| | Title Page |
| | Acknowledgement |
| | Table of Contents |
| | List of Tables |
| | Abstract |
| | Introduction |
| | A selective review of related... |
| | Model development |
| | Management of productivity |
| | Summary and recommendations for... |
| | Appendix A: State officers/staff... |
| | Appendix B: Definitions of symbols;... |
| | References |
| | Biographical sketch |
|
| Full Citation |
| Material Information |
| |
Title: |
An Academic accounting model for community colleges |
| |
Physical Description: |
vii, 163 leaves : ; 28 cm. |
| |
Language: |
English |
| |
Creator: |
Bibby, Patrick J., 1941- ( Dissertant )
Wattenbarger, James L. ( Thesis advisor )
Alexander, S. Kern ( Reviewer )
Smith, Albert B. ( Reviewer ) |
| |
Publisher: |
University of Florida |
| |
Place of Publication: |
Gainesville, Fla. |
| |
Publication Date: |
1983 |
| |
Copyright Date: |
1983 |
| Subjects |
| |
Subjects / Keywords: |
Educational Administration and Supervision thesis Ph. D
Community colleges -- Finance -- United States ( lcsh )
Community college teachers -- Work load -- United States ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Administration and Supervision -- UF |
| |
Genre: |
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt ) |
| Notes |
| |
Abstract: |
The purpose of this study was to develop an academic accounting
model to monitor internally the instructional programs at community
colleges. The two components of the model were (a) a faculty workload
model and (b) a productivity model.
The faculty workload model consisted of seven categories of
faculty activity and a workload point system. One full-time equivalent
faculty (FTEF) was equated to 60 points.
For the purpose of this study, enrollment was measured in terms
of student credits and productivity was defined as a ratio: the
number of student credits produced per FTEF. The productivity model,
in terms of student credits and workload points, was given by the
equation
_ 60 x SC
F " AP
where P is productivity, SC is the number of student credits produced,
and AP is the number of workload points assigned.
The productivity model can be used to compute productivity at
almost any level of aggregation, e.g., a single class, a group of
courses, a department, or a campus. For a single class or a group of courses, the relationships between productivity and class size were
presented in four theorems.
The major applications of the study consisted of selected demonstrations.
In each demonstration, it was shown that a desired productivity
can be achieved at one level of aggregation by controlling
certain variables within sub-levels. In particular, it was shown that
a desired department productivity can be achieved by controlling
average class sizes of homogeneous groups of courses and that a desired
campus productivity can be achieved by controlling the productivities
of departments. |
| |
Thesis: |
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1983. |
| |
Bibliography: |
Bibliography: leaves 157-161. |
| |
General Note: |
Typescript. |
| |
General Note: |
Vita. |
| |
Statement of Responsibility: |
by Patrick J. Bibby. |
| Record Information |
| |
Bibliographic ID: |
UF00099494 |
| |
Volume ID: |
VID00001 |
| |
Source Institution: |
University of Florida |
| |
Holding Location: |
University of Florida |
| |
Rights Management: |
All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location. |
| |
Resource Identifier: |
alephbibnum - 000487121
oclc - 11903058
notis - ACQ5221 |
|
| Downloads |
|
|
| Table of Contents |
|
Title Page
Page i
Acknowledgement
Page ii
Table of Contents
Page iii
Page iv
List of Tables
Page v
Abstract
Page vi
Page vii
Introduction
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
A selective review of related literature
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Model development
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
Page 71
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
Page 85
Page 86
Page 87
Page 88
Page 89
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Management of productivity
Page 94
Page 95
Page 96
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
Page 128
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Page 137
Page 138
Page 139
Page 140
Page 141
Page 142
Summary and recommendations for further study
Page 143
Page 144
Page 145
Page 146
Page 147
Page 148
Page 149
Appendix A: State officers/staff members interviewed to obtain data on funding systems
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
Appendix B: Definitions of symbols; Summary of relationships
Page 154
Page 155
Page 156
References
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Biographical sketch
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165
|
|
RSS
HIDE
