955 resultados para LaGuardia Community College
Resumo:
Agency partners: Illinois State Board of Education, Illinois Community College Board, Illinois Board of Higher Education, Illinois Dept. of Commerce and Community Affairs, Illinois Dept. of Employment Security.
Resumo:
Cover title.
Resumo:
Statement in rebuttal to this SACVE study by the Illinois Community College Board inserted.
Resumo:
"October 1995"--P. 3.
Resumo:
Final report of a project carried out at Richland Community College, July 1979 to June 1980, and funded by the Research and Development Section of the Dept. of Adult, Vocational, and Technical Education in the Illinois Office of Education.
Resumo:
Agency partners: Illinois State Board of Education, Illinois Community College Board, Illinois Board of Higher Education, Illinois Dept. of Commerce and Community Affairs, Illinois Dept. of Employment Security.
Resumo:
Project staff: Doug Dougherty, John Kopatz, Kris Kersey.
Resumo:
Description based on: Vol. 4, no. 4 (Nov. 1980); title from caption.
Resumo:
Cover title.
Resumo:
The ICCB statewide follow-up survey of FY1978 occupational program graduates (to be conducted during January and February, 1979) is the first phase of a three-phase ICCB statewide occupational student follow-up study.
Resumo:
Project staff: Steven Kopinski, Ronald Engstrom, Rick Polanin.
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.
Resumo:
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, a 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. ^
Resumo:
Taiwan's technical vocational educational system includes three levels: (1) institutes of technology (two and four year programs), (2) junior colleges (two, three and five year programs), and (3) senior vocational schools. Two-year junior colleges enroll their students through two channels: (1) based on results of the Particular Screening Entrance Examination (PSEE), (2) based on the Joint College Entrance Examination (JCEE). The PSEE has two categories: Category I includes on-time graduates with excellent performance, which means that they are within the top ten of their classes; Category II students include award-winning students in talent contests who have achieved a minimum grade point average of 75%. The JCEE is a regular entrance examination given to any senior vocation school graduate.^ Basic courses have a great impact on the students' academic performance. The purpose of the study was to focus on the effectiveness of teaching mathematics in two-year junior colleges and to analyze and correlate the results of two-year junior college students' performance in calculus and on-time graduation. The target group consisted of 521 students enrolled at National Taipei Institute of Technology in 1993.^ Calculus is a very important course for engineering majors in two-year junior colleges and has a great impact on the students' academic performance. This retrospective study showed that there was a correlation between students' performance in calculus and on-time graduation after two years of study.^ The conclusions of the study urge the Ministry of Education to reform two-year junior college curriculum standards to emphasize basic rudimentary courses. It is recommended that engineering majors receive three hours of calculus per week as the current requirement of only two hours per week is inadequate. The future job market will require a technologically advanced labor force that can be trained in a higher education system. More channels of higher education for two-year junior college graduates should be made available for those wishing to pursue bachelor degrees. Additional work in calculus will not only enhance the opportunities for two-year junior college graduates to continue their pursuit of an advanced academic degree, but also serve them well as they seek career advancement. ^
Resumo:
The purpose of this study was to compare the characteristics of effective clinical and theory instructors as perceived by LPN/RN versus generic students in an associate degree nursing program.^ Data were collected from 508 students during the 1996-7 academic year from three NLN accredited associate degree nursing programs. The researcher developed instrument consisted of three parts: (a) Whitehead Characteristics of Effective Clinical Instructor Rating Scale, (b) Whitehead Characteristics of Effective Theory Instructor Rating Scale, and (c) Demographic Data Sheet. The items were listed under five major categories identified in the review of the literature: (a) interpersonal relationships, (b) personality traits, (c) teaching practices, (d) knowledge and experience, and (e) evaluation procedures. The instrument was administered to LPN/RN students in their first semester and to generic students in the third semester of an associate degree nursing program.^ Data was analyzed using a one factor mutivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Further t tests were carried out to explore for possible differences between type of student and by group. Crosstabulations of the demographic data were analyzed.^ There were no significant differences found between the LPN/RN versus generic students on their perceptions of either effective theory or effective clinical instructor characteristics. There were significant differences between groups on several of the individual items. There was no significant interaction between group and ethnicity or group and age on the five major categories for either of the two instruments. There was a significant main effect of ethnicity on several of the individual items.^ The differences between the means and standard deviations on both instruments were small, suggesting that all of the characteristics listed for effective theory and clinical instructors were important to both groups of students. Effective teaching behaviors, as indicated on the survey instruments, should be taught to students in graduate teacher education programs. These behaviors should also be discussed by faculty coordinators supervising adjunct faculty. Nursing educators in associate degree nursing programs should understand theories of adult learning and implement instructional strategies to enhance minority student success. ^