|
The researcher examined frequencies of participant responses for each survey item. A total of 222 observations were made in this study (37 items for each of 6 different participants out of a total of 6 participants in phase one and 3 participants in phase two of
this study). The total number of responses were calculated for the scale. Frequencies were examined at the decision-area and decision-item levels. Frequencies of participant responses were also examined for the dataset as a whole. Measures of central tendency, including an overall mean and mean values by decision area were calculated. Finally, the range was calculated based on the dispersion of participant responses noted in frequency analyses.
Academic decision making. Analysis of the overall frequency of participant responses for academic decision items illustrated that responses were dispersed across the scale. As such, there was disagreement among participants about the location of academic decision items asked about on the survey. This was reflected in differences in participant responses noted at the decision-item level. Table 4.1 contains the frequency of participant responses for academic decisions.
Table 4.1
Frequency of Participant Responses for Academic Decisions
Table 4.1 (continued)
Deciding content for self-study for regional accreditation
|
4
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Deciding whether to seek accreditation for programs
|
3
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Defining the mission, purpose, goals, ad objectives of the system
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
4
|
0
|
Defining the mission, purpose, goals, and objectives of individual colleges
|
1
|
4
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
Establishing faculty teaching loads
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
Establishing new programs at individual colleges
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
Table 4.1 (continued)
Reviewing and eliminating existing programs at individual colleges
|
2
|
4
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Setting admissions standards at individual colleges
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
Setting degree requirements
|
0
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
Setting student- faculty ratios within programs or departments
|
4
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Total frequency
|
18
|
22
|
13
|
10
|
3
|
In examining responses at the decision-item level, participant responses illustrated that the decision items “deciding content for self-study for regional accreditation,” “deciding whether to seek accreditation for programs,” “reviewing and eliminating existing programs at the college”, and “setting student-faculty ratios within programs or departments” leaned toward the local college as the location of decision making. Whereas the item “reviewing and eliminating existing programs at the college” leaned toward the
local college, participant responses for the item “adding or discontinuing an academic department or division at a college” were dispersed across the scale. Given the scope of effect on personnel and governance structures of adding or discontinuing an academic department or division at a college, participants may have reasoned that this decision necessitated involvement of the system to some extent.
The item “establishing faculty teaching loads” was dispersed across the scale and further explored in phase two of this study. Phase two findings illustrated that the policy guiding decisions about teaching loads provided flexibility in decision making.
Specifically, KCTCS Administrative Policies and Procedures 2.11 Work Load used words like “normal teaching load,” “shall not exceed,” and “maximum number of contact hours per week” (p. 140-41). The fact that participant responses were dispersed across the scale for this item suggested that presidents interpret and apply this policy differently.
While the items “setting admissions standards at the individual colleges” and “setting degree requirements” leaned toward the system as the location of decision making, half of participants responded that these two decision items were shared equally between the system and colleges. The item “setting admissions standards at the individual colleges” was explored in phase two of this study. Phase two findings illustrated that admissions standards were consistent across the colleges, and interview participants described the faculty governance structure as the location of decision making for setting admissions standards. Considering there is a KCTCS faculty senate at the system level as well as a faculty council at the college level, participants may have reasoned that these dual structures necessitated shared decision making.
Administrative decision making. Participant responses illustrated that administrative decision making was dispersed across the scale; however, administrative decision making leaned toward the local college more than academic and personnel decision making. Table 4.2 contains the frequency of participant responses for administrative decisions.
Table 4.2
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
