An empirical study of student recruitment in teacher education

An empirical database collected from a student survey at California State University, Bakersfield (CSUB) was analyzed in this study to solicit factors affecting student recruitment in teacher education. The survey results indicated that school facilities, program requirements and class schedules were among the most important factors of student recruitment. While weekday afternoons seemed to be an acceptable school schedule to most students, weekday mornings and evenings were the most preferred choice for full- and part-time students, respectively. These findings may serve as a reference for other institutions to pursue a substantial increase of student enrollment in teacher education.

In recent years there has been a steady increase in enrollment of part-time students in higher education, especially in the area of teacher education (Tight,1991). The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1989) report that "during the 1990s, institutions - having learned from the past - are apt to recognize more readily that the cultivation of new constituencies and the offering of new kinds of programs may be critical to their continued health" (p. 42). The most updated statistics collected by the U.S. government project that the ratio between full- and part-time students will be less than 1.3:1 by year 1998 ( National Center for Education Statistics,1993, table 170). In response to the ongoing change of student constituency, an important need has emerged in school program reforms to accommodate more full- and part-time students. According to Hammond (1994), most higher education programs to date were designed to meet the needs of full-time students. The California Commission of Teacher Credentialing (1984) identified the part-time vs. full-time attendance as an important factor affecting student scores in the California Basic Educational Skill Test (CBEST). Thus, while full- and part-time students may share common needs on some aspects of teacher education, their different needs ought to be analyzed to solicit factors for further improvement of student recruitment. The empirical data analysis presented herein is to investigate school and program factors to facilitate recruitment of full- and part-time students in teacher education.

Background

Nowadays, many public institutions are facing increasingly intensified challenges from private schools in student recruitment. In California, for instance, a most updated institutional report showed that two small private schools were ranked on top of the ten largest state-wide credential granting institutions (Fitch, 1995). The competition was largely caused by the fact that many private institutions have aggressively added less rigorous weekend or evening programs at locations close to public universities. Consequently, many parttime undergraduate students at public universities were extracted to these private credential programs after completing their undergraduate degrees.

The challenge to the effort of re-gaining student enrollment in public universities could be more strenuous had no attention been paid to the needs of the rapidly expanding part-time student population. Hammond (1994) pointed out: It has been projected that within the next ten years the student population at colleges and universities will change profoundly. Enrollments will increase dramatically, but the majority of students will not be the eighteen- to twenty-four-year olds who come to higher education directly from high schools. Instead, the largest group will be students who are older and attend school on a part-time rather than fulltime basis. (p. 323)

Unfortunately, program reforms thus far have lagged behind the ongoing change of student constituency. Blaxter and Tight (1994) reported:

There is undoubtedly some poor quality organization and teaching within higher education and this affects both part-time and full-time students... But those who are committed to providing quality higher educational opportunities for adults are too frequently, along with the adult learners themselves, being let down by the slow or inadequate responses of their institutions to their needs. (p. 127)

While the lack of institutional support may have been an administrative problem in many colleges and universities, the institutional ment to teacher education had been traditionally strong in the California State University system. Denham (1985) observed: "The California State University system ('CSU') trains the majority of California teachers; in turn, ten percent of the nation's teachers are trained in Califomia" (p. 41). Watkins (1989) further pointed out:

In the California State University System, there is no debate over who is responsible for training future teachers. Everyone is.

Unlike most institutions, which regard school teachers as the concern of the education schools, the university expects all administrators and faculty members to be involved in one way or another with teacher recruitment, education, and evaluation. (p. A13)

Guided by the system-wide and universitywide commitment to teacher education, California State University, Bakersfield (CSUB) conducted an alumni survey in November, 1994 to solicit opinions of the former students concerning improvement of teaching credential program in elementary education. CSUB is located in the southern San Joaquin Valley, and has been the only state university within a 100-mile radius since 1970. Recently, CSUB's monopolistic position in teacher education was challenged by several private universities which have their elementary teaching credential programs extended into this region. Because these private institutions do not offer undergraduate programs, they have to compete against the CSUB credential program to recruit the CSUB undergraduate alumni. Thus, the alumni survey may reveal the strength and weakness of the CSUB credential program, and enhance the program quality at both CSUB and its private competitors. As many institutions in the 1990s participate in similar student recruitment competitions, information revealed from this survey may serve as a reference to those institutions pursuing a substantial increase of student enrollments.

Research Questions

California is one of the seven states in the U.S. in which there are more part-time than full-time enrollments (Tight, 1991). Thus, identification of different needs between the fulland part-time students is a major focus of this empirical study. Research questions that guided this study are:

1. What are important school factors affecting recruitment of full- and part-time students?

2. What are important program factors affecting recruitment of full- and part-time students?

Are there differences in the preferred program schedules between full- and part-time students?

Instrument Development

Based on the current research literature many researchers believe that program schedules and school/program factors related to the educational provision are among the major variables affecting the student enrollment. Blaxter and Tight (1994) asserted:

For adult and part-time students, shortage of time and conflicts in the usage of available time are socially acceptable explanations for withdrawal from study; as well as being important reasons for such withdrawal. However, the in-depth interviews which we have recently carried out with part-time students on programmes at two local universities (Coventry and Warwick) suggest that such explanations sometimes, although of course not always, mask criticism of, or dissatisfaction with, educational provision. (p. 126)

Furthermore, these effects are not confined in the part-time student group. Blaxter and Tight (1994) noted: "Part-time and full-time mature students often have complex domestic commitments" (p. 126).

Although these commitments could vary from person to person, most researchers insist that institutions should take the responsibility of developing an amicable program schedule to accommodate both full- and part-time students. Blaxter and Tight (1994) delineated:

It is not unreasonable - indeed, it is almost an axiom of adult education (as ell as present government policy) - to expect experienced adult students to have a major responsibility for organizing and motivating themselves. But, in return, they will expect similar qualities from educational institutions. Part-time students in higher education have to pursue their studies in an effecfive, efficient and economic manner. They seldom have the time or money to do otherwise. They expect educational institutions, in their dealings with them, to be similarly effective, efficient and economic. (p. 127)

Meanwhile, other institutional features may also affect the educational provision of teacher training. Hammond (1994) maintained that library and other facilities were important factors in accommodating the ongoing changes of student constituency. Starr and Walker (1982) reported differences of faculty accessibility to full- and part-time students. Spero (1987) alleged that the use of student financial aid was important to attract the prospective teachers. Nonetheless, no further studies were conducted to assess relative importance of these approaches to the student recruitment. According to Blaxter and Tight (1994), the default was in part due to the lack of institutional support in many colleges and universities.

To solicit a more comprehensive set of important school and program factors for the CSUB alumni survey, a study committee was established in Fall of 1994 which included the Dean and Associate Dean of the School of Education, Associate Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences, Chair of the Department of Teacher Education, Program Directors and Coordinators in the elementary teacher education program, and a teaching credential analyst. Each committee member was asked to identify important program variables which could affect enrollment of full- and part-time students.

After independently reading the assembled variable list, and subsequent discussions about relevancy of these variables to the student recruitment, the committee reached agreement regarding which set of variables should be employed to reflect the needs of full- and parttime students. In addition to the solicited school and program factors (Table 1), the questionnaire was also designed to differentiate the preferred program schedule between full- and part-time students (Table 2). While the content validity of the questionnaire was safeguarded by the expertise of the study committee, two similar questions, staff accessibility and staff friendliness, were hidden in the survey questionnaire to check consistency of the alumni responses (Table 3), and based on the information from a total of 96 accessible alumni, a relatively high reliability index (Ql = .715) was obtained from the chi-square test (SAS, 1990).

Method

The achieved alumni sample was classified into two categories, 33 full- and 63 part-time students. Importance of the school and program factors (Table 1) were represented by the average ranking responses of the former students. The preferred program schedule was also measured on an ordinal scale (Table 2). Although a comprehensive time block should include weekday morning, afternoon, evening and weekend, no weekend classes were scheduled at CSUB. Thus, weekday morning, afternoon, and evening were specified as the three time blocks of the student schedule choice. Because most parametric statistical methods cannot be used in the ordinal data analysis, the non-parametric median test was employed in this study to examine whether differences of the ranking responses (Tables 1 & 2) were significant between the full- and parttime students. Moreover, the median test does not necessarily require the same sample size from the full- and part-time student groups. Siegel (1956) pointed out:

The median test is a procedure for testing whether two independent groups differ in central tendencies. More precisely, the median test will give information as to whether it is likely that two independent groups (not necessarily of the same size) have been drawn from populations with the same median. (p. 111)

Results

Importance of the school factors

Ten school factors were ranked in this survey in terms of their importance to the student school choice. The average ranks were listed in Table 4, and the median test results were tabulated in Table 5.

Importance of program factors

Average ranks of the eight program factors (Table 1) were computed to sort the relative importance of these factors. The average ranks were assembled in Table 6, and the median test results were listed in Table 7.

The preferred school time

Weekday morning, afternoon and evening were the program schedules ranked by the students in terms of their preference. The average ranks were listed in Table 8, and the median test results were presented in Table 9.

Discussion

The average ranks in Table 4 indicated that the full- and part-time students had a high level of agreement on the relative importance of several school factors (library and computer resources, geographically close to home, admission/re-admission policy, cost to attend public vs. private school, and school facilities). It is interesting to note that the item of "job placement opportunities" was more important to full-time to part-time students. A plausible explanation to this result could be that most part-time students already had a part- or fulltime job, and thus, they were less concerned than the full-time students about the job placement opportunities. It is also somewhat unexpected that the "accommodation to working schedule" item was ranked higher by full-time students. Among many potential reasons, a two-fold interpretation should be highlighted: (1) most part-time students had resolved the time-conflict issue prior to their school enrollment; (2) some of the full-time students were also full-time workers, and therefore, had to maintain a more tight time schedule. The average ranks for the "quarter vs. semester" and "user-friendly catalog, booklet, etc." items was 5.82 and 5.83 for full-time students, and 5.78 and 5.79 for part-time students, respectively. Such a small ranking difference could be resulted from statistical artifacts, rather than substantial differences.

Contrary to other factor rankings, the alumnus response to the "admission/re-admission policy" item was the only school factor which significantly differentiated the full- and part-time students (Table 5:X^sup 2^(1)=4.117, p=.043) at alpha=.05. Thus, although the "admission/readmission policy" item was ranked number 3 by both full- and part-time students, the average ranking scores were still significantly different between the two student groups.

On the other hand, many program factors, such as "transfer of credits" and "program reputation," were ranked differently by full- and part-time students (Table 6). But none of the differences were significant at a=.05 level (Table 7). In fact, the "opportunity to learn," "course requirement," and "class schedule" items were identified as the top three important program factors by both the fulland part-time students (Table 6). "Staff assistance" and "subject assessment" were ranked among the least important program factors, and the "faculty advising assistance" item was coincidentally ranked number 5. These results seemed to suggest that full- and part-time students shared common needs on these program features, and further increase of school enrollment should be pursued mainly through an enhanced "opportunity to learn," appropriate "course requirements," and convenient "class schedules."

Inspection of Tables 8 and 9 uncovered differences in the preferred time schedules between full- and part-time students, with fulltime students preferring mornings and part-time favoring evenings (Table 8). These results seemed to support a notion that more morning and evening classes were needed to accommodate full- and part-time students, respectively.

While the afternoon schedule was the second choice of both full- and part-time students, it was less preferred by part-time students (Tables 8 & 9). Therefore, as the trend of increases in parttime enrollment continues, more evening classes could be an appropriate schedule to recruit more part-time students in teacher education. In summary, although many school and program variables affected student enrollment in teacher education, not all these variables were equally weighted. Full- and part-time students showed strong agreement on the most and least important school and program factors (Tables 4 & 6). In addition, the responses of full- and part-time students were significantly split in the their preferred class schedules (Tables 8 & 9). Like any other scientific explorations, the results presented herein are subjected to further empirical reconfirmation.

Dunlap (1986) reviewed:

Historically, there have been four responses to a severe teacher shortage: (1) raid other schools; (2) drop standards for entering the teaching field; (3) raise the student/teacher ratio; and (4) use misassignments and emergency certification. All four have proved to be unsatisfactory. Since few systematic research projects were conducted by school administrators to alleviate the shortage of teachers, the purpose of this study was to explore school and program reform factors to recruit more students in teacher education while maintaining the program quality and accreditation. Because most colleges and universities did not conduct such an in-depth data analysis due to the lack of institutional support (Blaster & Tight, 1994), the empirical results presented in this paper may generate more fruitful discussions toward further enhancement of student recruitment in teacher education.

References

Blaxter, L. & Tight, M. (1994). Time management and part-time study. Adult Learning, 5(5), 126-127.

California Commission of Teacher Credentialing. (1984). CBEST performance in relation to personal background factors. Sacramento, CA: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED242666).

Denham, C. (1985). Initiatives in teacher education in the California State System. Action in Teacher Education, 7, 41-44.

Dunlap, D.H. (1986). The coming teacher shortage: What schools can do about it. Eugene, OR: Oregon School Study Council. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED267516).

Fitch, P.A. (June 15, 1995). Institutional data on MS/SS credential recommends and material on the CLAD/BCLAD. (Available from Philip A. Fitch, Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 1812 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814-7000)

Hammond, C. (1994, July). Nontraditional students and the library: Opinions, preferences, and behaviors. College & Research Libraries, pp. 323-341.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1993). Digest of Education Statistics 1989. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

SAS (1990). SAS/STAT user's guide, (6th ed.). Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Spero, I.K. (1987). The use of student financial aid to attract prospective teachers: A survey of state efforts. The Journal of Student Financial Aid 17(1), 37-48.

Starr, R. cc Walker, J. (1982). A comparison of part-time and full-time degree students: The one-year residence program advisors' study. Journal of Education for Social Work 18(2), 59-67.

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1989, January/February). New strategies keep enrollments growing. Change, pp. 39-42.

Tight, M. (1991). Part-time high education in western developed countries. European Journal of Education, 26(1), 63-85.

Watkins, B.T. (1989, October 25). On California State U. campuses, everyone is responsible for education teachers. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A13.

JIANJUN WANG

Department of Teacher Education BETTY GREATHOUSE LON KELLENBERGER School of Education California State University 9001 Stockdale Highway Bakersfield, CA 93311-1099

Biolographical Information:

Jianjun Wang is Assistant Professor in statistics and research design at California State University, Bakersfield. His research interests include empirical data analysis, stochastic modeling, and educational policy evaluation. Betty Greathouse is Dean and Professor of

Education at California State University, Bakersfield. Her research interests are diversity and human development, parent involvement, and teacher education.

Lon Kellenberger is Associate Dean of the

School of Education and Professor of Teacher Education, California State University, Bakersfield. His research interests are program development and supervision of instruction.

Copyright Project Innovation Winter 1996
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved