Risk -taking propensity of faculty, administrators, and academic department heads at a large, urban, multi -campus community college

This research was undertaken to explore dimensions of the risk construct, identify factors related to risk-taking in education, and study risk propensity among employees at a community college. Risk-taking propensity (RTP) was measured by the 12-item BCDQ, which consisted of personal and professional risk-related situations balanced for the money, reputation, and satisfaction dimensions of the risk construct. Scoring ranged from 1.00 (most cautious) to 6.00 (most risky).^ Surveys including the BCDQ and seven demographic questions relating to age, gender, professional status, length of service, academic discipline, highest degree, and campus location were sent to faculty, administrators, and academic department heads. A total of 325 surveys were returned, resulting in a 66.7% response rate. Subjects were relatively homogeneous for age, length of service, and highest degree.^ Subjects were also homogeneous for risk-taking propensity: no substantive differences in RTP scores were noted within and among demographic groups, with the possible exception of academic discipline. The mean RTP score for all subjects was 3.77, for faculty was 3.76, for administrators was 3.83, and for department heads was 3.64.^ The relationship between propensity to take personal risks and propensity to take professional risks was tested by computing Pearson r correlation coefficients. The relationships for the total sample, faculty, and administrator groups were statistically significant, but of limited practical significance. Subjects were placed into risk categories by dividing the response scale into thirds. A 3 x 3 factorial ANOVA revealed no interaction effects between professional status and risk category with regard to RTP score. A discriminant analysis showed that a seven-factor model was not effective in predicting risk category.^ The homogeneity of the study sample and the effect of a risk-encouraging environment were discussed in the context of the community college. Since very little data on risk-taking in education is available, risk propensity data from this study could serve as a basis for comparison to future research. Results could be used by institutions to plan professional development activities, designed to increase risk-taking and encourage active acceptance of change. ^

The effects of cross -age peer tutoring on writing and reading comprehension skills and attitudes and self -perceptions as writers of third and fourth grade students

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of cross-age peer writing response groups on the writing and reading achievement of third and fourth grade students. Students' attitudes about writing and their perceptions of themselves as writers were also measured at the end of the study. ^ One hundred and twenty-two third and fourth grade students enrolled in a public school in a middle-class, multi-cultural neighborhood participated in the study. Four existing classes of students were randomly assigned to either the experimental condition (EC) or the control condition (CC). Both groups were pretested and posttested for writing and reading achievement. The intervention, cross-age peer writing groups, met for eleven weeks. ^ Three hypotheses were examined in this study: (a) writing improvement score, (b) reading comprehension improvement score, and (c) students' attitudes toward writing and their perception of themselves as writers based on the five scales measured on the Writer Self-Perception Scale. ^ ANOVAs were done on the pretests and posttests for writing and the Stanford Achievement Test reading comprehension subtest scores for the year of the study and the previous year. ANOVAs were also done for the five areas of the Writer Self-Perception Scale. Cross-tabulations were also used to compare improvement level verses treatment group, and grade level. ^ Analysis of the data revealed that there was no evidence that the tutoring (EC) groups made more progress than the non-tutoring (CC) groups in writing and reading. There was evidence of growth in writing, especially by the fourth graders. Most importantly, the fourth grade tutors, the experimental group, had the most positive feelings about writing and themselves as writers. ^