  0.888  62  -1.520  0.745  -0.834  0.862  -0.503  -0.415  -0.392  -1.328  -0.037  0.141  -0.363  -0.392  -0.392  -0.990  0.572  0.784  0.887  -0.900  -1.362  63  -0.458  -2.296  -0.715  -0.088  -2.218  1.406  -1.177  0.940  -1.814  -2.117  -2.041  -0.392  2.353  1.230  -1.143  -2.353  -0.504  -1.598  -1.472  64  -0.614  -1.287  -0.063  -0.188  0.040  -0.739  0.784  0.459  0.733  0.042  -0.550  -1.961  0.000  -1.027  -0.878  -1.569  -0.957  -0.971  0.997  65  -1.374  -1.177  -1.269  -2.143  -0.681  1.801  1.177  0.392  -1.818  -1.356  -1.158  0.000  1.961  1.091  -1.053  -0.784  0.761  -0.900  -1.864  66  1.218  1.206  0.551  1.812  0.322  -0.631  1.569  -0.762  0.892  0.982  1.331  -0.784  -1.177  -1.813  -0.132  1.569  -1.204  1.354  -0.377  67  -0.770  0.515  -1.738  -0.431  -0.265  0.900  -0.784  1.854  0.261  -0.818  -0.138  0.000  0.784  -0.342  -0.571  0.000  0.778  -0.018  -1.213  68  -0.916  -0.228  -0.620  -1.293  -1.559  0.735  -0.784  0.890  -0.527  -1.159  -0.621  -0.392  1.569  0.444  0.788  1.569  1.100  -0.918  0.188  69  0.458  1.733  0.363  -1.546  1.719  -1.155  0.784  -1.123  0.111  0.785  1.379  -1.177  -0.392  -2.460  0.391  0.392  -1.043  0.697  1.074  70  0.000  0.230  -0.617  1.193  -0.560  -0.017  1.177  0.264  -0.087  0.571  -0.888  -0.392  0.000  -0.102  0.132  -0.392  0.252  -0.680  0.453  71  -0.312  -0.893  0.839  0.342  -0.091  0.572  -0.392  1.511  -0.836  -0.834  -1.267  0.784  -0.784  1.813  -1.101  -0.392  -1.269  -1.359  -1.354  72  -2.436  1.344  0.281  -2.154  -1.991  0.884  0.784  0.266  -2.256  -2.091  -1.111  0.000  0.392  0.065  0.656  0.392  2.373  -1.103  -1.225  73  0.468  -0.168  0.675  0.685  0.816  -0.281  0.784  -0.995  0.971  -0.009  0.572  -0.392  -1.177  0.342  -0.746  0.000  -0.722  0.697  -0.197  N3  APPENDIX 1  2  3  4  5  G 6  Z-SCORES 7  8  FOR NINETEEN 9  10  CLUSTER-ITEM 11  12  ARRAY  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  74  -1.072  -0.886  -0.704  1..116  -0-. O i l  -0. 116  -1.,961  0.563  0.469  -1.553  0.681  0.,000  -1.,177  -1.,165  -0.571  -1.177  -0.,778  0.918  -0.243  75  0.000  0.917  0.133  -1..116  0.369  0.,192  0.,000  -0.209  0.881  -0.338  0.585  -1.,177  1..177  0.,444  0.572  -0.784  0..622  -0.883  -0.384  76  0.146  1.044  1.126  0..608  -0.258  -0..691  0..392  -0.874  -0.086  0.959  1.522  0.,392  0..392  -0..546  0.481  1.569  -0..148  -0.883  0.234  77  -0.448  -0.819  -0.260  -0,.431  -0.509  -1,.314  0,.784  1.139  1.348  -0.726  0.604  -1..177  1,.177  -0,.786  -0.439  0.000  0,.300  0.715  0.634  78  0.458  0.145  0.276  0,.608  -0.101  -0..070  -0 .392  -0.017 • 0.436  0.933  -0.383  1,.569  -0,.000  -0,.000  -1.053  -0.392  -0 .391  -0.715  0.994  0.760  0.851  1.492  0 .696  1.616  -0 .972  0 .784  -1.302  1.480  1.323  0.900  1 .569  0 .784  '1,.535  1.143  1.177  -1 .826  1.156  1.213  79 80  -1.355  1.879  -1.558  -1 .204  -0.071  -0 .287  1 .569  0.886  -1.801  -0.098  0.075  -0 .784  -1 .569  1 .535  -1.095  0.000  1 .348  0.018  -0.899  LO  134  APPENDIX H Q-Sort  Instructions  A Q-sort i s a form o f a f o r c e d c h o i c e r a t i n g system s i m i l a r to the f a m i l i a r f i v e p o i n t r a t i n g  scale.  The main d i f f e r e n c e s are many items or statements are compared, a l a r g e r number o f increments i s used i n the s c a l e , and groups o f statements a r e a s s i g n e d by the r a t e r to each o f the increments i n the s c a l e . the  Also,  numbers o f statements i n each approximately-equal-  i n - v a l u e increment w i l l v a r y a c c o r d i n g to a s e t p a t t e r n . Examples o f how t h i s w i l l work are g i v e n below.  In  t h i s Q-sort, you w i l l be r a t i n g 80 statements,  a l l o c a t i n g each o f them t o one o f the 13 increments ( i d e n t i f i e d by l e t t e r s from A to M), w i t h the number of  statements a l l o c a t e d to each increment v a r y i n g  1 to 12 to produce an approximately normal p a t t e r n t h a t looks l i k e :  from  distribution  135  A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  1  2  4  7  9  11  12  11  9  7  4  2  1  X  X X  X  X X  X X  X X  X X X X X X X  X X X X  X X X X X X X  X X  X X  X X X X X  X X  X X  X X X X X  X  x:  X X  X X X  most agreeing w i t h my view  X X  <  X X X  nXn eX e u u t Xt r Xr a a l l x  X X X X  X X X X X X X  X X  X X  most disagreeing w i t h my view  X  Note t h a t each "x" r e p r e s e n t s one statement on a card that i s i n t h i s Q-sort k i t and the alphanumerics on the top l i n e r e p r e s e n t envelopes i n the k i t .  Also,  each  column o f "x"'s or statements has been r a t e d to be about the same i n importance by the person doing the comparison  and r a t i n g .  While t h e r e may be some v a r i a -  t i o n s i n the items i n one column, they are c l o s e r to each o t h e r than they are to others i n other columns.  Most people can complete 30 and 45 minutes. clear, f l a t  t h i s Q-sort i n between  Before you b e g i n you w i l l need a  s u r f a c e about 45" by 30".  A standard desk would be i d e a l .  T r y to s e l e c t a  time and p l a c e where you w i l l not be d i s t u r b e d .  136  The Q-sort k i t you have r e c e i v e d should have envelopes,  two  one c o n t a i n i n g 80 cards and another c o n t a i n i n g  t h i r t e e n marked s m a l l envelopes. each have a d i f f e r e n t statement  The on one  80 cards w i l l s i d e and a d i f f e r -  ent random, r e f e r e n c e number on the o t h e r s i d e . the numbers are randomly chosen,  Since  there i s not any  sig-  n i f i c a n t p a t t e r n or r e l a t i o n s h i p between the number s e r i e s and some hidden p a t t e r n i n the  statements.  At the top o f your t a b l e , s e t out the 13 envelopes to "M"  i n sequence from "A"  lettered  on the extreme l e f t s i d e  on the extreme r i g h t s i d e (see example on the  page of these  first  instructions).  S h u f f l e the 80 cards and p l a c e them sentence-side up i n random order on the t a b l e top. card on the t a b l e , read the sentence.  As you p l a c e each When a l l 80  cards  are on the t a b l e i n f u l l view, spend s e v e r a l minutes g l a n c i n g over the sentences  so you get an o v e r a l l i m p r e s s i o n o f a l l  80 cards.  The next step i s to s p l i t the cards i n t o three groups.  The  80 statements  r e p r e s e n t a s m a l l sample o f the  137  thousands  o f statements  t h a t c o u l d be g i v e n to d e s c r i b e  the a c t i v i t i e s , b e h a v i o r s , o r " s t y l e " o o f a t e a c h i n g department i n an i n s t i t u t i o n s i m i l a r to B.C.I.T.  You  probably have some memories from when you were a student or from o b s e r v a t i o n s o f a department t h a t you would r a t e as "good", "so what", or "bad".  You probably have some  p i c t u r e o f what you would c o n s i d e r to be the " i d e a l t e a c h i n g department".  Your p e r c e p t i o n s o f the i d e a l  department and those o f o t h e r people may be s i m i l a r o r may be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t depending erence.  on your frame o f r e f -  The o b j e c t i v e of t h i s Q-sort i s t o see i f i t i s  capable o f d e t e c t i n g such s i m i l a r i t i e s or d i f f e r e n c e s i n small samples o f people.  Now back t o the Q-sort  details.  Look over the 80 cards and s e l e c t about 25 s t a t e ments you f e e l would most l i k e l y be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h what you would l a b e l "The I d e a l Teaching Department a t B.C.I.T.". Set t h a t p i l e a s i d e .  Select  cards having statements  another approximately 25  that would be l e a s t l i k e l y to  be found i n your " I d e a l Department".  The remaining  approximately 30 cards should have those statements f o r which you have no s t r o n g o p i n i o n f o r o r a g a i n s t i . e . you are somewhat n e u t r a l .  138  Take the "most l i k e l y " p i l e cards out a g a i n . quickly.  and spread the  Read the statements again f a i r l y  S e l e c t the one statement you f e e l  most important of . a l l those g i v e n . statement  s i d e up,  directly  i s the  P l a c e that card,  under the envelope  "A".  Note t h a t the numbers on the envelopes correspond to the numbers o f cards that w i l l be p l a c e d below each of the envelopes as s o r t i n g proceeds. page 1 of these i n s t r u c t i o n s . are  See the example on  Even i f you f e e l  s e v e r a l cards of n e a r l y equal importance,  choose  there  you must  one as the most important.  Now,  go back to the d i s p l a y e d cards and draw, i n  descending order of importance, then 9 cards.  first  2, then 4, then 7,  P l a c e those cards under the a p p r o p r i a t e  envelopes i . e . 2 under B, 4 under C, 7 under D, and 9 under E. for  Any  l e f t over cards go on the " n e u t r a l "  pile  now.  Take the " l e a s t l i k e l y " cards and spread them out j u s t as you d i d f o r the "most l i k e l y " p i l e . one statement or  S e l e c t the  that i s the l e a s t l i k e l y of a l l those t h e r e  the one t h a t you d i s a g r e e most s t r o n g l y w i t h .  i t beneath  the "M"  envelope.  Then i n sequence,  descending o r d e r o f disagreement then 9 c a r d s .  Place select i n  2, then 4, then 7,  and  P l a c e them i n columns under the matching  and  139  envelopes,  i . e . the 2 under the "L", e t c .  Any  left  overs go on the remaining p i l e of unused c a r d s .  Spread  out the remaining  cards and s e l e c t 11 w i t h  which you agree somewhat as b e l o n g i n g t o the " I d e a l Department" and p l a c e them below envelope  "F".  Select  11 you d i s a g r e e w i t h b e l o n g i n g to the " I d e a l Department" and p l a c e them under "H".  You  should now  l e f t over t h a t you are mostly undecided neutral.  P l a c e these under  have 12  cards  about or are  "G".  What you should have i s a d i s t r i b u t i o n that i s i d e n t i c a l to t h a t shown on page 1 o f these  instructions.  The  the  column on the f a r l e f t , under "A",  has  statement  you most agree w i t h as b e l o n g i n g to your " I d e a l Department" moving to the r i g h t w i t h d e c r e a s i n g amounts of agreement as you move' from column to column. n e u t r a l at "G" and disagreement the r i g h t  you move.  extreme r i g h t , at  The  The middle i s  r i s e s the f a r t h e r to  The maximum disagreement  i s at the  "M".  f i n a l step i n the s o r t i n g i s to r e c o n s i d e r  any c h o i c e you have made.  I f you f e e l you have made  any i n c o r r e c t c h o i c e s , s h i f t cards around as much as  you  wish as long as the numbers i n each column remain i n the  140  p a t t e r n given on the envelopes.  As soon as you f e e l you have made the f i n a l choice, c o l l e c t the cards beneath each envelope and p l a c e them i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e envelopes,  i.e. a l l 7  cards under envelope " J " are p l a c e d i n s i d e " J " .  Seal  the envelopes so t h a t cards cannot come out and be mixed together  again.  P l a c e the s e a l e d envelopes i n the o r i g i n a l l a r g e 8% x 11  The  envelope.  f i n a l step i s to g i v e me some i n f o r m a t i o n  on your background and your p l a c e i n the B.C.I.T. organization. fill  There i s a short q u e s t i o n n a i r e enclosed.  i t i n and p l a c e i t i n the envelope.  and readdress  Please  S e a l the envelope  i t to me and leave i t i n my mailbox i n the  mailroom o r c a l l me to p i c k i t up.  I f you have any  questions, p l e a s e c a l l me at l o c a l 406 or a t home a t XYZ-ABCD. (Number d e l e t e d f o r p u b l i c a t i o n . )  When the r e s u l t s are compiled  w i t h i n the next few  weeks, I w i l l be pleased t o d i s c u s s them w i t h anyone interested.  Your responses w i l l be r e v e a l e d only to  y o u r s e l f unless you permit  otherwise.  141  Thank you. Your c o o p e r a t i o n i s much a p p r e c i a t P l e a s e c a l l on me i f you ever become i n v o l v e d i n a s i m i l a r v e n t u r e and I can be o f any a s s i s t a n c e .  High Priority  2  (  J  1 OA  T  0 0  -1 0  Low Priority  to  Legend Type A Type B  mmsmmmm  Type C  I  J  "2 0  —I— 60  —i—  42  F i g u r e 1.  80  72  14  i 61  —i 54  —i 29  Items Items d i s c r i m i n a t i n g among t h e t h r e e Types  i 55  -r-  51  25  79  High Priority 2 OH  1.0-  o.o-  I Legend - 1 . 0 H  Type Low Priority  C  I  •  -2.0H  —r-  ~~i—  12  53  22  71  23  36  1  1  1  1  1  T"  64  66  48  45  40  18  Items  Figure 1 (continued)  High Priority 2.CH  1.CH  0-0-  Legend 1.0H  Low  - 2  -°  Priority 19  54 Items  Figure  1  (continued)  Type  B  i _ _  Type  C  I  1  Agree  Liberal Figure  2  Conservative  Loading  Student Centred  patterns  Department Centred  among Groups by i n d e p e n d e n t  variables.  Agree  2.0  1-0H  0-0-  real  Legend  -1.0H  Group  1  Group  2  Group  3  Group  4  G r o u p .5 Group  •2.0-1 Disagree Plan  Research  F i g u r e 2 (continued)  I nstruct  Evaluate  Revise  6  nr.  BBfusmsi  IIlIIIHllIIIIlili  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055789/manifest

Comment

Related Items