A Comparison of Faculty and Institutional Practices between Teacher Education and the Liberal Arts and Sciences.Report as inadecuate




A Comparison of Faculty and Institutional Practices between Teacher Education and the Liberal Arts and Sciences. - Download this document for free, or read online. Document in PDF available to download.





In order to explore the perceived conflict between teacher education programs and liberal arts and sciences programs this study examined faculty and institutional principles for good practice in undergraduate education at a comprehensive college. For the study, 14 teacher education (TE) and 10 liberal arts and sciences (LAS) (all from the mathematics/sciences division) full-time, senior faculty completed two instruments: Faculty Inventory Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education and Institutional Inventory Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. The inventories were designed to examine individual faculty behaviors and institutional policies and practices for consistency with the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. Data were analyzed and treated for descriptive, correlational, and differential measures. Results found no statistically significant differences between the two groups of faculty. There were however, good practice variables that were associated with professional propensities in both faculty and institutional areas. TE faculty demonstrated higher levels of good practice in encouraging cooperation among students, active learning, and respect for diverse talents and ways of learning. On the other hand, LAS faculty demonstrated better practice in institutional variables of climate, curriculum, faculty, and facilities. (Contains 30 references.) (JB)

Descriptors: College Faculty, College Instruction, Colleges, Comparative Analysis, Higher Education, Liberal Arts, Preservice Teacher Education, School Policy, Schools of Education, Teacher Behavior, Teacher Educators, Teaching Models, Teaching Styles, Undergraduate Study











Author: Powers, P. J.

Source: https://eric.ed.gov/?q=a&ft=on&ff1=dtySince_1992&pg=10867&id=ED377190



DOWNLOAD PDF




Related documents