Influence, policy formation, and higher education in Florida : 1989-94

This study examined the perceptions of state governmental officials and administrators from the state university system, community college system, and independent institutions concerning the ability of various groups to influence state-level higher education policy formation. The study was conducted in Florida for the period 1989-94. Florida has a history of legislative involvement in higher education, an unique system of state universities and community colleges, and a limited number of private institutions of higher education. This study was grounded in the works of Mortimer and McConnell (1978), Millett (1987), Marshall, Mitchell, and Wirt (1989) and Finitfer, Baldwin, and Thelin (1991). The study represented the application of an embedded, single-case design. A survey was the primary collection instrument. Respondents were asked questions concerning: (a) personal involvement in higher education, (b) perceptions of the ability of various groups to influence higher education policy, (c) the names of particular individuals considered key players in higher education policy formation, (d) important state-level documents, (e) personal knowledge of key areas of policy formation, and (f) emerging higher education issues in Florida. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze the different sections of the survey. The findings indicated that a power and influence hierarchy exists among the various groups that attempt to influence higher education policy and that this hierarchy is recognized by state government officials and higher education administrators. While an analysis of variance of the various groups revealed a few differences between state government officials and higher education personnel, the high overall agreement was an important finding. Leading members of the legislature, especially the Chair of the Senate Higher Education Committee, and key staff members, especially from the Senate Ways & Means Committee, were considered the most influential. Representatives from higher education institutions and research organizations were considered among the least influential. Emerging issues identified by the respondents included: (a) the political nature of state-level policy formation, (b) the role of legislative staff, (c) the competition for state moneys, (d) legislative concern for state-wide budgetary efficiency, and (e) legislative attempts to define quality and supervise academic program development for higher education.

Examining the needs for student services of adult learners in continuing higher education

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the availability and quality of student services offered to adult learners in selected continuing education programs in Dade County, Florida. The two basic research questions addressed in this study were: 1) What are the student services being provided to adult learners by the selected colleges and universities? 2) What is the quality of these services being provided as perceived by administrators and adult learners at their institutions? Two groups comprised the population for this study. One group sample of adult learners enrolled in credit courses being offered by the continuing education unit. The second group sample was comprised of administrators in the areas of Admissions, Financial Aid, Registration, Student Services and Continuing Education at each of the five colleges and universities in Dade County, Florida. Data were collected from 107 students and 25 administrators using the Continuing Education Student Services Questionnaire (CESSQ) developed by the researcher in a pilot study. The questionnaire, one for administrators and a similar one for adult learners, consisted of two parts. One consisted of eight demographic items and the second one of twenty items describing student services. An overview of responses by institutions showed that only the following services received a 100% response as available at one or more institutions: 1) Admissions Information, 2) Convenient Hours for Registration, 3) Assistance in Class Registration, 4) Assistance in Planning a Class Schedule, 5) Access to the Library in Evening and Weekends, 6) Parking and Security, 7) Food Services, 8) Bookstore and 9) Access to Computers.

Quality of student involvement and college contribution toward development of traditional and nontraditional undergraduate students

Nontraditional students differ from traditional students on characteristics such as age, employment status, marital status, and parental status. The quality of a student's experience is important as it relates to his or her transformation and is a reflection of the quality of the college. Using theory of involvement as a framework, the purpose of this study was to test if there were differences between traditional and nontraditional undergraduate students in their ratings of quality of college involvement (academic, co-curricular, student interactions, and faculty interactions) and perceptions of college contribution toward development (intellectual, personal, social, and career). A two part survey was distributed to a random cluster sample of sophomore and higher level undergraduate classes equaling 400 undergraduate students. Results of a 2 X 4 repeated measures ANOVA indicated that traditional students rated quality for co-curricular involvement and student involvement significantly higher than nontraditional students. Both traditional and nontraditional students had similar ratings of college contribution toward development. There were different patterns of correlations between involvement and development. Traditional students' ratings of academic and student involvement were more highly correlated with development than were the ratings of nontraditional students. However, nontraditional students' ratings of academic and faculty involvement were more highly correlated with development. When testing for differences in correlations between quality of involvement and college contribution toward development, the largest observed differences were quality of student involvement and college contribution toward personal and social development. Although not significantly different, traditional students had stronger correlations between those factors than did the nontraditional students. This research demonstrates the importance of using social role when defining student type. It contributes to involvement theory by explaining how traditional and nontraditional students differ in their ratings of quality of involvement. Further, it identifies different patterns of correlations between ratings of quality of involvement and college contribution toward development for the two types of students. While traditional students may need a more rounded college experience that includes more social and co-curricular experiences, nontraditional students use the classroom as their stage for learning.