Teacher Education, Educational Leadership & Policy ETDs

Publication Date

1-9-1978

Abstract

Change has occurred throughout the history of higher education. Today declining enrollments, decreasing revenues, and demands for new types of programs have placed pressures for innovative changes in graduate education. With the approach of a more austere era in higher education, it has become important for graduate schools to answer questions such as: "What are you presently doing?" and "What do you intend to do in the future?" One method for answering these questions is to reach clear and concise understandings of the goals held by campus constituents. Stated goals help tie together assumptions, values, and hopes into a coherent policy that provides a framework for reaching decisions, solving problems, and allocating resources. This provides a rational basis of change which prevents disposing of what has proven successful in the past and provides for the efficient use of resources in the future. In response to the need for a clear concise method of goal identification, the Institutional Goals Inventory, an instrument for defining present and future educational goals, was developed by the Educational Testing Service. The instrument consists of 20 goal areas each comprised of four goal statements. For each goal statement, the respondent, using a five-point scale, gives two judgments: first, how important the goal presently is; second, how important the goal should be. The main purpose of the current research was an evaluation of the IGI's structural properties using data collected on subjects from the University of New Mexico. The three groups of individuals used as subjects were: 170 graduate students, 39 faculty, and 15 decision/policy makers. A factor analysis was performed to study the goal areas derived from a factor analysis of IGI goal statements and goal areas derived by a task force at Educational Testing Service. Also evaluated was the ability of the IGI to identify and detect differences in graduate education goal ratings. The t ratio was used to detect significant differences among subject groups. Due to the similarities among goal statements, more than one ETS goal area frequently combined with another to form 13 UNM factors. Based on the UNM data, 20 goal areas in the IGI are not necessary as adequate information can be obtained using 13 goal areas. A factor analysis appears to be a more efficient method of obtaining goals than that used by ETS. The t ratios revealed few differences among the three groups concerning goal ratings both now and for the future. The t ratios disclosed two of a possible 26 differences regarding the present and future goal factor ratings between students and faculty-decision/policy makers. These differences could have occurred by chance alone. The t ratio also revealed six of a possible four differences on the present and future IGI goal area ratings among students, faculty, and decision/policy makers. This is two more than could have occurred by chance alone. It is important that each institution be able to recognize its uniqueness of attitudes and opinions toward goals. Due to the small number of differences disclosed by the Inventory, it appears the instrument lacks sufficient sensitivity to detect differences. Additional research needs to be conducted to determine the most reliable, effective method of goal identification.

Document Type

Dissertation

Language

English

Degree Name

Educational Leadership

Level of Degree

Doctoral

Department Name

Teacher Education, Educational Leadership & Policy

First Committee Member (Chair)

Peggy Janice Blackwell

Second Committee Member

Louis Andrew Rosasco

Third Committee Member

Paul Emil Resta

Fourth Committee Member

Charles DeWayne Biebel

Download

Share

COinS