Results from application of the SPTE Questionnaire from 2,115 classes were factor analyzed to oblique simple structure. A first-order solution with six factors resulted: 1) Attitude Toward Students, (2) Work Load, (3) Course Value to Students, (4) Course Organization/Structure, (5) Grading Quality, and (6) Level of Material. Two second-order factors were also found. At the second-order, results showed that course difficulty was uncorrelated with other aspects of students' perceptions of teaching. Results are discussed in relation to broad concepts of teaching evaluation as well as methodological requirements of adequate assessment of teaching quality.
Business retention and expansion are pointed to in the literature as being more effective economic development policy in comparison to business recruitment. The ability of a business to attract and retain this nucleus of key personnel is critical for remaining competitive. The quality of life of an area is considered to be an important ingredient for the attraction and retention of key personnel. Public sector investments in quality of life not only make the community a more attractive place to live but also contribute indirectly to economic prosperity. In this article the input from chief executive officers in over 700 businesses in Wichita, Kansas, are examined to determine the value of 10 quality-of-life attributes for attraction or retention of key personnel. Input from 6 classes of business are examined, and important differences in the quality-of-life values of key personnel are discovered. The first major conclusion is that targeting by business type is an important consideration for local economic development policy. A second conclusion is that local schools are not necessarily the key ingredient for recruitment and retention of key personnel. Well-developed community spirit building and entertainment opportunities are, in many cases, the greatest lure. Finally, effective economic development action will require cooperation between public and private sectors.
In the current environment, presidents and chancellors can expect to have their institutions under nearly continuous scrutiny from regional accrediting bodies.The Impact of the Changing Climate for Accreditation on the Individual College or University: Five Trends and Their Implications
John W. BardoIt was only a few years ago that regional accreditation was an episode in a higher education institution' s life. Every ten years, the institution would gear up for a self-study; the accrediting team would visit; the institution would provide final responses; accreditation would be voted; and the institution would "return to normal." Those days are past. Now, presidents and chancellors can expect to have their institutions under nearly continuous scrutiny by regional accrediting bodies. The number of reports, the expected details of outcomes measures, and the level of ongoing interaction between the institution and the regional association will continue to increase. In fact, presidents and chancellors need to plan for the organization, costs, and processes that will be a part of each year' s operations as the level of accountability increases.This chapter focuses on the impact of the critical changes in accreditation processes and expectations on the role of senior administration and faculty members at the campus level. Of particular importance are the concepts of (1) the changing accreditation climate, (2) the need to focus on assessment across all areas of the institution, (3) organizational approaches to continuing accreditation, and (4) developing a culture of accreditation across the campus that traditionally was found only in professional colleges and schools. 47 4
Lee's conception of the “socio‐spatial schema” was reexamined for a sample of respondents from a British new town. Results showed that over half of the respondents differentiated their neighborhoods from smaller “areas of belonging” and that neither the neighborhood nor area of belonging corresponded well to ecological concrptions of a “natural area.” Discriminant analysis revealed that differences betwren respondents who provided one neighborhood versus those who distinguished a neighborhood from an area of belonging had empirical significance. These two groups were discriminated on the basis of four components of community satisfaction, that is, distance from the town center, proximity of friends, length of residence, and respondent age. Size of the neighborhood was found to be a function of the location of the neighborhood center and length of residence. Size of the area of belonging was related to length of residence and proximity of relatives. Results are discussed in relation to the socio‐spatial methodology, the neighborhood concept, and differences between these findings and previous research, especially as related to the residential location of friends and relatives.
This study examined relations between dimensions of community satisfaction and perceived quality of life among residents of a southeastern United States (US) community. A random sample of 250 persons was interviewed using the Community Satisfaction Scale and a measure of over-all life quality. Two factors representing domains of community satisfaction. relevant to participants were positively and significantly related to perceptions of quality of life. Perceptions of care for community by others/institutions and belongingness/quality of community life were the best predictors. Results suggest the importance of social relations in community satisfaction and quality of life relationships. Implications for generalization of community satisfaction constructs across settings and to studies of planning and community change are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.