Carney Strange

Learning Styles, Classroom Environment Preferences, Teaching, Styles, and Remedial Course Outcomes for Underprepared Adults at a Two-Year College

Sixty-one adult (age 25 and over) and 95 traditional-age (ages 18 through 24) two-year college students responded to a battery of instruments (Adult Classroom Environment Scale, Adaptive Style Inventory, Principles of Adult Learning Scale, and an Evaluation of Instruction Questionnaire) distributed in five remedial English and five remedial mathematics courses. Data analyses indicated that student age accounts for little variance in student expectations of the classroom environment, learning style, or select course outcomes. Nevertheless, students in reading and mathematics classes with learner-centered activities achieved higher course grades. Adult students in the mathematics sections reported a greater sense of accomplishment and a more positive total course experience than their traditional-age counterparts.

Intellectual development and its relationship to maturation during the college years

Abstract This study examines whether differences in the development of critical reasoning abilities among undergraduates can be attributed to factors other than college attendance, and specifically to differences in chronological maturation. Eight males and eight females were randomly selected and matched on ACT composite scores from each of four groups: 18-year-old freshmen; 22-year-old freshmen; 22-year-old seniors; and 26-year-old seniors. Theses 64 subjects were arranged within a non-assignable three factor design by age (adult and traditional), class level (freshman and senior), and sex. Subjects were administered the Reflective Judgment Interview, a structured interview format designed to measure the way individuals reason about intellectual problems. Two significant main effects were observed, with seniors scoring higher than freshman (p

The relationship of academic major and career choice status to anxiety among college freshmen

Abstract This study examines the relationship of career and academic major choice status to levels of state anxiety among undergraduate students. A total of 179 resident freshmen responded to a questionnaire concerning their career development status. On the basis of that information, subjects were arranged within a 2 × 2 factorial design of two dichotomous variables: career choice status (decided/undecided) and major choice status (declared/undeclared). Participants were administered the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. An analysis of variance of state anxiety scores yielded a significant main effect for career choice status, with subjects reporting they had already decided on a career direction exhibiting lower levels of state anxiety than those who had not.

Spirituality at State: Private Journeys and Public Visions

From its 17th century inception in the form of a small band of Colonial Colleges, American higher education has long honored a relationship between the domains of the intellect and those of the spirit. In the beginning, theology held a foundational position, alongside the classics (i.e.,studies in Greek and Latin) and the rudiments of science, and the mark of most educated persons was the call to ministry, a position of esteem in this world and what was anticipated to be the next. Education of the whole person - knowledge, talents, soul, and character - guided the enterprise, and questions of ultimate meaning formed the discourse of the day. This blended experience comprised the heart of learning for most students well into the 19th century, with faculty developing powerful ties to them as mentors, guides, and resident models. However, as the Enlightenment period unfolded and Scientific Positivism rooted itself deep in the soil of the first Land Grant institutions, faculty returning from the German research experience brought a new picture of what it meant to be educated as well as the kind of curriculum best suited for the achievement of such ends. Concurrently, in the shadows of empiricism, what was once thought to be essential to learning was relegated to the peripheral, and the intellect held new privilege over the soul.

Teaching Spirituality in Public Higher Education

As the above words attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of St. Matthew remind us, our world indeed is sometimes divided between two very different obligations – those belonging to God and the Church and those belonging to Caesar and the State. Such a distinction is one with a long history in American higher education. Although Church and State were, in effect, one and the same in most colleges and universities well into the 19th century, events of the Modern era have drawn more carefully the line that separates them, and for very important reasons. Distinguishing one from the other is politically wise and, for some, a matter of survival. Furthermore, over time many a Caesar has perpetrated evil on the oppressed in the name of God. To equate the authority of religion with the authority of the state may construct a dangerous path as our own history has witnessed. Although Church and State have coexisted side-by-side in our system of higher education, more common has become the distinction that has evolved over the years between institutions that are private and those that are public. This denotes not only differences of institutional mission and purpose, but also the very kinds of questions thought to comprise the proper focus of higher learning. However, deciding between God and Caesar on such matters is complicated and not all that easy for those of us who broach the subject of religion and spirituality in public universities. What are our choices in that regard? What are the boundaries if any that frame our work? Our purpose here is to reflect on our experiences as faculty members in public institutions who prepare professionals at the graduate level for careers in higher education and student affairs. It is our intent to identify some of the principal challenges we face in teaching courses in education and spirituality, as well as potential but differing solutions we propose for resolving them. We recognize clearly that people can disagree vehemently over choices in this domain, especially when it comes to addressing such questions in a public venue. Our hope is that, in sorting through the tangled skein of roles and purposes we face in delivering such courses, others might discover their own commitments and resolutions to this dimension of students’ lives.

Creating and Maintaining Safe College Campuses: A Sourcebook for Evaluating & Enhancing Safety Programs

of a variety of women faculty to balance their professional and personal lives. Since many of the women’s experiences cut across gender lines, both male and female readers new to the research on women faculty will likely find these stories illuminating for the view they provide of life in the academy. Those seeking a more nuanced portrayal of women faculty’s experiences may find the book to be somewhat disappointing.