Merit pay at an institution of higher education
| dc.contributor.author | Bailey, Gracie Massenberg | en |
| dc.contributor.committeechair | Smith, Robert M. | en |
| dc.contributor.committeemember | Atwell, Charles A. | en |
| dc.contributor.committeemember | McLaughlin, Gerald W. | en |
| dc.contributor.committeemember | Creamer, Don G. | en |
| dc.contributor.committeemember | Sullins, W. Robert | en |
| dc.contributor.department | Community College Education | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-01-30T21:23:34Z | en |
| dc.date.available | 2017-01-30T21:23:34Z | en |
| dc.date.issued | 1983 | en |
| dc.description.abstract | This research sought to answer the question:"To what extent is the merit pay system at a state-supported university consistent with selected tenets of operant conditioning?" The population for this study consisted of one state-supported institution of higher education in the Commonwealth of Virginia that has a merit pay system. Nine department chairmen and six faculty members (two per academic rank--assistant, associate, and full professors) from the nine departments were randomly selected and interviewed. Two structured interview schedules were developed by the investigator to elicit the characteristics and perceptions of the current merit pay system in order to assess the extent to which the six tenets of operant conditioning were being applied in the merit pay system. In analyzing and presenting the results, the findings were presented according to general salary policy, demographic data and salary information, and the objectives of the study. The major findings of this study were: 1. The University does have a merit pay policy stated in the Faculty Handbook, but the investigator did not find evidence of a systematic procedure for determining faculty salary increases. 2. The department chairmen were better informed of the merit pay policy and procedures than the faculty members. In fact, faculty members were not familiar with the procedure for allocating merit increases. 3. A merit pay system was preferred by the majority of the department chairmen and faculty members over alternative salary policies. 4. The merit pay system at the University was not consistent with selected tenets of operant conditioning. 5. There were a limited number of rewards other than merit pay at the university that the department chairmen and faculty members believed were important. Some of the rewards that they considered important were tenure, promotion, reduced load, travel money, graduate or student assistant, release time, and good teaching schedules. Some rewards they desired to have at the University were parking space, free tuition for family, sabbatical leave, travel money, and release time. | en |
| dc.description.degree | Ed. D. | en |
| dc.format.extent | ix, 134 leaves | en |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | en |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10919/74663 | en |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en |
| dc.publisher | Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University | en |
| dc.relation.isformatof | OCLC# 10863118 | en |
| dc.rights | In Copyright | en |
| dc.rights.uri | http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ | en |
| dc.subject.lcc | LD5655.V856 1983.B246 | en |
| dc.subject.lcsh | College teachers -- Salaries, etc | en |
| dc.title | Merit pay at an institution of higher education | en |
| dc.type | Dissertation | en |
| dc.type.dcmitype | Text | en |
| thesis.degree.discipline | Community College Education | en |
| thesis.degree.grantor | Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University | en |
| thesis.degree.level | doctoral | en |
| thesis.degree.name | Ed. D. | en |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1