ROLE EXPECTATIONS OF UNIVERSITY FACULTY AND $TUDENTS: A SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS Thesis for ”19 Degree of DI‘I. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Angelo Anthony Lacognata 1962 This is to certify that the thesis entitled Role Expectations of Faculty and Students: A Social Psychological Analysis presented by Angelo Anthony Lacognata has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Sociology and degree in_____ Anthropology ——-—~ "7 ‘ /// / // ///< 7,} I /// ( Date 44/214 /1 é] '// 0-169 ABSTRACT ROLE EXPECTATIONS OF UNIVERSITY FACULTY AND STUDENTS: A SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS by Angelo Anthony Lacognata The purpose of the study was to analyze faculty and student academic role perceptions and role expectations. The general proposition was that residential and off-campus faculty and students would perceive their academic roles differently and would hold differing role expectations for faculty and students. The sample consisted of 156 faculty and 405 students from Michigan State University. Faculty reSpondents were categorized into three major divisions based upon variation in residential and off—campus teaching: I. full-time residence or on-campus teachers; II. teachers whose instruc- tional duties were divided into residential and extension classes, with extension classes considered as part of "regular" teaching load; III. teachers whose instructional duties were divided into residential and extension classes, with extension classes considered as extra or "overload" teaching. Student respondents consisted of two major categories: the residential or on-campus student body and the extension or off-campus student group which included evening college classes. Angelo Anthony Lacognata Dimensions of role consensus among the faculty and among the students, as well as role convergence between the faculty and students were analyzed from reSponses secured through a questionnaire scale. The instrument contained 53 pre-tested role expectation statements. All respondents received the identical instrument. Differences in instructional duties and on/off campus learning situations of the respondents did not appear to make for significant differences in academic perceptions and expectations. The general research hypothesis, that on the majority of the role statements the incumbents would furnish responses indicating role consensus and role con- vergence, was accepted. Faculty members diSplayed greater agreement on the dimension of role consensus than did the students. Residential and extension students differed sharply on role expectations dealing with non-performance factors in evaluating student academic performance. Role convergence was greater between faculty perceptions of their roles and student role expectations of faculty. In essence, the findings revealed relatively high degrees of consensus and convergence on the normative aspects of role behavior in the university. ROLE EXPECTATIONS OF UNIVERSITY FACULTY AND STUDENTS: A SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS By Angelo Anthony Lacognata A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology and Anthropology 1962 0-15?// spy/43 .A.,.., we have always seen schools around us and classes in the schools, and consequently we are led to believe that all these arrangements take care of themselves, and that there is no need to study them at length in order to know where they come from and what needs they serve. This scholastic hierarchy . . . did not exist at all times, even among us; it dates from yesterday. Now, it is only to the extent that we shall have arrived at determining them, that we shall truly know what this education is. For to know what it is, is not simply to know its external and superficial form; it is to know what its signifi- cance is, what place it has, what role it plays in the whole of the national life." E. Durkheim Education and Sociology ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his appreciation to all who made this study possible—-especially to the faculty and student participants. Special thanks go to his colleagues James Geschwender and George Won for their moral support. To Drs. Waisanen, Olmstead, and Gibson, sincere thanks for their commentaries and suggestions on certain method— ological aSpects of the study. To. Dr. H. R. Neville, the writer is personally indebted. Dr. Neville's assistance was central throughout all phases of the dissertation. Special acknowledgment is due Dr. Wilbur Brookover, who as thesis advisor, displayed an infinite amount of patience. Without his guidance and valuable suggestions, the study might not have reached fruition. Finally, the writer's indebtedness to his wife and son. Their support and encouragement were constant through- out the study. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENT LIST OF TABLES LIST OF APPENDIXES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION. Some Perspectives II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM. Theoretical Orientation The University as a Social System The Problem Prior Research Importance of the Study III. HYPOTHESES Hypotheses on Role Consensus Hypotheses on Role Convergence IV. METHODOLOGY Population Sample The Instruments Statistical Tests V. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Faculty Role Consensus Student Role Consensus Analyses of Subgroup Differences Summary on Role Consensus Role Convergence--Faculty Role Perceptions and Student Expectations of Faculty Role Convergenceu-Student Role Perceptions and Faculty Expectations of Students iv Page iii vi viii 18 LO 0‘! Chapter Page VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . 81 APPENDIXES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13A LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Faculty Respondents by Teaching Categories and Academic Areas . . . . 2. Student Respondents by Categories and Academic Areas. . . . . . 3. Distribution and Returns of Faculty Questionnaires. . . . . . 4. Distribution and Returns of Student Questionnaires. 5. A Composite Analysis of the Fifty—three Role Expectation Items by the Three Faculty Groups. . . . 6. A Comparison of Faculty Role Perceptions 7. A Comparison of Faculty Role Expectations of Students. . . . . . . . 8. A Comparison of Faculty Role Expectations on Items Dealing with Aspects of Instruction and Substantive Material 9. A Comparison of Faculty Role Expectations on General Items . . 10. A Composite Analysis of the Fifty-three Role Expectation Items by the Residential and Extension Students ll. A Comparison of Residential and Extension Student Role Perceptions 12. A Comparison of Residential and Extension Student Role Expectations of Faculty 13. A Comparison of Residential and Extension Student Role Expectations on Items Dealing with Aspects of Instruction and Substantive Material. vi Page 23 25 32 33 36 Al 43 45 “7 55 57 6O Ilalhllildl l... l! a I l | '1 Table 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. A Comparison of Residential and Extension Student Expectations on General Attributes A Listing of Residential and Extension Student "Mean" Scores on the Fifty-three Role Items . . . . . . . . Differences between Faculty Role Perceptions and Residential Student Expectations of Faculty Differences between Faculty Role Perceptions and Extension Student Expectations of Faculty Differences between Residential Student Role Perceptions and Faculty Expectations of Students. Differences between Extension Student Role Perceptions and Faculty Expectations of Students. vii Page 62 63 71 72 76 77 Appendix A. ZZL—‘NC—a O LIST OF APPENDIXES Breakdown of the Five Academic Areas Listing Particular Fields of Specialization Listing of "Mean" Number of Credits Taught by Departments . . . . . Faculty Population and Sample Figures Student Population and Sample Figures Specimen of Letter and Reply Form Sent to Twelve Faculty Judges Representing Various Disciplines . Specimens of Cover Letter and Questionnaire on Social Characteristics Mailed to Faculty Specimen of Questionnaire on Social Character- istics Administered to Students Outline of Procedure and Item Analysis Data of Pre~tested Questionnaires The Questionnaire-scale Administered to all Respondents Analysis of Variance Formula Used. t-Test Formulae used Listing of Faculty "Mean" Score Values Listing of Student ”Mean" Score Values Data and Analyses on Social Variables of Faculty Repondents. Hierarchy of Role Items: Faculty. Hierarchy of Role Items: Students viii Page 9O 91 94 95 96 98 103 106 108 116 117 118 120 122 123 124 Appendix Page Q. Listing of Class Courses in Which Students were Administered the Questionnaires . . 125 R. A Comparison of Social Characteristics between On-Campus and Off-Campus Students. 126 S. A Comparison of Social Characteristics between Residential Graduate and Under- graduate Students. . . . . . . . . 128 T. A Comparison of Social Characteristics between Extension Graduate and Under— graduate Students. . . . . . .= . . 129 U. A Comparison of Social Characteristics between Residential and Extension Graduate Students. . . . . . . . . 130 V. A Comparison of Social Characteristics between Residential and Extension Under- graduate Students. . . . . . . . . 131 W. Faculty Role Perception Items. . . . . . 132 X. Student Role Perception Items. . . . . . 133 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION During the last decade, public and professional inter- est in the American educational system has increased. This heightened interest is related to the rise in student enrollments,1 the need for more "space age” scientists, the "cold war" struggle, the increased premium on literacy, technological advancement, and the multiplicity of functions being requested from and performed by educational institu- tions.2 These factors tend to emphasize the practical dimensions of the keen interest being generated in American education. In recent years, the analysis of the sociological and social psychological processes involved in educational institutions has also increased.3 This involves both a 1U. 8., Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 232, "Illustrative Projections to 1980 of School and College Enrollment in the United States" (Wgshington: U. S. Government Printing Office, June 22, 19 l . 2Wilbur Brookover, "The Role of the University in the American Community," College of Education Quarterly, Michigan State University, Summer Issue 1958. Also W. Brookover and D. Gottleib, "The School as a Social Institution,” 1961. (Mimeographed.) 3For an extensive bibliography in the area see Wayne C. Gordon, "The Sociology of Education" in J. B. Gittler (ed.) Review of Sociology: Analysis of a Decade (New York: John 1 2 theoretical interest in the complex of the school as well as empirical investigations having practical significance. One productive mode of inquiry on school social systems has employed the role theory framework. These studies have involved a variety of variables identifying and relating role expectations of teachers, pupils, parents, and school administrators.4 For the most part such studies have focused upon elementary and high school social systems. By comparison, a paucity of role research exists on higher educational social systems.5 The present study is concerned with faculty-student role expectations in a university. Wiley and Sons, 1957), pp. 500—519. Also Orville G. Brim, Sociology and the Field of Education (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1958). A Special issue devoted to theory and research in sociology and education is the Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 29, No. A (Fall, 1959). “As examples, D. H. Jenkins and R. Lippett, Inter- personal Perceptions of Teachers,-Students, and Parents TWashington: Division of Adult Education Service, National Education Association, 1951). Jean D. Grambs, ”The Sociology of the 'Born Teacher'," Journal of Educational Sociology, Vol. 25 (May, 1952), 532-541. Wilbur D. Brookover, "Research on Teacher and Administrator Roles," Journal of Educational Sociology, Vol. 29 (1955), 2—13. Charles E. Bidwell, “The Administrative Role and Satisfaction in Teaching," Journal of Educational Sociology, Vol. 29 (1955), 41-47. Wayne 0. Gordon, Social System of the High School (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1957). Neal Gross, et a1., Explorations in Role Analysis (New York: John WIIeyTand Sons, 1958). 5Such studies include those by Janet A. Kelly, College Life and Mores (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1949). Lucille Mick, ”A Socio- metric Study of Dormitory Cleavages on Michigan State College Campus" (unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1949). Richard H. Sullivan, "Administrative-Faculty Relation- ships in Colle es and Universities," Journal of Higher Educa- tion, Vol. 27 1956), 308—326. Some Perspectives As a social institution the school system can be examined from several perspectives. One approach is through a rational model of organizational analysis. Here the focus centers on the internal structural arrangements character- izing bureaucratic systems--hierarchial relations of specific offices and positions, rights and duties of positions, lines of formal and informal authority, regulations and policies, organizational objectives, and the interrelationships of the components. The system is perceived and analyzed as a formal social organization. A second perspective derives from the fact that school systems do not exist independently; i.e., they are not auto- nomous institutions. Rather, they are interrelated with other social organizations in the society and, therefore, subject to external influences. The existence and functioning of school systems are affected by such external environmental 7 forces as the social Class structures of communities, 6T. Caplow and R. McGee, The Academic Marketplace (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1958); P. Lazarsfeld and W. Thielens, The Academic Mind: Social Scientist in a Time of Crisis (Glehcoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1958). 7H. S. Becker, "Social Class Variations in the Teacher- Pupil Relationship," Journal of Educational Sociology, XXV (1952); A. B. Hollin shead, Elmstown's Youth (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1949 ; R. Lynd and H. Lynd, Middletown: A Study in American Culture (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Co., 1929); L. Warner et al., Who Shall Be Educated? (New York: Harper and BrothefS}_I944). 4 8 composition of school boards, community political and econ- omic power structures,9 and inter-role conflicts of school personnel stemming from simultaneous occupancy in school and other social systems.10 The focal point of analysis employing this framework centers upon the linkages and interrelation- ships of the school system to its external environment. The third perspective in the analysis of educational institutions focuses upon the structure and functioning of school behavior. More specifically, the school is viewed as a social system and it becomes the unit of analysis. Employing this framework, studies have been performed on the sociometric structures and interpersonal relations among students,11 8H. P. Beck, Men Who Control Our Universities (New York: King's Crown Press, 1947); W. W. Charters, "Social Class Analysis and Control of Public Education," Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 23 (1958), 268—283; Neal Gross, Who Runs Our SERBBIs? (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958). 9F. Hunter, Community Power Structure: A Study of Decision Makers (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953); P. Rossi, "Community Decision Making," Adminis— trative Science Quarterly, 1 (March, 1957), 415—441. lOJ. W. Getzels and E. G. Cuba, "The Structure of Roles and Role Conflict in the Teaching Situation,” Journal of Educational Sociology, XXIX (September, 1955), 30-40; N. Gross et al., Explorations in Role Analyses: Studies of the School SUpEFintendency Role (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958). 11W. C. Gordon, Social System in the High School (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1957). 5 12 clique norm and value systems,13 deviant behavior patterns, role expectations of educators and students,14 and the deline- ation of role conflict situations.15 Of considerable importance for a basic understanding of the learning processes involved in educational transactions is that of faculty-student role expectations. To date, rela- tively little systematic research has been conducted to delineate this strategic area in the sociology of education. 12N. Goldman, A Socio-Psychological Study of School Vandalism (New York: Syracuse University, 1959). 13J. S. Coleman, "Academic Achievement and the Structure of Competition," Harvard Educational Review, XXIX (Fall, 1959); J. 3. Coleman, "The Adolescent Subculture and Academic Achievement,” American Journal of Sociology, LXV (January, 1960). 14W. B. Brookover, A Sociology of Education (New York: American Book Company, 1955), Chapter 9; J. W. Riley et al., The Student Looks at His Teacher (New Brunswick, NewifiESE? Rutgers University Press, 1950); Neal Gross, The Schools and the Press (Cambridge, Mass.: New England School Development Council, 1956). 15Melvin Seeman, ”Role Conflict and Ambivalence in Leadership," American Sociological Review, Vol. 18 (1953), 373-380. Also Gross §t_a1,, op. cit., study on school super- intendents. CHAPTER II STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Theoretical Orientation Broadly conceived, role theory maintains that each individual occupies a number of roles. Role expectations that individuals hold for themselves or which other members define for them are related to an actor's position in a given social system. The location of an occupant's position in the social system affects the nature of his social rela— tionships as well as the role expectations he and/or others apply to his behavior. The role expectations may emanate from the broader society, reference~group members, and/or from an actor's self—perception of the situation. In brief, human social behavior is perceived as a function of the positions an individual occupies and the role expectations held for incumbents of these positions as he perceives them. A review of social science literature reveals various definitions and usages of the role concept. Role has been "16 defined as "normative culture patterns, "actual perfor- mance,"l7 and the "mode of organization of an actor's 16R. Linton The Study of Man (New York: D. Appleton- Century Co., 1936), pp. 113-114; R. Linton, The Cultural Background of Personality (New York: D. Appleton—Century 00., 1945), p. 77.. 17K. Davis, Human Society (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1948), p. 90. 6 7 "18 orientation to a given situation. Hence, for purposes of conceptual clarity, communication, and the facilitation of analysis several definitions of central concepts as employed in this study are presented:19 1. Role refers to the set of expectations applied to an occupant in a particular social position. 2. Expectation refers to an evaluative standard applied to an occupant in a particular social position. That is, how an actor should behave with reference to his position. 3. Position refers to the social location of an actor in a social system. 4. Role consensus refers to the degree of similarity or agreement of role expectations among occupants of a given social position (i.e., faculty or students). 5. Role convergence refers to the degree of similarity or agreement of role expectations between occupants in different social positions (i.e., faculty- students). The assumption of consensus on role expectations per- meates much of social science literature. According to 18T. Parsons, The Social System (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1951), pp. 38L39. 19The primary source for the definitions are from Explorations in Role Analysis by N. Gross et al, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958), Chapter 47 Gross §t_a1, theoretically grounded empirical inquiries are needed to determine how much agreement there is on the expectations for the behavior of position incumbents. Conceptual schemes for role analysis that preclude the investigation of the baiic question of role consensus are distinctly limited. In other words, the degree of agreement or uniformity in role expectations associated with particular positions is an empirical variable whose theoretical potential has been rela- tively untapped. That participants in a social system do have some agreement among themselves on role expectations inheres in the definition--the problem is one of extent or degree. Consensus on role expectations is significant for the functioning of social systems as well as the actor's behavior. Minimal consensus on role expectations is a necessary condi- tion for the functioning of any social system. The University as a Social System A basic tenet of social science is that human social interaction is characterized by certain uniformities. The interaction, when it becomes repetitive and persistent over time, constitutes social relationships. As orderly and system- atic phenomena these patterned relationships of individuals become recognized as social systems. That is, a social system refers to patterned interaction of members. "It is constituted of interaction of a plurality of individual actors whose relations to each other are mutually oriented through 20Ibid., p. A3. '9 the definition and mediation of a pattern of structured and 2 shared symbols and expectations." Applying this framework to the university system reveals a social institution characterized by these features: 1. Structurally a plurality of positionally situated interacting actors--board of directors, president, college deans, departmental chairmen, faculty, students, and administrative staff. Functionally a network of mutually oriented series of activities--policy development, coordination, and execution; knowledge discovery and dissemination by faculty; acquisition of knowledge on the part of the student body; and the performance of tasks deemed essential for the operation of the university system carried out by administrative personnel. A pattern of structured, shared symbols-~honorific titles, prestige deferences, reward achievements, and institutional rituals. A nexus of multiple shared role expectations—~in the academic domain those pertaining to teaching, research, student counseling, and student learning; in the quasi—academic domain those pertaining to extra—curricula activities and administrative operations. In View of the multiplicity of positions and social rela— tionships characterizing the social system of the university, 210. P. and Z. K. Loomis, Modern Social Theories (Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1961), p. 2. 10 it becomes necessary at this point to specify and discuss those particular facets of the system to be studied. The Problem Out of the myriad of social phenomena in the uni- versity, the central focus of the present study is on aca- demic role expectations of faculty and students. More specifically, to investigate the degree of consensus and convergence in faculty and student academic role expecta- tions. We will be primarily concerned with the normative aspects of the role expectations; i.e., what should p§_or what ought tp_be_the ways of behaving-mrather than the cathectic (feeling states) or actual (performance) dimen- sions of the actors' orientations. Insofar as the terms ”faculty” and "student” are generic in meaning, we shall define the two terms as used in this analysis. Faculty refers to that body of university professionals who are qualified and engaged in a teaching capacity. Student refers to an enrolled member attending a university on-campus or extension credit course. Faculty and student academic role expectations can include a wide range of social phenomena. Expediency and feasibility suggests delimiting our analysis to the following facets of the general problem: 1. In what areas and to what extent is there consensus among faculty in their perceptions of their own roles? ll 2. In what areas and to what extent is there consensus among students in their perceptions of their own roles? 3. In what areas and to what extent do faculty role expectations of residential and extension students reveal consensus or lack of consensus? 4. In what areas and to what extent do residential and extension student role expectations of faculty reveal consensus or lack of consensus? 5. In what areas and to what extent do faculty per- ceptions of their roles and student expectations of faculty roles converge? Diverge? 6. In what areas and to what extent do student per— ceptions of their roles and faculty expectations of student roles converge? Diverge? Prior Research Systematic explorations of the academic world range over a variety of variables. Lazarsfeld and Thielens22 analyzed the pressures to which social scientists in institu- tions of higher learning were subjected to during the post-war years. A sociological analysis of the academic marketplace was performed by Caplow and McGee.23 The socialization proc- ess of university medical students has been studied by 2Lazarsfeld and Thielens, op. cit. 23Caplow and McGee, op. cit. 12 R. Merton §t_a1,, and by E. C. Hughes and associates.2u In the works of Gottlieb,25 Jacob,26 and Sanford27 are studies on the effects of college experiences as related to graduate students' career preferences and value structures. Other studies relating student aspirations and performance with their residential locality and family background have been 28 conducted by Haller, Gregory,29 A. B. Wilson,30 and 31 Young. 2AR. K. Merton et al., The Student-Physician (Cambridge: Harvard University PrESST—1957); E. C. Hughes, "Stress and Strain in Professional Education," Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 29 (Fall, 1959), 319-329; Becker, 22.21:: op. cit. 25D. Gottlieb, "The Socialization Process in American Graduate Schools" (unpublished Doctor's thesis, University of Chicago, 1960). 26P. E. Jacob, Changing Values in College: An Explora- tory Study of the Impact of College Teaching (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957). 27N. Sanford, ”Knowledge of Students Through the Social Studies," Spotlight on the College Student (Washington, D. 0.: American Council on Education, 1959), discussion pamphlet. 28A. O. Haller, "The Occupational Achievement Process of Farm—Reared Youth in Urban-Industrial Society,” Rural Sociology, Vol. 25 (September, 1960), 321-333; A. O. Haller anle. H. Sewell, ”Farm Residence and Level of Educational and Occupational Aspiration," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 62 (January, 1957), 407-411. 29B. Gregory, ”The Dual System and the Performance of Children in an 11 Plus Exam,” The Sociological Review, Vol. 6 (July, 1958). 25-36. 30A. B. Wilson, ”Residential Segregation of Social Classes and Aspirations of High School Boys,” American Socio- logical Review, Vol. 24 (December, 1959), 836-8A5. 31D. B. Young, "Parental Influence Upon Decisions of Scholastically Talented Youth Concerning Higher Education” 13 Analyses of school social systems characterize the works of several investigators. In a theoretical analysis, 32 views the classroom structure from the viewpoint 33 of Parsons of that as an agency of socialization. Gordon's study a high school is an analysis of student social structure revealing three levels of organization—-the formal structure of teachers and administratt>rs, the semi-formal structure of extracurricular activities and the informal organization 34 of student peer groupings. Coleman's study on the value systems of high school students and adult governing bodies revealed that they were in conflict, suggesting particular consequences for the achievement-oriented student. In an— other study relating teacher roles to pupil learning, Brook— over found that the distant, less friendly teacher appeared to impart knowledge to students more effectively than the 35 more friendly, congeniel type teacher. 32T. Parsons, "The School Class as a Social System: Some of Its Functions in American Society," Harvard Educa- tional Review, Vol. 29 (Fall, 1959), 297—318. 33Gordon, The Social System of the High School: A Study in the Sociology of Adolescence, op. cit. 34Coleman, ”Academic Achievement and the Structure of Competition,” op. cit., pp. 330-351, and ”The Adolescent Subculture and Academic Achievement," op. cit., pp. 337—347. 35W. B. Brookover, "The Social Roles of Teachers and Pupil Achievement,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 8 (1943), 389—393. Also W. B. Brookover, "The Relation of Social Factors to Teaching Ability,” Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 13 (1945), 191—205. 14 Some of the earliest studies on teacher roles are those 36 by Waller, Znaniecki, and Wilson. Waller's study was an intensive analysis secured through observations and inter— views of student and community role expectations held for teachers. Factors making for a "born teacher” and analyses of stress situations involved in teaching characterize the 38 studies of Grambs37 and Washbourne, respectively. A theoretical discussion of teacher and administrator role expectations is provided by Brookover.39 Attempting to clarify the role concept as applied to these two posi- tions, he develops a conceptual schema of role phenomena and examines some research in the light of this framework. Other studies employing role analysis include those of Gross g: to al., on the role expectations of school administrators, 36W. Waller, Sociology of Teaching (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1932); F. Znaniecki, Social Roles of the Man of Knowledge (New York: Columbia University Press, 1940); L. Wilson, Academic Man (London: Oxford University Press, 1942). 37Grambs, op. cit., pp. 532—541. 38C. Washburne, "Involvement as a Basis for Stress Analysis: A Study of High School Teachers” mnpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing Michi- san, 1953). 39Brookover, "Research on Teacher and Administrator Roles," op. cit., pp. 2-13. uOGross, et al., Explorations in Role Analysis: Studies of the School Sfipefintendency Role, op. cit. 15 41 Doyle's study on role expectations that school board mem- bers and parents have of the elementary teacher, and 42 study on role expectations held by parents and Pendleton's faculty for college students. Despite the numerous studies of the academic world and the heightened interest in research employing role analysis to this area, none of the foregoing studies focus on the central purpose of this investigation: to find out in what areas and to what extent role consensus and role convergence of faculty and student expectations exist. Importance of the Study One of the underlying assumptions of the present in- vestigation is that faculty-student behavior can be under- stood more fully by ascertaining the role expectations held for them. Therefore, the significance of this analysis is to provide a more thorough understanding of some sociological and social psychological processes affecting the behavior of participants in university social systems. A further assumption implicit in the study is that there is a relationship between learning situations or 41L. A. Doyle, ”A Study of the Expectancies Which Elementary Teachers, Administrators, School Board Members and Parents Have of the Elementary Teacher's Role” (unpublished Doctor's thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1956). “2P. W. Pendleton, ”The Academic Role of the College Student" (unpublished Doctor's thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1955). 16 "climates" and the learning process. Hence, the present study seeks to determine to what extent and in what areas different learning situations are related to differential role expectations. That is, do different "climates" evolve different sets of role expectations which may aid or hinder the learning process. A more specific contribution emerging from the study is an empirical analysis of specific roles. Systematic empirical inquiries of the postulate of role consensus and convergence have been relatively few in comparison to its theoretical treatment. The present study will, to some extent, bridge this gap. 44 Studies by Anikeeff,”3 Farnum, and MilleruB serve to indicate the importance attached to the "soft pedagogy” controversy. In essence, the argument centers on whether extension (off-campus) programs are inferior in teaching caliber and student performance. Perhaps differences in the teaching-learning situations of residential and extension programs may be partly a function of differential role expec— tations held by participants. “3A. M. Anikeeff, "Scholastic Achievement of Extension and Regular College Students," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 38 (1954), 171-173- 44H. B. Farnum, "A Comparison of the Academic Aptitude of University Extension Degree Students and Campus Students,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 41 (1957), 63-65. 45H. Miller, ”Soft Pedagogy," Center for the Study of Liberal Education for Adults, Eighth Interim Report (October, l955--December, 1956). 17 Other possible areas which may derive some practical benefit from this analysis include insight into phenomena of attrition rates, role conflict situations, and problems of evaluation standards. It may well be that faculty-student turnover rates, levels of dissatisfaction, and differential grading practices are related to differential role expecta- tions. CHAPTER III HYPOTHESES The general proposition of this study is that the role expectations pf_faculty and p£_students, ip_residential and extension learning situations, will differ. The rationale underlying the proposition derives from the role theory framework. In essence, individuals in social positions behave with reference to role expectations~-the ways of behaving being defined either by themselves and/or by significant others in the social system. Preliminary explorations into the faculty positions revealed three major types of teaching categories: (I) full- time residence teachers; (II)full—time teachers whose instruc- tional duties were divided into residential and extension classes, with extension classes considered as part of a "regular" teaching function;(III)fu11~time teachers whose instructional duties were divided into residential and exten- sion classes, with extension classes considered as extra or "overload" teaching. The student population consisted of two major categories: residential or on-campus students and the extension or off-campus student body which included evening college classes. Therefore, in this study we will be dealing with two major categories of social locations (faculty and 18 19 student), two types of learning situations (residential and extension), and with two aspects of role expectations (con- sensus and convergence). Hypotheses on Role Consensus Hypothesis 1: No difference among the three faculty groups in the perceptions of their roles. Hypothesis 2: No difference among the three faculty groups of student role expectations. Hypothesis 3: No difference among the residential and extension students in the perceptions of their roles. Hypothesis 4: No difference among the residential and extension students of faculty role expectations. Hypotheses on Role Convergence Hypothesis 5: No difference between faculty role perceptions and student role expectations of faculty. Hypothesis 6: No difference between student role perceptions and faculty role expectations of student. Summarizing this section on hypotheses, the present investigation seeks to identify some of the role expectations 20 characterizing the university system, and to carry out a pattern analysis of the role expectations among the occupants (consensus) and between the occupants (convergence) holding differing positions in the system. The general re- search hypothesis is that the residential and off-campus faculty groups as well as the two student groups will not have significantly different patterns of role expectations and role perceptions. Similarity between groups occupying a given position, i.e., faculty, is termed consensus; similarity between occupants of different positions, i.e., faculty and students, is termed convergence. CHAPTER IV METHODOLOGY Population Sample Several criteria, which were established a priori, dictated the selection of faculty participmum. They included the selection of full-time teaching members only or its equivalent, a cross—representation of all academic areas (i.e., education, social sciences, physical sciences, humani- ties—arts, and the applied sciences), the inclusion of only four types of teacher rankings (i.e., professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and instructor), and the selection of faculty members who were teaching courses simultaneously (i.e., during the same time period which ex- tended from Spring term 1961 through to the end of Fall term 1962). Consultations with several representatives from differ- ent departments revealed a wide range of interpretations on the status of full—time teaching. Therefore, to arrive at a more universal objective index for this study, complete de- partmental lists of teaching faculty and their assigned courses were secured. The data were obtained from the office of Institutional Research and the director's office of Uni- versity Extension. The data represented the same time period 21 22 for all departments. Upon examination of the listings, it was determined that the computation of the mean number of credits for each department was a satisfactory statistic. All members teaching the mgap number of credits in that de- partment or higher were designated as ”full-time" teachers and included in the population to be sampled. This was done separately for each department. ‘ Stratified random sampling proceduresM6 were employed in the selection of faculty respondents. The ratio of mem- bers in each of the five areas to the total population was the basis for the proportional representation in the sample. However, due to the relatively low number of full—time faculty teaching off-campus, all participants in the two groups were included in the analysis. A 25 per cent strati- fied random sample was taken of faculty members teaching on- campus only. This arbitrary figure was dictated by factors of finance and feasibility of data handling. Table 1 presents the distribution of faculty respondents, arranged by teaching category and by academic areas. Two criteria were employed in the selection of students; the participants had to be enrolled in a credit course(s) and currently at the junior class level or higher. Non-matricu- lated students and sophomores or lower were excluded from the 46H. M. Blalock, Social Statistics (New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co., Inc., 1960), Chapter 22 and Table B of Appen— dix 2. 23 me mm om om ma ms Hmpoe om S o m 0 NH Azomoflso>o:v msogomop mSQEmo mmo new so HHH msomopmo n: ma m m m am Aeneasmosev macroson mSQEmo wmo can so HH Showwpmo H@ mm RH ma S m Sago mponomop mDQEmonco H zsowopmo Hmpoe moocbflom mph< ocm mooCCHom moocoaom coapwozom poflamm< moflpflcmesm Hmszpwz Hmaoom mmsosw SDHSme mmoh< oHEome< an masopcommom m MM :Hmuuao::.mw Coawfimmmao ohm noncommou name 639% .mo.m .mpmou m unmowwacmem mcazoaaow mummy-» mo mamas may no pmoe museumaoo maoum Suaaomw one mowmowocax HS.m wOav. Sm.v Com: Conuoe Hoo. RH .HH_ .HHH cowposuumcm measuouoo swam mmmau OH om.v mm.v oo.v mamanoud oesoomom ms .HHH _ .H .HH nom.nesco=rn on cananmoous om d ov.m oo.m NN.¢ madamunco Hoo. RH .HHH .HH mm pampuomaw we maanomou msmsdoummo w mm.m mm.m ma.m mm H .HH .HHH SumEMuQ smooazonx mo Suo>oomwa S Hm.v om.v mm.v _ cmsnmoHM cons pas: m: HHH .HH .H mm nowcom con: mooswflpam uwawsmm o Speeder SS.m oo.m mo.m amazes aw nomwflo mucoCSHm .moumo m: H .HH .HHH ucmpm cofiumSHm>o Hmfiucouowmwo SHQQ< m mw.m Sm.¢ Sm.v HOuoauumcM Ho. *H .HH .HHH unannouaw op ovum doom mucoosum v . om.m mc.m. «w.m muonmmOEwm mo. RH .HHH .HH Eooummmau :umumuuoEmU: m mum>flpdso m av.m oo.m So.m menopaumuSuaaowm coo3uon mmfinm Ho. *HH .HHH .H Icoflpmaou oumcmouonsmnoumcmououomsm m Sm.w v¢.v om.v macaw mo cofiumnwuoaos ouou mamuo> m: H .HH .HHH mcofiuomuumnm mo mpmoocoo onammnaem a m :mm #02 Can—05m: hamuudmz :mmCHnonm: Emu: mo unmwcoo .oz momaonHmom 95mm {had—own 2.302: as: u - - 3:96 News mas zmmzemm mozmammmun so seHaHm we HHH .H .HH mommmHu :onmzomHo oNHmmnaem mm wo.v MH.v vm.v mHmHuouma xoonpxou ma H .HHH .HH How oHnHmcommou mucooswm oHom vm oo.m Hw.m SS.N msoHnouQ oHEoomom ma HHH .H .HH neon uoH menopaum o“ oHnHmmooow om mm oo.v 0H.¢ Hm.v mHmHuoums mc HHH .H .HH monouowou Ho mm: :H HHme 00Ho>oa mm m¢.v nv.v ov.¢ coauwcmooou Hmsoo co>Hm m: H . .HH .HHH noumomou one muconu mcmnomoh Hm oo.m . vo.m ow.m no. RH HH .HHH monumoo oumu0uooo o>mn muonomofi om om.m MH.m HH.m mmoco>HwooHHo mcHnomou Ho ouamwoe ma H .HHH .HH CHHm> uOuunuumcH Ho mcHHooH acoCSHm oH mm.m nm.m mm.m momuzoo m: HHH .H .HH oumaomumumona now quouo owmsomuw wH Ho.m oo.m NS.m pcooapm me HH .HHH .H :ommuo>m: as powwow Ho>oH mcHnomoH SH oo.m om.m om.m mucoUSHm m: HH .H .HHH EHHZ oocmHmHU HmHoom :Hmuchz 0H oo.m Ho.m ow.m .cowumoo> m: H .HH .HHH chausm Op pcm>oHou momusoo mH Ho.e sm.s me.v ucowsosua Haaowesosco mo. RH .HHH .HH so Cosuomcw HHoz on muouosupmcH VH mo.m om.m oc.m mesocaun measure :ossn: mo. H .HHH .RHH ow puOHHo Suo>o oxme SuHmuo>HGD mH om.v Sm.v mm.¢ . ma HHH .H .HH mmoom «cooaum Hmowpmu poommom NH No.m wo.m OH.v mcHHoonom no. RHH .H .HHH osswusoonwc .saccnsoaou moose» sod HH m :om poz CHaonm: Hmuusoz :om ononm: anH H0 acoucoo .oz momcoqmom Qsouw .UHsomm :cmoz. EopH Umacflucoolcm mHm.sos noHcHH sH sHso scabs sm So.m SS.m mo.m moHuH>Huom oHEoomom m: H .HHH .HH mm acmaHoQEH mm moHHH>Huom HmHoom om eo.m Hm.m mm.m mGHHoonum. m: HHH .HH .H oncwucoo Houuon Ho xuoz :m: mm «H.e mm.v mm.s nuoeosuansH as H .HHH .HH as code wesosopdum omsoHHseo em mo.m dm.m mm.m SHHHHns HsacwsHosH m.osocsnm mo. H .HH RHHH Ho nHman so mpsossmHnns osHm mm mo.m mo.m oo.m ms HH .HHH .H moHHHsHoos scorn :st hastened aHom mm om.v mm.v wo.v . mHmanEo SumEHHQ ma HHH .H .HH a :mstane HcoHeHuo: aoHosoo as Hm oo.m Sw.m ow.m oucmsuomuom mcwuman>o cons me HHH .H .HH moszo SHHEmH m.ucoc:um m HooncoU om me.e mm.s om.e worsaowwm as use» m: H .HH .HHH :HanH mm moumzomumuooaa mcHnomoH om mo.¢ Ho.m ow.m noumomou ow. mc HH .H .HHH oucmuuoaeH Sumocouom Ho mcwnomoh mm oo.v oo.¢ vo.v we HHH .HH .H our: and: nesccsum can: sm cm.m ms.m so.m toasts Aconcan HHa m: HH .H .HHH now umHHeHm moumocmpm oHEopmo< cm H :wm,woz,pHsosm: HmHH3621. tom CHsonm: EouH Ho «coucoo .oz momconfimom $5.5 had—own :cmozz SopH i cossHssoo--m mHmo :H moHuH>Huom me H .HHH .HH oHEoomomuco: m.ucoo:»m Hoonaoo mm 0H.¢ mm.v vv.¢ mcoHusuHumcH HmaoHumosoo m: HHH .H .HH Ho GOHuocsw m Sumwoom o>0HQEH mm oo.v mm.v vm.v SHHHmHsaoQ can» wcmuHerH mo. RHH .HHH .H ouos Hocamou-HHon HassooHHoeaH Hm ov.m om.m SH.m manomou o>HHomeocH Ho ma H .HHH .HH :onooHHoH m mH “copaum mcHHHmH < on Hm.v Sm.¢ o¢.v o>HumEHomcH mm HHoz mm m: H .HH .HHH mcHumoHoucH mconmom mmmHo oxm: ow oo.v oo.< 0H.v m: HH .HHH .H on Son» away ouoe Soaum we HH.¢ Hm.v o¢.v mUHmCGMHm m: H .HH .HHH beam o>mn QOHuusuwmcH HHo one :0 Sq wc.m oo.m mo.m xuozmmmHo Ho puma Hammoucw m: H .HHH .HH as mucoscmHmmm SumHDHH oxmz ow NS.m 0S.m co.m GOHHauHsmcoo mm H .HHH HH How SHHmoHCOHHoQ muOuosuumGH mom mv SH.m om.m mm.m m: H .HHH .H coHHmosoo Hmuonom a How we oocmsuom mo.v Ho.v Ho.m uuom mcHumsHm>o con: moHu3C m: HHH .H .HH peoESoHQso m.ucoosum m HooncoU me 0H.m mmnm om.m mm H .HHH .HH muoomoum asoum ommuaoocm me Sv.m mm.m nH.m . 1. ma H .HHH .HH mucmocoupm mmmHo SuomHaaeoo Hv H tom|uo21mH=oemz Haussozy :wm,pHsoem: soHH Ho nsoesoo .oz momnommom Hdouw SHHsomm.nmo2: EopH benefiucoonnm mqm§8 4O perceptions and expectations among the faculty. Further, the phenomena of high role consensus and crystallized ex- pectations appears compatible with the data and analyses on the social variables of the faculty. .In essence, the three faculty groups were found to be homogeneous on the social characteristics examined. These included age, years of teaching experience, academic rank, and marital status (see Appendix N). Turning to microscopic analyses of faculty responses by areas, Table 6 summarizes the results on role perceptions. The eighteen items in Table 6 focus specifically on eXpected faculty role behavior. Fourteen of the items revealed no significant differences in faculty role perceptions among the three faculty groups. Residential faculty differed from their colleagues in their perception of appropriate classroom behavior (item 3) and on the importance of teaching off— campus (item 8). More specifically, on item 3, the residen— tial faculty members were not inclined towards cultivating a "democratic" classroom climate whereas the off-campus faculty groups were in favor. Insofar as residential faculty do not engage in extension teaching programs, this may account for their indifference towards off-campus teaching. Faculty group II was highest in the rating of item 8, with group III exhibiting a slightly lower positive score. On item 33 dealing with assignments given on the basis of a student's academic ability, faculty group III deviated 41 TABLE 6 A COMPARISON OF FACULTY ROLE PERCEPTIONS Item No. Content of Item F/Ratio P 3 Cultivate a "democratic" classroom atmOSphere 4.55 .05 5 Apply differential evaluation standards, students differ in mental ability 0.18 ns* 7 Discovery of knowledge primary 0.61 ns* 8 Off-campus teaching as important as on—campus 7.82 .001 9 Be accessible to students for academic problems 0.29 ns* 12 Respect radical student ideas 1.07 ns* 16 Maintain social distance with students 2.36 ns* 23 Be accessible to students for non- academic problems 0.70 ns* 27 Make students work hard 0.10 ns* 28 Teaching of secondary importance to research 0.30 ns* 29 _Teaching undergraduates as important as graduates 0.40 ns* 30 Consider a student'f family duties when evaluating performance 0.11 ns* 32 Help students plan study activities 0.05 ns* 33 Give assignments on basis of student's individual ability 3.55 .05 37 Teach only in fields you've performed research 5.33 .01 43 Consider a student's employment duties when evaluating performance 0.28 ns* *Indicates no significant difference. 42 TABLE 6—-Continued Item No. Content of Item F/Ratio P 49 Make class sessions interesting as well as informative 0.68 ns* 50 A failing student is a reflection of ineffective teaching 1.37 ns* the farthest. Their score was highest indicating a proness to make assignments in terms of an individual's ability. Residential instructors were least likely to perceive this approach as appropriate. In reference to teaching subject matter only where a member has performed research (item 37), faculty group II expressed the least favorable response. Faculty I and III groups, having similar score values, indicated this should be the practice on the part of instructors. Table 7 summarizes the data and analyses of faculty role expectations of students. Twelve of the fifteen items Show no significant dif- ferences among faculty of student role expectations. Of the three items indicating differences, residential faculty differed in their evaluations from the other two faculty groups on items 4 and 39. Residential faculty was least inclined to agree that students should feel free to interrupt the instructor for questions (item 4). Faculty group III, on 43 TABLE 7 A COMPARISON OF FACULTY ROLE EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENTS Item No. Content of Item F/ratio P 4 Students feel free to interrupt instructor 6.73 .01 6 Similar attitudes when senior as held when freshmen 0.09 ns* 11 Low grades repeatedly, discontinue schooling 3.77 .05 15 Courses relevant to future vocation 0.66 ns* 19 Student feeling of instructor valid measure of teaching effectiveness 0.39 ns* 31 To develop "critical thinking" a primary emphasis 0.60 ns* 34 Challenge statements made by instructors 0.96 ns* 35 "B" work or better continue schooling 2.55 ns* 39 Most of the time take notes during lectures 4,08 .05 40 Students should be self—motivated 1.89 ns* 41 Compulsory class attendance 1.36 ns* 44 Get a general education 0.91 ns* 45 See instructors periodically for consultation 2.17 ns* 48 Study more than they do 0.83 ns* 53 Consider student's non-academic activities in evaluations 1.37 ns* *Indicates no significant difference. 44 the other hand, evaluated this item high, indicating a prefer— ence for such behavior. Faculty group II had a slightly lower affirmative score. In reference to whether students should be taking down notes most of the time that the instructor is lecturing (item 39), faculty groups II and III were neutral towards such activity whereas residential faculty expressed negative inclinations. Whether a student repeatedly receiving low or failing grades should be discouraged from continuing his academic pursuits (item 11) revealed faculty groups I and 111 in agreement. Their evaluation was strongly in the affirmative. Faculty group II tended toward a neutral position on this item. Table 8 contains the data and analyses on consensus among the faculty of role statements dealing with aspects of instruction and substantive material. No significant differences among faculty on role items dealing with substantive material were uncovered. Two items focusing on aspects of instruction revealed residential faculty differing in their evaluations from their colleagues. In reference to class size as a determinant of instruction method used (item 10), residential faculty as a group tended to maintain a neutral position. Faculty group III, on the other hand, was strongly in favor of relating instruction method to class size. Faculty II expressed a slightly lower positive score. 45 TABLE 8 A COMPARISON OF FACULTY ROLE EXPECTATIONS ON ITEMS DEALING WITH ASPECTS OF INSTRUCTION AND SUBSTANTIVE MATERIAL Item No. Content of Item F/ratio P l Emphasize concepts and abstractions versus rote memorization of facts 2.87 ns* 10 Class Size determine instruction method used 7.72 .001 14 *Instructors be well informed on edu- cational practices 4.21 05 17 Teaching level geared at ”average” student 0.92 ns* 22 Develop skill in use of reference materials 0.96 ns* 24 Hold students reSponsible for textbook materials 0.46 ns* 25 Emphasize discussion classes versus straight lectures 0.15 ns* 42 Encourage group projects 1.09 ns* 46 Make library assignments an integral part of classwork 2.22 ns* *Indicates no significant difference. 46 Positive evaluations were expressed by all three faculty groups on the expectation that instructors should be well-informed on modern educational practices (item 14). Faculty group II was highest, residential faculty lowest, and group III in an intermediate position. The analyses of role expectations among the three faculty groups on items of a generalized nature are sum- marized in Table 9. Five items on role expectations of a general nature showed differences. Faculty group II deviated from their colleagues in evaluation on items 2, l3, and 51. Super- ordinate-subordinate relationships between faculty and students (item 2) were negatively evaluated by group II, whereas the residential facUlty and group III indicated similar neutral positions. 0n whether the university should make every effort to ”save” the failing student (item 13), all three faculty groups responded affirmatively-—with group II taking the strongest affirmative position. As to whether intellectual self-respect should be more important than popularity with one's peer group (item 51), all three faculty groups expressed high positive evaluations. Group II had the lowest affirmative score, I and III were characterized by similar higher values. Residential faculty differed significantly from the off—campus faculty on items 20 and 38. On-campus faculty were neutral in their evaluation as to whether teachers of 47 TABLE 9 A COMPARISON OF FACULTY ROLE EXPECTATIONS ON GENERAL ITEMS Item No. Content of Item F/ratio P 2 Superordinate-subordinate relation- ships between faculty—students 5.62 .01 13 University make every effort to "save" failing students 4.63 .05 18 Graduate credit for undergraduate courses 0.57 ns* 20 Teachers have doctorate degrees 3.93 .05 21 Teaching talents and research given equal recognition 0.00 ns* 26 Academic standards similar for all subject matter 1.08 ns* 36 Social activities as important as academic activities 2.20 ns* 38 Teaching skills as important as specialized knowledge 6.46 .01 47 On and off instruction have same standards 2.36 ns* 51 Intellectual self-respect more important than popularity 3.75 .05 52 Improve society a function of educational institutions 1.27 ns* *Indicates no significant difference. 48 college level courses should have doctorate degrees (item 20). Off-campus faculty, however, indicated that teaching staff should have Ph.D's. Considering teaching skills as important as specialized knowledge (item 38) was strongly affirmed by off-campus "over- load" teachers. To a lesser extent, faculty group II ex- presSed a similar attitude. Residential faculty maintained a neutral position on this item. Student Role Consensus The analysis of the student data concerned with consensus among residential and extension students as stated in hypo- theses 3 and 4 (p. 19) parallels that for the faculty groups. The mean reSponses of both student groups to all fifty-three items and the probability of differences between them are pre- sented in Table 10. i The analyses shows that there was no difference between the reSponses of campus and extension students on 57% of the items. Of the twenty-three role items showing differences, the residential and extension students were sharply divided on six of the role statements. The mean reSponses of one group was on the "should be" end of the scale while the other group gave predominately "should not be" reSponses. On the remaining seventeen items, the differences between the two groups of students involved differences in the degree of "should" or "should not" responses. There is little evidence of any pattern of difference between residential and extension 49 .mumoyuu.Sn CmcHEHopoC mm SHHHHDmDOHHRR .mo.m one mo.m coozwon HHoH monHm> HH :Hmupaoc: mm poHHHmmmHo momGOQmoH some onHR mm.v om.v m: .me .mom mmoCH unoCSHm Hmowpmu wooamom NH em.m mo.m msHHoonom. ma .me .mom oscHucoomHC .SHConomou mopmum 30H HH oo.¢ vm.¢ Coma Conuos mo. .uxm .mom COHHUSHumcH ocHEHouoo oNHm mmmHo oH ¢¢.v mS.v mEoHnoum UHEoomom Hoo. .uxm .mom How mucoCSHm op oHnHmmooom mm o om.v oo-v m3QEdu:co mm Hoo. .mom .uxm HGNHHOQEH mm mcHaomoH msaemoswwo w om.m Ho.m mo. .mom .me SHmEHHQ omUoHsocx Ho Suo>oomHQ S SH.v oo.v cmeamoum con: CHon m: .mom .uxm ms HOHcom con: moCSHHpum HmHHeHm o SHHHHss om.m mS.m Hmpcms :H HoHHHC mucooSHm .mpump Hoo. .mom .me ucmwm compmSHm>o HmHHcoHoHHHU SHQQ< m mo.m SH.v HouosuwmsH Ho. .me .mom pasumoucH 0p comm HooH muqopzum v do.m oo.e outcomoEes m: .me .mom soommmmHo :oHpmHoosoC: m oum>HHHso m Ho.m ow.m mwcmwmumuSHHnumw coozuon mQHnm me .me .mmm IcoHpmHoH opmcHCuocsmumumcHoHouoasm m om.v om.v macaw Ho COHHmNHHosos opou msmuo> me .mom .me mcoHHomHHmhm new mudoocoo omemnasm H RRH RHmuunoz :om pHsonm: EoHH Ho “stucco .02 “oz CHsonm: EopH momcoflmom 96.5 «cousin; :amufl: mmDOdO 038 NIH ZHHZHmm HOZHMMmmHQ m0 wfiHHHm mommmHo GOHmmsomHC MNHmmnmem mm Nv.m NS.m mHmHHonE xoonpxou Ho. .me .mom HOH oHnHmGOQmmH mucopSHm CH0: vm mEoHDoua oHEoCmom m: icon How menopaum o» oHDHmmooow om mm ow.m oo.v mHmHHoums mo. .mom .me oocouomou Ho om: cH HHme QOHo>oQ mm mH.v SH.¢ COHHchooou Hmaco m: .me .mom co>Hm noumomon can muconu wcHnomoH Hm vv.m om.m m: .me .mom mooumop onHoHooo o>mn muonomoH om qH.m wo.m mmoco>HHooHHo mcHnomoH Ho ousmmos he .mom .me oHHa> tonoawnncH Ho maHHooH ssoossm 0H mm.m 0H.m momusoo m: .mom .pxm mumspmumuopcs How HHooHu caduceuw wH OHom woom HGUUSHW mo. .mom .me :ommuo>m: Hm Condom Ho>oH wCHnomoH SH wo.m wH.m mucoo mo. .mom .me unpm saw? mucmumfio Hafiuom GHMHGHME 0H o¢.m H¢.m me .mom .me COHHmoo> eunusm OH pcm>oHoH momusoo mH ve.< mv.v mooHuomHQ HmcoHHSCSpo ms .mom .me co CosuomnH HHCS on mHoHoauwmaH «H mm.m es.m mnsocsen msHHHam :o>an: m: .mom .me cu HHOHHo Suo>o moxms SHHmHo>HcD MH m HmHusoz :om CHsonm: EoHH Ho pcowcoo .oz Hoz oHaoem: soHH momcommom muouw pcoosum :chZ. UCSCHHGOUIIOH mHmHHoEuHHom on oHsonm menopaum ow oo.m oo.m mouauooH m: .mom .me quuao mono: moxmu oer may Ho Hmoz om NH.e cH.v cmccHsocx couHHaHooon m: .mom .me mm HGwHHoQEH mm mHHme qunomoH wm So.m Ho.m soumomou. m: .mom .me Cosmomuom o> 30S mpHoHH qH SHzo nomoH Sm mm.m wH. m moHHH>HHow oHsoCmom m: .me .mom mm HamHHOQEH mm moHHH>HHom HmHoom om 6H. m mm. m maH- m: .mom .pxm :Hoonom oscHHcoo weapon Ho xuoz 2m: mm wo.¢ mm.v mHoHoauumcH m: .me .mom Sn some mucoEoumHm owcoHHmno em Ho.m mo.m HHHHHha HaaoHchcH n.rscc Ho. .mom .me naum Ho mHmmn no muaoecmHmmm o>Hw mm om.m SS.m Hoo. .nom .rxm moHnasHeos spasm saHa wasccsem aHom mm ov.v Hv.v . mHmanEo SHmEHHQ n: .sxm .mom a :mcHstes HaoHnHuo: aoHc>co oH Hm om.m oo.m oocmeHomqu mnHumsHm>o con: Hoo. .nom .pxm moHnac SHHssH n.rccossn a nocanoo om mo.v oo.v mopmsomum mm uan m: .mom .me uuoasH mm moumzomumuoocs mcHnomoH om Sm.e mo.e nowsomcu on Ho. .mom .uxm oucmuuoaeH Sumocooom Ho manomoH mm H Hsupsoz :om cHsoem: soHH Ho Hecpsoo .oz Hoz pHsonm: EoHH momcoHHmom 9.5.5 Humps”; :csoz: UmSGHHGOUnIOH mHmo :H moHHH>Huom Hoo. .mom .me oHEopmomuao: m.ucop=um Hooncoo mm 0H.v mm.v mHOHHSHHHmcH HmcoHHmosoo no. .me .mom Ho :oHuocsm m SHoHoOm o>oHQEH mm oo.m wS.m SHHHmHsnoa can» HcmuuomsH m: .mom .me ouos HoodmouumHom HmauooHHounH Hm om.m mv.m wcHnomoH o>HHooHHonH Ho ms .mom .me . GOHHooHHoH m mH HHoUSHm mcHHHmH 4 cm mn.¢ oo.¢ o>HHmsuowcH mm HHos mm mo. .me .mom mcHHmououcH mconmom mmmHo oxm: ow ow.m OH.v Ho. .nxm .nom on Sony sash once spasm we oo.e So.e mcuacscen m: .pxm .mom seam o>mn :oHHoauumcH Hmo one :0 Sq om.m om.m xuozmmmHu Ho puma HammoucH m: .mom .me am mucoeamHmmm SHHHQHH oxwz ow mm.m mm.m HOHHmHHsmcoo no. .mom .me HOH SHHmoHUoHHoQ mHoHoauHmcH mom mv oo.m vo.m m: .uxm .mom :oHHmoaoo Hmuocom m How we Sm.m ow.m oocmsuomuom mcHumaHm>o con: moHpso Hoo. .mom .me ucosSoHQEo m.u:ocawm m Hooncoo me H :om Haunaoz :om oHsoem: soHH Ho usossoo .oz #02 UHfionm: EMHH momcommom HHH—0.5 Humps“; :cwoz. UQSGHHGOOIIOH mHmflpom Copwmmmpv meoHBOCx Co mpo>oomflp 0:9 .5 m a m m H .coscnosC no cash sons porn nCoaHoo oCm woodpfippm 05mm me Cpflz mafimeCmmmo owoaaoo wCfl>mmH on CHSoCm mpCopspm mCHpmSUMCo .@ m a m m H .spaaapm accede CH CoCCao nocooson onsmooo ompsoo C0>Hw m CH mpCmpSpm on Coflpmzam>m mo mUCmUCmpm HprCohommap haggm CHCOCm mCOpoSCmeH .m H m m 3 m mCOHpmoSd Cog C0p05CmeH on pQSCCopCfi op mopg 400a UHSOCm mpCooSpm nCosmpmzflnm Eoopmmmao 0C» CH .3 a m m z m .Coflpmspflm Eoopmmmao on CH mCoCQmoEpm :0>HmmHECmQ: Co soapmpooEoU: m opm>flpazo oHSoCm mCOCQCCmeH .m H m m z m .mCSCmC mprH0C095msomeH©Copmgsm o no on CHCOCm mpCmospm oCm mCOpoCCmeH CmmmeC mQHCmCOprHoC «Hm>ma mmmao pCmospm mo mmmaopmwmm .m H m m a m .mpomC mo CoflumNHCoEoE 0909 on ummeCoo CH ommmmppm on UHCoCm mCoHuowhumnm UCm,muQmoCoo mo CoapmHSQHCmE 0C9 .H dxv God To .v HQ NJ WW SJ Sq ons o.a ens "we "ws ”do n.& .Arn oTa moo TLI 7L8 nae nuI PM, Pm Wm Wm WM, mCOfipmpoomxm .Ho mpCmEopmpm ”Na Muq 4 q a 04L 04L 1L I 4p“ aka .A K omConmm .sopa Como psoom gears, esaamooaz nos sons .ma page ssoaon npsosopoon was so mZOHBanmmxm Csos can pass 110 m a m .nosooson spas ooCmpmHo HmHoom CprCHmE UHSOCm mCOHoCCmeH m m H .COHpmoo> mCCpCH m_pCo©:pm m op pr>oHoC on UHzoCm mmmCzoo omeHoo pmoz m z m .moOHpomCQ HmCoHpmosom CCoUoE Co omECowCHIHHoz on onoCm mCouoCCmeH m z m .pCoospm wCHHHmH me :o>mm: Op phommo mpo>o ome UHCOCm thmCo>HCC 0C8 m z m .Czo CHon Eonm CommHo hHHmoHUMC thp CmCz Co>o mmooH pCoodpm pooamop oHCOCm mCOpoSCmeH m 3 m .mpHSmCCQ OHEmowom CHon wCHCCHpCoo EoCm omwmpsoomHo on UHSOCm moompw mCHHHmm Co 30H wCH>HoooC hHompmonC mpCmospm m n m .Umm: COCme COHposhmeH Ho camp me CH pCmCHECmpmo m on UHCoCm oNHm mmmHo m z m .mEmHQOCQ OHEoomom Com mpCopzpm on mHCHmmooom on pHSOCm CowoSCmeH 0C9 m z m .mpCmcCpm mmmHHoo mCQEmo ICo mCHCommp mm prppomsH mm pmsw oohoonCoo on UHCoCm muCoUSpm szUm mCQEmOummo mCHCommB QON PIHOHS Riaqntosqv QON PIUOHS Ktqeaegaaa WW HEd SV use Ufa Haw KnA Ofic Ons nIo n0 Nno TLe TLI o.u PTu Pm“ 1 e 1 W W mCOHumpooaxm mo mpCmEmpmpm K A omCoamom 111 m H :1' .meSCooH mmmHo HQ ©0C0>oo hHHmonHoon mm: HmHCmme Cozm poC Co Cmeocz Ho mmoHpCmMoC HmHCmme xoonpxmp Cog oHQHmConoC pHmC on oHsoCm mpCoospm .mEoHQOCQ AHwComCoQ fl0.: oHEmomomuCoC Com mpCmpSpm Op mHCHmmooom on oHsoCm mCopoCCmeH .MCHCCmoH EoopmwwHo mo o>Hpoano Co on CHCOCm mHmHCmme ooCoCommC mo mm: on CH HCHHHHXm 0CoE oEoomp op mpCooSpm mHQmCo OB .po>Hpo:©oCQ Coswomop mH mm CoHpHCmoomC pCon>qum Cm>Hw on UHCOCm mpConp wCHComoB .moopwoo omeouooo o>mC pHsoCm mmmCsoo Hm>oHnoonHoo mo mCoComoB .mmmCm>HpommHm mCHComop mo mmpzmmoe pHHm> CoCoUHmCoo on ©H50Cm mCOCoCCmeH CHon pzonw meHHoom pCmUSpm .mmmhsoo mumsompw ICooC: Cog C0>Hw on UHSoCm pHooCo mumSUMCU .pCopzpm mmmHo :ommpm>m: on pm ompwom on mmmsz GHSOCm Hm>mH wCHCommB PIHOHS 40M PIUOHS fitaqntosqv 40M PIHOHS KIQEJSJSJd 40M flew JO New ( AIQBJGJGJd PIHOHS fitaqntosqv mCoammm Q) mCoHpmpomaxm mo mpCmEmpmpm 112 m m H .moHpH>Hpow hpdpm C30 CHon CmHQ mpCmUSpm QHoC UHCoCm mCOQoSCmeH m d m .mmooOCQ HmCoHpmosoo on CH mHmmCQEm mngHCQ m on CHCOCm mpCmospm wCoEm :wCHXCHCp HmoHpHCo: QOHm>o© OB m m H .moHpHHHQHmComwoC zHHEmH mm: pCoUSpm 0C» CmeoCz CoHpmpmpHmCoo OCCH mXMp onoCm mC0p05CmeH «ooCmEhomCoQ OHEopwom m_pCm©5pm m mCHmeHw>o CH m 2 m .mpCopspm mundompw mCHCommp mm pCmpCoQEH mm on UHCoCm mpCoonm opmsomaCooCs mCHComoB m m H .Copmommp Co p30 mCHhhhmo 0p moCmpCOQEH mpmpCooom mo on UHSoCm mCHComop «mCOpoSCmeH Com m z m .oCmC ghoz mpCoUCpm CHme ome op oHnm on CHCOCm mCOpoSCmeH m 3 m .prSmp Copme poomCSm mo mmmH IppwmoC CmHHEHm on UHCOCm moCmUCmpm OHEmomo< m m J m .UOCme oCSCOoH prHmem on ow pmmeCoo CH ommHmmCQEm on UHSOCm mommmHo oQHpICOHmmSomHQ SV Sd 8d 8V HQ HJ WW ui HQ 0 s nos ewe 01a 0 s n10 n.d flan n.d nno ITL 4L3 Tta TLI pm pa mm pm pm Ma. No. a, o. a nsoapopoodxm Co nosoEoompm ocL 04L 1L I n+£ n+K K K omCogmmm 113 (\l m s m .Eon :Cn:p_op mCOpOszmCH CHOCp Com: pCOOCOQOO hHHCmEHCQ op pOC OCm CCHOH Op mO>HomEOCp Opm>Hp0E OHCOCm mpCmospm m m H .msasspooH ma Coposgpnsa cop posp asap opp mo pmoe mOpOC CZOO MCmep mp OHCOCm mpCmospm m z m .omOOHSOCx OONHHmHOOQm mm pCmp ICOCEH mm OOCOOHmCOO on OHCOCm mHHHXm wCHCOmoE m 3 m ACoCmomOC onCOMCOQV COHpCpHCpCOO m moms o>mC mme COHCZ CH mOHOHm CH mHCO Commp OHCOCm mCOpoCCmeH m m H .mOHpH>HpOm OHEOOOOO me mm mpCoozpm Cop pCmpCOQEH mm pmsh mp OHCOCm AmOHpH>HpOm HmHOOm q.O.HV OCHH mpHmCo>HCC mo mOCOCQm OHEOOOOOICOC OCH m z m .EmaOCQ CHOCp OCCHpCOO Op ooBOHHm op OHCOCm COppop CO XCoz :m: mCHOO mpCoonm OmeOmCMCmoCC Omon zHCo m 3 m .mCOpozpmeH CHme hp moms mpCoEmpMpm mmCOHHmCO Op oommC300Cm op OHCOCm mpCmonm QON PIHOHS KIGQHIOSQV QON PIUOHS fitqeaageag m d m .szHHCm HmCOH>HOCH CO mHmmp OCp CO mpCOOCpm Op mpCOECmemm O>Hw OHCOCm mCOposzmCH cod Gov NW. Ha HQ nae o a O s Kan n_J n 0 I9 II NO pd pn oTu e 1 mCOHpmpOOme CO mpCoEmpmpm 1. q a I I K K TmCOCmom ‘l 1 In 1‘ II :I I I 1‘ I I! .A! I'll. III I lIIIII'l 114 H m m 3 m .O>HmeCOHCH mm HHoz mm wCHmeCmpCH mCOHmmom mmmHO CHon ome OHCOCm mCOpoCCmeH .m3n H m m 3 m .OO Hon Cme 0C0E Honm OHCOCm mpCmOCpm pmoz .@3 H m m 3 m .mOCmOCmpm OHEOOwOm Osmm me m>mC OHCOCm CoHpostmCH mCCEmO HMO OCm Co .H3 H m m 3 m .xCoz OmCCOO mmmHO CO pCmg HmCmOpCH CO on OHCOCm mpCoECmHmmm mCHommC mCmeHH .w3 H m m 3 m .mCOHpmpHCmCOO HmCOH>HOCH Com HHHOOHOOHCOQ mCOpozpmeH CHon mom Op OOCHCOOC mp OHCOCm mpCmOCpm .m3 H m m 3 m .COHmmOHOCQ OHHHOQO m Com mCHmCmQOCC Cme COprosom HmCmme w wCprmw CH OOpmmCmpCH 0Coe op OHCOCm mpCOOCpm mmmHHoo .33 m 3 m m H .pCmEHOHQEm OOHmpCO mmC pCoonm me ConoCz COHmemOHmCOO OpCH oxmp OHCOCm mCOpoCCmeH .ooCmECOMCOQ OHEOOOOO m1pCOOspm m mCHmeHm>m CH .m3 H m m 3 m .oowwhsooCm op OHCOCm mpommOCQ QCOCw Com mOHpHCCpCOQQO .m3 m 3 m m H .HComHCQEOO on OHCOCm mommmHO wCHOCOpp< .H3 S S S HW "1% WW "1% WW oas o.e ens O.e oas nAO n.J .Apn n.a TLI rte Tie mwm. mCOHpmpowmxm mo mpCmEmpwpm Pn DJ No 91 Pn 1 e O.u e Q was ”no. o4 Q a OI OI I I n+£ n+fi A .A mmCOQmom r ill ‘1 A, III .mmCHMCCOHpmoCO cmCmpmHCHEOO me CO OOppHEO 0C0; mOCHm> OCOom 0C9 "mpoz 115 m m H .moCmEComCmQ OHEOOmOm mHC Cow mOOma wCHCmemm CoCz OOCOOHmCOO mp OHCOCm mmeH>HpOm OHEOOOOOICOC m.pCmonm OCH .mm m 3 m .mCOHpCpHmeH HOCOHpmodom mo Hmom HCwEHCC w 09 OHCOCm HpOHOOm mo pCmEo>OCQEH 0C9 .mm m 3 m .QCOCw Comm m_mCO Csz HpHCmHCQOQ Cme pCmpCOQEH OCoE on OHCOCm poQOOCanmm HmeOmHHOpCH .Hm .mCHCOmmp O>HpoomCoCH mo m m m H COHpOOHCOC m mm mewp on OHCOCm pCmUCpm wCHHHmH 3 .0m Swv 81a 81a Suv U.0. U.J U.J U.0.. nus 0.6 mfiw O.d nus nuo n.J ens n.J nuo ITL Tta “AR“ TLa TLI pm, PM No Pm PW mCOHpmpommxm .HO mpCmEmpmpm Mme NnQ “OJ Q a o.L OHL 1. TL I Qpn A+K “A K mmCOQmmm APPENDIX J ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FORMULA USED Faculty Categories N I II 111 Total E x 'X E x2 (E X)2 H 2 2 2 (E x1 + E x2 + E x3 ) 2 Total $3 = E x1 + E x2 + E x3 — N1 + N2 + N3 2 2 2 Between 33 = (E x1) + (E x2) + (E x3) — (E x1 + E x2 + E x3 ”‘tr“‘ “‘tr“‘ "TT" N7 + N’ + N 1 2 3 1 2 3 Within 33 = E x? _ (E x1)2 + E XS — (E x2)2 E X; — (E x N1 N2 N3 §§_ 0:. Mean Square F/ratio _E . Q) Between k-l ss 3 '75?‘ 8 Within N-k 33 ET df .N >fl> Total N-l 83 c. ‘d?—' 8L5 3rd p-p m-H m 3 Source: H. M. Blalock, Social Statistics (New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960), Chapter 16. 116 APPENDIX K t-TEST FORMULAE USED t-test (difference of means) Student Categories N Campus Extension X’ E X (E X)2 N E Xe 2 2 2 E X - (E X) s or variance 2 N N - 1 X1 " X2 t = SE of differences of means X1 - X2 assumption t = of equal va ianc s 2 2 2_ 5 N181 + N s2 N1 + N2 s1 — SE SE - 3? t = l 2 assumption of unequal 2 2 variances s + s N1— 1 N2 - 1 Source: H. M. Blalock, Social Statistics (New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960)} pp. 174-175. 117 APPENDIX L LISTING 0F FACULTY "MEAN” SCORE VALUES Item No. Faculty I Faculty 11 Faculty III 1 4.27 4.44 4.56 2 2.97 2.41 2.90 3 3.39 3.84 3.65 4 3.82 4.27 4.37 5 3.77 3.69 3.63 6 4.22 4.26 4.31 7 3.35 3.33 3.13 8 3.40 4.22 3.9 9 4.58 4.60 4.50 10 3.71 4.08 4.37 11 3.98 3.62 4.10 12 4.37 4.53 4.30 13 3.02 3.60 3.20 14 4.01 4.42 4.27 15 3.06 2.91 2.89 16 3.29 3.00 3.36 17 3.72 3.91 3.90 18 3.35 3.32 3.5 19 3.26 3.11 3.13 20 3.00 3.64 3.80 21 4.45 4.45 4.46 22 4.16 4.31 4.06 23 2.81 2.77 3.00 24 4.08 4.24 4.13 25 3.41 3.42 3.33 26 3.78 3.56 3.94 27 4.04 4.00 4.00 28 3.91 4.03 3.86 29 4.43 4.53 4.56 30 3.87 3.86 3.96 118 ‘III ‘I 'Ivl.‘ "III I I '1‘ I I ll III-I III. I II Faculty III Faculty II 119 APPENDIX L-—Continued Faculty I 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 44 45 Item No. 46 47 48 49 50 360 313 4.4.4 4 00 4.44 4 13 458 333 51 52 53 I‘ll: I IIIIII 'I..lll 1‘ I Ill-II 'III' III... II'I I ll- i l I It I] II I III ‘I APPENDIX M LISTING OF STUDENT "MEAN" SCORE VALUES Item No. Residential Students Extension Students 1 4.20 4.36 2 2.86 3.01 3 4.00 3.99 4 4.17 3.92 5 3.36 2.75 6 4.17 4.09 7 3.26 3.01 8 4.20 4.69 9 4.75 4.44 10 4.24 4.06 11 2.93 2.84 12 4.36 4.33 13 3.58 3.74 14 4.44 4.45 15 2.46 2.41 16 2.98 3.18 17 3.19 2.98 18 3.25 3.16 19 3.14 3.08 20 3.50 3.44 21 4.17 4.15 22 3.89 4.06 23 3.07 3.03 24 3.72 3.42 25 3.82 3.61 26 3.44 3.43 27 3.81 3.78 28 4.27 4.05 29 4.62 4.69 30 3.26 2.90 31 4.41 4.40 32 3.30 2.77 33 2.61 2.93 34 4.22 4.08 35 2.16 2.33 120 121 APPENDIX M-—Continued Item No. Residential Students Extension Students 36 3.18 3.22 37 2.97 3.01 38 4.12 4.16 39 2.99 2.96 40 4.47 4.33 41 3.79 3.01 42 3.43 3.61 43 3.37 2.89 44 3.04 2.96 45 3.33 3.53 46 3.29 3.39 47 4.07 4.06 48 4.10 3.86 49 4.66 4.55 50 3.50 3.42 51 3.66 3.78 52 4.35 4.19 53 4.14 3.74 HHH OCO HH mCHCHOEOO Com OHwCoprC .mCOHpoCCH wCHCOEOp CH HpHCwHHEHw CHOCp CO oommp mH mmmHoCOCOOCH HHOO on Op OCO OoCHCEOO mOHCOwOpmo as .momOp OOHHmp-OSS cocosoCCHo psmoHCHsmHn oz RCBH womb Hmpoe HS. M NH pH Hm Cmpmmz H u Co 3@ . ms .O.sg .1Hms n 2L Has u 24 oochos< cosmoo onocmHm Roam. HomH. Hopoe HH MH COpospmeH ooCOCOHCHO pCmOHLHCme oz mm pm COmmOHOCm pCmpmem< Ho.m u x mm om CommOHOCm OpmHOomm< m u 6 mm Hm ConnoCosm HHsm 1.Hms u zv HHm u 2v scam oHEoooo< oosoCoCCHo osooHHHsmHn oz wooH HOOH Hmpoe mH. u «x mH OH ooHCsmz-soz H n Ho mm . 3w ooHpsmz sxAms u 2L HHm u 2L napmom HmpHsoz oososoCCHo psmoHHHsmHn oz ROOH HOOH Hopoe 3m. u «x mH OH oHnSos H u Co . Sm om onz saHms u zv HHm u 2V wow HOOH HooH HOOH Hopoe moCOCOHHHO pCOOHHHCmHm oz Om Om S3 mOmeOma UCm mOmeOmaCOBCD OH.d u x mm mm NH psoospm opozcmgo 3 n We Hm mH mm pCooSpm opmSSoCmgoocp Hom H zv A33 u zv AHm n 2V HO>OH mCHCOmOe HCwEHCm ooCOCOHHHO pCmOHHHCme Oz H.MH H.@H S.MH moCmHCmme mo. u osHm> g Hom u 2V Hm: u 2V as u zv msHCoooH Ho mumps coo: oosoCoHHHo psmoHCHsmHn oz 0.63 3.m3 m.m3 moo. u och> m Hmm u zv HmS uzv Ass 1 zv oma soc: *mmmHHmC3 HHH HH H OHpmHCmpOmCmCo mOHCOwOpmo HpHCOmm mfizmflzommmm NBHDo H¢Hoom zo mmwNH