gender differential paper IJCRB

ijcrb.webs.com
JUNE 2011
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 2
Commendation: “A statement by the team that the institution exceeds the expectation of the
team on a standard or condition.”
The team submitted a formal report to the COE. The Council in turn sent a copy of the team
report to JCC. JCC submitted its response to the formal report to the COE. After reviewing the
Self-Study Report, team report, and JCC’s response, the Commission of the COE voted to
accredit JCC. The Commission is the 20-member Board of Directors of the Council on
Occupational Education; the Commission meets in full session twice a year and collectively
makes all the accreditation decisions involving COE-accredited institutions.
An official letter was sent to JCC informing the institution of the Commission’s decision. There
were no findings, recommendations, or suggestions. The College received two commendations
(English and Insurance).
The current accreditation is valid for one year. Accreditation is renewed annually by means of
the COE Annual Report in which the institution attests to continue compliance with the
Standards and Conditions of accreditation. In granting initial accreditation to JCC, the
Commission determined that the next self-study report and accreditation team visit will occur in
six years-the maximum period allowed by the Commission. Now that accreditation has been
granted, JCC may make substantive changes e.g. introduce new educational programs.
5. Methodology
The primary instrument used for this study was a questionnaire (see Addendum 2). The
questionnaire was distributed to the chairpersons of all ten standards as well as coordinators and
other key faculty. Fourteen questionnaires were handed out and eleven were returned.
Respondents were not required to reveal their identities to safeguard confidentiality, and
encourage openness/honesty of feedback. Standard chairpersons were at liberty to consult
members of their standard committee when filling in the questionnaire. Follow up unstructured
interviews were held in a few cases where remarks made in the questionnaire were either unclear
or required further elaboration (see Addendum 3). The distribution of respondents as per their
official role is given in the table below.
Table 1: Distribution of respondents according to their official role in the accreditation
process
Official Role
No
Chairpersons 7
Coordinators 1
Key faculty 3
Total 11
6. Findings
Questions 1, 10, and 11 in the questionnaire were designed to elicit information. Questions 2-9
required either a “YES/NO” response with qualifying comments if necessary. A summary of the
quantifiable “YES/NO” responses is provided in table 2 below. A more detailed exposition of
findings follows after table 2.
COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 687