A MEASURE OF PROPENSITY-TO-CHANBE IN SELECTED LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES IN THE NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY HERBERT RANDALL HENGST 1960 ——- _ .— w; This is to certify that the thesis entitled A I'EAS TRE OF PROP“ .JNSITY-TO-CHANGE DI SELECTED LIBERAL APTS COLLEGES IN THE NORTH CEIUL‘RAL AssmIATION OF COLLEGES AND SECOLJJARY SCHOOLS presented hg HERBERT R. HENGST has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M degree inEdmaLinnal Administration ,6 ALL/Lg Majo professor Date Agril 18’ 1960 0169 LIBRARY Michigan State University II A MEASURE OF PROPENSITY~TO~CHANGE IN SELECTED LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES IN THE NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS by Herbert Randall Hengst AN'ABSTRACT Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administrative and Educational Services 1960 Approved 4 (22/411744 I T -a .4 It was the purpose of this study to construct a pre-theoretical statement descriptive of propensitybto-change and to test its utility for prediction of institutional behavior among selected liberal arts colleges. A pretheoretical statement was developed from assumptions identified with perceptual psychology and reference group theory. The colleges were classified according to pro—theoretical models derived from the assump- tions. Hypothetical differences in institutional behavior consistent with the models were constructed and tested. In the study, it was assumed that: A college is what it is conceived to be by its members. Members of colleges behave consistently with their per- ceptions of the college. 3. [Member behavior changes when members perceive need for change, believe resources and conditions necessary for change are available, and feel a willingness to initiate or accept change. The components of members’ concept of college are: a concept of college as it presently exists a. a concept of college as it should ideally be b. 'Need for change was defined as the imbalance between an and b) in assumption (4) above. Ability to change was defined as the con— gruence among members in their concept of college. Willingness to change was defined as the belief that a new practice or Condition is consis- tent with the values and therefore desireable, and measured by the relationship between the self and peer acceptance of college. It was hypothesized that members of liberal arts colleges differ significantly in their willingness to change; and that the variables of reed and ability vary consistently with the extent of members willingness t0 change. It was predicted that colleges reflecting a high propensityc to-change would differ signficantly from colleges reflecting low propen- sity-to-change in nine institutional behavior: Nwmber of problems reported Number of external problems reported NUmber of participations in organized activities NUmber of participations in off—campus activities NUmber of participations in informal groups NUmber of individuals identified as leaders NUmber of status leaders identified NMmber of sources of pride NUmber of people-related sources of pride The hypotheses were tested with data obtained from three liberal arts colleges in the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. Five of the nine hypotheses were found to be valid beyond chance. The following conclusions were justified by the study: 1. 2. The propensity-to-change of a college can be measured by a perceptual instrument. The instrument developed for that purpose measured some per- ceptions of colleges held by college members reliably. Overvaluing and lowvaluing colleges differ significantly in the problem perception, lochSOf organizational partici- pation, and leadership perceptions of their members. Overvaluing and lowvaluing colleges did not differ signifi- cantly in the perception of sources of pride or number of organizational participations reported by their members. The evidence 6f this study'indicates that further invesé- tigation is warranted. A.MEASURE OF PROPENSITY-TO—CHANGE IN SELECTED LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES IN THE NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS by Herbert Randall Hengst A THESIS Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administrative and Educational Services 1960 IGIJIVU ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Grateful acknowledgement is made to Dr. Karl T. Hereford, my major advisor, for his ideas, advice, assistance, and patience through- out the course of the study. To Dr. William W. Farquhar for his advice and suggestions. To Dean Ernest O. Melby for his assistance and inspiration. To the Nerth Central Association, College and University Commission. To my fellow graduate students whose friendship made even more meaningful the experiencing of this study. And most especially to my wife Jane, without whose understanding and patience and consideration the completion of this study would have been-impossible. Chapter Acknowledgements . . . LIST. Of Tables 0 o o e o o 0 List of Figures . . . . . . . . TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Definition of The Problem . . . . . . . . The Problem Values of the Study An Overview of The Study II A Theory 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 III Design of The tudy . . . . . . . . . . . A Definition of the College The Concept of a College Propensity-to-change Classification of Colleges Relationship of Index of Valuing to Propensity-to-change Summary The Design Statement of Hypotheses The Statistical Analysis Summary IV Study Methods and Procedures . . . . . . . . V The The Population and The Sample The Measures of Independent Variables The Measures of Dependent Variables Administration of the Instruments Limitations of the Study Summary Perceptual Classification . . . . . . Classification Factors Classification Procedures The Classification of the Colleges Selection of Colleges for Analysis Summary iii Page ii Vii 17 31 48 Chapter VII Appendix A Appendix B The Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tests of the Intra-Instrument Criteria Tests of External Criteria Summary Summary, Conclusions, implications . . . . . Summary Conclusions Implications Bibliography 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O The Index of Institutional Characteristics . Original Data - Individual Scores on the Six Scales of the 1.1.0. by Respondent . . . iv Page 61 79 9O 94 104 Table 2.1 2.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 6.1 5.2 LIST OF TABLES College Classification According to an Index of Valuing: The Perceptual Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elements of Propensity-to-Change as Related to the College Classification . . . . . . Distribution of Total Membership and Actual Membership in Three Colleges . . . . . . . Reliability of Six Sub-Scales of The Index of Institutional Characteristics . . . . . Least Squares Analysis of TweaWay Classifica- tion with Unequal Frequencies in the Sub-Cells of All I.I.C. Scales for all COllegeS O O O O O O O I O I O O O O O O 0 Results of the Administration of the Index Self Self Self of Institutional Characteristics in Three COllegeS O C O C O O O O O O O O O 0 Acceptance and Peer Acceptance Mean Score Analyses for Classification Purposes - College A . . . . . . . . . . . Acceptance and Peer Acceptance Mean Score Analysis for Classification Purposes College B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acceptance and Peer Acceptance Mean Score Analysis for Classification Purposes-CollegeC.. . . . . . . . . . Summary of the Perceptual Classification of Three Colleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Determination of the Dked Scores of Colleges A a nd C O O O O O O O C O O O O C O O O 0 Result of the 't' Test of the Difference Between Need Scores for Colleges A and C . page 11 14 33 40 42 54 55 56 57 6O 62 63 vi Table ’ page 6.3 Chi Square Test of the Significance of the Discrepancy of Individual Perceptual Classification of the College and the Determined Perceptual Classification of Colleges A and C . ... . . . . . . . . . . 65 6.4 Chi Square Test of Significance of the Discrepancy of the Numbers of Problems Perceived by Members of Colleges A and C . . 66 6.5 Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Numbers of External Problems Perceived by members of Colleges A and C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 6.6 Chi Square Test of Significance of Dis- crepancy of the Number of Organizational Participations Reported by Members of Colleges A and C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 6.7 Chi Square Test of Significance of the Discrepancy of the Numbers of off Campus organizational Participations Reported by Members of Colleges A and C . . . . . . . 70 5.8 Chi Square Test of the Significance of the Discrepancy of the Members of Informal Group Activities Reported by Members of Colleges A and C . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 5.9 Chi Square Test of Significance of the Discrepancy of the Number of Status Leaders Perceived by Members of Colleges .A and C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 6.10 Chi Square Test of Significance of the Discrepancy of the NUmber of Status Leaders 5Perceived by Members of Colleges A and C . . 74 5-11 Chi Square Test of the Significance of the Discrepancy of the NUmber of Aspects of Pride Perceived by Members of Colleges A and C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7S 5-12 Chi Square Test of the Significance of the Discrepancy of the Number of People- Oriented Sources of Pride Reported by Members of Colleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 6.13 Summary of Tests of the Hypotheses . . . . . . . . 78 Figure 3.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 vii LIST OF FIGURES Page The Relationship of Dependent and Independent Variables According to Predictions Consistent with a Theory of Institutional Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 The Defined Possible Relationship Between The Self Acceptance Mean Score of a College and the Self Acceptance Tbtal Group Mean Score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 The Defined Relationship Between Peer Acceptance Mean Scores and the Self Acceptance Mean Scores of Individual Colleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Four Perceptual Classifications of Colleges According to the Self and Peer Acceptance Scale Scores of The Index of Institutional Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Dichotomous Relationships Within Perceptual Classification System . . . . . . . . . . . 58 CHAPTER I DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM The reaction of members of colleges to phenomena that effect them in their role as "member-of—college" typically differs. For example, the North Central Association of Secondary Schools and Colleges appoints examiners who regularly report differences between the colleges of the Association. It is on the basis of perceived and reported differences that colleges are either accredited or not accredited. Members of colleges also react differently to the expanding need for higher education. A recent study reported differences among Michigan colleges in relation to the reported attitudes and behaviors of members toward the increasing potential enrollments, replacement and additional facilities, and development of new instructional programs.1 Some colleges have established enrollment ceilings, for instance, while others actively recruit large.numbers of students. Few colleges evidenced over-all planning based on governing board policy, but rather dealt with change-oriented outside phenomena in an expediential manner. Administrators typically personify colleges, both their own and others, according to their own reaction behavior. Observers have 1Archie R. Ayers, "Institutional Planning in Face of College- Population Increase." U.S. Office of Education, (Processed), 1958. commented upon the relationship between the philosophy of education which characterized a college and common practices with the college.2 Consequently, some colleges are considered to be indifferent to change, either internally or externally motivated. Others are seen to be rigid and unbending, or motivated to change, or even dynamic and flexible. Characteristics are frequently assigned to colleges according to such personifications. Efforts to predict reaction to change motivators on the basis of an "institutional personality" have proved to be fruitless in the past. The value of such analyses has been limited to the description of colleges in a normative pattern. Prediction according to an institutional per- sonality leads to behavior designed to perpetuate the institution as it exists rather than to provide a direction for growth. Such self- perpetuative behavior contributes to failure to act upon opportunities for growth. In spite of apparent inadequacies, the observations that admini- strators tend to personify colleges and that reaction behavior of mem- bers of colleges differ suggest a phenomenon which may be predictive of reaction to change. It was demonstrated by Snygg and Combs3 that values are primary determinants of behavior, while Billsa related values to Perception. If values do determine behavior and therefore the attitude to- ward change, and if they can be sampled through an examination of per- 2Dr. Walter Johnson. Lecture on the relationship of student Personnel programs to the philosophy of the college. 3Donald Snygg and Arthur Combs, Individual Behavior (EEw York: Harper and Brothers, 1949), p. 13. 4Robert Bills, "About People and Teaching,“ The Bulletin of the Bureau of School Service, XXVIII (December, 1955), p. —9. captions, then the phenomena of perceiving and valuing evidenced in the practice of personification of institutions may well be predictive of reaction to change. THE PROBLEM The problem of this study, then, is to determine differences in perceptions of members of colleges which are theoretically related to changes in behavior. In order for the problem to be studiable the signi- ficant components must be identified as sub-problems. Sub-Problem 1: Theory Development. A theory must be developed as a first step in analysing the difference in percethal terms. . Such a theory will (1) define a concept of college that includes the individual members as key elements in the college, (2) relate the perceptions of individual members to the behavior of individual members, (3) identify and describe the specific perceptions to be measured, and (4) describe the resultant differences between colleges.5 §32~Problem‘3: Instrument Development. A battery of instruments which are (1) consistent with the theory, (2) operationally reliable, ani (3) provide data required by the study must be constructed. Sub-Prob1em_§: Identification of Institutional Differences. The generalizability of the theory will be described by several 5The differences between colleges in perceptions of college as rePorted by members are defined as the "perceptual differences" of the colleges. ‘ classifications of colleges based upon the theoretical constructs pre- viously developed. The classification of colleges will be according to the differences perceived and reported by the members of the colleges. It will also be necessary to identify appropriate classification tech- niques. Sub-Problem‘fi: Testing the Theoretically Related Perceptions Internally. The relationship of the perceptual variables as reported by the several scales of the instrument to the theoretically predicted rela- tionships must be examined. That is to say, are the various scales of the instrument related in predictable fashion? One measure of the validity of the instrument would then be available. Sub-Problem'fi: Testing the Theoretically Related Perceptions with External Criteria. The handling of this problem makes necessary the developing and testing of predictions from theoretically related perceptions to obser- vable behavior of college members. Colleges can be described, in part, according to such "objective" characteristics as the number of student and staff organizations, the nature of problems perceived by the members, ani the type of leadership acceptable to the college members. It was the function of this aspect of the problem to examine the predictableness of such practices of college members according to the theoretically defined perceptual classification. VALUE OF THE STUDY From an exploratory study of the problem as defined, it should be possible to make several contributions to the literature of hflgher education. In the course of the study, an opportunity to develop a design employing an individual point-of-view in the description of colleges is provided. More traditional descriptions of colleges have concen- trated on aspects of the environment of a more quantifiable nature. The definition of a college according to the perceptions of the members represents an attempt to present a characteristic long recognized as a significant part of the college setting. The design emp1oys a validation technique that is based on the individual perceptions of the college. The technique related the observed behavior of the individual members to the reported percep- tions they hold and consequently served a validation function. The examination of such instrumentation through this technique would per- haps be the major value of the study. It would make possible a more. objective commentary on a previously non-objectified characteristic of the college setting. 'Another value of the study is the focus it places on attitudes toward change. The development of a concept of "propensity-to-change" as an integral part of the theory (see Chapter II) is significant. The instrumentation deveIOped to describe the level of propensity-to-change also represents a contribution of value. In sum, then, the anticipated contribution of this study is three-fold: (l) focusing attention on the propensity-to-change of colleges; (2) describing colleges according to the perceptions of mem- bers; and (3) measuring the perceptions of members through a specially designed instrument. AN OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY The development of a theoretical frame-of—reference pertinent to the study will be presented in Chapter Two. Chapter Three will contain the design of the study and the study procedures used, while the develop- ment and description of the instruments used will be reported in Chap- ter Four. The classification of the colleges in the study will be pre— sented in Chapter Five. The analysis, which includes the testing of the predicted relationships and behaviors, will be reported in Chapter Six. The conclusions and implications of the study will be discussed in Chapter Seven. GENERII A THEORY The major elements of a theory of institutional change are (l) a definition of a college, (2) a concept of a college consistent with the definition, (3) a classification of colleges, and (4) the propensity-to-change of a college. Certain limitations of the theory will also be discussed. A DEFINITION OF THE COLLEGE A.college has been traditionally defined as "a society of scholars incorporated for study or instruction”. (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary) The definition implies that a college is a group of people associated for a specific and educative purpose. The present study extended the traditional definition into the operational realm by asserting that a college is what it is perceived to be by the indi- viduals who are in membership in the college. Such a definition was developed logically from the work of perceptual theorists. Perceptual theory holds that individuals act consistently with their perceptions ofreality, that values affect perceptions and behavior and that behavior is motivated by a need to maintain and enhance the phenomenal self.1 Consequently, it 1Bills, 22. fit. p. 13. his membership in the college. This relationship of the individual as a member of the college to the group that is the college suggests fur- ther necessary elements of a theory of college characteristics. THE CONCEPT OF A COLLEGE includes elements which make possible an operational description. The concept "college" includes a present status dimension, a value of present status, and an ideal condition of the college. If such dimensions exist, they can be measured by sampling the perceptions individual mem- bers have of their college. Perceptual theory holds that individuals perceive elements of their environment according to their needs.2 Consequently, it can be assumed that individuals who are members of colleges, and therefore demonstrate a need of (i.e. attach value to) the college, perceive the college in terms of present and ideal status. The discrepancy between the perception of present and ideal status represents an apparent need for change according to the indi- ‘ Vidual member. Baacuse of the assumption that membership implies iden- tificationwith group norms, it follows that the mean discrepancy between Present and ideal status for all members of a college represents the "need for a change" factor in the concept of college. ‘_ 213nm, op. 25. p. 6. The idea of a college pertinent to the study includes, then, the following elements:. (1) a present status dimension, (2) a value of pre- sent status, (3) an ideal status, and (4) a need for a change factor. The elements can be measured by sampling pertinent perceptions of mem- bers. PROPENSITYLTO-CHANGE The idea "propensity-to-change" is defined as a "persistent and directional tendency of people to respond in characterisitc ways to a given situation".3 It seems to be descriptive of the general charac- teristic described by observers of the college scene as an institutional personality, an "atmosphere", or a traditional "character" of a college with respect to introduction of novelty. If such a definition can be assumed, the nature of the concept requires examination, for it must be related to the preceding elements of the theory of institutional characteristics as a pivotal concept. In order for propensityato-change to be consistent with the definition of college developed above, it must be describable in per- ceptual and individual terms. It is necessary also to admit the assump— tion that propensity-to-change implies that members respond in a direc- tional, persistent, and predictable way in given situations which pro- vide opportunities for change in the college. 3Karl Hereford and Fred vescolani, "A Theory of Community Develop- ment," p. 12, (Unpublished manuscript). 10 Given the above need and assumption, propensity-to-change can be defined by examining three factors that influence or modify it in a given college. 1. Need - is considered as a belief by the members that the introduction of some new practice or condition would satisfy a human need within the college. hbed can be measured by the discrepancy between present status and ideal status perceived by the members. Willingness - is a belief of the members that the new practice or condition is consistent with their values and is therefore, desireable. Willingness can be measured by the level of valuing of a college demonstrated by its members. Ability - is described as a condition that suggests the college is able to organize available resources to incor- porate the new practice or condition. Ability can be measured by the level of agreement among members in the value they ascribe to self and perceptions of college. Therefore, a relatively high level of agreement should suggest a high ability to utilize whatever new practice is within the prevailing value system of the members of the college. CLASSIFICATION OF COLLEGES The theory of institutional characteristics includes the elements necessary for a meaningful classification of colleges according to the ll nature of the valuing of the members. Becker suggests the method of constructed typology as a valid tool for use in the analysis of social phenomena.4 Following his general pattern, a classification system based on the components of the theory was developed. The measure of valuing of the college by its members is defined as the relationship between the value ascribed to the individual's own perception of the status of the college (self-acceptance), and the value be perceived his peers to ascribe to the college (peer acceptance). ‘Such relationships, taken in view for all members, are seen as an indgx of valuing for the college. A four-point classification based on the inter-relationships of self and peer perception of value are apparent: highvaluing, overvaluing of self, undervaluing of self, and lowvaluing. TABLE 2.1 COLLEGE CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING TO AN INDEX OF VALUING: THE PERCEPTUAL CLASSIFICATION Self Valuing (Scale II) Peer Valuing (Scale II) High Low High (High-High) (High-Low) Highvaluing Overvaluing 2£.§El£ Low ' (Low-High) (Low-Low) Undervaluing Lowvaluing 2E Self “Howard Becker, Through Values T2 Social Interpretation, (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1950), pp. 93-127. 12 Highvaluigg Colleges would be comprised of members who evidence high levels of valuing of self perceptions of the institution, and who ascribe equally high (or higher) levels of valuing to their peers. Individuals of these characteristics would be those who had adequate phenomenal selves.5 A college composed of such individuals would be expected to deal suCcessfully with its environment.6 Overvaluing Colleges are those whose members characteristicly place greater value on their own perceptions of the college than on those they ascribe to their peers. Overvaluing leads to inaccurate perception of the environment. The self tends to overestimate its status and underestimate the gravity of problems, issues, and opportunities.7 The overvaluing self demonstrates an inability to recognise the need for changed conditions in its environment.8 A college comprised or over- valuing members would evidence rejection of change on the grounds that it was less worthwhile than the existing situation. Real threat would be met by derision.9 Overvaluing colleges tend to perpetuate themselves unmodified by external forces. Endervaluing Colleges are those in which the members tend to value self perceptions as less worthy than the perceptions they ascribe to peers. A characteristic response to threat by undervaluing individuals is to re-define the self so as to eliminate the threat.10 The self is not 531113. _op_. 5_£_t.. p. 13. GSnygg and Combs, 22. 3513., pp. 1-35. 7Bills, 22..g££., p. 23. 8Snygg and Combs, gp.'£i£., p. 141. 9Robert Bills, "Attributes of Successful Educational Leaders," Bulletin of Bureau 25 School Service. (December, 1957)‘ P' 28' 1°Snygg and Combs, 32. 335., p. 142. 13 perceived as being capable of dealing with a threatening situation. Colleges peopled by under-valuing members would be characterized as being incapable of coping with major problems. They'would be seen as inferior in many waysby their members, as being institutionally in- adequate. howvaluing Colleges are those in which the members evidence little acceptance of self’perceptions and perceptions ascribed to peers. It is assumed that low valuing individuals would find no cause for interacting with peers and no cause for confidence in self. Therefore, colleges populated by such members would be characterized by an appeal to authority - a non-peer authority - as the basis for continued opera- tion. Change would find an unfriendly welcome in lowvaluing colleges for it would suggest a serious threat to the "authority" which provides guidance. RELATIONSHIP OF INDEX OF VALUING T0 PROPENSITYeTO-CHANGE The index of valuing represents the willingness component of the propensity-to-change. The classification of colleges according to the index provides a design for the analysis of colleges. Certain characteristics of the three components are related to the classification consistently with the theory. The relationships are presented in Table 2.2. TABLE 2.2 ELEMENTS OF PROPEFSITY TO CHANGE AS RELATED TO THE COLLEGE CLASSIFICATION* Propensity to College Classification Change A * Elements Highvaluing Overvaluing Undervaluing Lowe of Self of Self Valuing Need 2 4 (Least) 1 (Most) 3 Willingness 2 4 (Least) 1 (Most) 3 Ability 1 (Most) 2 4 (Least) 3 *Relationship Scale - 1 to 4 signifying from most to least of the propensity elements present in the classification It is apparent from Table 2.2 that the most pronounced differences among the classes of colleges appear in the ability component. An explication of the table, therefore, is in order. Highvaluing College. The classification is now further de- fined to identify the greatest relative propensity with highvaluing colleges. It is assumed that such colleges demonstrate the highest level of agreement among members in willingness to act upon opportunities for college growth. Again, such colleges would be characterized by the perception of least threat in the environment.. Having the highest relative propensity-to-change, high.valuing colleges would be expected to evidence the most relative growth according to whatever growth cri- teria were established. 15 Overvaluing of Self College. Such colleges would be charac- terized by the lowest level of propensity-to-change. Its members per- ceive the least need to act upon new stimuli and evidence the least willingness to act upon that which they do perceive. A relatively high level of ability to actualize whatever they do perceive, however, is also a consistent characteristic. It would be anticipated that such institu- tions would include a high proportion of members who subscribe to a similar generalized "value system". That is to say, there would be a relatively high agreement in willingness (comparative valuing) of the members to act upon innovation, but the phenomenon of innovation would not itself be highly valued. Undervaluing of Self College. Undervaluing colleges include members who perceive the highest relative need for change, who evidence the highest willingness to act on new phenomena, but who demonstrate the lowest level of ability to activate change. It would be expected that the greatest degree of divergence in institutional valuing by the members would be apparent in undervaluing colleges. Lowvaluing Colleges. The basic characteristic of such colleges is a relatively low level of performance in.each of the three elements of propensity-to—change, and consequently, little propensity-to-change. SUMMARY Chapter TWO has included the major elements of a theory of insti- tutional change. The theory has defined a college as the aggregate of the perceptions of the individual members of the college. It described a college concept perceptually (i.e. by self concept of college and self concept ascribed to peers) to include a present status, a level of 16 valuing,and an ideal status. It included a four point classification system for colleges based on the level of Valuing of its members. A key concept of the theory was the propensitybto-change of a college, which was defined as a tendency of the college members to respond in charac- teristic ways to a given situation. Propensity-to-change was described in three basic components: need, willingness and ability. The theory also related perceptual classification (index of valuing) to the propen- sity-to-change and predicted institutional performance on the components of propensity consistently. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY There are several statistical treatments and various designs available for use in the analysis of studies in education. The pre- sent study is based on a design that made possible the comparison of a perceptual classification of colleges with selected behaviors of mem- bers of the colleges. Such a design made possible the development of hypotheses regarding the anticipated behavior according to the theory of college characteristics presented above. It also provides for testing the hypotheses according to appropriate statistical techniques. THE DESIGN The colleges in the study were classified according to the willingness of the members to change. The classification instrument will be discussed in detail in Chapter Four, and the classification procedure in Chapter Five. The classification became the independent variable in the design, and selected external criteria the dependent variables. In addition, the design provides for testing the perceptual variables within colleges. The dependent variables identified for study were (1) the ele- ments of propensity-to-change -»need and ability, (2) the organizational activity of members of colleges, (3) the problems of the colleges per- ceived and reported by the members, (4) the aspects of the college per- 18 ceived pridefully by the members, and (5) the nature of the leadership structure as perceived by the members. The examination of the propensity- to-change elements provides a test of the validity of the classification according to predictable differences within the specific college. Variables two through five provide opportunities for examining the validity of the classification according to predictable differences between colleges of different classification. Although a multitude of different behavior variables were available for study, the choice was limited by the purposes of the pre— sent study, established and conventional practices (i.e. - those having "face validity"), the interests and experience of the observer, and by the practical limiations of obtaining and handling the needed responses of members of colleges. Consequently, the organizational activity of (members of colleges was assumed to be a measure of centripetalness within the college, and therefore, predictable according to its percep- tual classification. Likewise, problem-perception and pride—in-college were considered to be related to the valuing of the members of the colleges. Also, they were deemed to be predictable according to the per- ceptual classification of the college. In a similar fashion, the leader- ship structure of the colleges was considered as predictable according to the perceptual classification of the college.1 Others factors, such as age distribution of members, sex differences, socio-economic status, personality classification, and intellectual capacity were not included in the study for the reasons presented above. 1See Chapter Four for a further discussion of dependent variables. 19 The relationships among and between the several dependent and the independent variables form the basis for the analysis of the problem. It is from these inter-relationships that the hypotheses to be tested are drawn. Consequently, the relationships are presented in Figure 3.1. 20 Figure 3.1. The Relationship of Dependent and Independent Variables According to Predictions Consistent With a Theory of Institutional Change Code: 1 - The most; 2 - second order; 3 - third order; 4 - the least J— ” __—— Dependent Variables Independent Variables Perceptual Classification of Colleges High Overvaluing Undervaluing Low Valuing of Self of Self Valuing (HV) (0v) (Uv) (Lv) A l. Propensity to change 3. Need 2 4 (Least) 1 (Most) 3 b. Ability 1 (Most 2 4 (Least) 3 2. Organizational a. Total Activity 1 (Most) 4 (Least) 2 3 of Members b. # Off-Campus 2 4 (Least) 1 (Most) 3 Organizations c. # Informal 2 4 (Least) 1 (Most) 3 Groups 3. Problem Perception a. Total Number of 3 4 (Least) 2 1 (Most) problems per- ceived b. # External Pro- 1 (Most) 3 2 4 (Least) blems Reported _¥ 4. Sources of Pride 8. Total Number 2 1 (Most) 3 4 (Least) of aspects of pride reported 3 2 4 (Least) b. # of People-Cen~1 (Most) tered Aspects Reported h 5. Leadership Structure 8. Total Number of 1 (Most) 4 (Least) Leaders identi- fied b. # of Status Lea-3 1 (Most) 2 4 (Least) ders Reported 2 3 (Least) ___. y 21 STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESES Statistical procedures usually are concerned with the testing of the "null" hypotheses, or the hypothesis that there is no true differ- ence between the variables being tested. The hypothesized relationships are apparent in the preceding pages. In as much as the alternate hypo- theses are directionéhthey are stated. The hypotheses are listed according to instrument or external criteria tests, and the specific variable involved. Hypotheses Testing Differences Within the Construct In order to examine the theore|ically related perceptions inter- nally, the two components of propensity-to-change were related to the 3. classificat on system. Each hypothesis is stated in the null form. } NEed and Perceptual Classif;cation. The read component was defined as the discrepancy between the present and ideal status of the college as perceived by its members. It is related hypothetically to perceptual classification as follows: H : The descrepancy between the present status and ideal status is equal among the four perceptual classifications of colleges. The four classifications of colleges are expected to be related in the following manner with regard to the need element of propensity aniaccording to the prediction from the theory: Undervaluing> Highvaluing > Lowvaluing). Overvaluing éhiligz and Perceptual Classification. The ability element of pro-~ Pensity-to-change was defined as the degree of agreement among members in the value they ascribe to self and peer perceptions of the college. It 22 is related to perceptual classification as follows: H : The degree of congruence in the perceptual claSSLfication ascribed to colleges by the individual members is equal among the four perceptual classifica- tions of colleges. "Degree of congruence" refers to the agreement of the classifica- tion assigned to the college by each member with the actually derived classification of the college and the classification assigned by the other individual members of the college. In other words, does the modal group of individuals agree in classification of the college with the derived classification, and if so, to what extent? The testing of this hypothesis should provide an indication of the strength of the particular classification for the particular college. A second factor should be described in part by this analysis. Although the direction of the difference in this measure of the ability component of propensity-to—change, as W's the case above, is not hypothesized directly, it is therretically anticipated that observable directional difference will appear. The data will be inspected for differences among the perceptual classifications according to the follow- ing pattern: Highvaluing )>» Overvaluing j). Lowvaluing :>. Undervaluing. This relationship is interpreted to mean that Highvaluing colleges will evidence the greatest ability to maximize the propensity-to-change; that is, they will evidence the highest degree of agreement in the per- ceptual classification ascribed to colleges by each individual member. Undervaluing colleges will evidence the least ability. hypotheses Testing Difference Between the Classification and External Criteria. The theory needs to be tested by examining the predictive state- 23 ments derived from its assumptions. Predictions regarding member behavior in colleges of different perceptual classification are verbalized in the hypotheses which appear below. The null form of the hypotheses is used, with applicable directional alternate also included. Organizational Activity of Members and Perceptual Classification. o l Three types of organizational activity were identified: the number of organizational participationsreported by members, the locus of the or- ganizational activity, and the extent of the informal group activity. The hypothesized relationships are presented below. H0: The number of organizational participations of members of colleges is equal among the four perceptual classifications of colleges. This null hypothesis is translated into operational null hypo- theses as follows according to the theoretical relationships (Ev-High- HO:HV .-= UV := LV = 0V H1:Hv> HV>Lv>Ov H : The number of off-campus organizational parti- cipations reported by members of colleges is equal among the four perceptual classifications of colleges. The first hypothesis drafted to test the nature of organizational participation according to the perceptual classification deals with the locus of the participation. The theory predicts a difference among the classifications which is expressed in the following null and alternate forms: Hozuv = RV = Lv = 0V H1:UP>’HVP'IV?>OV 24 H0: The number of informal organizational participations reported by members of colleges is equal among the four per- ceptual classifications of colleges. The nature of the organizational participations is also considered to be described in part by the kind of groups members participate in. The difference between formal and informal groups is one of the measures of this aspect of the organizational activities of college members. It is predicted from the theory of institutional change that a differ- ence will appear among colleges of different perceptual classification according to the alternative hypothesis that are stated below following the null form. Ho=Uv == av = LV = 0V H1:Uv)v HV>LV>OV Problem Perception and Perceptual Classification. Two areas of interest regarding problem perception behavior of members of colleges have been identified for examination: the number of problems reported and the source of the perceived problems. The hypothesized relation— ships between these aspects of problem perception and perceptual classi- fication are expressed below. H0: The number of members reporting many problems is equal among the four perceptual classifications of colleges. The phrase "many problems," is de ined to include the numbers of problems reported that were above the mean number of problems reported by the members of each college. The above null hypothesis is stated in operational terms according to the relationships between each of the pairs of college'classificationa. The alternate hypothesis is direc_ tional according to the theoretical predictions and is also stated. H031“ -_- U = H = 0 H1:Lv>Uv>Hv>Ov 25 The number of external problems reported by members of cogleges is equal among the four perceptual classifications of colleges. "External problems" are those the source of which lies outside the college. The Operational definition of this term is stated complete- ly in Chapter Six. The dif fe:e1ce among colleges of different percep— tual classification is expr seed in directional alternative hypothesis drawn from the theoretically predicted relationships and expressed below. HzH =0 =L =0 H:vavv>U>-L>O 0 v v v v 1 Sources of Pride and Perceptual glassification. The relationships between sources of pride and the perceptual classification have been predicted according to the number of sources reported and the number of those that are people- ce ntered. HO- The number of sources of pride reported by the members of colleges is Sequel among the four perceptual classifications of coil Hg "Sources of pride" is defined as the aspects of the college that members report prideftlly. The theoretically predicted differences among the colleges are stated as directional alternative following the specific null hypothesis which appear below. 110:0v == UV = RV = LV H1:OV>UV>HV>LV : The number of people-centered sources of pride rgported by members of colleges is equal among the four perceptual classifications of colleges. One of the measures of difference between classifications is the part of the college that members regard pridefully. The aspects that are related directly to individuals rather than traditions or objects are defined as "people-centered" sources of pride. The complete opera- 26 tional definition appears in Chapter Six. The theoretically predicted relationships among the perceptual classifications of colleges are stated below as alternatives following the specific null hypothesis. Hozflv == UV = 0v = LV H1:HV>UV>OV>LV Leadership Structure and Pergeptual Classification. It is hypothe- sized that both the size and the nature of the leadership structure of colleges would vary according to perceptual classifications. Two as- pects of leadership structure are, therefore, the number of leaders reported and the number of status leaders reported by members of colleges. H : The number of membe- reporting many leaders rs is equal among the four perceptual classifications of colleges. A report of "many leaders" is defined as one in which the in- dividual reports more than the mean number of leaders reported by the members of the college. The direction of the predicted relationship among the classifications of colleges is stated in the alternative to the null hypothesis, both of which are reported below. Hod-Iv = UV = LV = 0v H1:HV>UV>LV>OV H : The number of status leaders reported by members of colleges is equal among the four perceptual classifications of colleges. . "Status Leaders" are defined as those who were identified by members of colleges as leaders because of their position rather than their role. The complete operational definition appears in Chapter Six. The direction of the predicted relationship among the classification of colleges is stated in the alternatives to the null hypotheses, both 27 of which are reported below. HO:OV == Uv = RV = LV H1:OV>UV>HV>LV Each of the hypotheses was of equal concern to the present study. The exploratory nature of the study suggested that any significant rela- tionship observed among the several variables and classifications would be meaningful. The statistical tools used to test the hypotheses are discussed in the next section. THE STATE TICAL ANALYSIS In order to test the hypotheses, it will be necessary to treat the data with appropriate statistical techniques. The reliability of the classification instrument (see Chapter Four) will be tested with an analysis of variance technique. After determining the reliability, the hypotheses testing the relationships within the instrument (propensity- to-change components) will be tested with the Student's "t" mean analysis. The Chi-square method will be used to test the hypotheses regarding the relationships between the colleges of different perceptual classification and external criteria. Analysis of Variance; Reliability The Hoyt method for estimating the reliability for unrestricted item scoring was selected to test the reliability of the clasm.fication instrument. Conventional analysis of variance techniques require a dichotomous item scoring pattern, and the instrument developed to classi- fy the colleges perceptually required a scoring range of one-to-five (see Chapter Four). The Hoyt method regards the matrix of item scores as a two-way factorial design for the analysis of variance. 28 The analysis of variance assumes that (a) contributions to the variance are additive, (b) observations are independent, (c) variance within the sets are equal, and (d) the variances are normally distri- buted. Assumptions (3) and (b) were met wit in the data. All responses within the sets are additive, and each response was to a different item and, therefore, assumed to be independent. Guilford2 demonstrated that the Hoyt analysis of variance estimation of reliability was identical with the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20, and reported an experiment by Brogden3 which.demonstrated that the KuR Formula 20 results showed little bias even though the assumptions were not met. Therefore, it was concluded that the Hoyt method produced an acceptable estimation of reliability /‘\ without assumptions (c) and 6) being met. Admittedly this is a risky assumption, but one that appears reasonable. The Student's fit" The data by which the hypotheses of relationships within the classification irstrument will be tested appears as mean scores for the appropriate scales of the instrument. The data is reported in scores on an additive interval scale. The populations were assumed to be normal, to have the same variance, and to be independent.4 Consequently, the conditions were appropriate for the use of the Student's "t" as the most powerful test of the data differences. 23. P. Guilford, Psycometric Methods (FEW'York:‘McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1954), pp. 353-355. 3 H.E. Brogden, "The Effect of Bias Due to Difficulty Factors in Product Moment Item Inter-Correlations on the Accuracy of Estimation of Reliability," Educational and Psychological Measurement, 6:517-520, 1946. As cited in J. P. GUilford, Psychometric Methods. 4Sidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics For the Behavioral Sc1ences (hbw’York: McGrawéflill Book Company, Inc.), pp.l9-20. 29 TEE’Chi-Square When data available to test the relationship between variables are in a measurement of less strength than an interval scale, a non- parametric test is called for. The present study contains some data that were of a frequency nature. Therefore, the examination of the re- lationships between the perceptual classification and some of the external criteria will be conducted with the chi-square test. The chi-square test assumes independence among the single responses, theoretical frequencies of adequate size,use of frequency data, and adequate categorizing.5 To meet the assumptions, the following steps were taken:' the data were handled so that independence was assured (i.e. - first choices of respondents were used whenever a question of independence developed); data were grouped to remove all cell fre- quencies less than five; all nonsfrequency data were excluded in chi- square tests; and categories analysed were acceptable only after a 95% level of agreement on classification of specific responses was demonstrated by impartial judges. gaggl‘gf Significance A .05 level of significance was established for rejecting the null hypothesis. It is remembered, however, that this is primarily an exploratory study. Therefore, a specific level of significance will not be permitted to interfere with the identification of trends that might be demonstrated in the examination of the data. 5Don Lewis and C. J. Burke. "The Use and Misuse of the Chi- SQUare That," Psychological Bulletin, 46:434. 30 SUMMARY The design of the study provided for the development of a per— ceptual classification of colleges. The four resultant classifications were identified as the independent variables. Six dependent variables were identified as pertinent to the study. They were two of the elements of propensity-to-change, the organizational activity of members of colleges, the problems of the college perceived and reported by the members, the aspects of the college perceived pridefully by the members, and the nature of the leadership structure as perceived by the members. Hypotheses were stated in both.the null and alternate forms for all pertinent relationships between the dependent and independent variables. Statistical tools identified as appropriate were the analysis of variance for a test of reliability, the Student's "t" for the mean analysis, and the chi-square for the nonpparametric test. All hypo- theses will be tested at the .05 level of significance. CHAPTER IV STUDY METHODS AND PROCEDURES In order to study the problem under consideration, it was necessary to investigate certain related areas. For instance, the nature of the population and the sample must be identified, the proper instru- ments must be developed, the sample and the instruments must then be brought together in order that the needed data might be collected. It is also pertinent to investigate the limiations imposed upon the study by the nature of the sample and the instrumentation. THE POPULATION AND THE SAMPLE The P0 ulation All of the subjects of the present study were members of one of three small, liberal arts colleges in the Middle West. A "member" was defined as a student or staff member (instructional and administrative) of one of the colleges. There was no evidence taken in the present study that makes possible the comparison of the subjects with the universe of college students and staff members in the United States. Similarly, no generalized information beyond the data that appears below was obtained about the cflleges as institutions comparable with the universe of institutions throughout the nation. Therefore, the P0pulation of this exploratory study is limited to the three colleges udied is involved, even though the nature of the data collected and st of interest to all in the field of higher education. 32 The Sample Three liberal arts colleges were selected to serve as subjects for the study. All were located in the Middle west and were church related. Two were coeducational and the third included only female students. One was located in an established heavy-industry area, the other two in essentially rural communities. ane were accredited by the Nbrth Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, the appropriate regional accrediting agency, although each was actively seeking accredidation. All of the colleges had full-time equivalent enrollment of less than 300 students. Each college announced, through its catalog, the offering of liberal arts and pre—professional courses. Each institution depended upon income from student-tuitions and fees as the primary source of revenue. The staffs of the three colleges were somewhat similar in the number of years experience they had in higher education and in the professional preparation, but differed in other characteristics. The three colleges were pre-selected, however, and not identified specifically for purposes of the study. Consequently,the elimination of uncontrolled variables was impossible. For instance, it was not possible to select three coeducational colleges, or three that were affiliated with the same religious group. Nor was it feasible to select a sample of colleges with similar histories or in similar locales. How- ever, the diversity of the colleges studied marked well the uniqueness that is associated with every institution of higher education. The only tYPe of control that was available was provided by a selection of 33 appropriate analysis techniques. Sample inadequacies were inherent in the study. For purposes of study, the colleges were assigned letter identi- College A was located in the northern lake region. It was a fications. girls school, which resulted in its being the most deviant in several observable characteristics. College B was located in the Midwest in a small town which served as a center for a largely rural economy. College C was situated in the business section of a middle sized industrial town which was part of a larger industrial complex. It served largely as a commuting college. The actual sample of the study was composed of members of the aiministrative and instructional staffs and the student bodies of the The ideal sample would have included all administrators, three colleges. The total membership instructors, and students of the three colleges. of the sample colleges was as follows: TABLE 4.1 DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL MEMBERSHIP AND ACTUAL RESPONDENTS IN THREE COLLEGES College Students Staff Adminis. Total Full~ Part Respon- Full Respon- FUll Respon-Ffill Respon- Time Time dents Time dents Time dents Time dents A 170 165 175 29 22 7 7 206 204 B 194 80 167 25 14 12 12 231 193 C 262 42 42 34 23 16 9 312 74 34 It was not practicable to secure 100% participation of the sample. In colleges A and B all available instructors, administrators and students participated. Table 4.1, also includes the actual numbers of useable complete responses resulting from the administration of the Index of Institutional Characteristics. It is obvious from this infor- mation that a major portion of the total membership of both A and B provided useable results. The situation was different in college C. The institution lacked facilities to make possible the assembly of all members. Accordingly, appropriate officers of the college were requested to draw and assemble a representative sample of approximately 20% of the student body. The actual useable sample provided was 16%. Limitations imposed upon the study by the necessities of sample construction were discussed above. Confidence had to be placed in the professional judgement of the officials of college C who its representative sample. The sample included other questionable characteristics also, as an examination of data in Table 4.1 suggests. For instance, approximately 44%land 33% of the faculties of Colleges A and B respectively did not participate. However, in as much as the nature of the present investigation is exploratory and descriptive, the data provided is not unduly skewed by the discrepancies in the sample to destroy its usefulness. THE MEASURES OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES The independent variables were identified as the perceptual classifications described by the theory of institutional change. The second major sub-problem of the study posed in the introductory chapter was the development of a battery of instruments which provided the 35 classification. The requirements for the instrument were (1) to provide the data required by the study, (2) to be consistent with the theory of institutional change, and (3) to be operationally reliable. The literature suggested a pattern that could be adapted to the needs of the present study. A multi-scale perceptual instrument was developed by Bills, Vance, and McLean.1 The Bills' instrument measured tie relationship between self-concept and acceptance of self, and was called the Index of Adjustment and Values. The IAV sampled a client's concept of self and ideal self and measured the level of self-acceptance by requiring him to respond to fortybnine trait words sample originally from Allport's list of 17,953 traits. It was established that the mean acceptance-of—self score of t‘a standardized group divided the low self values (below mean scores) clients from the high self valuing (above mean scores) clients. It was further observed that the discre- pancy scores, the difference between self conept and ideal concept, varied inversely with the acceptance of self score. Bills reported a reliability coefficient significant at the .001 level on each of the scales of the instrument. Validity was also reported in terms of a correlation with the Rorschach test. In as much as the IAV was developed to measure personality based on perceptual assumptions, it was used as a model for the development of an Index of Institutional Characteristics. It was expected that the 110 would produce measures of the three components of propensity-to-change that were reliable and in accord with the theoretically predicted 1Robert E. Bills, Edgar L. Vance and Orison S. McLean, "An Index of Adjustment and Values," 223 Journal of Consulting Psychology, 15:257-263 (All data in this paragraph regarding the IAV were drawn from this source). 36 directional relationships. The Scales The measures required to produce a level of need were a self- concept of the present status of the college and a self-ideal concept of the college. The need component of propensity-to-change was defined as the discrepancy between present status and ideal status of the college as perceived by the individual. Consequently, the perceptual instrument included the following questions, the responses to which produced the required information: Scale I How much of the time do you believe each of the following characteristics of your college is adequate? Scale III Ideally, how much of the time do you believe each of the following characteristics of your college should be adequate? Scale I will be identified as "self-adequacy" and Scale III as "ideal adequacy" in the remainder of the report. The measures required to describe the level of the willingness component of propensity-to-change were assumed to be the valuing diaracteristics of the members of the colleges. Following the Bills- VanceaMcLean rationale, it was assumed that the relationship between the level of valuing ascribed by self to the college and that ascribed to peers represented the level of acceptance of the college by the individual respondent. The resultant index of valuing for the college provided the perceptual classification of the college according to the pattern in Table 2.1. The index of valuing, or perceptual classification, is also called the 1.1.0., the Index of Institutional Characteristics. Consequently, the members of the colleges were requested to respond to 37 the following questions: Scale II How do you feel about the adequacy of each of the characteristics of your college? Scale V How does the average person in your peer group feel about the adequacy of each of the following characteristics of the college? ,Scale II is to be identified as "self acceptance" and Scale V as "peer acceptance" in the remainder of the report. Two additional scales were included in the perceptual instrument. They served two basic functions: (1) to provide additional face-validity for the respondents and (2) to facilitate the completion of the instru- ment. The scales thus required were the present status as ascribed to peers and ideal status as ascribed to peers. Consequently, the following questions were included as scales in the perceptual instrument. Scale IV How much of the time does the average person in your peer group believe each of the following characteristics of the college to be adequate? Scale VI Ideally, how much of the time does the average person in your peer group believe each of the following characteristics of the college to be adequate? Scale IV will be identified as "peer concept of adequacy" and Scale VI as "peer ideal concept of adequacy" in the remainder of the report. Summary 25 Scales The Scales of the Perceptual Instrument. In order to gather the information necessary to the need and willingness components of propensity-to-change, six scales were developed to be included in the perceptual instrument. 38 I. Self Concept of Present Status - The perception of adequacy of the college ascribed to the college by the respondents. II. Self Acceptance of Institution - The Value ascribed to the college by the respondents. III. Ideal Concept of Institution - The ideal level of adequacy ascribed to the college by the respondents. IV. Peer - Concept of Present Status - The perception of the adequacy of the college ascribed by respondents to their peers. V. Peer Acceptance of Institution - The perception of the value of the college ascribed by respondents to their peers. VI. Peer Ideal Concept of Institution - The perception of ideal level of adequacy of college ascribed by respondents to their peers. Scores Produced by the Scales. The primary component of the propensity-to-change is measured by the relationship between self acceptance (scale II) and peer acceptance (scale V). This, the willingness scale component, is referred to as the "perceptual classifi- cation," the "index of valuing," or the "index of institutional characteristics." One component of propensityato—change‘fia measured.by the discre- pancy between the self adequacy concept and the ideal adequacy concept. 233‘15322; the College Characteristics Colleges can be described by many specific characteristics, as evidenced by the experience of Pace and Stearns, who identified 300 39 different college characteristics.2 The criterion for selection of those used in the present study was the face-validity of each potential characteristic.3 The twenty-nine selected characteristics were: Purposes of the college Relationships with other colleges Alumni relationships , Relationship with local community Administration—Faculty relations I Faculty—Student relations . Quality of instruction 8. Quality of research 9. Student personnel services 10. Quality of student body 11. Quality of student organizations 12. Quality of student leadership 13. Opportunities for cultural enrichment 14. Opportunities for scholarly work 15.' Intellectual climate and stimulation 16. Opportunities for faculty advancement 17. Planning of educational programs 18. Housing for students 19. Housing for faculty 20. Library facilities 21. Advisement of students 22. Faculty role in academic decisions 23. Administrative role in faculty decisions 24. Faculty role in non-academic decisions 25. Cooperation among faculty 26. Academic standing of college 27. Scope of educational programs and services 28. Social/recreational opportunities 29. Quality of buildings and facilities C \JO\UIf~UIMMH The descriptions of the perceptions of colleges by the members according to each of the six scales described above was then accom- plished in terms of each of the twenty—nine characteristics. .— G. Stern, "An Approach to the Measure- 2G. Robert Pace and George tics of College Environments," The ment of Psychological Characteris Journal of Educational Psychology. 49:269-277. 3Face-validity is defined as "the validity that is subjectively determined simply by the 'rightness’ of the instrument." G. Lindzey and E. F. Borgatta, "Sociometric Measure," Handbook of Social Psychology. G. Lindzey, Ed. Vol I, pp. 422-23. 40 Reliability and Discrimination of the Measures of Institutions Reliability. The reliability of the responses to the Index of Institutional Characteristics was estimated with the Hoyt Test of Weighted Instruments by the Analysis of Variance. In Table 4.2, the data that resulted from this analysis is presented. Inspection of these data indicates that the I.I.C. scales are acceptably reliable, with the rtt of each scale above .90. The stan- dard error of measurement, also produced by the Hoyt analysis, was included to be used as a base figure for established scale descrepancy scores with a low probability of overlap. The classification schemes, to be discussed in chapter Five, are based on this figure as a measure of difference between extremes. TABLE 4.2 RELIABILITY OF THE SIX SUB-SCALES OF THE INDEX or INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS a it: 50* AMBasure rtt SEm Scale I Self Adequacy .917 4.607 Scale II Self Acceptance .932 4.260 Scale III Ideal Adequacy .915 3.520 Scale IV Peer Adequacy .917 4.460 Scale V Peer Acceptance .936 4.070 .926 3.530 Scale VI Peer Ideal Adequacy *Equal interval sample of the total sample, proportionally distri- buted among colleges and membership groups. Discrimination of Classification. The theoretical differences among colleges as reported by the perceptual classification the,willingness compenent of propensity-to-change, can be still futher examined in 41 relation to the reliability of that measure. The critical role of the self acceptance score (scale II) will become apparent in Chapter Five. Because of its critical nature in the theoretical classification being proposed in the present study, it was necessary to determine that the differences it reported were in fact differences among colleges and not caused by some other factor. It was possible to test at least some major source of contribution to difference other than the total institutional scene. The Least Squares Analysis model was used to examine the differ- ences among the colleges in the study after the effects of the differences among the three membership groups (students, faculty, and administration) were removed. The results of that analysis of each scale are reported in Table 4.3. TABLE 4.3 42 LEAST SQUARES ANALYSIS OF 2AWAY CLASSIFICATION“WITH UNEQUAL FREQUENIIES IN THE SUB-CELLS OF ALL I.I.C. SCALES FOR ALL COLLEGES N = 50* Measure Fa Fb ss Scale I Self Adequacy 11.621 1.942 .8332 Scale II Self Acceptance 11.401 1.936 .8420 Scale III Self Ideal Adequacy 11.743 1.970 .8810 Scale IV Peer Adequacy 11.422 1.911 .8331 Scale V Peer Acceptance 11.512 1.885 .8550 Scale VI Peer Ideal Adequacy 11.089 1.822 .8441 Variance attributed to institutions (all significant at .01 level) F = F: = Variance attributed to administrative, faculty, and student groups (not significant at.05 level for each scale) ss = Variance attributed to interaction (not significant at the .05 level for each scale) * Equal interval sample of the total sample, proportionally distributed among colleges and membership groups The analysis indicates that with the effects attributed to member- ship group and interaction taken out, the mean score for the colleges on the self adequacy scale was significant at the .01 level. The same condition was demonstrated for each scale. Also the means of the mem- bership groups for each scale were not significantly different when the differences due to the institutions and interaction were removed. Therefore, there is a statistically significant difference in the means of each scale among the colleges, and there are not significant differences in the mean scores of the membership groups and interaction factors on 43 institutional in nature. The nature of the validity of the factor is considered in a following section. Validityugf the Classification. The validity of the percepg tual classification is a question of major concern. It will be treated through an analysis of the dependent variables described in Chapter Two. Chapter Six deals with the question of validity in detail. MEASURES OF DEPENDENT VARIABLES Dependent Variables Related EE‘IEEEa-Instrument Predictability. The dependent variables included the need and ability components of propensity-to-change. The measure of the need was presented on page thirtyesix'above. The ability component of propensity-to—change represents the degree of agreement among members in the value they ascribe to self and'peerf perceptions of the college -- the individual index of Valuing. The measure of this component requires the classification that each member of each college produces by his responses to the Index of Insti- tutional Characterisitcs. The distribution of the individual classifi- cations will then be analyzed to test the theoretically predicted Delationships among the perceptual classifications of colleges. No additional instrumentation is required for this analysis. Dependent variables Related to External Criteria Predictability. The measurement of the criterion variables was accomplished by including the following questions in the general section of the study .instrument: 44 In what campus organizations or clubs have you held membership during the past six months? In what community or other non-college organizations or clubs do you participate regularly? In what informal groups do you regularly participate? (e.g., recreation, discussion groups, etc.) Taking into consideration the length of time that you have been a member of the college, what do you believe to be the most imp portant problems facing the college at this time? In what aspects or parts of the college do you find your greatest sources of pride? Among the student body, faculty, administration, alumni, or other group associated with the college, what eight persons do you consider to be the most important overall leaders of the college, whether or not these persons hold office or are recognized by others to be leaders? Responses to the above questions were tabulated according to a response classification which is discussed in Chapter Six. ADMINISTRATION OF THE IFSTRUMENTS Each of the three colleges in the study was visited by competent personnel. It was planned to administer the study instruments to the entire student body and staff during a general convocation. At that time, all available students and staffcompleted the instrument. The procedure was satisfactorily implemented at colleges A and B. A modi- fication was made necessary for college C, as local conditions made impossible the assembly of all students. Consequently, the representa- tive sample described earlier was developed, and the group was assembled and the instrument administered to the students separately from the staff. The actual administration of the studyinstruments presented no difficulties. Explicit instructions and explanations were published with 45 the test (See Appendix A). The test administrators observed that all but a very few subjects completed the entire instrument in less than one hour. All instruments were hand tabulated by clerical assistants not otherwise involved in the study. The data were then coded for IBM cards andlkey-punched for subsequent machine tabulation. Both the machine and hand tabulations were used in the testing of the hypotheses, because it was not possible to compile all the needed information through one technique. LIMITATIOI‘S OF THE STUDY Sample Limitations imposed on the study by the sample were suggested previously. They were basically unequal distribution of respondents according to total size, sex, and within membership groups, and the absence of randomization procedures in the selection of the sample. Size of sample and the distribution limitations were controlled in part through the use of appropriate statistical treatment. However, sample bias was not adequately controlled. Instrumentation The study was limited by the use of an untested instrument. Normal control procedures were invoked in the pre-administration phase, but opportunities for refinement following an application were not available. Semantic errors and face-validity problems were controlled by a sampling of reactions from professional staff members currently involved in higher education. 46 Generalizability The results of the study were, therefore, limited to the parti- cular involved institutions, and the function of the study to an ex— ploratory role. However, if there is any indication of predictability found through this study, evidence will warrant further application. SUMMARY The present study involved the staff and students of three small, liberal arts colleges. Each college was church related and located in the Middle West. The actual sample of the study was composed of the available students, instructors, and administrators in the three colleges. I The four perceptual classifications of colleges rendered by the Index of Institutional Characteristics (I.I.C.) were identified as the independent variables in the study. The perceptual instrument, the I.I.C., measured these variables through six sub-scales and twenty-nine characteristics of colleges. 'The scales were demonstrated to be both reliable and discriminating. Two types of dependent variables were identified for study. The first class included two components of propensity-to-change which were identified as intra-instrument variables. The second class of depen- dent variables included criteria external to the theory being tested. Questions designed to elicit responses to make possible the analysis of these variables were drafted and included in the general instrument. The instruments were administered directly to the subjects during visits to each campus rather than through a self-administration 47 technique. They were scored by hand and tabulated with assistance of IBM equipment. The study was limited by the nature of the sample and the use of an untested instrument. The results, therefore, will be applicable only to the specific population of the present study. CHAPTER V THE PERCEPTUAL CLASSIFICATION The theory of institutional characteristics involves the classi- fying of a college into one of four distinct types. The classification is based upon the relationship between the level of self acceptance of a college and the acceptance of a college ascribed to peer demonstrated by individuals defined as members of the college. The four classes of colleges were described previously and identfied as "highvaluing" (Hv), "overvaluing" (Ov),"undervaluing" (Uv), and "lowvaluing" (Lv).1 Chapter Five includes the definition of the classification fac- tors, the presentation of the operational definitions of each classi- fication, the procedure for making the classification, and the actual classification of each of the three colleges in the study. CLASSIFICATION FACTORS The determinants in the perceptual classification system are the measures of self and peer acceptance produced by the Index of Institu- tional Characteristics. It has been assumed that it is the relationship involving these factors which describes the "willingness" of a college to actuate opportunities for change. These are the relationships which provided the identification for the classification system. 1The symbols in parentheses will be used hereafter interchange- ably with the specific name of the classification. 49 The relationship of primary importance in the classification system is between the mean self acceptance (scale II) score of the college and an external criteria. Because the study being reported in these pages was the first using the classification system, there were no normative data toreIEr t0.Therefore, the mean self acceptance score of all parti- cipants in the study was defined as the normative score for this parti- cular administration of the instrument. The relationship between the mean of the college and mean of the total administration of the instrum- ment can be described as "high" or "low." For purposes of this study, "high" is defined to include all scores equal to(one standard error of measurement>or greater than the total group mean on Scale II. "Low" is defined as all scores less than the total group mean by at least one standard effor of measurement. The definition is presented graphically in Figure 5.1. Figure 5.1. The defined possible relationship between the self acceptance mean score of a college and the self acceptance total group mean score. A - 1 SEm x +1 ssm S = high low EZZZfl = low sample \ ‘////// ..I. The second relationship factor pertinent to the perceptual classi- fication system is that which exists between the self acceptance mean score and the peer acceptance mean score of a given college. The rela- tionship of the latter to the former is called "high" when the peer 50 acceptance mean score of the college is significantly higher than the mean self acceptance score of the college, and "low" if the peer acceptance mean score is significantly lower than the mean self accep- tance score. If the peer acceptance mean score is neither signifi- cantlyhigher nor lower than the self acceptance mean score (i.e. does not fall outside the mean range of Scale II), it is assigned the name of its Scale II. Ihe relationship as defined appears in Figure 5.2. Figure 5.2. The defined relationship between Peer Acceptance Mean scores and the self acceptance mean scores of individual colleges Scale = High Classification = Low Classification = Adopts Scale II Identity CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURES Operational Definition of Each Perceptual Classification Highvaluing colleges were defined as those in which members evidence high levels of valuing of self perceptibns of the institution, and who ascribe equally high or higher levels of valuing to their peers. operationally, a highvaluing college is one that is scored by the self 51 acceptance scale at a l rel equal to or higher than the total group mean score and by the peer acceptance scale as higher than the self accep- tance scale.l (See Figure 5.3) Overvaluing colleges were defined as those in which members 2 , characteristically place greater value on their own perceptions of the college than on those they ascribe to peers. Expressed in operational terms. an Overvaluing college is one that is scored by the self accep- tance scale at a level equal to or higher than the total group mean self acceptance score, and by a peer acce tance mean score less than (u the self-acceptance scor . (see Figure 5.3) q Undervaluing coal e‘ir‘d as those in which the members (D 0‘! (\ U) E H (9 CL l I: tend to value self perceptiots cf the college as less worthy than the perceptions they ascribe to peers. -uis difference in valuing is tance mean score less than the 'U expressed on the I.I.C. as a self acce total group mean score, and a peer acceptance mean score equal to or greater than the self acceptance score. (See Figure 5.3) Lowvaluing colleges were defined as those in.which the members evidence little acceptance of self perception and self perception ascribed to peers. In operational terms, this defined relationship is expressed as a self acceptance scale score less than the mean of the -"total group self acceptance score, and a peer acceptance score less than that. (see Figure 5.3) 52 Figure 5.3. Four perceptual classifications of colleges according to the self and peer acceptance scale scores of the Index of Institutional Characteristics if \y \W A \\§i N SA PA SA PA SA PA SA PA Hv 0v Uv Lv Legend: . = Total Group S.A. Mean S o e S.A. = Self Acceptance (Scale ll: Score P.A. = Peer Acceptance (Scale V) Score Classification Procedure Colleges were classified according to the system defined above by the following procedure. First, it was necessary to determine the total group mean score for the self acceptance scale. This was accomplished by summing all individual totals for the self acceptance scale and dividing by the total number of individuals. It was then decided to eliminate the indiviiual self acceptance 53 and peer acceptance scores within each college that contributed least to D the difference which me To the collage classifiable. Consequently, it was first necessary to remove all individtal self accept ance scores that were not at least one standard error of measurement diff=rent from the total group mean self acceptance score. The next step involved removing from the remaining L ivid eels all those whose peers acceptance score was not ) different from his self a-ceptance score by one standard error ofi ! measurement. The group of scores that remained were those that were (. significantly different from the me an of the self acceptance scale and demonstrated a significant di ffer rence between self and peer scores. The scores that remained were then summed for each college, and means computed. After the scores were computed, the college was assigned the appropriate classification by reference to the operat11°onal definition for each classificat; on. THE CLAS SIF’I CAIION’OF THE COLLEGES Results of The Index of lTstitutional Guara_teri tics “a.“ _ ...g- -a J— rnr— -v--~ r '1 1r 1 ..., - .- —- An» m m It was first necessary to tabulate the resul s of the administra- tion of the Index of Inetl"tic al Characteristics (I.I.C.) in each of ‘ the colleges. The tabulation was accomplished and is reported in Table 5.1. The mean scores of each scale for each college were computed. The critical score in this analysis was the total group mean score of the self acceptance scale (scale II). It will be referred to in the next section. IAELE 5.1 54 RESULTS OF THE ADMINISIFAI'ION OF "” INDEX OF IbEIII IIONAL CHARACIERISIICS IN THREE COLLEGES Scale College _ Ian-295;- Became 2:49.- Iotfi1.t‘a:_472 I Self Concept 113.5 112.9 lO$,4 112.6 II Self Acceptance 114.8 139.0 lOl.6 ll0.3 III Ideal Concept 126.7 129.3 127.1 127.8 IV Peer Concept 1:1.9 109.8 lOG.8 106.2 V Peer Acceptance 11l.2 l06.0 99.5 107.2 VI Peer Ideal Concept lZI.2 i11.8 323.6 ll9.8 £2. £1. 5231f 10.111911 The cl assif Icaticn process inwtlved det=-m_ulng an institutional index based upon an adjustod mean score. The scores were adjusted within each college by: (l) the identification and elimination of all self acceptance (scale II) scores not o.e SEm remo ed from the total group mean self-acceptance score; (2) the identification a d eliminat1on of all individual results in which the peer acceptance (Scale V) score was not one SEm different from the in -v-o_al se lf—acceptance score; and (3) the recomputation of new mean score 3 based on th' remaining cases for each college. I e classification was then made according to the operational definition 8 prided above. Classification of College A, The results of the iju sted mean process for college A are reported in Table 5.2. 2 .3 P... ,5 «~- -1151, --1 O- H ICIPIANI \‘ A5 “1' P c, A6 BER P gamma Am I'M/‘3 we: SELF A peg-e- .. ._ .. - " .n \ 5.] 4;.44‘ -. y- 1‘.— ,. ‘1- .— V-‘ (- .5 v :3.- A; ,-. . k..., ab- “C31 r-v L) . “...—(4W W l &M£#¢W&W 434.1...» A .&K&. J. Li—L._~—.-K.A_—"x.;_&;;..__tu._t Lpsui .I—Jl-n Wu--w+ g; -._:..;.'—._J.'_.l‘-A‘Jw 4L ~x #‘ ..u. 1.11:1;1- _, _. .,- x _x .4 “11.4.4 .... ... 7*‘—'-eu-‘)‘- '; ‘ _ f—wr ‘- n» J‘- ‘ 1..- un- - 1.4-LqLA _. . v H ......L'.g El 0 r n— u‘ Rema ..vr - n. .—-.-— — 1 - A—- 1 ~u ...-1.. «...- (~1-Lr- m ...-u - ‘__—-»_._.- w! --...- 109.5 mi mi 10 159 205 -.-—c .3-.L -£A- — .2 M1 _:L ‘ data 6 ruff-g. .L ‘55 n- & - L-L: \J -E L RAE: ,1. 3 b”: a. 0 4-. 1-3t ..é. .7 ...-A 1 a P in.‘ _ ‘fi.-....4.o - q'u ‘J-rn w ~ ~.: on p q I -l a.“ 2... . .. a: T7. H. . 0 Iva-Ia ’— O 2. ‘38 . 1.” ‘. ..u . A‘r‘ ‘1'... .... ...x..~:1....- -‘ '1 L _. 8:31“: P m- ...w -_. E)- ‘c \d- total 1 . 12-1% and ; nx, hdeV/ I I! ‘1 ‘4 . I P. ."a A a»! ‘J - t_ ‘1 s! r,- we“. ceptan IV ‘ J .‘a\ U .. 'u. .. v 1'. .‘ a ‘ -'...~.pab ‘A ‘a n. O ‘ . I O n msl-‘u .- 1. A. r, n’ u- 1‘, vu-\-‘ 1:. "g 2 ..l ‘1 .‘.5 new (‘15 up 9‘ o h 1-...53131' ‘1 ' k --y ‘3" o‘> O a." .-.-..- any ‘0 u--- - 0 a n'l— .~ ‘1 D V ‘ .. .7 .p- IV I.“ “0/ 0 ~ 9 ..-.,_ ., .... ~ ' ‘ Jk‘ndU-n ...... ....\ 0 ‘n H- percept ified. d V) may now be ident P, y 81.- t":- LIL scales and peer acceptance (1. ale II ”o Ss— than the m" .538 4V 9 ACE it if 2 9’0.- 8 3 cl -ale V score f A \- The s. R J. a Table 4.2, page 4“ 33e ‘56 score. That is, it is greater than one SEm less.Ihe difference between the two scores (109.5 and 116.0) is greater than 4.26. Therefore, the scale V factor of the perceptual classification of College A is, by definition, "Low." The perceptual classification of College A, having met the operationally defined conditions, is "Overvaluing." Classification 2: College g. The results of the adjusted mean processes for College B are presented in Table 5.3. TABLE 5.3 SELF ACCEPTANCE AND PEER ACCEPTANCE MEAN SCORE ANALYSIS FOR CLASSIFIC‘IION PURPOSES - COLLEGE B Original Adjustment 1 Adjustment 2 Resultant Mean Scores n (SA scale corrected (PA score adjusted for Self Peer .tuceceawccinwnfiqnuoae”SEm)”0,11”.IforuoneISEm).“IIM.HAcceptancewAcceptance 191I,141..74..- ‘ .1 . 109.9 104.7 The data in the above table make possible the identification of the perceptual classification of College B. The first meaningful rela- tionship in the classification is that which exists between the self- acceptance mean score of College B (109.9) and that of the total group (110.3). The SEm used in the classification system as an indication of significant difference, is 4.26. Inspection indicates that the self- acceptance in.College B is not significantly different from the total group score. That is,-the difference between the scores, 0.4713 less than the'SEm 4.26. Therefore, the scale II factor of the perceptual classifi- cation, having satisfied the definition for "High," is so identified. 57 The factor concerning the relationship between self acceptance and peer acceptance (scales II and V) may now be identified. The scale V score for College B (104.7) is significantly less than the scale II score. That is, the difference between the scores, 5.2, is greater than one SEm, 4.26. Therefore, the scale V aspect of the perceptual classification of College B is, by definition, "Low." College B, having been measured a "High-Low" self-peer acceptance relationship,is classified an "Overvaluing" college. Classification of College 9. The results of the adjusted mean computations for College C are presented in Table 5.4. TABLE 5 . 4 SELF ACCEPTAI‘CE AND PEER ACCEPTAI‘CE MEAN SCORE ANALYSIS FOR CLASSIFICATION PURPOSES - COLLEGE C Original Adjustment 1 Adjustment 2 Resultant Mean Scores N (SA scale corrected (PA scale corrected Self Peer for one SEm) for one SEm) Acceptance Acceptance 76 60 33 102.0 100.7 The data in the preceding table makes possible the identification of the perceptual classification of College C. The first meaningful 'ralationship is that which exists between the self acceptance mean score of College C (102.0) and that of the total group. The SEm, used in the classification system as an indication of significant difference, is 4.26. Inspection reveals that self acceptance in College C is significantly 58 ,less than the total group score: that is, the difference between the scores, 8.3, is greater than one SEm, 4.26. Therefore, the scale II factor of the perceptual classification of College C is "Low." The factor concerning the relationship between self acceptance and peer acceptance scores may now be identified. The scale V score (peer acceptance) for college C (100.7) is not significantly different from the scale II score. That is, the difference between the scores, 1.3, is less than one SEm, 4.26. Therefore, the scale V factor of the perceptual classification of College C is assigned the same identification as was given Scale II - "Low." "f The Perceptual Classification of College C is "ncwvaluing". SELECTION OF COLLEGES FOR ANALYSIS The classification system has made possible the identification of two of the four theoretically possible types of colleges, Overvaluing and Lowvaluing. A review of the theory of institutional change suggests that the two are not the most extreme pair, and that the examination of the predictableness of the theory will not be facilitated by this situation. The relationships between and among the four points of the classification system is suggested in Figure 5.4. Figure 5.4. Rleationships Within Percpetual Classification System Hy Uv = Relationship of the Sample Colleges 59 It was decided, therefore, that the most adequate test of “the ‘two classifications provided by the sample would be between the most .clearly Overvaluing and Lowvaluing College. Consequently, the pre- dicted relationships will be tested between Colleges A and C, and reported in Chapter VI. SUMMARY Chapter Five has pnesented.the process of perceptual classi- fication, and the results of the classification of three celleges. The process included four basic steps: 1. establishing the total group self acceptance mean score to serve as a norm 2. identifying the difference-producing subjects in each college by screening self-acceptance scores using one SEIn as a criteria of difference (removed from group mean by one SEm) ‘ 3. further refining the difference producing group by screening the remaining subjects who did not perceive at least one SEm difference between self and peer acceptance (scale II and V scores) 4. comparing the resultant self and peer acceptance mean scores with the definition of perceptual classifications The actual classification of the three colleges in the study is summarised in Table 5.5. The performance of the members of the colleges "111 be studied next according to their theoretically predicted per- formance on the previously identified criteria. 60 TABLE 5.5 SUMMARY OF THE PERCEPTUAL' CIA SSIFICATION OF THREE COLUEGES aa==aI=laE==aI=========ll==============================================r College N Self Acceptance . Peer Acceptance Perceptual Mean Score Mean Score Classification A 205 116.0 109.5 Overvaluing B 191 109.9 104.7 Overvaluing C 76 102.0 100.7 -Lowvaluing¢ CHAPTER VI THE ANALYSIS Chapter Six is devoted to the analysis of the data gathered to test the perceptual classification. Two classes of colleges were identified in the application of the Index of Institutional Charac— teristics, the Overvaluing and the Lowvaluing. The performance of the members of(Jollege A (Overvaluing) will be compared with College C (Lowvaluing) according to the predictions of the theory. TESTS OF THE INI'RA-INSTRUMENI‘ CRITERIA The Need AsEct o_f Propensity-Egfihange It was hypothesized that the measure of the need component of ~ 1 propensity-to-change varied predictably with the willingness component, the perceptual classification. "Need" was defined as the discrepancy between the present status (self concept) and the ideal status (ideal concept) as reported by members of a college. Consequently, it was hypothesized that: : The discrepancy between the present status and ideal status is equal among the four perceptual classifications of colleges. Stated operationally, the hypothesis is that: HO: C = A. The theory predicts that members of Lowvaluing colleges will evidence greater used than members of Overvaluing colleges. The alternative hypothesis 62 is, then, H1: C>A.. The measure of the Need component produced by the study was the discrepancy between the self concept scale (scale I) and the ideal concept scale (scale III). The computation of these differences is reported in Table.6.1. ‘ TABLE 6.1 DETERMINATION OF THE NEED SCORES OF COLLEGES A AND C f 'A in '.4-,~.- '. '. Scale Scores by College Scale A (n I 205) C (n I 76) III (Ideal Concept) 25,983 A 9,663 I (Self Concept) 23,687 7,938 9 ,’ Mean discrepancy I (Need Component) (III-I) 11.20 22.96 --1;-- , . Inspection of Table 6.1 shows that the need scores appear to differ in the predicted direction, for C (22.96) is greaterthan A (11.20). In as much as an analysis of mean scores is called'for to test these relationships, the Student's,"t"}is the appropriate statistic. The results of the tests of the operational hypothesis are reported in Table 6.2. 63 TABLE 6.2 RESULTS OF THE "t" TEST OF THE DIFFEREMJE BETWEEN NEED SCORES FOR COLLEGES A Am C ‘ ' ‘v'.- ‘w 1’ V ‘r' \- ‘-- ’/S' ',1 \r-v ‘,‘ ‘JP‘M V'."‘.'w'.424 -.e'.‘-.— -/.n- College N Mean~ 7 8x2 t t HO Difference A 205 _11.2 .103. C 76 22.8 177. 4.79 3.37 Reject df I 120 The conclusion is warranted that the directionally appropriate' differences between the mean need Scores are significant. Therefore, 'there is a difference between colleges A and C that is parallel to the perceptual classification of the colleges. The Ability.Aspect_ of Propensity-to-Cb -ange. The hypothesis was that the two colleges, A and C, differed in the proportion with which their members were assigned to the determined college classification group. The perceptual classification for college A who also classified the college as Overvaluing were grouped and com- pared with the members who did not classify it as Overvaluing. The classification of college C was Lowvaluing: therefore, the number of ,Aindividual members of college C who classified the college Lowvaluing were grouped and compared with the members who classified it otherwise. The frequencies were then cast into a 2 x 2 contingency table for an examination of the distribution. Nell Hypothesis. Ho: College A and College C have equal pro- portions of members in the determined classification of the college 64 group. H1: A greater proportion of members of College A were in the determined classification of the college group than were the members of college C. Statistical Tbst. The X2 test for two independent samples is chosen because the two groups are independent, and because the "scores" under study are frequencies in discrete categories. Significance Level. Let or 8 .05. N = 281, the number of members of the two colleges whose perceptual classifications were ob- - saved to be most different. Rejection Region. The region of rejection consists of all values of x2 which.are so large that the probability associated with their occurrence is equal to or less thanm= .05. Since H1 predicts the direction of the difference between the two groups, the region of 2 rejection is one-tailed. For a one-tailed test, when df = l, a X of 2.71 or larger has probability of occurrence under no of p = § 2 (.10) = .05. Therefore the region of rejection consists of all X I 2.71 if the direction of the results is that predicted by H1. Decision. The probability of occurrence under Ho: for X2 = 8.13 with df = l is p<§ (.10) = p (.005. Also, the expected frequency is less than the observed for the determined classification group of college A. In as much as the p is less thantxa .05, and the direction of the difference is in accordance with the H1, the decision is to reject the H0 in favor of the H1. The conclusion that members of the Overvaluing college (A) demonstrated a greater degree of congruence between determined classification and individual classification than did members of the Lowvaluing college (C) is warranted, 65 TABLE 6 . 3 CHI SQUARE TEST OF'THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DISCREEANCY OF ImIVIDUAL PERCEPTUAL CLASSIFICATION OF THE COLLEGE AND THE DETERMINED PERCEPTUAL CLASSIFICATION OF THE COLLEGES A AND C H __ 1 Frequency of Individual Classification College Determined All others Total A (Overvaluing) 97 (87.5) 108 (117.5) 205 n = 205 C (Lowvaluing) 23 (32.5) 53 (43.5) 76 n 8 76 Totals 123 161 281 df - 1 X2 = 8.13 X2.05 = 2.71 (one-tailed) Ho: Reject TESTS OF EXTERNAL CRITERIA Frequency of Problem Perception and Perceptual Classification of Colleges The number of problems reported by members of the colleges was studied by comparing the distribution of those who reported more than two problems with those who reported two or less. The former was de4 fined as "many" problems. The hypothesis was that members of the Low- valuing college, C, reported more problems than members of the Over- valuing college, A. The test of the null hypotheses is reported in Table 6.4. 110- C=A H1:C>A 66 TABLE 6.4 CHI SQUARE TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DISCREPANCY OF THE NUMBERS OF PROBLEMS PERCEIVED BY’MEMBERS OF COLLEGES A AND C College N Problems reported More than two Less than two Totals A (Overvaluing) 206 152 (164.5) 52 (41.5) 206 C (Lowvaluing) 72 68 (57.5) 4 (14.5) 72 Totals 72"? “'56” 278 df I 1 X2 8 12.85 X2.05 = 2.74 (one-tailed) H0: Reject The test indicates that there is a significant difference between the colleges regarding the number of problems perceived by members. Inspection of the expected frequencies shows that the difference was in the hypothesized direction. The conclusion that members of the Lowvaluing college (C) perceived more problems than the members of the Over-valuing college (A) is warranted. humber of External Problems and Perceptual Classification. The discrepancy between the Overvaluing college (A) and the Lowe valuing college (C) in the number of external problems perceived and reported was studied. It was hypothesized that members of the Lows valuing college perceived and reported more problems classified "external" than members of the Over-valuing college. The problems reported by members were classified according to a logically determined classification system. Accordingly, "external" problems were defined operationally as those included in one of the following categories. 67 1. Buildings and facilities,(inadequate) 2. Community Relations 3. Financial Problems (any problem related to the need for additional funds such as inadequate salaries and supplies) 4. Accreditation Problems 5. Enrollments (requirement, the need for "better" and additional students) 6. The control of the college (dissatisfaction with church control, too religious) 7. Need for additional faculty, or non-r professional personnel Three judges were trained in the use of the classification system. Each classified individually the problems reported by twenty-five students, selected as a 5% random-interval sample. The system was modified until the judges were able to classify with a ninety-five per cent level of agreement. The test of the null hypothesis is reported in Table 6.5. Ho: C=A H1: C>A TABLE 6.5 CHI SQUARE TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF DISCREPANCY OF THE MEMBERS OF EXTERNAL PROBLEMS PERCEIVED BY'MEMBERS OF COLLEGES A AND C College N Type of Problem External Other Total A (Overvaluing) 205 131 (145.1) 62 (47.9) 193 c (Lowvaluing) 76 69 (54.9) 4 (18.1) 73 TOtals 200 66 266 1— ——1 df = 1 x2 a 10.17 X2.o5 = 2.71 (one-tailed) Ho: Reject It is demonstrated in Table 6.5 that the difference in distri- bution of external problems perceived by members of the two colleges was significant. Inspection of the expected frequencies indicated 68 that the difference was as hypothesized. Therefore, the conclusion that members of the Lowvaluing college (C) perceived more external problems than did members of the Overvaluing college (A) is warranted. Number of Organizational Participations and Perceptual Classification The difference between the Overvaluing college (A) and the Low- valuing college (C) in the number of organizational participations reported by members was studied. An "organizational participation" was defined as a reported membership or regular participation in a campus or off-campus organization, or an informal group. The number of participations reported by each member was tabulated. The median frequency of participation was five. All frequencies greater than the median were defined as "many" participations. The hypothesized malationship was that members of the Overvaluing college participated in more organizations than members of the Lowvaluing college. The operational hypothesis, then, was that members of the Overvaluing college reported more frequencies of participation above the median than members of the Lowvaluing college. The null form was tested, and the results are reported in Table 6.6. Ho: A = 0 H1: A>C 69 TABLE 6.6 CHI SQUARE TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE OF DISCREPANCY OF THE NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONAL PARTICIPATIONS REPORTED BY MEMBERS OF COLLEGES A AND C College N Frequency of Organizational Participation Total Above Median Median or less A (overvaluing) 205 79 (76.88) 126 (129.1) 205 c (lowvaluing) 75 26 (28.1) 49 (45.9) 75 Totals 105 175 280 df = 1 X2 = 0.35 X2 05 = 2.71 (one-tailed) Ho: Accepted It is demonstrated by the chi square test reported in Table 6.6 respect to the number of organizations members participate in. There- fore, it is concluded that the theoretically predicted relationship between colleges A and C did not exist. The NMmber of Off-Campus Organizational Participations and Perceptual Classification The discrepancy between the Overvaluing college, A, and the Lowvaluing college, C, in the frequency of participation in off- campus organizations was studied. Off-campus organizational participa- tions were defined as organized activities regularly participated in and not directly related to the college. Members of colleges were provided an opportunity to report as many as eight such participations. It was hypothesized that the members of the Lowvaluing college parti- cipated in more off-campus activities than.members of Overvaluing college. The hypothesis was tested in the null form. The test is 70 reported in Table 6.7 H0: C=A H1: C>A TABLE 6.7 CHI SQUARE TEST OF SiGNIFICANCE OF THE DiSCREPANCY OF THE NUMBERS OF OFF CAMPUS ORGANIZATIONAL PARTICIPATTOI‘S REPORTED BY MEMBERS OF COLLEGES A AND C College N Number of Off-Campus Organizations Total Reported O l - 8 A (Overvaluing) 205 107 (99.9) 98 (105.1) 205 C (Lowvaluing) 75 30- (37.1) 45 (38.9) 76 Totals l37 l44 281 df = 1 x2 = 3.64 x2.05 e 2.71 (one-tailed) 110: Rejected it is demonstrat~d by the chi square test that a significant difference exists between College A and C with respect to the number of off-campus activities reported by the members. The signi- ficant difference was also in the predicted direction, as an inspection of the expected frequencies indicates. Therefore, it is concluded that the theoretically predicted relationship regarding frequency of off-campus organizational participation of members of colleges A and C materialized. Number of. Informal 9:233 Activities and Perceptual Classification The difference between the Overvaluing college (A) and the Low_ valuing college (C) in the number of informal group activities was studied. Informal group activities were defined as activities in which 71‘ the member participated regularly, but which lacked a formal structure. The members were afforded an opportunity to report as many as eight such activities. The responses were tabulated and dichotomized according to frequencies of two or less and those greater than two, in order to maintain expected cell frequencies of adequate size. It was hypothesized that the members of Lowvaluing college participated in more informal activities than the members of the Overvaluing college. The null form of the hypothesis was tested and is reported in Table 6.8. HO: C=A H1: C>A TABLE 6.8 CHI SQUARE TEST OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DISCREPAbCY’OF THE MEMBERS OF INFORMAL GROUPS ACTIVITIES REPORTED BY MEMBERS OF COLLEGES A AND C College N Number of informal Activities Two or Less More than two Total A (Overvaluing) 204 125 (124.7) 79 (79.3) 204 C (Lowvaluing) 74 45 (45.3) 29 (28.7) 74 Totals 170 108 278 2 df I l X 8 0.0049 X2.05 I 2.71 (one-tailed) Ho: Accepted It is demonstrated by the chi square test that there is no signi- ficant difference between Colleges A and C with respect to the number of informal group activities reported by the members. Therefore, it is concluded that the theoretically predicted relationship regarding informal group activities was not demonstrated for colleges A and C. Number of Leaders and Perceptual Classification The relationship between perception of leadership and the per— 72 ceptual classification of the college was examined. Each respondent was requested to identify eight individuals whom he considered leaders. The distribution of the frequency of leader identification was tabulated for each college. The frequencies were collapsed to eliminate small cell frequencies and dichotomized between those reporting five or fewer leaders or six or more. It was hypothesized that members of Lowvaluing college perceived more leaders than did members of the Overvaluing college. The hypothesis was tested in its null form. The test is reported in Table 6.9. H0: C = A H1: C > A TABLE 6.9 CHI SQUARE TEST OF SIGMFICAI‘CE OF THE DZSCREPAI‘CY OF THE NUMBER OF LEADERS PERCEIVED BY MEMBERS OF COLLEGES A AND C College N Number of Leaders 0-5 6-8 Total A (Overvaluing) 204 95 (86.6) 109 (117.4) 204 C (Lowvaluing) 74 23 (31.4) 51 (42.6) 74 Totals 118 160 278 TV df = 1 x2 I 8.20 X2.05 = 2.71 (one-tailed) Ho: Rejected The chi square test demonstrated that the two colleges differed significantly in the number of leaders identified by the members. Inspection of the nature of the difference indicated that it was in the hypothesized direction. Therefore, the alternate hypothesis was accepted. It is concluded that members of the Lowvaluing college did perceive more leaders than members of the Overvaluing college. 73 Number of Status Ejaders and Perceptual Classifica_ti11 It was hypothesized that members of Overvaluing college perceived more status leader dram did members of the Lowvaluing college. It was necessary to defite "status leade:s" operationally i" order to classify (1' “e responses of the members of the two colleges. Consequently, 3 ion scheme based on logic 0 pea m (o (I) [-J a l‘h r“ O m f? D. ally derive categories was developed. Three judges wrre able to use the system to classify a five percent equal interval sample of the responses with a ninety-five percent level of agreement. The def r.‘ . nition of "status leaders", accord- ingly, is as follows: Status Leaders are individuals so identified by the members of the college for one or more of the following reasons: 1. Professior al accomp-ishmc ts, contrib utioss,or experience 2. Professional skills, descr ribed as - -efficiento good worker -capable -diciplined -deve l ope s the cu l ture -good over—all leader -good student -academic ability -counsels - gives sou; nd advice 3. Position held -president -administrative assignment -chairman of an organization «teacher -Board of Trustees -Student government All other leaders were called "non-status." The hypothesis was tested in the null form, and is reported in Table 6.10. 74 Ho: A=C HI: A>C TABLE 6.10 CHI SQUARE TEST OF SlC-Nl.FlCAI\CE OF THE DISCREPANCY OF TEE NUMBER OF STATUS “LEADERS PERCEIVED BY MEMBERS OF COLLEGES A AND C College N Type of Leadership Status Non-Status Total A (Overvaluing) 205 122 {l13.9) 83 {9l.l) 205 B (lowvaluing) 74 .33 (4l.l) 4l (32.9) 74 Totals lEE 12a 279 2 the test indicated that the two colleges differed significantly in the type of leadership identified by the members. The significant difference was in the theorized direction, i.e. college A members identified more leaders than d1 members of college C. Therefore, the null hypothesis W‘s rejected and the alternate accepted. It is COD? cluded that members of the Overvaluing college identified more status leaders than members of the Lowvaluing college. Nomber 3E Aspects of Pride and Perceptual Classification It was hypothesized that members of Overvaluing colleges took more pride in the college than did members of Lowvaluing colleges. The measure of pridefulness in the present study was a comparison of the number of aspects or pride reported by members. The instrument pro- vided an opportunity for members to report three aspects of the college in which they felt pride. The number of members reporting at least three sources of pride was compared with the number who reported less 75 than three. The distribution of members according to that dichotomy was tested for significant difference through the null form of the hypothesis. The results of the test are reported in Table 6.11. H ° A E C H1: A;;ic TABLE 6.11 1' ..L REPANCY OF THE NUMBER CHI SQUARE T.ST OF THE SEGNZFICANCE OF THE SC OF COLLEGES A AND C 07 OF ASPECTS OF PREDE PEgflEIVED BY MEMBERS College N Aspects of Pride three less than three Total A (Overvaluing) 204 168 (168.8) 36 (35.2) 204 C (Lowvaluing) 74 '62 (dl.2) 12 {l2.8) 74 Totals 230 48 278 df e 1 x2 = 0.05 x2 05 a 2.71 (one-tailed) H 0 Accepted The test indicated that the distribution of frequencies was not significantly different from chance, and the null hypothesis was accepts . Therefore, it is concluded that the Lowvaluing College and the Overvaluing college did not differ with respect to the number of aspects of pride reported by members. £222.2i Aspects 2£.E£i§§ and Perceptual Classification The nature of the sources of pride reported by members of the colleges was also studied. It was hypothesized that member of Over- valuing colleges perceived more sources of pride that were people- oriented than did members of the Lowvaluing college. The responses of the members were classified according to a logically derived classification system which operationally defined "people-oriented" sources of pride. of a f-.e per fire per seat level 76 ges (in ividually) were able to classify the responses r:erval sample of the instrume- t with a ninetyb The following items were included in the definition: 1.Wd viduals 2. Personal sat.isfa CtiOu 3. Aooe*tance by people 4. Frie-d1iness l of ore were classified as the "ton-people." The null form of the r39--ure-s was tested. The restits of the test are 1 ‘ o . .1 ‘n [A ~fli-.q A .5 I." c H,- “ 6 "H0: Arab Ill: Alia-G TABLE 6.1 CHI SQ ABE TEST OF IRE SIS- IFI CANFE OF THE DISLREPANCY OF THE NUMBER OF PFZPLE-QRIENTED SOURCES OF PRIDE REPO TED BY MEMBERS OF COILESBS College N Sources of Pride Total People Non-people A (Q vcwa.ding, C (Lowvaluing) Total 80 (83.9) 125 (121.1) 205 76 .32 (31.1) _11 (44.9) 76 115 166 281 df = 1 The test demonstrated that the distribution of frequ :1 Q or on w- ‘1‘} = 1.13 rificantly different 0" . Ha if H. =d not differ X2.05 I 2.71 (one-tailed) H - Accepted 0. encies was from chance, and the ull hypothesis was s concladed h t t Low/aluing at .d Over- in the number of people-centered sources SUMMARY l Tests of dependent variables in the st1dy of a theory of -teri5tics were reported in Chapter Six. Two com- assets of propensity-to-chaege were examired in relationship to the third, th perceptual classification. Both ability and need proved rection to the perceptual classifi- H- to be related in the predicted d cation of the two colleges in the study. Four exter al criteria were also tested for predictability wit respect to the perceptual 2;) 0 H: rt 8‘ two colleges. Both the number and kind of r”, in“). 4.3 . ‘ oGSSLLhwaggQ problems {as classified) were related to the perce tual classification 5 according to the theoretically predicted di rec on. The number and of the classification of the college. The locus of organizational participat 1m ms was s-gn-ficanciy different for ti two colleges. It was Hm “ trate that the identification of st tus leaders was as theoretically predicted, although the total number of leaders perceived was not. The test indicated also that both number and nature 53 (as classified) of perceived sources of pride re independent of the perceptual classification of the colleges studied. The results of the tests of the hypotheses are summarized in Table 6.13. 78 TABLE 6.13 SUMMARY OF TESTS OF THE HYPOTHESES 1. Need ”t" Rejected Accepted 2. Ability X2 Rejected Accepted 3. Pro'c lem Perception a. Number of Prebfiems reported X2 Rejected Accepted b. Number of External Problems X2 Rejected Accepted 4. Orge'*2et-eha1 Participation a. Number of crgewr izetienel X2 Accepted Rejected pa--_cha-re;s 2 b. Neduer cf effucempas per- X Rejected Accepted tLtrpa v;cns c. N;mber of informal groups X2 Accepted Rejected 5. Leadership identification 8. N c"mber of leaders X2 Rejected Accepted b. Number cf status leaders X2 Rejected Accepted 6. .3fe":s of Pride 8. Number of sources of p:ide X3 Accepted Rejected b. Nam 2: of people-sources X Accepted Rejected of pri e CHAPTER VII SUMMARY, CONCLUSEOI‘S, IMPLICATIOI‘S SUMMARY Purpose f the Study \ ~‘olleges are faced by a need for growth. Enrollment increases are apparently related to an ever increasing population and an observ- able trend for a larger proportion of the population to attend college. increased enrollments make necessary other changes in the institutional eavironment of higher education. The attitude evidenced by a college toward change appears to be one meaningful determinant of the futUre development of that college. It was the purpose of the present study r1- ( o investigai th propensity-to-change of selected colleges. ('I G) (D ,3! ;.e Problem o~ the Study The problem of the study was to explore and describe the pro- pensity-to—change of colleges according to the way in which they were perceived by the members. The problem included developing a theoreti- cal frame of reference based on perceptual assumptions, projecting predicted behaviors consistent with the theory, drafting and testing a perceptual intrument that classified colleges according to the theory, identifying and measuring criteria to test the theoretical predictions, and testing the theory. so' . ‘ ‘9' 2"- Tne Design w Propensity-to-change was defined to include three components: a neednfor-change factor, an ability-to-change factor, and a willing- nees=to~change factor. The study of these elements employed an explor- atory design based upon the identification of a series of dependent variables and the testing of the variables in accordance with appro- priate statistical techniques. The level of confidence for the rejec- tion of the null hypothesis was set at .05. e perceptual instrument was developed. It sampled she perceptions of members regarding the adequacy of the college, their acceptance of the college, the ideal concept (adequacy) of the ege, and the adequacy, acceptance and ideal adequacy of the college ascribed to their peers. TWenty-nine characteristics of colleges were selected to provide the perceptual cues. The instrument, also called the Index of Institutional Characteristics, has a reliability coefficient of more than .90 for each of the six scales. It provided measures of the components of propensity-to-change as: 1. FEed - the discrepancy between the adequacy and ideal adequacy scores. 2. Willingness -- the valuing of the college as described by the relationship between the self-acceptance and peer-acceptance scores. 3. Ability -- the "likemindedness" of the members of a college as measured by the level of agreement among individual members in the value they ascribe to self and peer perceptions of college (the willingness to score). The willingness score was also called the "institutional index." 82 Criterion instruments were developed in the form of a free- response question pertaining to each of the external variables: pro- blem perception, organizational activity, leader identification, and perception of aspects of pride. Results The tests of the hypotheses indicated that there were direc- tionally significant differences between two colleges of different perceptual classification. The areas in which significant differences were found are the two intra-instrument relationships, problem per- ceptions, location or organizational participation, and the number and kind of leaders perceived. The tests also revealed areas in which no significant differ- ences between the two colleges were observed. They were the number and kind of organizational participations and the number and kind of sources of pride perceived by the members. The study also resulted in a reliable instrument, the Index of Institutional Characteristics, for use in assessing the propensity- tOvchange of a college. Limflations 2:239. M Threaprimary limitations contaminate the results of the study: the sample, the instrumentation, and procedural considerations. The sample was not pre-selected specifically for the testing of this theory. Consequently there were questionable'characteristics that served as un- controlled sources of error. The sex bias caused by the inclusion of one non-coeducational school (college A) is an example of this limitation. The instrumentation limitation was generic to this type of study. One 83 of the purposes of the study was to examine the validity of the classi- fication produced by the instrument. One might call the inaccuracies of prediction limitations of the theory. However, such was not the case, for the study was designed to discover such limitations. The design, therefore, included relatively unconventional techniques, such as the Becker constructed typology and the one-tailed Chi-square test. The lack of conclusive evidence as a result of the analysis was, still, a result of the design limitations. Replication may well provide opportunities to modify such limitations. CONCLUSIONS Conclusions based on the findings of the present study cannot be logically extended beyond the specific colleges involved. Within this and the limitations presented above, the following con- clusions seem warranted. 1. The propensity-to-change of a college, as defined in this study, can be measured by an instrument called the Index of Institutional Characteristics. 2. The Index of Institutional Characteristics measured reliable some perceptions of colleges held by college members. 3. The Index of Institutional Characteristics classified colleges into a theoretically derived perceptual classification. The classification system was consistent with predicted behaviors in five out of nine tests. Further refinement anddevelopment of both the classification system and the instrument is, therefore warranted. 4. Certain conclusions descriptive of the colleges representa- 84 tive of the two classes identified by the study are warranted. College A can be described as including members who a) overvalued self perceptions of the college b) demonstrated little perception of a need to improve or grow (that is, the present status was not far removed from ideal status) c) evidenced ability to work together on commonly perceived problems d) did not recognize a broad range of problems Ho e) -dentified a visible leadership structure f) participated in organizations without special patterning g) and identified pridefully aspects of the college not differently than the other college. College C can be described as including members who - a) undervalued both self and peer perceptions of the college b) evidenced awareness of great need to improve c) demonstrated little ability to work together to improve the college d) recognized a broad range of problems e) identified little leadership within the college f) participated in organizations not differently than college A g) did not differ from the other college in reported sources of pride 5. Overvaluing and Lowvaluing colleges have similar member behavior in organizational participation and identification of sources 0f Pride 0 85 IMPLICATIONS For Theory Development Several implications for the theory of institutional change appear to result from the study. (1) The two classes of colkges identified in the present study, Overvaluing and Lowvaluing, were about as similar as they were dissimilar according to the behavior of the members. This observation suggests two implications. (a) The four types of the classification are not discrete group- ings of colleges but represent selected differences. There is, perhaps, a specific difference among the four types with respect to propensity-to-change, but this difference is not necessarily observable in the behaviorial aspects of the institutions. (b) The second implication is that the behaviorial characteris- tics selected to compare with the perceptual classification were inappropriate. The problem of identifying "appropriate" be- haviors of college members to serve as descriptive data for the perceptual classification system is one that requires extensive additional investigation. (2) The study implied relationships among the three components of propensity-to-change that can be of service to administrators. Practices within the two classifiCations that were studied can be implied within the theoretical framework. (a) Overvaluing College. Administrative practices appropriate to College A, exclusive of the specific local conditions and assuming a movement toward Highvaluing classification character- istics as "growth," are: 86 - identification of major problems within the membership - resolution of the major problems with dispatch - involvement of more people in problem solving in order that problem perception might become more accute - identification of potential laders, both staff and stu- dents, and making them.visible through real opportunities to make meaningful decisions on the policy level - promotion of involvement in face-to-face activities on all levels to stimulate greater appreciation of contri- butions made by peers - extend involvement into nonpcollege community (b) Lowvaluing College. Administrative practices appropriate to College C, exclusive of specific local conditions and assuming "growth" to mean movement toward Highvaluing characteristics, are: - classify problems reported by members according to internal and external sources - concentrate on that group<flfproblems which bring most immediate sense of accomplishment, such as, those that bring confidence in the college leadership — concurrently, introduce resource leadership from out- side the college to concentrate on the solution of a specific, limited problem from the selected group of problems - provide for broad involvement of staff and students in specific problem solving on a level that assures success - identification of potential leaders and provision of opportunities for them to become visible through real contributions to meaningful policy level decisions - promote face-to—face involvement activities on all levels to stimulate greater valuing of contributions made by peers. - extend involvement activities into non-college community - promote "people-centered" sources of pride in the colleges 87 For the instrument ww- The present study involved the development and examination of a perceptual instrument, the Index of Institutional Characteristics (I.I.C.). The following implications relate specifically to the instrument. (1) A question about the inter-relationship of the scales was raised by the study. For instance, was there linkage between the scales that makes invalid any resultant measure? Is the lack of the independence of scales a debilitating situation? This implication ex- tends beyond the present study and includes all perceptual instrumen- tation. Still, evidence is not available to treat it exhaustively. (2) A further implication for the I.I.C. deals with the operational definitions of the specific classifications. For instance, why is the definition of "high" broader than that for "low"? ls not a middle classification called for? (3) The problem of the validity of the selected character- istics was not resolved in the present study. (a) The present study indicated a weakness in identification of cut-off scores for classification purposes. The implication is for the development of norms on a broad basis. Implications for Further §£udy ‘Many questions have been suggested by the present study. Some of them can be responded to through normative study, others from continued investigation of the literature. Some others will require exhaustive testing in an experimental design. Some will, perhaps, require inventive contemplation. Several questions requiring further study are presented below. 88 (1) will the I.I.C. classify colleges into each of the four classes? (2) Will a factor analysis of available data suggest the nature of the factor which causes colleges to be classified differently? (3) What behaviorial factors are related to change in insti- tutions of higher education? (4) Does the theory of institutional change comprehend the college environment completely enough to serve as a general theory of institutional change? (5) What is the degree and effect of linkage among the scales of the I.I.C.? (6) How can the four classes of colleges be defined more precisely? (7) What are the relationships among institutions of the same classification? (8) What sequential relationships exist among the four per- ceptual classifications? Can a technique for measuring the colleges over a period of time be developed and applied? (9) What is the nature of the logically defined components of propensity-to-change - need, willingness and ability? (10) What is the effect of these components on each other within a specific college? (11) Can the perceptual classification be correlated with a cultural continum (i.e., the sacred-secular continum)? (12) Can the perceptual classification be applied to histori- cal studies of colleges in order that the theory be tested over a temporal dimension? 89 One of the purposes of an exploratory study is to raise per- tinent questions about a given area of knowledge. The present study served this purpose admirably, for it has raised more problems than it has resolved. It has been demonstrated through this study, how- ever, that the area of concern is not devoid of subject matter nor of significance. The need for a replication has been made apparent both by the adequacies and the inadequacies of the present study. Consequently, the value of the study is assured. 90 BIBLIOGRAPHY Barzun, Jacques. peacher i? America. Garden City, New York: Double- day Ancho Books, '91:. Becker, Howard. Thro'gh Values to ocial b . _ , . .m . s_w orch Carolina: Duke univers_ty PL es Bills, Robert E. “Attributes of Sue essful Educational Leaders," The Bullet-n cf the Bursa -J JOE School ferv1ce, XXVI Bills, Robert E. "About People and Teaching," The Bulletin of The B au of School Service, XXTIII (December, l 55). BL113,R t E., Edgar L. Vanc , mid Cris . ‘3”. 1 " stment and v ..o-es, 3’“ 7-263. “ S. McLean, "An Index Consulting Psychology, 3--::a1 C‘) C) H) , H. E. "The Effect of Bias Due To Biff lty Factors in Pro- t-Moment Item 'r--r-Correlat13 s or; the Accuracy of mation of Rel iability," ud~~a“*o*al and Psychological rement, 6:517-520, 1952. U1 ’1 0 (M Q. a) J 6 Izim m4 ' {v ‘11 {. (o M Ls mti deKiswiet, C. W., "How Differ for the Future, " Ac t Are Planning sing Tide of 3. (Washing- , a i i ton, D .C.: merican Council on Education, I956). Dixon, Wilfrid 3., Frank J. Massey, Jr. Introdcction 33 Statistical Analysis. New York: McGrawAHill Book Company, Inc., 1957. Eells, Welter Crosby (Compiler). College Teachers and College Teaching: An Annotated Bibliography, tlanta, Georgia: Southern Regional Association, 1957. Eells, Wlater Crosby (Compiler) Collefi Teachers and College Teaching: Supplement to the Annotated bibliography published in 1957. Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board: 1959. Freedman, Ronald, Albert Mayer, and.30hn F. Thaden. Future School and College Enrollments in Michigan: 1955-1970. A Report—EE—the_—— Mich1gan Council of State College Presidents, Prepared by the Population Study Group, Higher Education Study. Ann Arbor, Michigan: J. W. Edwards, Publisher, Inc., l95h. 91 Fcladarci, Arthor P. a rd Jacob W. Getzeis. Tt e Use of Theory in Educa- o 0 n. W m.)- “in-"h?“- tional Administration. stanford, Cal1forn1a: .Stantord. fT‘T‘: : .-_ ...- 't 7“: L1'.-‘v”c..8-1.y “PLUSS, 1&9 J. Griffiths, Daniel. Administratige Theory. New York: Appleton-Century- rofts, Inc., ”959. Administration. New York: Appleton-Century«Crofts, Gross, Llewe.l"n (ed. ). Symposium on Sociolo ical Theory. Evanston, Cu 1i ford, J. P. Psychometric ethocs. New York: McGraw-Hill Book _(‘. . ___ . . ... _., Company, Inc., I955. Havemann, Ernest , ; Tori: Harcourt, Brave a: Dec ade of De V En- \ ~"‘""‘a.,," r1; Anna-aw Adv—J.-a— hu;.bav.~‘la EC‘JV" C) 5:. In {1 - 9 F1 ‘1) Hopper, SRobert, Robe rt E. Bills . "What's A G od Administrator Made of?" 5 _ct3ol Execu1::ive, 74:93-96, March, 19 A ’0 fl J. Hoyt, Cyril J., Clayton L. Stunkard. "Estimation of Test Reliability for Unrestricted Item ScM ng Metn ode," Educational and 5 Psycholo ioal Me aM reren , 12:756-658, 1952. Hutchin 3, Robert M. The Hi gher Learn ing‘in AmM 1c 9. Now'Haven: Yale University Press, 1956. Jackson, R. B. W., and G. A. Ferguson. Studies on the Reliability of Tests. Toronto, Canada: The Univ ver city of Toronto, 1941. Jamrich, John X. "A New College." East Lansing,‘Michigan: Center for The Study of Higher Education, ‘Mi -ch1; gan State University, 1959. (Multilithed). Keezer, Dexter M. Financing Higher Education, 1960-70. New York: McGrawHHi ll Book Company, Inc., 1959. Lecky, Prescott. Self-Consistency. New York: Island Press, 1945. Lewin, Kurt. "Group Decision and Social Change." In T. M. Newcomb, E. L. Hartley, E. E. Maccoby (Editors), Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1958. Lewis, Don, and C. J. Burke, "The Use and Misuse of the Chi-Square Test," Psychological Bulletin, 46:433-490, November, 1949. 92 £833: 1 Ps yoho.-gy. Vol. I, Theory Lindzey, Gardner (ed). Handbook Addi.3 can-we'sley Publishlng and Method. Cambridge,M Mas 3 chosetts: Company, Ind., 1954. Long, J. A. and . Sandiford. The Val da--o; of -e3t items. Toronto, Canada: The University 0 Toronto, 1935. "Ar3o.t a ed Bi‘ blicg:aphy of Readi3gs in Higher Education." Lorimer, M. F. tate University, Office of East Lansir , Michigan: Michigan Evaluation Services, 1953. 1M_meogiaph- McConoe1l, T. R.H "Diversifica tion in.American Big? or Educati on," Current Is3ues in Wigher Edr3atior: Resources for High or Education. Preceediigs of the 11 oh :3 gal Co3fér33§§aon h.‘ gher Education, Association for Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: National Education Associ tio3, 1956}. McDorald, Ralph w. (ed). Curreit 133135 i: H-ghe: Education 1950. Washington, D. C.: hatiofgl Baccation Aosociation,hl950. Earl * ““3 c:ad1 ate School and The Ez‘Ti'wa f liberal Edu: a- McGrath, o. .13 tion, Bu paa a“? Wwwa“w“fi“ MW ...... Cc13mbia ULiveasity P: 333, 1959. Mayhew, Lewis B. "Ressa:ch 1“ higher Educatloo." Paper r3ad at Liberal Ar ts Committee of the Tort C33::a1 Association of Colleges aid Secs: dary Scho1s Workshop, East lensing, Michigan, August, 1959. Ncw York, Basic Books, Thc., 1958. (D 0 Murphy, Gardner. Human Potentialitie Pace, C. Robert, and George G. Stern. "An Approach to the Measurement of Psychological Characteristics of Col1ege Environments," The Journal of Educational Psycho1ogy, 49: 269-277, October, 1958. Rogers, C. R. Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: HoughtonéMifflin, 1951. Ruml, Beardsley, and Donald R. Morrison. Memo to a College Trustee. NEw York: McGrawAHill Book Compan , Inc., 1959. Russell, John Daie e. Higr.erE Education in Mic higan. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan‘Legislat‘ ive study (-mmittce on 'Higher Education, 1958. izdividual Behavior New York: Harper Snygg, Donaid, Arthur w. Combs. and Brothers, 1949. Siegel, Sidney. Nooparametrig statistics“ for th Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGrawHHi11 Book Company,“ 13 3c. 1956. Steward, Julian 3.. Area Research, Theorz and Practice. New York: Social Science Research Councii, 1950. 93 Tnibant, John W., and Henry W. Riecken. "Some Determinants and Can- 3 of the Perception of Social Causality." In T. M. and E. E. Maccoby (Editors), Readings fiEW'Ybrk: Henry Holt and Company, 1958. ”Liege, New Yerk, Harper and sequence Nevacomb, E. L. H Social Psychology. nsnln'! a a- uéc in . , a; . Brothers, 195 . Walker, Helen M., Joseph Leu. _fl__ 5:511:3ference. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1953. APPENDIX A I 1‘8 I'RSME; NTS STCDY CF CELLECE IIBE AND ACIZVI11n\ A college, liko a school or town, is frequently studied in terms of its run tions, personnel, finan;es or organization. With your he1p, we would like to study your colle e in terms of the perceptions of it s udents, faculty and administrative officers. We be1ieve ch t the e perceptions may be very he1pfu1 in ' r comin to a fuller unde deve1opme.rt of col1eges Eilh as yours. 'it t 1 comp1ete the foIIowing ques tion: ire to the best of our abi1ity. 11 irmfom t-ion will remain confidential and tr d‘er no circumstances will your resp uses be reercted direct 1y or othe‘: wis se to any pers3n or group in your campus. Do not signy our name. a a standing of the grow wth an ind, w=3 old you p1ease PART I: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. What is your age? (check one) 20- 29_ 30-39 _40-49_ 50-59 60 and over 2. Wra 8 3:1- sex {check one) Male cha e 3. ow many years have you been emp1oys in 113.1tu11313 of higher 1earning 'T o c an“ - L u - o : . a .6 I o a «- n \ ” I ‘1'! A ... so.”- 12' So W”“3 are *13 pres-:11y T:S-J-L§: cohesr 31;) 1t 3311ege hous11g 1n local - q ,— ' ‘ a. _K . : h 4. ‘ O 4‘. ‘ re.1=3 propar1y 1: 1“: home Cone" ( 9111ry; 'v an! cgv :’ I": n. z -‘. "I 6. A:e you marr1331 {execs 3-»; 1:» What is y31r p‘esezt rank or position at the cc1lege? (check one) Administra- tcr w11h professrrial rank Adminis:ratcr without professorial rank_ Full Professor Associate Prof§§cor Assistant Professor Instructor Tempozary-Instraotor Other (specify) _. _- 9. What is your fie1d of academic c3nca wration? 10. What is the highest academic degree that you hold? check one) Full time Half time or more Ore-quarter to half time__ Less than one-quarter tine___ 11. How much of your time is devoted to college activit1es? (Check one) Full time Haif time or more One-quarter to half time Less than one-quarter time 12. Approximately how is your time divided among the following: (in tenths) Administrative work Teaching? Research? Professional writing- Consuitative service Profess1onal Assoczations_ Other 13. About how frequer.tly are 3u in formal or informal contact with one or more members of the facu ty outside of your classroom or laboratory instruction? (check one) Fever Only on formal occasions such as registration Once or twice a term (se1es ter) Once a month or so Once weekly or 83— 1most daily__ _’ - _- 16. 18. 96 In wrist campus organizat1ons or clubs have you held membership during the past six months? a. _I 1- b. (511-- fi ____ __ d. e._____~ _M_ f. _ g. h. In what community or non— college or gan1zatiots or clubs do you par Wipe e regularly? a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. In what informal growps do you regaiariy partic1pate? (e. g. recreation, ci e breaks, car pools, spor:s, e:3.) a. b. c. d. e.. f., g. h. Tcking into consideration the a mour.t of time you have been a member of the college, what do cu believe to the three major problems facing the college at this tine? For about how long do you believe that these problems have been of major concern to the college? (respond in months or years) Problem a. Problem b. Problem c. 19. 20. 21. 97 In what three aspects or parts of the college do you find your greatest sources of pride? In relation to other colleges that you have known or heard about, how would you compare this college? (check one) Much better__ Better__ About the same__ Not as good__ Much worse__ Among the student body, faculty, administration, alumni or other groups associated with the college, what eight persons do you consider to be the overall college leaders, whether or not these people hold office or are recognized by other to be leaders? Name 0: overall Leader Why you consider this person to be an overall leader 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 3. 4. 4. 5. 5. 6. 6. 7. 7. PART II INDEX OF IBBTITUTIONAL LHARAC PART A DIRECiIONS On associated with colleges such as it appliesC to your college. charec tone ..1 as yours. fiendo {v C 3’ it.) ('1 r m 'i ' U" '0 [Jo each c-a so the C3085" i.‘ D) H) O. Q.- a) min ,‘:_,” LA L16& 2", In" (' 3' (1‘ iv paw in t. Second, in column II,_ it appears to be a5 5hi s time. feel about each of the 29 chars described in column I. At the list of five possible respom which best describes how you Place the number (l,2, 3 ,4,5) chosen in the bla.1k opposite e the following two pages is a list of 29 charac Pl‘ see three things with each of the 98 TERISTICS His ics frequently examine each characteristic .6 a (D (”'i' .00 (v w fl 3' top of Choose the time Place ou have '3 (K4 (1' o (t- RP college as "?E§“§ou h you have co-umn II is a oose the one response I about each characterist;c. the response which you haw! ach characteristic. Third, in column II, describe how you would like your college to be ideally. To do so, decide how much of the time each of the 29 characteristics should college. possible responses. ideally bZ-adequate in the At the top of col umn III is a list of five Choose the response which best describes how much of the time each characteristic should ideally be adequate in your college. Place the number (l,2,3,4,5) of the response which you have chosen in the blank oppostie each characteristic. Characteristic of the INDEX OF INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS College PART A Column I Column II How much of the time How’do you feel do you believe each of the following characteristics of your college is about the adequacy of each of the characteristics of your college? 99 Column III Ideally, how much of me time do you believe each of the following charac- teristics of your adequate? college should be adequate? “' 1. Seldom 1:“Véry much'P“ 1. Seldom *—‘ 2. Dislike 2. Occasionally 3. About half the 3. Neither like 'nor 2. Occasionally 3. About half the time dislike time 4. Good deal of 4. Like 4. Good deal of the time the time 5. Most of the 5. Very much like 5. Meat of the time time EXAMPLE: Academic , Freedom 4 I. Purposes of the college I 2. Relationships with other , colleges 3. Relationships with local community . 4. Alumni relations 5. Administration-Faculty , relations .___ ._ _— 6. Faculty-Student relations _______ 7. Quality of instruction ______ ______ 8. Quality of research ______, ______ 9. Student personnel service _______ ______ 10. Quality of student body __ __ 11. Quality of student organizations ______. ______ 12. Quality of student leadership __ __ ___ Characteristic of the College 1. Seldom 2. Occasionally 3. About half the . time 1 WM 4. Good deal of the 4. time 5. Most of the time 5. Very much dislike l. Dislike Neither like nor dislike Like Very much like 2. 3. 4. 5. 100 Seldom Occasionally About half the time Good deal of the time Most of the time 13. 14. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Opportunities for cultural enrichment Opportunities for scholarly work Intellectual climate and stimulation Opportunities for faculty advancement Planning of educational programs Housing for students Housing for faculty Library facilities Advisement of students Faculty role in academic decisions Administrative role in academic decisions Faculty role in non- academic decisions Cooperation among faculty Academic standing of college Scope of educational programs and services Social-recreational opportunities Quality of buildings and facilities III I l | | H l I I‘ll | l I | ll | I ||| | lllll I | I | I 101 INDEX OF IDETI'I'U'I‘IONAL CHAFLACTERISTIC Part B DI REC’II ONS Since it is not always possible to obtain desired information from all the persons who make up a college, we must rely upon the judgments of representative persons to help us develop a reasonable picture of the ollege under study. In the following two pages, would you help us describe how the average person.within the colI ege perceives and feels about the college. In order to re resent the Views of the aver age person within the college, would you complete the following o=e.-10rr re as you think the average in your owzi peer group would comple5 it for himself. In other 'if yoti Marewam student, complete tr.e questionnaire as you think the average member of the student body would fill it out. If you hold an administrative position, complete the questionnaire as you think the average member of the administrative st 3L ff would fill it out. Complege coiamrs I, II, III of the next two pages in the same manre r in which you did for yourself on the previous two pages. INDEX OF INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS I U) (I | f (a O I H? (W D (I! “d as you be t t : College How much of does PART B believe each of the following characteris- tics of the college is ve the avers the time the average per- son in your peer group How does the average person in your peer group feel about the adequacy of each of the following char- acteristics of the 102 li Ie ge person in your peer group(whether "*y, or admi Ini stratioI) would complete it for himself. Ideally, how much of the time does the average person in your peer group believe each of the following adequate? college? characteristics of the college should be adequate? 1. Seldom 1. Very much dislikesl. Seldom 2. Occasionally 2. Dislikes 2. Occasionally 3. About half the 3. Neither likes nor 3. About half the time dislikes time 4. Good deal of the 4. Likes 4. Good deal of time 5. Very much likes the time 5. Most of the time 5. Most of the time I. Purposes of the college _ __ 2. Relati-C :sh ips with oi her colleges 3. Alumni relationships 4. Relationship with local community ‘ 5. Administration-Faculty relations 5. Faculty-Student relations 7. Quality of instruction .______ 8. Quality of research .______ 9. Student personnel service _______ _______ 10. Quality of student body _______ 11. Quality of student organizations _____ _— 12. Quality of student leadership ______ l3. Opportunities for cultural enrichment ,__*___ ______ INDEX OF INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS 103 _n__h- PART B Characteristic of the Column I Column III, Cblumn III College 1. Seldom 1. Very much dislike l. Seldom 2. Occasionally 2. Dislike .2. Occasionally 3. About half the time 3. Neither like nor 3. About half 4. Good deal of the dislike the time time 4. Like 4. Good deal of 5. Most of the time 5. Very much like the time 5. Most of the time 14. Opportunities for scholarly work 15. Intellectual climate and stimulation 16. Opportunities for faculty advancement 17. Planning of educational programs 18. Housing for students 19. Housing for faculty 20. Library facilities 21. Advisement of students 22. Faculty role in academic administration 23. Administrative role in academic decisions 24. Faculty role in non- academic decisions 25. Cooperation among faculty 26. Academic standing of college 27. Scope of educational programs and services ______ 28. Social and recreational opportunities ______ 29. Quality of buildings and facilities APPENDIX B ORIGINAL DATA C k): :5: £63 A Admin Questionnaire 11301 11002 11003 11004 11005 11006 11007 11039 11010 11011 1' “. (Vi: * r—a h—9 H w M M M m C» O L) .2) C" U ("5 (f) \YCh'wmet—l OQOOC) 0C.) ’- r—1 l--' H +4 k) to to k) 1 M O QC) ()0) 12010 12011 12012 12013 12014 12015 13001 13002 13003 13004 13005 13006 13007 13008 13009 13010 3011 13012 13013 13014 13015 istrators Forms 134 114 115 84 140 117 114 117 104 110 116 126 119 120 122 II 119 106 122 121 112 103 104 fin .Lv' 110 127 112 104 118 124 123 112 119 119 105 121 131 102 96 117 123 117 134 107 104 89 135 113 117 113 108 119 107 117 105 113 99 127 138 144 141 145 117 130 131 143 103 127 122 123 140 143 128 133 130 140 122 121 131 128 139 143 145 145 119 133 Faculty Forms 099 115 124 118 115 134 111 110 11 129 108 102 122 121 121 Student Forms 109 98 107 77 139 111 106 113 111 107 105 107 127 118 105 118 108 109 121 117 121 107 104 110 133 110 i=4 H H H -J w! M M Q 00 U1 U] M HD—J OM! \OJ-‘Ch 109 113 130 92 94 105 119 120 105 87 94 81 132 108 104 108 104 107 90 95 106 113 99 105 143 33 129 145 115 145 133 128 121 144 108 145 119 143 145 141 145 114 140 121 142 99 134 134 121 .140 138 122 108 127 138 124 118 130 126 133 139 138 145 117 128 . s13 1." C) C0 (I) pt: t. 5 [1 w in [Q I3 O 0 C5 (.5 [\fi h’h‘k’h‘h‘PJrl w u k) KJFJC>u)u:\10\ U4 13023 13024 13025 13026 13027 p.14 F'J 5.1 ...: KN \N LN 1J4 C“ O O C) C C‘ b «L‘ b- 4\ L‘ L‘- Q O\ U. 1‘ K14 M l-' LNKN CDC) pl ...-J \N 13048 13049 13050 13051 13052 13053 13054 13055 13056 13057 13058 13059 13060 13061 13062 13063 13064 13065 13066 13067 ...: 1;! U! ...: pa.- G)K\kfi war-m 94 134 114 117 120 108 108 134 109 101 113 101 86 2 J 91 61 104 87 91 81 116 99 99 84 70 106 126 117 120 108 125 113 121 129 103 115 131 108 118 120 117 115 120 127 93 104 89 111 h Pi Ft .b ’24. ...; p! H ...-J Ina {Ll puma ...-.5 has [-3.8 {A bme-mesm hm (’1 4.» if» LNCDUTQIUOMK’QMJH-L‘u1 r-—' h! w. r»! l-r! H H 'u! 3"” \N O KN C) U! Wlh‘kikl k3 \N F3 I'\‘ U! K‘ LN‘ page: LNboqulxlOOHHleOOnmbHMUwH waeereka D K) U4 US I"? P'k‘k’ ¥~k>h9 ”(no 132 122 135 141 130 133 119 120 139 116 144 142 100 133 108 127 IV 1"“ - I -... 112 125 76 86 130 122 119 111' 1-1. 115 104 123 112 125 112 111 92 122 103 72 103 109 125 94 100 107 105 98 76 114 113 110 116 96 124 103 117 120 115 120 134 86 123 120 116 115 112 108 93 104 80 123 112 112 124 72 92 126 117 121 128 «3., 1.3. 114 131 100 101 110 102 86 98 82 89 94 100 100 104 107 95 88 77 108 118 116 114 112 120 100 105 120 105 111 130 91 105 134 114 113 115 112 97 105 78 120 106 130 135 142 111 131 142 125 124 137 123 138 142 145 131 105 127 101 122 116 105 134 137 130 125 11 115 120 133 105 129 126 124 145 133 124 123 121 117 132 112 131 126 107 132 126 111 141 127 93 137 102 129 13068 13069 13070 13371 13072 13073 13074 13075 13076 13077 13078 13079 13080 13081 13082 13083 13084 13085 13086 13387 13088 13089 13090 13091 13092 13093 13094 13095 13096 13097 13098 13099 13100 13101 13102 13103 13104 13105 13106 13107 13108 13109 13110 13111 13112 13113 13114 13115 13116 13117 13118 13119 13120 13121 13122 91": II 1.4 117 124 118 113 100 116 129 121 114 127 104 86 114 123 135 105 126 92 115 112 127 116 110 110 77 107 106 93 112 113 100 108 117 126 102 126 121 113 111 101 101 95 102 97 115 94 105 123 114 81 92 86 82 so 113 195 126 115 1:2 106 110 125 124 117 115 93 82 1:15 115 m 139 121 95 99 108 127 90 115 105 84 101 108 88 113 123 103 102 109 117 94 103 114 114 100 97 101 94 114 118 1’9 73 105 119 117 '90": .L J. CI) U4 pr.- p=J pm; 03 atauwMOOr-awmHCDxlxo bmquOHF—Awunwbomq :JHr-Jru-Ar-akar—A y; [a 0” O\\! 119 121 92 112 102 110 119 132 109 109 122 78 93 103 118 118 104 98 100 114 128 104 111 108 96 116 108 rap-draped wrap-apne— r5r=30MOSK515KAK3 F‘AUILHUIOLNOO‘J ...: :Aso OCh 101 \O (I) 115 130 88 97 108 76 100 108 103 112 115 100 90 105 122 112 103 102 95 98 91 107 120 130 128 113 136 108 9'!!- 1.19 125 132 135 83 100 118 124 144 142 145 131 1:22 104 142 136 131 1:54 143 105 134 114 139 122 11 137 103 119 129 134 128 133 111 98 100 132 120 110 95 125 125 123 145 124 125 109 99 119 124 13133 13134 13135 13136 13137 13138 13139 13140 3141 13142 13143 13144 13145 13146 13147 13148 13149 13150 13151 13152 13153 13154 13155 13156 13157 13158 13159 13160 13161 13162 13163 13164 13165 ...: 129 117 116 126 125 82 111 122 117 102 112 120 124 99 116 108 121 110 114 110 117 132 124 103 103 129 117 107 96 80 122 121 114 125 128 125 108 113 107 109 109 132 113 hgk‘H' r9~4 Oi—JIQOOK‘I U1F5\DUI\OM papa OOCD xomw 122 97 122 116 107 116 96 97 107 115 127 109 Student Forms 135 120 124 145 142 137 130 133 135 127 128 141 129 129 132 123 121 129 133 129 127 128 137 131 '9‘] 4.1- 145 136 132 127 122 134 124 121 140 136 128 141 120 134 134 125 145 139 124 117 116 117 113 83 103 120 104 97 109 120 117 118 103 112 117 97 96 112 126 116 114 109 102 128 108 101 69 83 117 115 101 128 127 92 113 92 92 116 116 111 109 112 115 105 m. 14 111 112 103 109 108 140 115 124 145 142 103 119 135 119 116 125 139 131 132 128 125 121 116 127 112 123 117 136 125 118 145 131 131 112 108 125 116 129 135 135 124 135 115 133 119 119 145 126 109 College B Administrators Forms Questionnaire Scale Scores I II III IV V VI 21001 100 108 132 106 103 124 21002 99 87 128 100 94 133 21003 111 102 135 102 101 141 21004 104 113 136 103 112 135 2005 120 128 137 121 125 140 21006 105 116 116 92 97 117 21007 127 133 123 119 122 113 Faculty Forms 22001 126 127 134 135 135 145 22002 120 120 145 112 117 145 22003 100 105 132 97 107 129 22004 125 130 135 128 129 132 22005 96 104 1:0 87 89 106 22005 102 100 132 100 94 130 22007 80 76 122 80 75 122 22008 120 122 120 113 107 109 22009 104 1:4 126 97 102 120 22020 123 117 142 105 100 145 22021 117 118 123 104 110 115 22012 105 117 120 110 119 124 22013 105 119 105 97 105 100 22014 126 128 135 116 127 135 22015 119 119 124 118 125 125 22016 110 99 134 100 93 132 22017 115 114 139 111 109 130 22018 84 88 123 78 82 114 22019 109 109 129 114 115 132 22020 114 115 139 115 121 135 22021 111 121 126 111 113 127 22022 ‘ 111 103 124 107 112 125 Student Forms 23001 109 107 138 95 101 123 23002 118 113 121 108 104 110 23003 105 98 127 77 84 130 23004 103 104 122 98 96 122 23005 111 110 130 111 112 138 23005 113 111 134 112 105 130 23007 105 121 124 107 115 122 23008 137 131 137 137 129 137 23009 124 119 135 92 92 129 23010 137 ' 123 140 130 115 122 23011 115 126 110 109 119 110 23012 139 144 138 142 145 142 23013 131 135 135 127 138 137 110 Student Forms - cont. 230}4 138 134 142 134 135 142 23055 123 135 132 E26 128 132 2:0;6 127 123 132 121 124 132 25017 137 134 128 99 105 102 23018 125 129 131 118 122 128 23019 112 109 112 119 115 116 23020 128 128 131 124 120 127 23021 113 117 113 112 109 109 23022 127 115 127 122 111 122 23023 121 121 122 119 114 136 23024 111 126 121 104 117 122 23025 117 120 124 1: 116 118 23026 123 124 137 119 114 133 23027 105 90 130 107 93 122 23028 139 143 138 134 134 142 23029 120 124 132 122 122 134 23030 114 112 E27 115 109 135 23031 105 105 135 104 100 127 23032 114 103 125 118 105 125 23033 116 126 128 11% 109 121 23035 - 120 115 134 131 122 136 23036 136 134 144 134 131 140 23037 105 77 131 105 7 135 23038 102 94 125 102 92 126 23039 115 117 113 122 109 108 23040 114 107 129 113 109 118 23041 121 118 7140 17 111 135 23042 119 118 128 120 119 127 23043 125 126 140 119 119 133 23044 117 111 134 118 113 133 23045 110 97 134 93 89 123 23046 125 134 132 135 132 132 23047 129‘ 127 136 129 131 138 23048 139 138 145 135 135 145 23049 130 129 134 126 126 131 23050 113 113 136 114 115 138 23051 113 102 122 111 105 115 23052 106 105 137 100 97 127 23053 120 126 129 119 122 136 23054 110 118 121 110 118 127 23055 127 128 134 123 123 139 23056 131 128 131 131 125 132 23057 123 126 132 112 115 117 23058 120 122 139 110 93 135 23059 110 116 103 104 107 107 23060 127 126 131 127 126 129 23061 98 99 112 92 94 98 23062 113 125 119 107 119 116 23063 125 127 123 106 123 106 23064 132 129’ 141 137 137 142 23065 117 131 129 131 139 139 23066 123 123 120 114 117 116 111 Student Forms - cont. 23067 118 113 140 109 107 135 23068 122 126 129 95 110 109 23069 110 126 112 108 129 108 23070 138 136 137 138 139 137 23071 112 109 132 116 115 132 23072 87 94 109 100 98 120 23073 92 95 109 81 79 105 23074 98 96 124 97 93 117 23075 109 109 4 132 114 98 140 23076 108 98 113 107 101 111 23077 114 124 122 116 124 136 23078 116 106 139 108 104 142 23079 139 136 141 134 133 136 23080 128 124 138 120 116 136 23081 111 106 117 113 101 121 23082 121 116 123 121 112 124 23083 126 116 129 123 110 124 23084 109 114 114 108 115 113 23085 98 104 111 94 103 112 23086 110 112 112 111 111 111 23087 106 > 110 116 105 112 115 23088 116 108 119 120 107 121 23089 116 109 128 117 109 128 23090 107 108 126 103 104 122 23091 98 91 131 96 94 132 23092 66 87 96 81 78 111 23093 113 112 125 96 101 122 23094 122 122 133 120 120 135 23095 100 93 137 97 85 130 23096 110 115 120 110 114 114 23097 107 113 122 98 93 116 23098 99 95 125 110 111 120 23099 120 114 115 107 104 112 23100 114 107 122 113 110 119 23101 103 114 125 81 73 102 23102 132 124 137 120 128 134 23103 128 134 144 133 130 144 23104 111 117 122 112 109 126 23105 115 122 128 108 116 127 23106 120 119 125 120 109 117 23107 141 135 ~ 142 133 136 136 23108 123 127 136 106 112 120 23109 87 104 108 106 105 116 23110 112 108 133 112 109 128 23111 134 137 134 136 139 136 23112 121 127 142 123 120 135 23113 102 112 127 106 114 129 23114 127 126 135 113 108 128 23115 126 115 ‘ 133 116 102 - 135 23116 123 115 132 122 113 128 23117 141 139 140 132 134 136 23118 124 122 118 112 116 111 23119 128 118 121 118 111 134 23120 98 101 94 101 103 119 23121 108 104 118 116 108 130 Stude 23122 23123 23124 23125 23126 23127 23128 23129 23130 23131 23132 23133 23134 23135 23136 23137 23138 23139 23140 23141 23142 23143 23144 23145 23146 23147 23148 23149 23150 23151 23152 23153 23154 23155 23156 23157 23158 23159 23160 23161 23162 23163 23164 23165 23166 23167 23168 23169 23170 23171 23172 23174 23175 23176 23177 23178 at Forms - cont. 122 123 107 102 129 119 125 133 126 135 114 121 113 111 100 128 105 121 128 121 112 113 118 110 106 115 116 118 120 110 115 114 97 101 93 99 117 87 119 127 84 116 119 125 130 128 109 112 115 118 128 116 106 121 105 111 128 117 105 95 134 121 112 112 4128 135 116 118 122 116 97 129 108 118 128 120 113 129 121 110 95 109 113 108 120 92 107 94 91 96 97 93 101 89 103 120 97 120 115 130 131 112 112 114 125 119 118 110 106 122 92 93 133 141 109 129 131 134 118 137 128 135 116 123 120 105 121 121 118 134 135 130 117 135 128 131 123 128 127 ' 136 131 125 140 120 115 95 106 118 129 113 128 129 93 118 120 140 131 114 116 132 126 129 134 123 124 131 105 115 107 121 106 110 131 105 108 129 119 126 111 112 120 103 101 125 113 111 127 123 ‘1 14'» 135 123 103 103 11 110 95 124 98 111 96 109 82 99 97 95 85 108 120 82 111 124 105 128 123 106 115 121 112 104 114 98 121 110 112 106 136 113 111 135 117 102 115 113 126 113 112 124 112 98 131 116 111 129 118 110 128 128 103 94 107 105 91 126 93 93 97 99 93 123 94 90 79 103 116 85 116 117 117 128 118 106 116 125 110 106 '111 94 124 99 96 112 138 145 116 118 139 121 114 135 120 126 115 121 128 101 122 123 121 132 132 130 118 133 135 131 114 125 118 135 139 119 128 115 119 89 108 117 117 133 120 131 94 119 124 140 128 130 113 128 126 122 127 124 117 ‘137 107 115 Coilege C Administrators Forms Scale Scores I II III IV V VI 31 01 125 121 140 125 122 140 31002 110 98 145 98 98 141 31003 102 116 145 112 115 139 31004 120 122 138 110 117 134 31005 103 96 110 82 97 97 31006 117 116 136 114 113 132 31007 85 81 122 103 106 123 31008 111 113 119 121 109 123 31009 99 111 124 93 109 118 Faculty Forms 32001 118 119 138 104 114 142 32002 115 125 138 122 116 111 32003 98 109 111 109 109 102 32004 106 100 124 103 100 128 32005 78 74 145 101 98 136 32006 99 104 135 100 104 133 32007 84 81 119 92 97 134 32008 111 118 129 109 109 116 32009 97 93 107 91 87 109 32010 112 115 115 109 99 110 32011 125 118 127 133 108 132 32012 74 84 98 78 85 102 32013 129 127 140 129 129 140 32014 80 78 122 80 78 115 32015 108 110 140 105 107 140 32016 100 109 120 82 92 109 32017 116 110 135 108 102 135 32018 122 121 137 108 108 132 32019 95 92 114 87 88 111 32020 106 105 142 101 100 142 32021 110 105 125 102 102 130 32022 128 131 141 113 109 121 32023 111 109 123 118 114 125 Student Forms 33001 104 106 129 90 96 109 33002 119 124 145 121 122 143 33003 97 96 127 99 93 120 33004 136 129 134 128 124 131 33005 113 105 127 108 105 117 33006 102 89 139 108 96 132 33007 97 90 113 88 83 108 33008 33009 33010 33011 33012 33013 33014 33015 33016 33017 33018 33019 33020 33021 33022 33023 33024 33025 33026 33027 33028 33029 33030 33031 33032 33333 33034 33035 33036 33037 33038 33039 33040 33041 33042 33043 33044 108 95 110 110 85 96 105 114 121 118 112 106 115 75 76 93 86 91 116 113 94 98 112 108 103 123 100 101 82 83 111 114 108 100 75 116 103 99 78 108 108 81 94 98 108 117 112 101 114 121 70 80 98 95 85 101 97 91 102 88 93 89 119 96 87 77 90 111 94 109 92 72 110 93 97 99 113 100 86 88 96 101 118 117 99 93 113 86 88 84 87 87 118 107 94 87 114 83 91 109 84 73 82 79 109 117 115 87 75 108 92 84 83 107 100 84 95 95 99 124 106 95 104 116 88 74 99 90 99 99 94 88 91 103 90 83 106 92 84 77 84 102 112 110 93 63 108 88 114 125 110 135 111 122 112 120 122 127 131 134 126 142 102 128 120 105 120 140 133 113 130 139 131 122 125 120 83 132 116 131 130 111 116 107 134 126 FWfi ' avg": ; (‘ ...» ’3‘ ‘ ,5-2 ... r Amfi‘i MW \v MITIHH'IWINHHSIIWIW I111111111"1111111111Es 3 1293 03085 1509