......... A FACTOR ANAEXHC SWDY AND COMPARSSON OF THE. ANITUDES 7 AND BELEEFS HELD BY SELECTEB j GRGUPS SN HBGHER UCATEON ’ ‘ Thesis for the Degree of Ph.-‘D.'. . 'i A MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, 7 THOMAS HERBERT ZARLE . 1 970 , ' THESIS 0-169 v I LIBRARY MICHIGAN STATE UN VERSITY LIBRARIES IIIIIII II IIIIIIII ‘ 31 9390079 74507 -» Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled A FACTOR ANALYTIC STUDY AND COMPARISON OF THE ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS HELD BY SELECTED GROUPS IN HIGHER EDUCATION presented by THOMAS H. ZARLE has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Education Major professor Date April 29, I970 ABSTRACT A FACTOR ANALYTIC STUDY AND COMPARISON OF THE ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS HELD BY SELECTED GROUPS IN HIGHER EDUCATION BY Thomas Herbert Zarle The present study was designed to analyze, define, and compare some of the characteristic underlying atti- tudes and beliefs held by selected groups in higher edu— cation. An additional purpose of this study was to deter- mine whether the attitudes and beliefs held by these groups were related to the selected demographic variables of in- stitutional type, size, and geographical location. Specifically this study had three objectives: (1) to ascertain the factor structure of a set of selected assumptions and beliefs held by stu- dent personnel administrators, institutional presidents, faculty members, and students, (2) to determine whether an analysis of variance procedure would detect any differences in a comparison of the above groups' scores on the identified factors, Thomas Herbert Zarle (3) to determine whether the procedures of analy- sis of variance would detect any relationship between the identified factors and the selected demographic variables of institutional type, size, and geographical location. The data for this study was collected in the fall of 1968 and winter of 1969 by means of a questionnaire designed to measure the subjects' attitudes and beliefs relative to a set of selected issues in higher education. It was hypothesized that the sample groups would not differ in their basic attitudes and beliefs and that these atti- tudes and beliefs would not be related to the demographic variables of institutional type, size, and region. Factor analytic procedures were used to isolate and identify the basic attitudes and beliefs of the subj- ects, and a repeated measures analysis of variance design was used to test the hypotheses. The following three factors were extracted and identified for use in this study: Factor I, Institutional Involvement in the Educational Process--a measure of an individual's beliefs about whether an institution of higher education should or should not be involved in a student's non-academic experiences; Factor II, Benefits of the Institutional-Student Relationship--an assessment of the strength and direction of an individual's beliefs about who should benefit from this relationship; Factor III, Institutional Stability--a measure of an individual's Thomas Herbert Zarle beliefs about the need for organizational stability in higher educational institutions. The results of this study supported rejection of the hypotheses that the sample groups would hold the same beliefs and that the beliefs would not be related to the selected demographic variables. Generally, the five sample groups were different in their attitudes and beliefs as represented by the three factors used in this study. Specifically, the administrative groups tended to evidence a stronger belief that higher educational institutions should be involved in the attempt to influence the non- academic dimensions of a student's educational experience and that the institutional-student relationship should have reciprocal value for both the institution and the student. Generally, the faculty were more similar to the administrative group in their beliefs than to the students. In most situations the deans of students were more similar to the institutional presidents than they were to any other group. The only exception to this pattern was that the deans and students shared the belief that too much emphasis has been placed upon the importance of institutional sta— bility. The presidents and faculty both expressed the belief that institutional stability should be a primary consideration in the educational process. In a practical sense this study has indicated that the various groups in higher education are not only differ- ent from each other on the dimensions of this study, but Thomas Herbert Zarle these same groups evidenced a significant amount of vari- ance within themselves. In this respect, a significant relationship was found between some of the demographic variables and the various attitudes and beliefs expressed by the various sample groups. Clearly, educators would do well to question any generic reference to views to be held by students, faculty, presidents, or students. Such normative references may not be reflection of the positions held by the various on the referenced group. purported deans of an accurate sub-groups A FACTOR ANALYTIC STUDY AND COMPARISON OF THE ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS HELD BY SELECTED GROUPS IN HIGHER EDUCATION BY Thomas Herbert Zarle A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling Personnel Services and Educational Psychology 1970 I 4— (ye/.330 /6-—‘9~ To DED I CAT ION To Nancy, Gretchen, and Stig Who have given so much of themselves . . . ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . A LIFE WITHOUT CONFRONTATION IS DIRECTION~ LESS, PASSIVE AND IMPOTENT. --Robert R. Carkhuff I would like to acknowledge those individuals who have made it possible for me to experience the kinds of confrontations which have facilitated my growth as an educator, counselor, and person. Throughout the completion of my formal educational program I have been fortunate to have encountered indi- viduals like Dr. Walter F. Johnson, Dr. W. Harold Grant, Dr. Louis C. Stamatakos, and Dr. Arthur M. Vener. Particu- lar acknowledgment is given to Dr. Laurine E. Fitzgerald, who has served as the chairman of my committee and the major advisor for this research. Dr. Fitzgerald displayed the patience and insight to confront me with myself at those strategic points in my development. Her faith in me caused me to grow. To the Research and Publications Division of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, I give thanks for permission to use the information ob- tained in their prior research efforts. For assistance in working out the technical details of procedures and statistical analysis, I would like to acknowledge Mr. David Wright. And foremost, I acknowledge, my wife, Nancy, daughter, Gretchen, and son, Stig, for their sacrifice, patience, and abundant love. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . A Statement of the Problem . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . Need for the Study . . . . . . . Definition of Terms. . . . . . . Hypotheses. . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . Overview of the Study . . . . . II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . Introduction to the Problem . . Literature Related to the Assumptions and Beliefs of Various Groups in Higher Education . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . III. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . Nature of the Sample . . . . . . Instrumentation . . . Administration of the Questionnaire . Hypotheses: General and Specific . . Methods of Analysis. . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . Factor Analysis Results . . Identification of the Three Factors . Factor I--Degree of Institutional Involvement in the Educational Process . . . Factor II-—Benefits of the Insti- tutional- Student Relationship . . Factor III--Institutional Stability. Page H LOWOJGUIQW 10 10 14 23 26 27 30 33 36 38 39 43 45 47 49 Chapter Between Group Comparisons . Within Group Comparisons . Hypothesis II . . . . Hypothesis III . . . . Hypothesis IV . . . . Hypothesis V. . . . . Hypothesis VI . . . . Summary . . . . . . . Factor Analysis. . . . Between Group Comparisons Within Group Comparisons. V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS Summary . . . . . . . The Problem . . . . . Methodology . . . . . Findings and Conclusions . Between Group Comparisons Within Group Comparisons. Implications . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . APPENDICES Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . B. O O O O O O O O 0 vi Page 51 59 6O 68 76 83 92 98 98 99 '102 108 108 108 109 111 112 116 120 124 127 130 133 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Comparison of Characteristics of Sample Groups with Characteristics of Total NASPA Membership as of November, 1968 . . 28 2. Goodness of Fit Comparison of Sample Groups with NASPA Membership . . . . . . . 32 3. Principle Component Factor Matrix-—Rotated Factor Loadings of the Twenty—Seven Questionnaire Items on Each Factor . . . 41 4. Inter-Group Factor Comparison for All Possible Pairs of Sample Groups Indicating Strength of Relationship (Correlation) Between Factors for Three Factor Solution. 44 5. Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance of Factor Scores for the Five Sample Groups on Factors I, II, and III . . . . . . 52 6. One-Way Analysis of Variance of the Sample Group Mean Scores on Each of the Three Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 7. Scheffe Multiple Comparison Analysis of Sample Group Mean Differences on Factor I . . . . . . . . . . . 53 8. Scheffe Multiple Comparison Analysis of Sample Group Mean Differences on Factor II . . . . . . . . . . . 56 9. Scheffe Multiple Comparison Analysis of Sample Group Mean Differences on Factor III . . . . . . . . . . . 58 10. Analysis of Variance of Mean Scores on the Three Factors for Editors Grouped by Institutional Type . . . . . . . . 61 Table Page 11. Scheffe Multiple Comparison Analysis of Mean Differences on Factor I for Student Editors Grouped by Type of Institution . . 62 12. Analysis of Variance of Mean Scores on the Three Factors for Editors Grouped by Institutional Size. . . . . . . . 63 13. Scheffe Multiple Comparison Analysis of Mean Differences on Factors I and III for Student Editors Grouped by Size of Institution . . . . . . . . . . . 64 14. Analysis of Variance of Mean Scores on the Three Factors for Editors Grouped by Geographical Region . . . . . . . . 67 15. Analysis of Variance of Mean Scores on the Three Factors for Student Presidents Grouped by Type of Institution. . . . . 69 16. Scheffe Multiple Comparison Analysis of Mean Differences on Factor I for Student Presidents Grouped by Type of Institution . 70 17. Analysis of Variance of Mean Scores on the Three Factors for Student Presidents Grouped by Size of Institution. . . . . 71 18. Scheffe Multiple Comparison Analysis of Mean Differences on Factors I and III for Student Presidents Grouped by Size of Institution . . . . . . . . . . . 73 19. Analysis of Variance of Mean Scores on the Three Factors for Student Presidents Grouped by Geographical Region. . . . . 74 20. Analysis of Variance of Mean Scores on the Three Factors for Faculty Grouped by Type of Institution . . . . . . . . . . 77 21. Scheffe Multiple Comparison Analysis of Mean Differences on Factor I for Faculty Grouped by Type of Institution. . . . . 78 22. Analysis of Variance of Mean Scores on the Three Factors for Faculty Grouped by Size of Institution . . . . . . . . . . 80 Table 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. Analysis of Variance of Mean Scores on the Three Factors for Faculty Grouped by Geographical Region . . . . . . . . Scheffe Multiple Comparison Analysis of Mean Differences on Factor III for Faculty Grouped by Geographical Region . . . . Analysis of Variance of Mean Scores on the Three Factors for Deans Grouped by Type of Institution. . . . . . . Scheffe Multiple Comparison Analysis of Mean Differences on Factor III for Deans of Students Grouped by Type of Insti- tution . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance of Mean Scores on the Three Factors for Deans Grouped by Size of Institution. . . . . . . . . . Scheffe Multiple Comparison Analysis of Mean Differences on Factors II and III for Deans of Students Grouped by Size of Institution. . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance of Mean Scores on the Three Factors for Deans Grouped by Geographical Region . . . . . . . . Scheffe Multiple Comparison Analysis of Mean Differences on Factor III for Deans of Students Grouped by Geographical Region . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance of Mean Scores on the Three Factors for Presidents Grouped by Institutional Type . . . . . . . . Scheffe Multiple Comparison Analysis of Mean Differences on Factor I for Presi- dents Grouped by Type of Institution . . Scheffe Multiple Comparison Analysis of Mean Differences on Factors I and II for Presidents Grouped by Size of Institution. Scheffe Multiple Comparison Analysis of Mean Differences on Factors I and III for Presidents Grouped by Geographical Region. ix Page 81 82 84 85 86 87 89 90 93 94 95 96 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Allen Barton [1] reports in his work on the organi- zational measurement of college environments that, [Higher educational] organizations are made up of individual people, but they are more than mere col- lections of individuals. [These individuals] . . . are interacting; their interactions are governed by informal expectations and formal rules which are agreed upon to varying degrees; the members have attitudes and beliefs . . . which may lead to the formation of a common culture or a set of conflict- ing subcultures. Dutton, Appleton, and Smith [11] concluded in their investi- gation of controversial topics in higher education that a certain amount of attitudinal incompatibility is an in- evitable consequent of the diversity of philosophical view— points, power structures, and value systems which are represented by those who participate directly in higher education. A similar observation has also been made by selected researchers in higher education [21] that a notable characteristic of modern higher education is the hetero- geneity which seems to exist among and between the various constituent groups which comprise the many college and university settings in the United States. The National Association of Student Personnel Administratorsl submits that the responsibilities of the professional administrator in higher education are becom- ing more complex, demanding, and challenging as a result of the, increasing complexity and diversity that is a ramifi- cation of an increased student enrollment. . . . In the midst of such rapid change, it is difficult to keep fundamental principles and values in focus and the administrator is confronted with the prodigious task of clarifying and redefining his role and ob— jectives in the face of the increasing fragmentation of the academic community [9]. Because of a concern over what is apparently an increasing tendency toward conflict and confrontation among and between the various constituent groups in higher edu- cation and because of the paucity of systematic research which attempts to identify and compare possible variations in attitudes, assumptions, and beliefs among these groups, NASPA initiated a series of investigations which sought to provide a more empirical approach to an understanding of this problem. In 1966, NASPA's Division of Research and Publications conducted a preliminary investigation of the "convictions and values" held by student personnel adminis- trators [23]. Early in 1969 NASPA conducted an expanded follow-up study to the 1966 investigation by focusing on the "assumptions and beliefs" of student personnel adminis- trators and institutional presidents, faculty members, and 1Throughout the remainder of this study, NASPA refers to the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. students [10]. The purpose of this follow-up study was to provide additional objective data on the "convictions and value orientations" which might determine how these selected members of the academic community respond to some important issues in higher education. The present study, reported herein, represents an attempt to supplement these antecedent NASPA investigations by providing a more systematic method for analyzing, de- fining, and comparing some of the characteristic underlying assumptions and beliefs held by student personnel adminis- trators, institutional presidents, faculty members, and students. Statement of the Problem There seems to be some question whether the various subgroups which comprise higher education are ethnocentric in the assumptions and beliefs they hold regarding certain issues critical to the resolution of campus problems. The premise upon which this study is based is that these con- stituent groups' behavior and responses to campus issues are influenced by the assumptions and beliefs they hold regarding certain crucial issues. In View of the fact that the academic community is being pressed to respond to and resolve some of the crucial issues facing it today, it is essential that we gain a better understanding of these possible variations in group perceptions. Therefore, this study will attempt to: (l) isolate and identify some of the underlying characteristics of a set of selected assumptions and beliefs held by student personnel adminis- trators, institutional presidents, faculty members, and students; (2 V determine whether the above groups differ on these isolated characteristics of assumptions and beliefs; (3) determine whether the assumptions and beliefs held by the above groups are related to the selected demographic variables of institutional type, size, and geographical location. More specifically, this study will attempt to deter- mine in a systematic manner whether: (1) certain meaningful and descriptive characteristics of assumptions and beliefs can be isolated and identified; and (2) whether selected constituent groups in higher education differ or are similar on these underlying characteristics. Purpose of the Study Each student personnel administrator must assume the responsibility for critically examining his own assump- tions and beliefs relative to his role in the educational process. In addition, the student personnel adminis— trator must acquaint himself with the assumptions, beliefs, and expectations held by other constituent groups in higher education. The proposed study is designed to stimulate this process by assisting the student personnel adminis- trator to better understand these phenomena by gathering data on some of the basic assumptions and beliefs held by selected members of the academic community regarding cer— tain significant issues and concerns in higher education. In general, it will be the purpose of this study to pro- vide additional insights into the convictions and value orientations that often determine how selected members of the academic community respond to important issues in the higher educational setting. More specifically, it will be the purpose of this study to determine if there are certain underlying characteristics relative to these assumptions and beliefs which can be isolated and described, and whether certain selected groups in the setting of higher education are similar in their positions regarding these assumptions and beliefs. Need for the Study This inquiry is based on the premise that adminis- trators, faculty, and students make assumptions and hold beliefs that influence their behavior and responses to certain campus issues. The assumption is also made that if such a study facilitates a better understanding of these assumptions and beliefs, then institutions of higher edu— cation will be assisted in gaining a better understanding of the sources of conflict and differences in position among the various members of the academic community. Such a critical investigation of these potential behavioral antecedents could provide assistance to institutions in dealing more effectively with conflict in their settings and enhance the efficacy of each group's contribution to the educational process. In addition, an increased aware— ness of perceptions held by other members of the academic community can provide assistance to the student personnel administrator in better understanding some of the role conflicts that often interfere with his ability to assist students in their personal, social, and academic develop- ment. Definition of Terms The following terms are defined in accordance with the purpose of this investigation: Assumptions and Beliefs.--Assumptions and beliefs in this study will refer to the manner in which the subjects responded to a set of selected and contemporary issues that could affect the role or behavior assumed by the individual subject. Underlying Characteristics.—-Underlying charac- teristics in this study will refer to those factors which result from a principle-component factor analytic exami- nation of each sample group's responses to the set of twenty-seven questions on the study instrument. Sample Groups.--The sample groups utilized in this study will consist of the following individuals from each of the 715 institutions that held institutional membership in the National Association of Student Personnel Adminis- trators at the time the data was collected (November, 1968): the institution's president, the chief student personnel administrator,2 the elected faculty member holding the highest position in the faculty senate or comparable body, the editor of the student newspaper, and the president of the student body. Demographic Variables.—-The demographic variables utilized in the analysis of this investigation's data refer to: type of institution (public, private, church related); size of institution (student enrollment); and geographical location (regional accrediting association). Systematic Manner of Analysis.-—The systematic manner for realizing the objectives of this study refers to the utilization of the statistical methods of: principle component factor analysis and analysis of variance-repeated measures design. 2For purposes of this study the title "Dean of Students" or "Dean" was considered to be synonymous with "Chief Student Personnel Administrator." Hypotheses A basic supposition of this thesis is that the method of analysis chosen for this study will yield an identifiable set of underlying assumptions and beliefs on which the selected groups of student personnel adminis— trators, presidents, faculty members, and students can be compared. The general hypotheses examined in this study are that there are differences in these basic assumptions and beliefs among these groups and that the basic assump- tions and beliefs which are held by these groups are re- lated to the selected demographic variables of institutional type, size, and geographical location. The specific null hypotheses examined in this study are presented in testable form in Chapter III. Limitations of the Study The fact that this research is basically an explora— tory investigation is, in one respect a strength of the study. However, the major strength of the study is that it attempts to provide a systematic statistical analysis of phenomena which have traditionally been the subject of speculative inference which has had relatively little empirical support. The major weaknesses also derive from its explora- tory nature. This study is limited by those variables which are inherent in any investigation which uses a questionnaire to collect the data. Some of these limitations are: difficulty in securing complete cooper— ation of individuals sampled, intentional respondent bias, and the possibility that some respondents may not have been able to adequately or accurately reflect their intent at the time of their response. This study is confined to those institutions having membership in the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators during the time of the data collection. It was assumed that NASPA member insti- tutions provide an adequate sampling of all institutions of higher education in the United States. However, the generalization of the results of this study is limited to those types of institutions which held NASPA membership in November of 1968. Overview of the Study Chapter I has served as an introduction to the problem by outlining the purpose of this study, defining the need for such a study, specifying the limitations for the study, and stating the general hypotheses to be exam- ined. Chapter II summarizes pertinent literature related to the nature of the study. Chapter III presents the de— sign of the investigation, the methodology followed, and the specific hypotheses investigated. Chapter IV provides an analysis and interpretation of the data. Chapter V presents a summary of the findings, conclusions drawn from the findings, relevant implications for higher education, and recommendations for further study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE There is an evident paucity of research which has been specifically designed to investigate the possible diversity of assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes which are Imld by the various constituent groups in higher education. Additionally, there has been an even greater negligence demonstrated by researchers in conducting investigations designed to compare these groups on such dimensions. Hm few studies reported in the literature which are rele- vmm to the present investigation will be reviewed in this chapter. Introduction to the Problem Today college communities are being challenged to examine the roles and behavior which have traditionally been assumed by faculty, students, and administrative per- sonnel. In general, both the process and the content of fins questioning has led to a substantial awareness of mkential and realized conflict between these groups. Sunderland [28] submits that in spite of this challenge UEre has not been a measurable increase in either the 10 11 clarification or modification of such conflict. The apparent lack of success on the part of the college com- munity to resolve this issue suggests that educators are experiencing difficulty in conceptualizing, understanding, and coping with the bases for such conflict. A number of specific and broadly philosophical and conceptual questions are being asked of, and by, indi— viduals within and outside of higher education. Klopf [20] specifically indicates that individuals in student per— sonnel work must determine what the implications are for Ifigher educational practices when the perceptions of students, faculty, and administrators concerning their roles on the campus are investigated and compared. As a professional educator, the student personnel mnker must be alert to institutional diversity. Shaffer D5] advises that educators must work to secure a unity of mupose among the many cultures and forces operating on the campus, and all elements of the college community should seek to relate their purpose to the total process of higher education. Therefore, the desired coherence among the Various participants in higher education will be the re- mflt of increased attempts to foster the clarification, mmerstanding, and acceptance of common goals and efforts. Ibwever, specialists among the faculty, staffs, and stu- dams are often accused of being primarily concerned with Umir Own endeavors. Such diversity of effort contributes tothe resulting fragmentation and lack of coherence in 12 the campus community. Shaffer concludes that the student personnel worker in higher education must be able to re- spond to the ramifications these influences have on the institution and the individual student. And, in this respect, it should be the responsibility of the professional student personnel educator to attempt to understand and facilitate cooperative relationships among all emements of the campus. Recently the Council of student Personnel Adminis- trators concluded that, evidence from a variety of campuses and relationships proportion of colleges and terized by: an atmosphere antagonism among students, sources indicates that the of a disturbingly large universities are charac- of tension, mistrust, and faculty, and administrators; and, an inability to integrate all educational forces within the college community into a coherent, positively directed institutional effort. Hus same document submits that, it would appear that the basis or rationale for develop- ing individual institutional programs to meet current problems, issues, and trends would require the involve- ment and interaction of all interested segments of the educational community; and the role of the president and the student personnel administrator should be to strive for coherence throughout the campus [5]. A recent position paper by NASPA which examined the concept of "student power" [24] concluded that a recognition Of generational differences between collegiate and faculty- adnlinistrative groups is of prime importance. However, primary to a recognition of these generational differences iSan expression of concern about the evident lack of com- munication between these groups. It is presumed that this 13 absence of adequate communication and understanding only serves to accentuate inter-group conflict. Therefore, a major recommendation from this NASPA paper was that action steps must be pursued which will facilitate both "the clarification of critical educational issues and an under- standing of each group's position on these issues." Cross [7], however, has pessimistically hypothesized that campuses are replete with groups of differing opinions and, "it is not possible to speak with any precision about what is upsetting The Students or how The Faculty View various campus issues." Margaret Berry [2] wrote that, in this regard, a "realistic estimate" of inter-institutional diversity is difficult to determine; and "general estimates" are, at best, only impressionistic and unreliable. Therefore, it was her conclusion that the only way to insure "even approximate accuracy" is to examine each campus in its own setting. When this model is used as a guide, she contends flat the results will indicate that each campus supports acultural image that is very often not consistent with the faculty and administrative image of the same setting. It Wmsher impression that each institution displays a "way of life; a tradition, a set of values, and a pattern of cus- toms" that provides the framework for the behavior and e"periences of the various groups in that community. In additiOn, she concluded that the environmental variables d"spJ-aYed on each campus are basically a reflection of the l4 predominant values and pressures of the geographical area in which the institution is located. In concurrance with Berry, Kelly [18] reported that the “cultural-matrix" of a particular campus is the result of the complex inter— action of the beliefs, customs, and mores of the students, faculty, and administrative personnel in that setting. Literature Related to the Assumptions and Beliefs of Various Groups in Higher Education The following studies are relevant, in a general way, to the present investigation and examine the hypothesis flmt the various constituent groups in higher education do differ in the types of attitudes and beliefs they hold re- garding certain campus issues. Related studies are also reviewed which have investigated the possibility that atti— tudes and beliefs are related to the variables of insti- tutional type, size, and geographical location. In a study that attempted to assess the attitudes 0f presidents, academic deans, and students about student discipline, Sillers and Feder [26] concluded that the "en- \dronmenta1 dynamics" of a particular institution have a cmmmn influence on the perceptions of the individuals in that setting. This conclusion was based upon data which Suggested a high degree of intergroup attitudinal similarity and the presence of a significant amount of inter-insti- tutlonal variation in perceptions. 15 In a related study, Hubbell [16] examined the atti- tudes of students, parents, student personnel adminis— trators, and faculty toward student misconduct and the resulting institutional response to student misconduct. The results of this study indicate that there is a significant variation in measured attitudes toward the nature and treatment of college student misconduct. Specifically, student personnel workers were seen to be more lenient than the other groups in both their esti- mation of how universities would and should respond to student misconduct. Additional findings were that the parent group held the most severe perceptions about mis- conduct; the faculty were more similar to the parents; and the students were more like the student personnel administrators in their attitudes. Stern reported [27] additional evidence which sup— ports the hypothesis that institutional diversity is a factor which can be isolated and examined by educational researchers. The data from Stern's study of college en- wxonments confirms that institutions can be categorized Mlvariables such as type, size, and geographical location. Ingeneral, he concluded that these variables are related tothe expectations, beliefs, and behavior of the students, faculty, and staff that comprise such institutions. Dutton, Appleton, and Smith's [11] investigation ofinstitutional policies on controversial topics demon- suated that generally the variables of type of control, 16 size of enrollment and region were not significantly re- lated to any variation in policy formulation among the sampled institutions. However, even though the major hypotheses were not accepted or rejected in their entirety, a number of differences among institutions were evident when individual policies were examined. For example, regional variations suggested that North Central schools tend to be more concerned about regulatory issues; whereas the New England institutions tend to be more "liberal" regarding matters of student regulations. The authors of this study concluded that, . . . essentially all of the respondents felt that the president, academic dean, and chief student personnel officer considered social conduct regulations to be an expression of the particular value system which the institution accepted, as well as a means of achieving order in the academic community. In other words, they took the position that inculcation of behavioral standards is a part of the learning process. In examining the possible relationships between the hmtitutional variables of type of control, size, and region with institutional approaches to the adjudication Ofstudent misconduct, Dutton, Smith and Zarle [12] con- cluded that regional location and type of institutional Control were by far the most influential factors in deter- Ifining institutional differences in adjudication procedures. HoweVer, size of enrollment was significantly related to certain adjudication procedures. The most common pattern Observed was that public institutions show the greatest concern for the development of procedures that assure fair 17 treatment of the student. Additionally, protestant schools appeared to be less supportive in the development of pro- cedures that would provide maximum protection for the stu- dent. When the variable of region was examined, Western institutions demonstrated the strongest commitment to pro- cedures designed to assure the respect of basic student rights in the adjudication of conduct problems. Southern hmtitutions seemed to provide "reasonable" protection of students' rights in adjudication, but appeared to be less concerned about providing for confidentiality of records and were more inclined to act against a student when off- Campus violations occur. New England schools provided for the protection of students against infringements from non— institutional agencies but maintained adjudication pro- cedures that are less protective of student rights. Generally, large institutions evidenced more pro— tection than small schools. Concern for the protection of the student was more evident among public institutions in the West and among institutions with more than 5,000 stu- dents. The conclusion was submitted that institutions Which are public, located in the West and have an enroll- ment greater than 5,000 display conduct procedures that reflect efforts to assure fair treatment of the student. The American Council on Education's three-year Study on campus disruption [4] reported a number of find— ings that suggest there are identifiable characteristics 18 that differentiate institutions on the variable of "proneness to disruptions." The conclusion of this research suggested that when the variables of "control and types" were examined disruptive protest was more likely to occur at private uni- versities, coeducational colleges, and public four—year colleges. Specifically, 70 per cent of the private uni- versities compared to 40 per cent of the public universities experienced disruptive protests. Violent protest was three to four times more likely in the public or private none sectarian four-year colleges than in church-related insti- tutions. The data also indicated that major protest inci- dents are least likely to occur among the nation's two—year colleges. This same study reported that when “size of insti- tution" was examined the general conclusion was that size (total enrollment) is highly related to the probability of Hmjor campus protest incidents, but that the nature of the relationship is confounded with type of institutional con- trol. Generally, major campus unrest is most prevalent in large schools. Specifically, large institutions (greater than 5,000 students) of either type were more prone to disruption than intermediate size institutions (1,000 to 5,000 students). Similarly, the intermediate size insti- tutions were more likely to experience disruption than the Small institution (less than 1,000 students). In summary, Astin and Boyer reported in their American Council on Education Study that institutions which 19 experienced more disruption and violent protest tended to be universities, coeducational colleges, and public colleges; while institutions that had fewer protests than would be expected tended to be four-year colleges, techni- cal schools, liberal arts colleges, and private non- sectarian colleges. These researchers concluded [4] on He basis of these findings that "unrest is in part a re- sponse to a feeling that the welfare of the individual student is slighted" and that protest prone institutions can be characterized as having environments which were incohesive. Moreover, students and faculty had little involvement in the classrooms; students were not on warm and friendly terms with the instructors . . . and these insti- tutions had relatively permissive policies concerning student regulations. A study conducted by NASPA is of specific relevance to the present investigation. The Research and Publications Division of NASPA conducted an exploratory investigation of the assumptions and beliefs of student personnel adminis- trators [23]. This exploratory study provided the basic mOdel from which the present investigation was developed. The results of this investigation suggested that Student personnel administrators concur that: (1) the guarantee of an appellate hearing is an essential pro- cedural safeguard against the possible abuse of authority; (2) it is the primary responsibility of the student per— sonnel administrator to consistently support the central functions of teaching and research; (3) it is important for the student personnel administrator to maintain both ’4 It 20 his integrity and his loyality to the central administration even when the president, academic dean, or business manager have made decisions which are unpopular with students; (4) the assumption that the student functions as a unit and cannot be separated into "intellect" and "the rest of the person" is the major justification for the claim to an educational role for student personnel administrators; and (5) the freedom to make personal decisions and to shoulder the responsibilities of citizenship is an optimal condition for student maturation. The results from this study also reported that the respondents in the study did not agree on: (1) whether or not social conduct regulations are anything more than devices for maintaining order; (2) whether or not the con- sensus attitudes of faculty and students should be a domi- nant consideration in the establishment or review of social conduct regulations; and (3) whether or not there are areas 0f college policy or decision-making to which students necessarily cannot make significant contributions. In an investigation that compared the attitudes of parents, students, faculty members, and student personnel educators regarding the university's relationship with Students, Crookston [6] reported that "highly significant Statistical differences" existed between the groups on all attitudinal areas examined. In the area of educational philosophy, the results specifically indicated that there seems to be no central preference by parents, students, 21 and student leaders regarding an educational philosophy. However, faculty members tended to hold a “rationalist philosophy"; while student personnel educators were con- sidered to be "neo-humanist in their orientation.“ In examining attitudes concerned with academic freedom, Crookston found that on a dimension of "liberalness" the student leaders were consistently the most liberal of the groups sampled and they were followed by the student per- sonnel educators, faculty, students in general, and then the parents. A general conclusion offered by this study was that parental attitudes represent the most restrictive position. Parents are followed by the faculty whose atti- tudes seemed to resemble parents more than any other group. The student personnel educators and students-in-general appear to have very similar attitudes; while student leaders represent the most liberal attitudinal position among the groups on the areas of academic freedom, edu- cational philosophy, social conduct, and student self- government. Crookston concluded that the data suggests that because student personnel educators work closely with Students, they seem to operate from a somewhat different "set of assumptions about higher education than their academic colleagues." Such an awareness led Crookston to Conclude that "it is small wonder that student personnel workers are experiencing difficulty communicating with their academic friends." 22 Another investigation which has relevant impli- cations for the present study is NASPA's 1968 "Investi- gation of the Assumptions and Beliefs of Selected Members of the Academic Community" [10]. The purpose of this study was to investigate how institutional presidents, student personnel deans, faculty members, student body presidents, and student newspaper editors responded to questions about certain campus issues. A questionnaire was developed with items "logically" grouped into the following three cate- gories: the responsibilities and administrative behavior of student personnel deans; the student and the educational process; and decision making and university governance. A chi-square analysis of each item on the question- naire indicated that the five groups were different on all but one of the eleven items related to the "responsibilities and administrative behavior of student personnel deans." The results also indicated that the five groups differed on all of the items grouped to measure beliefs relevant to the involvement of members of the academic community in decision making and governance and that the five groups differed on all but four of the items which were designed to measure attitudes relevant to the "student and the educational pro- cess." In a study related to this NASPA investigation, Birch [3] concluded that when chief student personnel administrators were examined on the variables of type, // ,/////, 23 size, and enrollment of institution, there is an apparent consensus in the assumptions and beliefs of these indi- viduals. Birch reported that the few significant differ- ences on individual questionnaire items which were found "do not warrent rejection of the null hypothesis" and that there are no differences in assumptions and beliefs among chief student personnel administrators according to: type, location, and size of institution. The greatest number of differences that did occur were found when the variables of regional location were examined; however, these differences existed in less than 19 per cent of the items examined. Birch concluded that a need exists for additional research that would examine the degree of relationship be— tween the beliefs of chief student personnel administrators and others in the university community on issues that affect the total university setting. He submitted that a general perception in higher education seems to be that the beliefs held by student personnel administrators are not consistent with those held by other members of the uni- versity community and that additional research needs to be completed to determine the compatibility of beliefs within the community. Summary Generally, the literature emphasizes the common thesis that there is a need to clarify and understand the perceptions, beliefs, and assumptions which are held by 24 the various groups in higher education. Specifically, however, there is no clear unanimity in the conclusions presented by the variety of research efforts which have attempted to investigate such variables. A few studies conclude that the diversity between institutions is, in fact, greater than the variation be- tween the different groups which comprise institutions of higher education. Such results support the hypothesis that institutions can be differentiated on variables such as type, size, and geographical region and that these vari— ables are related to the expectations, beliefs, and be- haviors of the students, faculty, and staff in such set— tings. In those few studies which did not find a signifi- cant relationship between certain demographic variables and group attitudes, there was enough evidence to cause the researchers to "suspect" the possibility of such a re— lationship. Therefore, past research evidence seems to support the hypothesis that the variables of type, size, and location of institution may be related to the kinds of beliefs and assumptions which are held by the various groups in higher education. The research literature generally supports the hypothesis that faculty, students, and staff vary in the kinds of assumptions and beliefs they hold about selected issues in higher education. In this respect, the variation in reported results seems to be dependent upon the types _ __._._-.- _ 25 of issues that were investigated. Generally, the litera— UKe suggests that student personnel workers and students express similar assumptions and beliefs on dimensions such as liberalness, leniency in regulations, and educational wfilosophy; while, faculty and other administrative per- sonnel are more alike in their views about selected issues in higher education. In conclusion, the results of previous investi- gations suggest that there is general support for the hy— potheses under investigation in this study. However, be- cause of the diversity of methodological approaches and the variety of attitudes and beliefs examined, no clear and pervasive conclusions are evident from the results of reported research. CHAPTER I I I DES I GN AND METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study was to analyze, define, and compare some of the characteristic underlying assump- tions and beliefs held by student personnel administrators, institutional presidents, faculty members, and students. It was an additional purpose of this study to determine whether the assumptions and beliefs held by these groups were related to the selected demographic variables of insti— tutional type, size, and geographical location. This in- vestigation was conducted as a supplemental study to an anteCedent research project [10] sponsored by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA). The present investigation's survey instrument and the samples of student editors, student presidents, faculty members : institutional presidents, and chief student per— sonnel administrators were used simultaneously with the NASPA study. This chapter presents a discussion of the nature of the _ . . Samples, the research instrument, the adm1nis- trat - ion of the instrument, the specific hypotheses 26 27 examined, and the methods of analysis utilized in this study. Nature of the Sample Those colleges and universities holding insti- thtional membership in NASPA in November of 1968 were used ;ir) this investigation as the source for the data collection. git: the time the study was initiated, 715 institutions of f1j_gher education held institutional membership in NASPA. It mnembership list provided by the Association's central c>1§1§ice was divided by type of institution, location of i_r125titution, and size of institution by referring to the September 1968 edition of Accredited Institutions of Him .ECiIJJCation (American Council on Education). A comparison C>f5 ‘the characteristics of the participating sample groups VVj.1:}1 the 715 NASPA member institutions is shown in Table l. lrllée sample groups used in this study consisted of the ECDJ-lxawing individuals from each of the 715 institutions: itllfia institution's president, the chief student personnel a'dJmli-nistrator, the faculty member holding the highest ele(Eted position on the faculty senate or comparable body, the editor of the student newspaper, and the president of the student body. Instrumentation The model for the questionnaire which was developed f ()1: ‘use in this investigation was initially used by NASPA 1. r1 a.preliminary study of the assumptions and beliefs of 28 hvm 0mm mow mmv hmv man Z HMDOB n.0a m.HH H.HH m.oa n.0H m.oa cucummz zuuoz \suoumoz m.nm m.mm N.vv o.ov m.Hv o.ov Hmuucou Euuoz m.om m.ma v.ma m.om m.ma m.ma nudom N.nm n.mm m.mm H.>m m.wm o.mm oaucmHum manta: \UcmHmcm 3oz QOAmom H.mH m.oa m.na m.ma H.ma n.ma ooo.oa swap who: o.ha m.ma n.0a H.ma N.BH N.mH ooo.oa ou ooo.m o.mm n.mm m.Hm m.m~ m.mm v.am ooo.m on oom.H o.mm o.nm m.mm N.mm N.mm m.mm oom.H cosh mmmq oNfim v.m N.m m.NH m.n m.oa m.oa Honuo w.ma m.NH m.na e.ma H.ma m.ma ucmpmououm v.va N.mH m.ma N.vH m.ma H.va UHHOHDMU m.wm N.hm m.om N.HN m.om o.om ucopcwmmccH m.nm m.vm o.mm m.mm m.vm v.om oaandm mmNB muouflcm mucwcflmoum ucocsum ucmpsum mucocflmoum apasomm mecca uswu Mom I1€3rmmena form the basis for these items. Area III: Standards of Behavior and Social Conduct Rfagzlllations.~-This area contains items that pertain to rfisylllations and standards governing student behavior (in- <3111éackets containing the questionnaires to his president, tzluee appropriate faculty member, the editor of his campus's 551:11dent newspaper, and the president of his student body. E321<:h individual participant was instructed to return his czc>rnpleted questionnaire directly to the NASPA investi- czaitzors. A self-addressed return envelope was included for e ach respondent . A follow-up letter was sent to each of the chief Sllllcient personnel administrators approximately one and a 11511f months after the initial mailing. This follow-up mailing requested each chief student personnel adminis- tlréitxbr to remind the other participants on his campus to CCDHHELlete their questionnaires if not already completed. ' 2X total of 2,032 questionnaires were returned for use in t 11g; Study. This represented a return of approximately 6 0 per cent. A goodness of fit comparison was made by type, s’ 12%, and region between each sample group which partici- E>Eitl€5d in the study and the total NASPA membership at the 32 time of the study to determine whether the sample was representative of the NASPA membership. The results of the chi-square analysis (Table 2) indicate that the only groups which did not appear to be representative of NASPA rnember institutions were the student presidents and stu- cient editors by type of institutional control. CFQABLE 2.--Goodness of fit comparison of sample groups with NASPA membership. Chi Square Values Groups Type Size Region E)eezins 1.39 2.67 .98 F‘aiczulty 6.07 l.l9 .94 I>Ireesidents 2.54 1.52 4.45 Student Presidents 10.77* 4.56 1.97 Student Editors 10.77* 2.42 .86 'k p < .05 Therefore, it is questionable to conclude that the Student presidents and editors were representative of the 2% of institutions which were members of NASPA at the 'tiJnei of the study. The remaining chi-square results sup— pCDITt- the conclusion that the sample groups were repre— s . . earltlative of NASPA membership at the t1me of the study. 33 Hypotheses: General and Specific The general hypotheses examined in this investi- gation were that student editors, student presidents, faculty members, chief student personnel administrators, sand institutional presidents differ in the assumptions and kaeliefs they hold about selected campus issues and that 1:11e assumptions and beliefs held by these groups are re- 1_21ted to the selected demographic variables of institutional type, size, The specific hypotheses examined in this study were: I. II. III. IV. and geographical region. No differences will be found in the basic assumptions and beliefs held by the sample groups of institutional presidents, chief student personnel administrators, faculty members, student editors, and student presi- dents. No differences will be found in the basic assumptions and beliefs held by student editors when the student editors are grouped by the demographic variables of institutional type, size, and geographical region. No differences will be found in the basic assumptions and beliefs held by student presidents when the student presidents are grouped by the demographic variables of institutional type, size, and geographical region. No differences will be found in the basic assumptions and beliefs held by the faculty members when the faculty members are grouped by the demographic variables of institutional type, size, and geographical region. No differences will be found in the basic assumptions and beliefs held by chief student personnel administrators when the chief student personnel administrators are grouped by the demographic variables of institutional type, size, and geographical region. 34 VI. No differences will be found in the basic assumptions and beliefs held by institutional presidents when the institutional presidents are grouped by the demographic variables of instutitional type, size, and geographical region. Methods of Analysis In the past, a number of attempts have been made tn: compare and describe the type of data represented in {21115 study. However, to date, most attempts have been J_jJnited in the techniques and methods utilized for such an jLIinestigation. Generally, most studies have relied upon r1c>11-parametric item-by—item analyses as the technique for Claitza analysis. This study will attempt to provide a r:e3L1.iab1e, more powerful, and parsimonious investigation k>§r utilizing the methods of factor analysis and analysis (>15 ‘Variance to identify and compare the possible underlying aSsumptions and beliefs measured by this investigation's queStionnaire. Factor analysis was chosen for this study because: (1) it is a parsimonious analytic tool, and (2) th j—S a method that can be used to explore and to identify fundamental underlying variables or properties from n sets of measures [19]. Additionally, the results from the faic=tkbr analytic method can provide the data for a more powerful method of making group comparisons. In this re- giil361, factor scores are considered to be a more reliable d . . . €31pendent variable than Single item scores; and an ana1y51s (>15 . . . variance of factor scores w111 prov1de a more powerful 35 approach to group comparisons than a non-parametric item- by-item comparison.l Specifically the analysis consisted of the follow- ing three basic steps: 1. A principle—component factor analysis was con- ciucted on the questionnaire responses for the total sample c>f 2 032 subjects in an attempt to isolate and identify 1:11C6e factors which represent underlying groupings of the rneeeasured assumptions and beliefs. The computation of the IEEicztor analyses was completed by using the Michigan State [Jr1;iversity Computer Institute for Social Science Research P>1f12>gram, Factor A: Principle Components and Orthogonal RC) tations [29] . 2. Factor scores were computed for each of the 2 r (3:32 subjects by using the Michigan State University Com— F’llftleer Institute for Social Science Research program, ELEEJEifigor C: Oblique Rotations of Factor Matrices, Varimax [8]. EESELEE___tion, and Factor Scores Com mputations 3. The individual factor scores generated from ‘t . ‘k1‘33 Factor C program were used as the data input to a Siea - . . 3Til—es of repeated measures analy51s of var1ance compari- s (Earls; for the purpose of investigating the specific null 11§fpotheses . \ 1Statement by Dr. Andrew C. Porter, Office of Re- Uifil‘ch Consultation, College of Education, Michigan State jL‘Versity, personal interview. ' T__T______T_T_TTT___T__T__T____TTT_T__T_______________________________I]IIIlIIIIIE"'- 36 The specific analysis of variance procedures were completed by use of the repeated measures analysis of variance program, entitled Profile. This program was supplied by the Office of Research Consultation of the Michigan State University College of Education. The Scheffe' method for post hoc multiple comparison “Has used to examine all mean comparisons in conjunction vngth the analysis of variance procedures [15]. Summary The present study was conducted in conjunction with at Iruare pervasive research project sponsored by the National 2353.55c3ciation of Student Personnel Administrators. The 5‘51111131es for the present study consisted of student editors, S'tlllcient presidents, institutional presidents, faculty mem— k>€32ETSS, and chief student personnel administrators from NASPA "1€311113er institutions. The data was collected in the fall of 1968 and Vw:i*r11:er of 1969 by means of a questionnaire designed to “‘63‘5153ure the subjects' assumptions and beliefs relative to a. SBEEt of selected issues in higher education. It was hy- E><>”t111esized that the sample groups differ in their basic asslilmptions and beliefs and that these assumptions and btheses of the study by applying the method of factor an es"*ZLysis to items of a questionnaire which was developed 38 to sample the beliefs and assumptions which various groups in higher education hold about certain selected issues in higher education. Specifically the study had three objectives: (1) to ascertain the factor structure of a set of selected assumptions and beliefs held by stu- dent personnel administrators, institutional presidents, faculty members, and students; (2) to determine whether an analysis of variance procedure would detect any differences in a comparison of the above groups' scores on the identified factors; (3) to determine whether the procedure of analysis of variance would detect any relationship be- tween the identified factors and the selected demographic variables of institutional type, size, and geographical location. Factor Analysis Results Responses to the study questionnaire were corre- l‘Ea*t1111d be included to adequately sample the underlying c11153racteristic assumptions and beliefs which seemed to t1é33\7e relevant and logical meaning for this study. Individual item loadings equal to or greater than ° :3 C) were used in this study for purposes of identifying £1r1<3_ logically describing the three factors presented in Tall:>J_e 3. Kerlinger [l9] emphasizes that there is no generally accepted method for setting a criterion level 15(3317 factor loadings. He suggests that loadings between .30 Ell)‘:1 .40 are acceptable and often used by factor analysts. T‘ . . . . :rl‘e loadings which met the .30 cr1ter1on level are under— lined in Table 3. The selection of the three factors was based on a l<:>§3TiAcal content analysis of each item which loaded at .30 C>J:h Sireater on a particular factor. This procedure facili- tlea‘1:<3d the assignment of a rational and functional defini- t ‘ :1“:>11 to each of the three factors identified. This same 9):. <:Jcedure was applied to two, four, five, and six factor TABLE 3.--Principle component factor matrix--rotated factor 41 loadings of the twenty-seven questionnaire items on each factor. Factors Items Questionnaire I II III 1 0.0117 0.5179 -0.0188 2 -0.4211 —0.0346 0.1334 3 -0.ll78 0.4088 —0.1859 4 -0.ll95 0.0394 0.4261 5 -0.3324 0.1950 0.3319 6 -0.2119 —0.ll79 —0.1001 7 0.2028 0.3876 0.0069 8 0.0454 0.0525 -0.4439 9 -0.4156 0.0082 0.4665 10 -0.0253 0.3050 0.2546 11 0.0270 0.4726 0.1089 12 0.0126 0.4534 -0.l797 13 -0.5125 -0.0546 0.3321 14 -0.5545 -0.0867 0.0613 15 -0.4210 0.0934 -0.0976 16 -0.0352 0.1567 0.3576 17 0.0307 0.0404 -0.2194 18 —0.4058 0.0865 -0.1281 19 -0.2598 0.1424 -0.4842 20 -0.ll66 0.2973 -0.3924 21 -0.0982 0.2611 -0.2860 22 0.0384 0.2964 -0.l706 23 0.5653 0.2433 -0.2445 24 —0.4374 0.1802 -0.0051 25 —0.l885 0.3160 0.1030 26 —0.0812 -0.0225 0.5234 27 -0.0485 0.0937 —0.5934 42 A "logical" comparison of these multiple factor solutions. solutions seemed to support the conclusion that the three factor solution provided the most parsimonious solution and would, therefore, meet the objectives of this study better than any other factor solution. An additional attempt was made to verify the xralidity of the above logical approach to the selection ()1? the three factor solution by employing a statistical .n1éethod which compares factors between studies based upon This approach reported by Kaiser, different individuals. fitlxuka and Bianchini [l7] yielded a measure of relationship between all factors under consideration. The actual com— E>éatriison in this study was conducted by use of the Fortran EZEEIEZSIram for Relating Factors Between Studies Based onn F MATCH. This program was supplied ‘Di f ferent Individuals: hifi’ t:he Office of Research Consultation in the Michigan S'tl€11:e University College of Education. The actual factor comparisons were completed by C:C>r1':i'ucting a separate factor analysis for each sample gttr<>11p's questionnaire responses. The results of these 8 . GEVE>Eirate factor analyses served as the input data to the F‘ ‘-—£!£§LEEQ procedures. The purpose of this procedure was to determine yr . hlch factor solution yielded the smallest number of f‘ actors that would best describe the underlying assumptions at 1n1(3_ beliefs for each group. In this method all possible E> . est:L-rs of the five sample groups' factors were compared by 43 the F MATCH program for two, three, four, and five factor solutions. In each case a correlation coefficient was com- puted as a measure of the relationship between each factor for each of the sample groups. In essence, this method indicated whether any two factors in different groups were Ineasuring the same basic and characteristic assumption and belief. The three factor solution clearly yielded the s;t:xongest degree of relationship between the factors ex- tzzréacted for the five sample groups. As can be seen in HTEilale 4 the correlation coefficients in most of the com— E>éagriisons were between .70 and .98. The conclusion drawn :ETITCDIn these results was that the same three factors could be E<3>11r1d in each of the five sample groups. Subsequently, “7116311 the results of the statistical and "logical" methods fECDZET identifying the most parsimonious factor solution were EBD Ebrovide the most useful approach for the present study's pu JCZE>oses . Identification of the Three Factors The method of factor analysis attempts to analyze El S3€Et of observations by determining whether the variations IT‘EEZEDX‘esented by the observations' intercorrelations can be aL<:=<3<3unted for adequately by a number of basic categories SSITIEiller than that with which the investigation began [13]. Q? IdleErefore, data obtained from a large number of a priori TABLE 4.--Inter-group factor comparison for all possible pairs of sample groups indicating strength of relationship (correlation) between factors for three factor solution. Student Student PreSidents Student Deans Editors I II III PreSi- II III _ dents F t I .6327 .2238 .7414 I .5861 .4708 ' II .7737 .2248 .5924' II .1129 .7584 III .0341 .9483 .3154 III .8023 .4507 Eitudent Faculty Student PreSIdents Editors PreSl- I II III dents I II III . I .3208 .0488 .9459 I ' .6767 .3200 .6631 I II .2634 .9639 .0397 II .1957 .9464 .2570 * JZII .9098 .2619 .3220 III .7098 .0442 .7030 53i211dent Deans Faculty Deans E . dltors I II III I II III I .0850 .9749 .2058 I .1598 .2127 .9640 DESI .9198 .0026 .3924 II .9867 .0060 .1623 JIIJE I .3831 .2227 .8965 III .0287 .9771 .2108 Student PreSidents F lt PreSIdents jL tors acu y I II III I II III \ I .9133 .3558 .1982 I .1274 .9762 .1756 HELI .1837 .0744 .9802 II .3282 .2085 .9213 I :I: I .3634 .9316 .0026 III .9360 .0597 .3469 \ I: tudent Faculty Presidents esi- Deans dents I II III I II III \ I .3601 .7799 .5119 I .2947 .2953 .9088 III .9324 .2829 .2249 II .9519 .1741 .2521 III .0306 .5583 .8291 III .0838 .9394 .3324 \ E- 45 measures may be explained in terms of a smaller number of reference variables. The results of factor analysis serve as indirect and descriptive evidence for underlying enti- ties and the interpretation of such entities represents a descriptive and tentative categorizing of such hypotheti- cal variables [22]. The resultant factors are statisti- czally derived unities which must be interpreted by examining tile content of those specific items which maintain "high" .l<>adings on the individual factors. In the end, the fact Inllst be recognized that the placing of “labels" and "names" (>11 each factor is a descriptive process which is based on t:11éaerJasive interpretations of the factors are basically £5111:>:jective processes. Such processes represent parsi— nnc>r1;ious attempts to identify constructs or hypothetical Llrilixtzies which presumably underlie individual performance [19], $§§1521350r I--Degree of Institutional Erillilgglvement in the Educational -£EZ£E:£EEE§§ Factor I appears to reflect the beliefs an indi- \r ’ . . . JL‘illlal holds about the degree of direct and obVious in- Vr C>:l—\rement the institution should or should not have in the e: Ci‘qdcational process. This factor seems to represent how an i. . r1<3dLvidual feels about the extent and degree of involve— It; Iatllt: an institution should have directly or indirectly """W ._———- 46 through its agents in effecting change or influencing the direction of change in students. The items which have high loadings on this factor seem to examine whether an individual feels an institution should or should not be involved in the process of effecting an intended, immedi- ate, or future Change in the non-academic aspects of an iJidividual student's experience in higher education. Generally, this factor seems to involve beliefs aakaout an institution's involvement in the following areas: ESIICHJld an institution of higher education have some basic éiIlci direct affect on the student's non-academic develop- nnear1t; and should the institution be concerned with the "€311;forcement of moral standards," the "social maturity 5111(3 value development of the individual student," the inte- EIITEartion of attempts to influence the development of a stu— <1€313rtfs values and social maturity with the academic pro- gilTéixm, the planned manipulation of the institutional earl‘ftironment with the intention of supporting student CleaV'eelopment; and should the institution attempt to in- 13:1”Klfience students to adopt values which are held to be in:‘IEZKDrtant by the institution? Individuals who scored relatively high on this fa‘cz‘tor tended to believe that the institution should be Ei<::1:dively and directly involved in an attempt to influence tllrl‘i non-academic development of the individual student. ES‘;‘<=h a score reflected a belief that the university or <:=<3:llege should indirectly by its policies or directly 47 through its official agents attempt to effect change in the student's moral, value, and social beliefs. Factor II——Benefits of the Institutional-Student Relationship Whereas Factor's I and III are considered to be process oriented factors, Factor II is more content or Stibstantive oriented with regard to the relationship which seacists between the institution and the student and the aiiffect of this relationship upon the student and the insti- 1:111:ion. In essence, Factor II assesses the strength of 121162 individual's beliefs about whether the "climate" of 1:1163 educational process should be devoted primarily to the "§IJ:<3wth" of the individual student or to the facilitation <>fr ea mutually productive environment for both the insti— t2111:;ion and the student. A rational interpretation of the j-tleexrfi which have high loadings on this factor seemed to be cc>r1<:erned with whether the relationship between the student Eir1(3_ the institution exists solely for the benefit of the S17-‘-1dent and his individual needs or whether the insti- tru11t-5Lon should benefit in any appreciable manner from the reg:l—Eationship. Low scores on Factor II appeared to be re— L . . . . a"tZ-ead to the belief that poliCies, procedures, and relation- 3 - ]:l3LI;s should exist basically and primarily for the stu~ Cl . . . ea'l'l‘ti's benefit. In a bi—polar sense, this factor assesses t; 1:163 individual's beliefs about whether the educational E> . . :t:<>cess as eVIdenced in Factors I and III should be L‘ 48 responsive more to the needs of the student or the institution. Some of the items which met the criterion level for loading on this factor seemed to reflect beliefs about whether the personal relationship between the institution and the student should take priority over the performance <>f administrative tasks, whether the institution's primary CHDmmitment should be to the individual needs of the stu- cieant, whether the dean of students should disassociate IliJnself from unpopular decisions made by the president and (31:11ers so that students might feel they have "friend in C3C>L1rt," whether depersonalization in higher education is 17€3.1Hated to an increasing number of "lower echelon" staff Infiernloers inserted between the student and top-level adminis- tllféastors, and whether the only justification for student C=C>Ilrl<fluct regulations is that they prohibit behavior which j-ijtleerferes with student growth and development. Individuals who scored relatively high1 on this ffEi<=P120r tended to believe that the student should not be tlflea: only benefactor from the institutional-student relation— ship. A high score on this factor suggests that the E><2hJLlicies, procedures, and institutional-student relationship \ f1:i‘ lThe subject's item responses were keyed so that a h>15r€111 score indicated disagreement with the belief expressed S;<:: ‘the individual questionnaire items. Therefore, higher 3‘ c>res on this factor imply disagreement with the under- :i'jsng belief represented by this factor. h‘ _‘—— 49 should be, at least, reciprocal in their effects on the institution and the student. Factor III—-Institutional Stability Factor III appears to be a factor which assesses the beliefs an individual holds about the university or <:ollege as an organization. This factor reflects what Ciross and Grambsch [l4] identify as the "support or In a general sense, adaption goals" of the institution. C3IRDSS and Grambsch imply that such a dimension seems to be <2<311cerned with the "management goals" of an institution. 5311(211 a factor specifically examines areas of concern such who should be involved in the decision-making process, 5153 : and who should establish vw11c> should run the university, tiflea priorities regarding which goals should be given nnéi>IT<3><2ess and administrative in orientation than the more ESL113>SStantively oriented items which comprise Factor II. B‘Ei<:=1:or III appears to be a factor which reflects an indi- ‘er‘illaal's beliefs about the importance of the administrative E>):‘:><:ess and the need for institutional stability. Additional items which had high loadings on this if a‘Qtor reflected beliefs about whether the dean of stu— 61 . . . . . . ’ ‘Eilltz's responSibilities to the preSIdent should conSIstently t: Eilie precedence over his personal convictions, whether the ix. ll 50 dean of students should be responsible for upholding standards which are too sensitive by their nature to be stated in a specific code of conduct, whether there is a direct relationship between a dean of student's effective- ness and his over-concern with maintenance of control and order, whether the dean of students should devote much attention to the enforcement of regulations, whether the academic institution has such a specific purpose that the behavior of its participants must be restricted in special ways, whether exceptions to policy only reinforce un- acceptable behavior, whether it is more advisable to under- delegate than to over-delegate responsibilities to stu— dents, whether students should not be involved in top- level institutional policy decisions because they lack Sufficient maturity, and whether the present climate of Cij-Ssent has had a negative impact on higher education. The individual who is assessed as having a high ScOre on Factor III tends to believe in a relative manner that the administrative processes of an institution are not of primary importance and that the stability of the individual institution should not be a primary concern of the process of higher education. A high score could be interpreted rationally as meaning that there is too much concern with the establishment and implementation of pro- QQQUIes and policies, while not enough effort is directed t(3"‘7ard the ramifications of such pehnomena on the edu- Q e‘~"=J‘.onal process itself . _.." ‘5? 51 Between Group Comparisons The results of the repeated measures analysis of variance (Table 5) and the one-way analysis of variance (Table 6) have indicated rejection of the null hypothesis that no differences would be found between the sample groups' assumptions and beliefs as reported in this in- vestigation. The results of the repeated measures analysis of variance Clearly indicated that there is a significant main effect. This suggests that the five sample groups did differ in the characteristic underlying assumptions and beliefs they held as represented by Factors I, II, and III reported in this study. The significant main and interaction effects sug- gest that the group effects reported in Table 5 are not Constant across groups and factors. In order to more clearly ascertain where the group differences existed a Series of one-way analysis of variance tests were con- ducted on each of the three factors. Scheffe's multiple cc>1t1parison test was used in conjunction with any signifi— Cant one-way analysis of variance results in order to C:"‘e":ermine the exact group differences. As can be seen from Table 6 the five sample groups aha different on each of the three factors used in this tudy. SpeCIfic group comparisons for Factor I results at . he presented in Table 7. The results of the Scheffe com- p.Qz'i‘isons for Factor I show that the college presidents ‘b. . Ql'lded to believe more strongly than the other groups that 52 ,"t TABLE 5.——Repeated measures analysis of variance of factor / scores for the five sample groups on Factors I, II, and III. 5. Source df MS F Total 6095 .682 ——- Groups 4 27.259 70.44* S-Groups 2027 .387 --- Rep Meas 2 .602 .87 12 G , 8 54.901 78.88* IRES-(3 4054 .696 --— *p < .01 TABLE 6.--One-way analysis of variance of the sample group mean scores on each of the three factors. Source df MS F @9254 Groups 4 96.128 * Igzrrror 6081 .593 162'105 W C§Jz~oups 4 7.619 * Error 6081 .593 12’848 F W Groups 4 33 066 ' ‘k Error 6081 .593 55"“ \ *p < .01 ‘ f 53 TABLE 7.--Scheffe multiple comparison analysis of sample group mean differences on Factor I. Groups Groups X Student Student Deans Faculty Presidents Editors Presidents .457 .081 . 42 .949 1.080 Deans .376 .2 1 .868 .999 Faculty .115 .607 .738 Student Presidents -4.92 .131 Student Editors -.623 Combined Comparisons Groups Groups Student Groups Faculty Presidents + Deans + Faculty 2.634 Faculty .7 3 Presidents + Deans . 02 Underlined mean differences significant at p < .01. 54 the institution should be actively and directly involved in the non-academic development of the student. The dean of students group was not significantly different from the presidents, but both the presidents and the deans were significantly different from the other groups. The faculty were different from both groups of students, but the two student groups were not different from each other. When the groups of presidents, deans, and faculty members were jointly compared against the combined groups of students the results indicate that the three "staff" groups scored significantly higher than the students on the factor representing institutional involvement in the educational process. Additional combined comparisons indi- cated that the faculty were different from the students and the combined groups of presidents and deans maintained a significantly higher score on Factor I than the faculty. Clearly these results suggest that there are identifiable differences between the sample groups in how much they believe the institution should be involved in attempting to influence the non-academic dimensions of a student's higher educational experience. College presi- dents held the strongest agreement with such a belief. And, the deans of students were not different from this chief administrative group on this factor. The groups of faculty members, student body presidents, and student editors tended to disagree with the belief represented in Factor I. 55 Specific group comparison results for Factor II are presented in Table 8. The results of the Scheffe com— parisons show that the college presidents tended to believe more strongly than the other groups that the relationship between the institution and the student should have recipro- cal value for the university or college as well as the student and that there are often certain situations where the primary commitment should not be to the individual stu- dent. The dean of students group was not different from the presidents on this factor. However, the presidents' group was different from the other three sample groups. The deans and the faculty were not different, from the students. The combined groups of students and faculty were significantly lower on Factor II than the combined groups of presidents and deans. This result suggests that the "non-administrative" sample groups tended to believe that the relationship between the institution and the student should exist more for the student's benefit than the insti- tutions'. Additional combined group comparisons indicated that the student groups scored lower than the non-student groups, and the faculty group scored lower than the ad- ministrative groups. Generally, these results suggest that there are discernable and significant differences between the sample groups in the manner in which they View the relationship between the institution and the student. The chief 56 TABLE 8.--Scheffe multiple comparison analysis of sample group mean differences on Factor II. Groups NI Groups Student Student Deans Faculty Presidents Editors Presidents .167 .084 .156 O N \0 KO 0 OJ 00 CD Deans .083 .072 o N H U1 0 N U1 h Faculty .011 O [.1 ,b b») O [.4 (I) N Student Presidents -.l32 .039 Student Editors -.l7l Combined Comparisons Groups Groups Deans + Presidents Students Student Editors + Student Presidents -.668 Presidents + Deans + Faculty — 714 Faculty .114 7 N Underlined mean differences significant at p < .01. 57 administrative group tended to display a greater dis- agreement with the belief that the student should be the sole or major benefactor from the relationship between the institution and the student. However, the deans of students were similar to the presidents in the strength and direction of their belief on this factor. The deans I and the faculty were also similar in their beliefs as E represented by Factor II, while the student groups tended I to be similar to each other in their beliefs. 4 Specific group comparisons for Factor III are pre- sented in Table 9. The Scheffe multiple comparison results indicated that the two groups of students displayed more disagreement with the belief portrayed by Factor III than the other sample groups. Specifically, the students' high factor score on Factor III suggested that they did not agree with the belief that the stability and maintenance of the institution and its administrative processes should be a primary concern of the educational process. Basically, such a high score suggests that the students believed that too much emphasis has been placed on institutional pro— cedures which seem to be established and implemented for the purpose of maintaining the stability of the insti— tution itself. The combined groups of students and dean of stu— dent groups were significantly different from the combined faculty and college president groups. Also, the college L". . 58 TABLE 9.--Scheffe multiple comparison analysis of sample group mean differences on Factor III. _ Groups Groups X Student . Presidents Deans Faculty PreSidents Student Editors .291 .060 .176 .503 .664 Student Presidents .231 .116 .433 .604 Deans ‘.115 .337 .488 Faculty -2.12 .161* Presidents -.373 Combined Comparisons Groups Groups Students + Deans Deans Faculty + Presidents 1.514 Students .1 5 Underlined mean differences significant at p < .01. *p < .05 59 president's score was significantly lower than the faculty group's score. Generally, the results of these comparisons sug- gested that there are identifiable differences between the group beliefs as measured by Factor III regarding emphasis placed upon the need for appropriate institutional policies, procedures, and regulations which have been designed for the purpose of facilitating the maintenance of the insti- tution and insuring its stability as an organization. Specifically, these results suggest that the stu- dents and deans of students tended to share the belief that too much emphasis has been placed upon the importance of institutional stability. The faculty and college presi- dent groups appeared to believe that such procedures and processes are important, and that the maintenance of the individual institution is an important variable in the process of higher education. Within Group Comparisons The general hypothesis that the assumptions and beliefs held by the five sample groups would be related to the selected demographic variables of institutional type, size, and geographical region was tested by using a repeated measures analysis of variance to test for possible within group differences which might be related to these demographic variables. Specifically, each sample group was divided into sub-groups according to the selected 60 demographic variables. The analysis of variance pro- cedures were applied to the resulting sub-group scores on the three factors. Additional one-way analysis of vari- ance and Scheffe multiple comparison tests were applied in an effort to isolate specific within group differences on the three factors. Hypothesis II II. No differences will be found in the basic assumptions and beliefs held by student editors when the student editors are grouped by the demographic variables of institutional type, size, and geographical region. Student editors grouped by institutional type.—- The results of the repeated measures analysis of variance for editor-type sub-groups (Table 10) did not yield a significant group effect, but the repeated measures effect was significant. Subsequently, the one-way analysis of variance results (Table 10) yielded a significant differ- ence between the various institutional sub-groups for stu— dent editors on Factor I. The Scheffe multiple comparison results (Table 11) indicated that the only significant difference was that editors from Catholic institutions tended to score significantly higher than the editors from public institutions. While none of the student editor groups scored very high on this factor the results indi— <2ated that only the Catholic and public groups were £3ignificant1y divergent in their beliefs represented by F‘actor I. This result implies that among the student L_ 61 TABLE lO.--Ana1ysis of variance of mean scores on the three factors for editors grouped by institutional type. Source df MS F Repeated Measures ANOVA Total 1028 .772 --- Groups 4 .620 1.64 S—Groups 338 .377 -—- Rep Meas 2 70.217 92.51* R G 8 1.367 1.80 RS-G 676 .759 -—— One-Way ANOVA Factor I Groups 4 2.413 * Error 1014 .631 3'824 Factor II Groups 4 .470 745 Error 1014 .631 ' Factor III Groups 4 .508 805 Error 1014 .631 ° *p < .01 62 editors those individuals from public institutions seemed to evidence a stronger reaction against the active and direct involvement of the university in the non-academic development of the individual student. TABLE 11.--Scheffe multiple comparison analysis of mean differences on Factor I for student editors grouped by type of institution. Groups Groups X Protes- Inde- . Other tant pendent Public Catholic -.351 .056 .191 .274 .445 Other -.407 .135 .218 .389 Protestant -.542 .083 .254 Independent -.625 .171 Public -.796 Note: Underlined mean differences significant at p < .05. Student editors grouped by institutional size.-- The results of the repeated measures analysis of variance (Table 12) did not yield a significant group effect, but there was a significant interaction effect. The one~way analysis of variance comparisons (Table 12) for student editor sub-groups based on size of institutions indicated that there were significant group differences on Factors I and III. The post hoc comparisons by the Scheffe method (Table 13) indicated that the only difference reported on Factor I was that editors from institutions with less than 63 TABLE 12.--Ana1ysis of variance of mean scores on the three factors for editors grouped by institutional size. Source df MS F Repeated Measures ANOVA Total 1037 .773 --- Groups 3 .042 .11 S-Groups 342 .381 --- Rep Meas 2 71.189 94.65** R G 6 2.040 2.71* RS-G 684 .752 —-- One-Way ANOVA Factor I Groups 3 1.837 * Error 1026 .629 2'920 Factor II Groups 3 1.136 Error 1026 .629 1°8°6 Factor III Groups 3 2.224 * Error 1026 .629 3'535 *p<:.05 **p < .01 64 TABLE 13.--Scheffe multiple comparison analysis of mean differences on Factors I and III for student editors grouped by size of institution. Groups GrouPS Factor 1* Factor III* E 2 Less than 1,500 -.470 .135 5,000 to 10,000 -.690 3 .333 1,500 to 5,000 -.691 .303 More than 10,000 -.797 .525 Combined Comparisons Less Than 1,500 Groups Factor I Factor III More than 1,500 .98 .756** Underlined mean difference significant at p < .01. *No significant mean differences. **p < .05 65 1,500 students had a significantly higher score than all other editor groups combined. The multiple comparison on Factor III shows that editors from schools with more than 10,000 students tended to disagree more with the belief represented in Factor III than the editors from the smaller sample schools. Additionally, the editors from the small— est sample schools (less than 1,500 students) tended to score significantly lower on Factor III than all other editors combined. That is, these editors agreed that insti- tutional stability was a valuable dimension of the edu- cational process. These results indicated that none of the editor- size groups scored very high on Factor I. However, the data suggests that editors from schools with less than 1,500 students enrolled seemed to agree more with the be- lief represented by Factor I than all other editor-size groups combined. That is, the editors from the smallest enrollment schools seemed to feel more positive about institutional involvement in the non-academic aspects of the higher educational process. The results for Factor III indicated that editors from the smallest schools seemed to agree more with the belief represented by Factor III than all other editor groups combined. That is, the editors from the smallest enrollment schools seemed to express the belief that the need for institutional stability should be met through a 66 recognition of the role of the administrative process in their setting. Student editors grouped by geographical region.-- The repeated measures and one-way analysis of variance results for the editor sub-groups based on geographical region (Table 14) indicated that there were no significant differences between the editor-region sub-groups on the three factors reported in this study. Summary for statistical examination of Hypothesis II (student editors).--In general the results of this investigation have indicated that Hypothesis II was re- jected. Specifically, the results of this study indicated that student editors from different types of institutions did differ in the manner in which they responded to the questionnaire items of Factor I. There was no evident relationship between the various student editor sub-groups based on institutional type and Factors II and III. The results have also indicated that student editors from the various sizes of institutions did differ in their beliefs as represented by Factors I and III. No difference was found for the groups on Factor II. In addition no signifi- cant differences were found on all three factors for the editor sub-groups based on geographical location of institution. 67 TABLE 14.--Ana1ysis of variance of mean scores on the three factors for editors grouped by geographical region. Source df MS F Repeated Measures ANOVA Groups 3 .433 1.14 S-Groups 329 .379 --- Rep Meas 2 66.017 87.90** R G 6 1.687 2.25* RS—G 658 .751 -—— One-Way ANOVA Factor I Groups 3 1.292 Error 987 .627 2'061 Factor II Groups 3 .928 Error 987 .627 1°481 Factor III Groups 3 1.376 Error 987 .627 2°194 *p < .05 **p < .01 68 Hypothesis III III. No differences will be found in the basic assumptions and beliefs held by student presidents when the student presidents are grouped by the demographic variables of institutional type, size, and geographical region. Student presidents gpouped by institutional type.-- The results of the repeated measures analysis of variance (Table 15) yielded significant main and interaction effects. This suggests that there were group differences and these differences were not constant across factors. Subse- quently, the one-way analysis of variance results reported a significant group effect only on the Factor I results. The Scheffe test (Table 16) reported that the student presidents from Catholic schools tended to score higher than the student presidents from either the independent or public schools and that student presidents from Protestant schools tended to score higher than their colleagues from the independent and public schools. A combined multiple comparison found that the student presidents from the two religious supported schools tended to score higher on Factor I than their student counterparts at the secular institutions. Student presidents grouped by institutional size.—— The results of the analysis of variance tests for the sub— groups based on size of institution (Table 17) indicated that there were significant group differences on Factors 69 TABLE 15.--Ana1ysis of variance of mean scores on the three factors for student presidents grouped by type of institution. Source df MS F Repeated Measures ANOVA Groups 4 1.997 4.66* S-Groups 385 .428 --— Rep Meas 2 50.921 77.74* R G 8 2.248 3.43* RS-G 770 .655 One-Way ANOVA Factor I Groups 4 5.255 * Error 1155 .579 9°076 Factor II Groups 4 .233 058 Error 1155 .579 ' Factor III Groups 4 1.068 Error 1155 .579 1'845 *p < .01 70 TABLE 16.--Scheffe multiple comparison analysis of mean differences on Factor I for student presidents grouped by type of institution. _ Groups Groups X Protes- Inde- . tant Other pendent Public Catholic -.l69 .033 .111 .443 .551 Protestant -.202 .078 .410 .518 Other -.280 .332 .440 Independent -.612 .108 Public -.720 Combined Comparisons Groups Groups Catholic + Protestant Public + Independent 2.065 Underlined mean differences significant at p < .01. 71 TABLE 17.--Ana1ysis of variance of mean scores on the three factors for student presidents grouped by size of institution. Source df MS F Repeated Measures ANOVA Groups 3 .145 .32 S-Groups 386 .446 ——- Rep Meas 2 50.921 77.27** R G 6 2.264 3.43** RS-G 772 .659 --- One-Way ANOVA Factor I Groups 3 1.938 * Error 1158 .588 3'295 Factor II Groups 3 .390 663 Error 1158 .588 ' Factor III Groups 3 2.381 ** Error 1158 .588 4°°49 *p < .05 **p < .01 72 I and III. The multiple comparison results for Factor I (Table 18) found that the only significant difference was when the combined groups from the two smaller sized schools were compared against the student president groups from schools that had more than 5,000 students enrolled. The result was that the student presidents from the smaller schools tended to score higher on Factor I than the student presidents from the larger schools. The multiple comparisons on Factor III indicated that the student presidents from the schools with more than 10,000 students scored significantly higher on Factor III than the student presidents from either the schools with less than 1,500 enrolled or schools that had between 1,500 and 5,000 students enrolled. Additionally, the stu- dent presidents from the combined groups from all schools with less than 10,000 students tended to score significantly lower than the student presidents from schools with more than 10,000 students enrolled. Student presidents grouped by geographical region.-- There were no significant F values detected for the various regional sub-group comparisons on the three factors (Table 19). Summary for statistical examination of Hypothesis III (student presidents).--In general, the results of this investigation have indicated that Hypothesis III was re- jected. Specifically, the data has shown that student 73 TABLE 18.--Scheffe multiple comparison analysis of mean differences on Factors I and III for student presidents grouped by size of institution. Groups Groups Factor 1* Factor III More than 5,000 1,500 f X 10,000 10,000 5,000 Less than 1,500 -.391 .174 .3 6 .061 .036 1,500 to 5,000 -.432 .138 .39 .097 5,000 to 10,000 -.672 .235 .195 More than 10,000 -.661 .530 Combined Comparisons Groups GrouPs Factor I Factor III More than 5,000 More than 10,000 Less than 5,000 .51 Less than 10,000 1.043 Underlined mean differences significant at p < .01. *No significant mean differences. 74 TABLE l9.--Ana1ysis of variance of mean scores on the three factors for student presidents grouped by geographical region. Source df MS F Repeated Measures ANOVA Groups 3 .424 .98 S-Groups 370 .429 --- Rep Meas. 2 45.119 66.94* R G 6 .702 1.04 RS-G 740 .674 --- One-Way ANOVA Factor I Groups 3 .695 Error 1110 .592 l°l74 Factor II Groups 3 .378 638 Error 1110 .592 ° Factor III Groups 3 1.007 Error 1110 .592 1°802 *p < .01 75 presidents from different types of institutions differed in their beliefs as represented by Factor I. As can be seen by the low scores in Table 16 none of the president- type sub-groups seemed to display a high degree of agree- ment with the belief portrayed by Factor I. However, the student presidents from both types of the religious sup- ported institutions tended to agree more with the ideas represented in Factor I than the student presidents from all other types of institutions combined. That is, the sub-groups represented by the Catholic and Protestant institutions seemed to react more favorably than the other sub-groups to institutional involvement in the non-academic aspects of a student's educational experience. No differ- ences were found on Factors II and III between the various student president sub-groups based on institutional type. The data also has indicated that student presidents from the institutions which varied on the dimension of size of student enrollment differed in the manner in which they responded to items for Factors I and III. These re- sults reported that the student presidents from the smaller sized schools (less than 5,000 students) tended to score higher on Factor I than those student presidents from schools with more than 5,000 students enrolled. This re- sult suggests that even though none of the student presi- dents tended to agree with the belief represented by Factor I those individuals from the smaller schools did feel significantly less strongly about the possibility 76 of institutional involvement in the non-academic develop- ment of the individual student. The significant results for the comparison on Factor III suggest that student presidents from schools with more than 10,000 students evidence a significantly stronger disagreement with the belief that administrative processes and the stability of the individual institution should be a primary concern of the process of higher education. Hypothesis IV IV. No differences will be found in the basic assumptions and beliefs held by faculty members when the faculty members are grouped by the demographic variables of institutional type, size, and geographical region. Faculty sub-groups based on institutional type.-- The results of the analysis of variance procedures have indicated that the various faculty subgroups based on institutional type were different only on Factor I (Table 20). Specific comparisons indicated that faculty members from Protestant schools scored higher on Factor I than faculty members from either public schools or schools that were classified as "other."2 (Table 21.) Also, faculty from Catholic schools were higher on Factor I than faculty from the "other" schools. The combined groups of faculty 2For purposes of this study the category entitled "other" represents the following institutional types: Teachers Colleges, Technical Institutions, and Two-Year Colleges. 77 TABLE 20.--Analysis of variance of mean scores on the three factors for faculty grouped by type of institution. Source df MS F Repeated Measures ANOVA Groups 4 .579 1.40 S-Groups 424 .411 --- Rep Meas 2 11.938 15.41* R G 8 1.368 1.76 RS-G 848 .775 --- One-Way ANOVA Factor I Groups 4 2.288 * Error 1272 .654 3°498 Factor II Groups 4 .278 425 Error 1272 .654 ’ Factor III Groups 4 .769 Error 1272 .654 1’176 *p < .01 78 TABLE 21. Scheffe multiple comparison analysis of mean differences on Factor I for faculty grouped by type of institution. Groups Groups X _ Catholic Inde Public Other pendent Protestant .380 .168 .267 .385 .439 Catholic .212 .079 .217 .271 Independent .133 .138 .192 Public -.005 .054 Other -.059 Combined Comparisons Groups Groups Public + Other Independent + Catholic + Protestant . 76 Underlined mean differences significant at p < .01. 79 members from independent, Catholic, and Protestant schools scored significantly higher on Factor I than their col- leagues from public supported schools. Faculty sub-groups based on institutional size.-- The results presented in Table 22 indicate that there were no significant differences between any of the faculty sub— groups based on size of student enrollment. Faculty sub-groups based on geographical region.-- Table 23 reports that there were significant sub-group differences on Factor III between the various faculty groups based on geographical region. The multiple com- parison test (Table 24) indicated that the only signifi- cant difference was found when the combined faculty groups from the Western, North Central, and New England/Middle Atlantic sub-groups were compared to the faculty members from the South. In this particular comparison it was found that the Southern faculty group tended to score signifi- cantly lower on Factor III than all other groups combined. Summary for statistical examination of Hypothesis Iy.--In general the results of this investi- gation do not support the retention of Hypothesis IV. Specifically the data has shown that faculty members from public supported schools tended to score significantly lower on Factor I than the faculty subjects from the inde— pendent, Catholic, and Protestant schools combined. This 80 TABLE 22.--Ana1ysis of variance of mean scores on the three factors for faculty grouped by size of institution. Source df MS F Repeated Measures ANOVA Groups 3 .888 2.16 S-Groups 424 .410 --- Rep Meas 2 11.938 15.30* R G 6 1.159 1.48 RS-G 848 .780 --- One-Way ANOVA Factor I Groups 3 .934 Error 1272 .656 1'423 Factor II Groups 3 1.226 Error 1272 .656 1°868 Factor III Groups 3 1.095 Error 1272 .656 1°669 *p < .01 81 TABLE 23.--Analysis of variance of mean scores on the three factors for faculty grouped by geographical region. Source df MS F Repeated Measures ANOVA Groups 3 .942 2.30 S-Groups 420 .408 --- Rep Meas 2 12.811 16.48* R G 6 1.512 1.94 RS-G 840 .777 One-Way ANOVA Factor I Groups 3 1.101 Error 1260 .654 1'683 Factor II Groups 3 .465 711 Error 1260 .654 ‘ Factor III Groups 3 2.983 * Error 1260 .654 4'561 *p < .01 82 TABLE 24.--Scheffe multiple comparison analysis of mean differences on factor III for faculty grouped by geo- graphical region. Groups Groups X North New England/ Southern Central Mid. Atlantic Western/ North Western -.054 .112 .179 .408 North Central -.166 .067 .296 New England/ Mid. Atlantic -.233 .229 Southern -.462 Combined Comparisons Groups Groups Southern All Regions Except Southern . 33 Underlined mean difference significant at p < .05. 83 result suggests that faculty members from public insti- tutions believe that institutions of higher education should not be involved in the non-academic affairs of the individual student. The data also suggests that faculty members from the non-public types of institutions tended to believe that institutions should to varying degrees be involved in the non-academic affairs of the individual student. The only significant difference in the faculty- region sub—group comparisons was found on Factor III. This result reports that the faculty subjects from the Southern schools tended to believe that the maintenance of insti- tutional stability is a goal that should be pursued in the educational process. The fact should be noted from the data, however, that the faculty subjects were all low on this particular factor. That is, the data suggests that the faculty subjects as a whole tended to agree with the need for institutional stability in higher education. Hypothesis V V. No differences will be found in the basic assumptions and beliefs held by chief student personnel administrators when the chief stu- dent personnel administrators are grouped by the demographic variables of institutional type, size, and geographical region. Chief studentgpersonnel administrators (deans) grouped by institutional type.--The analysis of variance results for deans of students subgroups (Table 25) based 84 TABLE 25.--Ana1ysis of variance of mean scores on the three factors for deans grouped by type of institution. Source df MS F Repeated Measures ANOVA Groups 4 .512 1.57 S-Groups 448 .326 --- Rep Meas 2 11.733 20.02** R G 8 1.359 2.31 RS-G 896 .586 --- One-Way ANOVA Factor I Groups 4 .883 Error 1344 .499 1°769 Factor II Groups 4 .775 Error 1344 .499 1°553 Factor III Groups 4 1.457 * Error 1344 .499 2°919 *p < .05 **p < .01 85 on the institutional type variable indicated that the only significant difference was found on Factor III. The multiple comparison results (Table 26) reported that the deans from Catholic institutions tended to score higher on Factor III than deans from schools classified as "other." TABLE 26.--Scheffe multiple comparison analysis of mean differences on Factor III for deans of students grouped by type of institution. Groups Groups Y . Protes- Inde- Public tant pendent Other Catholic .276 .087 .242 .257 .345 Public .189 .155 .170 .120 Protestant .034 .015 .103 Independent .019 .088 Other -.069 Note: Underlined mean differences significant at p < .01. Chief student personnel administrators (deans) grouped by institutional size.--The analysis of variance tests for deans from various size institutions (Table 27) indicated that significant results were found between the sub-groups on Factors II and III. The specific comparisons on Factor II (Table 28) suggest that the deans from schools which have an enrollment greater than 10,000 students tended to score higher on Factor II than deans from schools with 86 TABLE 27.--Ana1ysis of variance of mean scores on the three factors for deans grouped by size of institution. Source df MS F Repeated Measures ANOVA Groups 3 1.960 6.18** S-Groups 453 .318 --- Rep Meas 2 11.837 20.16** R G 6 1.328 2.25 RS-G 906 .587 --- One-Way ANOVA Factor I Groups 3 .996 Error 1359 .498 2‘000 Factor II Groups 3 1.887 * Error 1359 .498 3°789 Factor III Groups 3 1.620 * Error 1359 .498 3'253 *p < .05 **p < .01 87 TABLE 28.--Scheffe multiple comparison analysis of mean differences on Factors II and III for deans of students grouped by size of institution. Groups Groups Factor II Factor III E SE More than 10,000 .237 .313 5,000 to 10,000 .233 .023 1,500 to 5,000 .028 .134 Less than 1,500 -.024 .041 Combined Comparisons Groups Groups Factor II Factor III Less than 5,000 More than 10,000 More than 5,000 .4 6 Less than 10,000 . 41 Underlined mean differences significant at p < .01. 88 less than 1,500 students. Additionally, the deans from the two larger sized institutional categories tended to score significantly higher on Factor II than the deans from the smaller institutions. The only significant comparison on Factor III (Table 28) was when the deans from schools with more than 10,000 students were compared with the combined sub-groups from the other size categories. The deans in the larger institutions scored significantly higher on Factor III than the remaining deans. Chief student personnel administrators (deans) grouped by geographical region.--The analysis of variance tests (Table 29) yielded a significant F value only on Factor III for comparisons of the deans of students grouped on the basis of institutional location. The multiple com- parison results (Table 30) indicated that the major differ- ence was found when the responses of deans from the Western/ North Western and New England/Middle Atlantic schools were combined and compared against the North Central and South- ern deans. The latter group scored significantly lower on Factor III than did the deans from both coastal regions. Summary for statistical examination of Hypothesis V (chief student personnel administrators).--In general the results of this investigation do not support Hypbthesis V. Specifically, the only significant difference found in the sub-group comparisons based on institutional type was that 89 TABLE 29.--Ana1ysis of variance of mean scores on the three factors for deans grouped by geographical region. Source df MS F Repeated Measures ANOVA Groups 3 .235 .71 S-Groups 449 .328 --- Rep Meas 2 12.045 20.51* R G 6 1.383 2.32 RS-G 898 .587 --- One-Way ANOVA Factor I Groups 3 .550 Error 1347 .481 1°l43 Factor II Groups 3 .477 992 Error 1347 .481 ° Factor III Groups 3 1.858 * Error 1347 .481 3°863 *p < .01 90 TABLE 30.--Scheffe multiple comparison analysis of mean differences on Factor III for deans of students grouped by geographical region. Groups Groups _ New England/ North Mid. Atlantic Central southern Western/ North Western .277 .076 .183 .357 New England/ Mid. Atlantic .201 .107 .281 North Central .094 .174 Southern -.080 Combined Comparisons Groups Groups North Central + Southern Western/ North Western + New England/ Mid. Atlantic .4 4 Underlined mean differences significant at p < .05. 91 chief student personnel administrators (deans of students) from Catholic institutions scored higher on Factor III than deans of students from "other" schools. Basically, this result implies that the deans of students from Catholic schools do not believe that the maintenance of insti- tutional stability is a goal that should be pursued as a primary dimension of higher education. The results from the comparisons based on insti- tutional size have indicated that deans from schools with more than 5,000 students enrolled tended to score higher on Factor II than deans from schools with less than 5,000 students enrolled. This result implies that deans from the larger institutions tended to believe that the insti- tution, as well as the student, should benefit from the student-institution relationship and that deans from the smaller institutions tended to believe that the student should be the primary benefactor of the institutional- student relationship. The results from the sub-group comparisons based on institutional location have indicated that deans from the North Central and Southern regions scored significantly lower on Factor III than the deans from the Coastal re— gions. This implies that the deans from the North Central and Southern regions tended to believe that the adminis- trative processes and the stability of an individual insti- tution should be a primary concern in the process of higher 92 education. The deans from the Coastal regions tended to disagree with such a belief. Hypothesis VI VI. No differences will be found in the basic assumptions and beliefs held by institutional presidents when the institutional presidents are grouped by the demographic variables of institutional type, size, and geographical region. Institutional presidents grouped by institutional Eypg.--The analysis of variance tests (Table 31) indicate that a significant difference exists only on Factor I be- tween the president sub-groups based on institutional type. Specifically, the presidents from Protestant schools tended to score higher on Factor I than the presidents from public schools. Additionally, the combined presi- dential groups from Protestant, Catholic, and independent institutions scored significantly higher on Factor I than did presidents from public schools (Table 32). Institutional presidents grouped by institutional gigg.--The president groups from the two smaller sized cate- gories scored significantly higher on Factor I than the presidents from the larger schools. In addition, the presidents from the two smaller sized school categories scored significantly lower on Factor II than the presi- dents from the two larger sized school groupings (Table 33). 93 TABLE 31.--Analysis of variance of mean scores on the three factors for presidents grouped by institutional type. Source df MS F Repeated Measures ANOVA Groups 4 .294 .77 S-Groups 401 .378 --- Rep Meas 2 10.841 104.92** R G 8 2.522 3.73* RS-G 802 .675 --- One-Way ANOVA Factor I Groups 4 2.581 ** Error 1203 .575 4'489 Factor II Groups 4 1.351 Error 1203 .575 2°349 Factor III Groups 4 .417 725 Error 1203 .575 ‘ *p < .05 **p < .01 94 TABLE 32.--Scheffe multiple comparison analysis of mean differences on Factor I for presidents grouped by type of institution. _ Groups Groups X Other Catholic Inde' Public pendent Protestant .685 .108 .175 .204 .425 Other .577 .067 .096 .317 Catholic .510 .029 .250 Independent .481 .221 Public .260 Combined Comparisons Groups Groups Public Non-public 1.471 Underlined mean differences significant at p < .05. 95 TABLE 33.--Scheffe multiple comparison analysis of mean differences on Factors I and II for presidents grouped by size of institution. Groups Groups Less Than 5,000 Factor I Factor II More than 5,000 . 66 .4 8 Note: Underlined mean differences significant at p < .01. Institutional presidents grouped by geographical region.--In comparing the presidential groups based on geographical location the statistical tests indicated that the combined groups of presidents from the North Central, New England/Middle Atlantic, and Southern regions scored significantly higher on Factor I than the presidents from the Western regions (Table 34). Also, the presidents from the combined groups of the Western/North Western, New England/Middle Atlantic, and North Central regions scored significantly higher on Factor III than the presidents from the South. Summary for statistical examination of Hypothesis VI (institutional presidents).--In general the results of this investigation have indicated that Hypothesis VI was rejected. Specifically, the data has indicated that the presidents from the public institutions scored significantly lower on Factor I than the presidents from all other type sub-groups combined. This result implies that the 96 TABLE 34.--Scheffe multiple comparison analysis of mean differences on Factors I and III for presidents grouped by geographical region. Groups Groups Factor I Factor III Western/ North Western Southern North Central & New England/ Middle Atlantic & Southern 1.162* North Central & New England/ Middle Atlantic & Western/North Western 1.101* *p < .01 presidents from the public schools did not agree with the ideas represented in Factor I. Basically, these presi- dents seemed to believe less strongly than the other presidents that the institution should be actively and directly involved in attempting to influence the non- academic development of the individual student. The re— sults also indicated that the presidents from schools with more than 5,000 students tended to express the belief that the institution should not be directly involved in effect- ing the non-academic development of the student, while presidents from schools with less than 5,000 students seemed to express agreement with the belief that insti— tutions should be involved in this manner. The presidents 97 from those schools with less than 5,000 students scored significantly lower on Factor II than presidents from schools with more than 5,000 students. This result implies that presidents from the smaller schools appeared to be- lieve that policies, procedures, and relationships should exist basically and primarily for the student's benefit. The presidents from the larger institutions appear to have indicated that they feel these variables should have, at least, a reciprocal benefit for the student and the insti- tution. The results of the sub-group comparisons based on geographical region have indicated that the Western/North Western presidents scored significantly lower on Factor I than all the other presidential sub-groups combined. Those presidents from the Western regions seemed to react signifi- cantly less favorably than the other sub-groups to insti— tutional involvement in the non-academic aspects of a student's educational experience. In addition, the presi- dents from the Southern region scored significantly lower on Factor III than the presidents from all the other regions combined. The presidents from the South seemed to feel more strongly than the other presidential sub— groups that administrative processes and the stability of the institution should be a primary concern of the process of higher education. 98 Summary Factor Analysis The present chapter has presented the results of the statistical analysis of the questionnaire data in an attempt to measure and compare the assumption's and beliefs of various groups in higher education. The factor analytic procedures yielded three independent dimensions which were analyzed and identified as the most parsimonious expla- nation of the original questionnaire responses. The three factors which resulted from the principle components solution were: Factor I--Institutiona1 Involvement in the Edu- cational Process.--Factor I examines the beliefs an indi- vidual holds about the degree of involvement a higher edu— cational institution should or should not have in the non-academic aspects of an individual student's experience in a higher educational setting. Factor II--Benefits of the Institutional-Student Relationship.--Factor II assesses the strength and di- rection of an individual's beliefs about whether the relationship between the student and the institution exists solely for the benefit of the student and his individual needs, or whether the institution should bene- fit in any manner from the relationship. 99 Factor III--Institutional Stability.--Factor III appears to be a factor which assesses the beliefs an indi- vidual holds about the university or college as an organi- zation. In this sense Factor III reflects an individual's beliefs about the importance of the administrative process and the need for institutional stability. Between Group Comparisons The general hypothesis that no differences would be found in the basic assumptions and beliefs held by the sample groups was rejected. The statistical methods of repeated measures and one-way analyses of variance were used in conjunction with Scheffe's multiple comparison analysis in reporting the following results: 1. The college presidents scored significantly higher on Factor I (institutional involvement) than either the faculty, student presidents, or student editor groups. The dean of students were not statistically different from the presidents on Factor I, and the combined groups of presidents and deans scored significantly higher on Factor I than the combined groups of faculty and stu— dent groups. The faculty scored significantly higher on Factor I than both groups of students, but the 100 two student groups were not different from each other. The combined groups of presidents, deans, and faculty members scored significantly higher than the student groups on Factor I. The two combined administrative groups (presi— dents and deans) scored significantly higher than the faculty group on Factor I. Higher scores on Factor I indicate relative agreement with the belief that the higher educational institution should be actively and directly involved in an attempt to in- fluence the non-academic development of the individual student. 6. The college presidents scored significantly higher on Factor II (benefit of relationship) than either the faculty, student presidents, or student editor groups. The college presi- dent and dean of students groups were not different on this factor. The dean of students were not different from the faculty members on Factor II, but the deans did score significantly higher than the student groups. The faculty scored significantly higher on Factor II than the student presidents, and the two student groups were not different from each other on this factor. 10. 11. 101 The combined groups of presidents and deans of students were significantly higher on Factor II than the combined groups of students and faculty members. The combined non-student groups scored signifi- cantly higher on Factor II than the combined student groups. The faculty members scored significantly higher on Factor II than the student groups and significantly lower than the two adminis- trative groups combined. Higher scores on Factor II indicate relative agreement with the belief that emphasis should not be placed upon the student as the only benefactor from the institutional— student relationship. A high score suggests that the policies, procedures, and institutional-student relationship in higher education should be, at least, reciprocal in their effects on the institution and the student. 12. 13. The individual groups of students scored significantly higher on Factor III (insti- tutional stability) than either the faculty or president groups. The combined groups of students and deans of students scored significantly higher on Factor III than the combined groups of faculty and presidents. 102 14. The combined groups of students scored significantly higher on Factor III than the deans of students. 15. The faculty were significantly higher on Factor III than the presidents. Higher scores on Factor III indicate relative disagree- ment with the belief that the administrative processes and stability of an individual institution should be a primary concern in higher education. High scores can be interpreted as meaning that too much emphasis is placed upon the establishment and implementation of procedures and policies which seem to be directed toward the facili- tation of the institution's stability rather than the edu- cational process itself. Within Group Comparisons Hypothesis II.-—The hypothesis that there would be no relationship between the student editor sub—groups based on the demographic variables of institutional type, size, and location and the identified factors was re- jected. 1. The only significant difference between student editors grouped by type of institution was that editors from Catholic institutions scored significantly higher on Factor I (institutional involvement) than those from public insti- tutions. There was no statistical relationship 103 between the various student editor sub-groups based on institutional type and Factors II and III (benefit of relationship and institutional stability). 2. Student editors from institutions with less than 1,500 students enrolled scored signifi- cantly higher on Factor I than the combined editor groups from schools with more than 1,500 students. The editors from schools with less than 1,500 students also scored significantly lower on Factor III than all combined editor groups with more than 1,500 students. There was no relationship between the student editor groups based on size of institution and Factor II. 3. There were no significant statistical relation- ships between the student editor groups based on geographical region and Factors I, II, or III. Hypothesis III.--The hypothesis that there would be no relationship between the demographic variables for student presidents and the identified factors was rejected. 1. Student presidents from the two religious supported schools (i.e., Catholic and Protes- tant) scored significantly higher on Factor I (institutional involvement) than student 104 presidents from secular institutions. There were no differences between the student presi— dent sub-groups based on institutional type on either Factors II or III (benefit of relation- ship and institutional stability). Student presidents from schools with less than 5,000 students enrolled scored significantly higher on Factor I than student presidents from schools with more than 5,000 students en— rolled and student presidents from schools with more than 10,000 students scored signifi- cantly higher on Factor III than student presi- dents from schools with less than 10,000 stu- dents. No differences were detected for the student president sub-groups on Factor II. There were no significant differences between the student president sub-groups based on geo- graphical region. Hypothesis IV.--The hypothesis that there would be no relationship between the demographic variables for faculty members and the identified factors was rejected. 1. Combined groups of faculty from independent, Catholic, and Protestant schools scored signifi— cantly higher on Factor I (institutional in— volvement) than faculty from public institutions. No differences were detected on Factors II and 105 III (benefit of relationship and institutional stability). There were no significant relationships be- tween the faculty groups based on institutional size and Factors I, II, III. The combined groups of faculty from the Western/North Western, North Central and New England/Middle Atlantic sub-groups scored significantly higher on Factor III than faculty from the South. No differences were found on Factors I and II. Hypothesis V.--The hypothesis that there would be no relationship between the demographic variables for chief student personnel administrators (deans of students) and the identified factors was rejected. 1. Deans of students from Catholic institutions scored significantly higher on Factor III (institutional stability) than deans from "other" institutions. No differences were found on Factors I and II (institutional in- volvement and benefit of relationship). Deans of students from schools with more than 5,000 students enrolled scored significantly higher on Factor II than deans from schools with less than 5,000 students. Also, deans from schools with more than 10,000 students 106 scored significantly higher on Factor III than deans from the combined groups with less than 10,000 students. No differences were found on Factor I. Deans of students from the combined Western/ North Western and New England/Middle Atlantic schools scored significantly higher on Factor III than the deans from the combined North Central and Southern groups. No differences were found on Factors I and II. Hypothesis VI.--The hypothesis that there would be no relationship between the demographic variables for institutional presidents and the identified factors was rejected. 1. Presidents from the combined Protestant, Catholic, and independent groups scored significantly higher on Factor I (insti- tutional involvement) than presidents from public schools. No differences were found on Factors II and III (benefit of relationship and institutional stability). Presidents from schools with less than 5,000 students scored significantly higher on Factor I and significantly lower on Factor II than presidents from schools with more than 107 5,000 students. No differences were found on Factor III. Presidents from the combined North Central, New England/Middle Atlantic and Southern groups scored significantly higher on Factor I than presidents from the Western regions. Also, presidents from the South scored signifi- cantly lower on Factor III than the combined president groups from the other regions. No differences were found on Factor II. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS Summary The Problem The present investigation was designed and imple— mented as an attempt to provide a systematic method for analyzing, defining, and comparing some of the character- istic underlying assumptions and beliefs held by student personnel administrators, institutional presidents, faculty members, and students. It was an additional purpose of this study to determine whether the assumptions and beliefs held by these groups were related to the selected demo- graphic variables of institutional type, size, and geo- graphical location. Specifically this study had three objectives: (1) to ascertain the factor structure of a set of selected assumptions and beliefs held by stu— dent personnel administrators, institutional presidents, faculty members, and students. (2) to determine whether an analysis of variance procedure would detect any differences in a 108 109 comparison of the above groups' scores on the identified factors; (3) to determine whether the procedures of analysis of variance would detect any relationship be- tween the identified factors and the selected demographic variables of institutional type, size, and geographical location. Methodology This investigation was conducted as a supplemental study to an antecedent research project sponsored by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA). The present investigation's survey instrument and samples were used simultaneously with the NASPA study. The subjects for this investigation were drawn from the 715 colleges and universities which held institutional member— ship in NASPA in November of 1968. Specifically the subj- ects consisted of the following individuals from the above institutions: the institution's president, the chief stu- dent personnel administrator, the faculty member holding the highest elected position on the faculty senate or com- parable body, the editor of the student newspaper, and the president of the student body. The questionnaire used in this investigation solic- ited the subjects' responses to a set of selected issues in higher education. The specific questions used in the final study questionnaire were developed from four specific areas 110 which were assumed to be representative of selected issues in higher education at the time the study was conducted. The areas which served as guidelines for the questionnaire were: (1) the responsibilities and administrative behavior of the chief student personnel administrator, (2) the stu- dent and the educational process, (3) standards of behavior and social conduct regulations, and (4) involvement in uni- versity governance and decision making. The questionnaires were sent to the chief student personnel administrator at each of the 715 colleges and universities holding institutional membership in the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators as of November, 1968. The administrator distributed the questionnaire materials to the various subjects on his campus. A total of 2,032 questionnaires were returned for use in the study. This represented a return of approxi- mately 60 per cent. It was hypothesized that no differences would be found in the basic assumptions and beliefs held by the sample groups and that no relationship would be found be- tween these assumptions and beliefs and the demographic variables of institutional type, size, and geographical location. This study attempted to test these hypotheses by utilizing the methods of factor analysis and analysis of variance to identify and compare the possible underlying assumptions and beliefs measured by this investigations' 111 questionnaire. Specifically, the method of analysis con- sisted of the following steps: (1) principle-component factor analysis was used to identify the underlying group- ings of related measured assumptions and beliefs, (2) re- peated measures and one-way analysis of variance procedures were used to test for differences between the sample groups on the extracted factors and for possible relationships be— tween these factors and the variables of institutional type, size, and location. Findings and Conclusions The objective of this study to ascertain the factor structure of a set of selected assumptions and beliefs held by student personnel administrators, institutional presi- dents, faculty members, and students was accomplished by factor analyzing the responses of the 2,032 subjects par- ticipating in this study. The following three factors were extracted and identified for use in this study: Factor I—-Degree of Institutional Involvement in the Educational Process: This factor reflects the beliefs an individual holds about the degree of active and direct involvement the institution should have in attempting to influence the non-academic development of the individual student. This factor reflects whether the respondent be- lieves that the institution should or should not attempt to effect change in the student's values and beliefs. Factor II--Benefits of the Institutional-Student Relationship: This factor represents an assessment of an 112 individual's beliefs about whether the relationship which exists between the institution and the student should be devoted primarily for the "growth and benefit" of the individual student or directed toward the facilitation of a mutually productive environment for both the institution and the student. This factor extracts the relationship between some of the questionnaire items which appear to be examining the belief that there is more to the educational process than complete devotion to the students' needs. Factor III--Institutional Stability: This factor reflects the structure of the beliefs that an individual holds about the university or college as an organization. This factor is related to the belief that the adminis- trative processes of an institution are or are not an important dimension and that the stability of the indi- vidual institution should or should not be a primary con- cern of the process of higher education. Between Group Comparisons The results of the present study support the re- jection of the hypothesis that no differences would be found in the basic assumptions and beliefs held by the sample groups of chief student personnel administrators, institutional presidents, faculty members, student presi- dents, and student editors. Factor I Comparisons.--It can be concluded from the results of this study that institutional presidents evidence 113 a stronger commitment than all the other sample groups ex- cept the deans of students to the belief that higher edu— cational institutions should attempt to be actively and directly involved in affecting the non-academic development of the student. The presidents and the deans tended to agree on this issue. When the presidents, deans, and faculty were combined and compared to the combined student groups a significant degree of commitment to this belief was noted for the "staff" group. Basically, the conclusion is that there are identi- fiable differences between the sample groups in how much ‘t1163y believe a higher educational institution should be in- ‘7C>lved in attempting to influence the non-academic dimen- Sions of a student's educational experience. Specifically, tiliee administrative groups (presidents and deans) tended to iiSJIee more strongly with such a belief than the other groups. However, the faculty also evidenced more agree- Ineint with such a belief than students. In this case the fEiculty were more closely aligned with the administrative groups than with the student groups. Factor II Comparisons.-—The results of this study have shown that the combined groups of presidents and deans C>f students evidence more disagreement than the other stample groups with the suggestion that the student should 13E3 the only benefactor from the institutional-student 13Eelationship. The deans and faculty seemed to hold k 114 similar beliefs about this issue. However, when the presi- dents, deans, and faculty were combined and compared to the combined student groups it was evident that the "staff" groups did not agree with the students that the student should be the only concern in the institutional-student relationship. Basically, the conclusion is that there are dis- cernible and significant differences between the sample groups in the manner in which they view the relationship between the institution and the student. Specifically, the administrative groups (presidents and deans) tended to be- lieve that emphasis should not be upon the student as the only and primary benefactor of the institutional-student relationship. In this case there was not a clear and SPecific difference between the beliefs held by the deans and the faculty. Clearly, however, the presidents and deans both evidenced a position on this belief that was Significantly different from the students. In this case the faculty were more closely aligned with the adminis- tI‘Ettive groups than with the student groups. Factor III Comparisons.--It can be concluded from the results of this study that the combined groups of stu— dent-.8 and deans disagree with the belief that the stability and maintenance of the institution and its administrative proCesses should be the primary concern of the educational proCess. Specifically, the results indicate that the 115 students believe that too much emphasis has been placed on those institutional procedures which seem to be established and implemented for the purpose of maintaining the sta- bility of the institution. The deans seemed to be express- ing a similar belief. However, the deans did not present their position as clearly and strongly as the students. It should be noted that the deans were very similar in their belief patterns to the presidents on Factors I and II, but on Factor III they are clearly in disagreement with the presidents. Perhaps the deans are reacting to the issue of institutional stability and its supporting poli- Cies and procedures because these may be the very variables which obstruct and hinder the dean from fulfilling his roles in his own setting in his own way. Generally, the results of these comparisons have Suggested that there are identifiable differences between the sgroup beliefs as measured by Factor III regarding the emphasis which might be placed upon the need for appro— Priirte institutional policies, procedures, and regulations WhiCfla have been designed for the purpose of facilitating the rmaintenance of the institution and insuring its star bility as an organization. Specifically, the conclusion is presented that the Students and deans of students share the belief that too 'mkfll emphasis is placed upon the importance of insti- tutional stability. The faculty and president groups belixave that such procedures and processes are important, JIIIIII-___ 116 and the maintenance of the individual institution is an important variable in the process of higher education. Within Group Comparisons Student editors.--(1) Type of Institution. The ccunparison of student editors from different types of iJistitutions has shown that none of the student editors eVnidenced very much agreement with the belief that insti- tutzions of higher education should be actively or directly inxnolved in the non-academic affairs of the individual stu— derrt. Among the student editors the subjects from Catholic instzitutions reported the highest degree of agreement with sucli a belief, while the editors from the public schools rePCDrted the lowest degree of agreement with such a be- 1ief§_ (2) Size of Institution. The comparison of student edituors from different sized institutions has shown that “CREE of the student editors agree with the belief that institutions of higher learning should be involved in the nOn“academic affairs of the individual student. However, it Can be concluded that editors from the smallest schools (less than 1,500 enrolled) felt more positive than the other editors about institutional involvement in a student's non- academic affairs. These same small school editors also reported the belief that there is a definite need for insti- tutional stability. 117 Student presidents.--(l) Type of Institution. The comparison of student presidents from different types of schools has indicated that none of the student presidents reported very much agreement with the belief that insti- tutions of higher education should be involved in the non- academic affairs of students. However, it can be concluded tjiat student presidents from the religious affiliated scflnools evidenced more agreement with this belief than staident presidents from secular institutions. (2) Size of Insstitution. None of the student presidents from groups baused.on institutional size expressed agreement with the bellief that institutions of higher education should be in- VOJsved in the non-academic affairs of students. However, it <:an be concluded that those student presidents from SCfnools with less than 5,000 enrolled reported more agree— merrt with such a belief than presidents from schools with mOIEB than 5,000 students. Also, student presidents from SCknaols with more than 10,000 enrolled evidenced a strong disagreement with the belief that the administrative pro- CeSses and stability of an institution should be a primary concern of higher education. Faculty.--(l) Type of Institution. In this study the results support the conclusion that faculty members frCHn non-public institutions agree with the belief that 'udaher educational institutions should to varying degrees be iinvolved in the non-academic affairs of the individual .IIIII-___ 118 student. Faculty members from public institutions do not support this view. (2) Geographical Region. The results of this study support the conclusion that faculty subjects from the Southern schools evidence the belief that mainte- nance of institutional stability is a goal that should be pursued in the process of higher education. However, the darta from this investigation also supports the conclusion tfliat faculty members, in general, do not evidence strong support for such a belief. Dean of students.--(l) Type of Institution. It cari be concluded from the data of this study that deans frcun Catholic institution's support the belief that mainte— nanxze of institutional stability is a goal that should be Purusued as an important dimension in higher education. (2) Size of Institution. The results support the conclu- SiOrl that deans from larger institutions (more than 5,000 Stxuients) believe that the institution, as well as the stu- dent, should benefit from the relationship which exists betWeen the student and the institution. However, deans frOHI the smaller schools (less than 5,000) believe that the Student should be the primary benefactor of the relation— Ship. (3) Geographical Region. The data indicates that the ment of the individual student. D YFS No YES %‘1 YES NO YES Ni) YES Nn YES NO YES NO YES NO {:3 Y ES NO YES NO 1:] YES NO l6. 17. 18. 20. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 129 Social maturity and value development are integral to the student 5 intellectual attainment. Exceptions to policy in the handling of specific student incidents are likely to constitute the of behavior Attempts by the dean of students to protect the student from 'defeating experiences" may actually hinder student growth. The dean of students should consciously attempt to manipulate certain as— pects of the institutional environment in ways which support or promote development of individual students. Within the context of obvious individual differences in student ability and maturity, ii: is more desirable to err in the direction of over delegation of responsibility to students rather than in the direction of under delegation. Students attain maturity to the extent that they are left free to make per— sonal decisions and to exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizen— Ship in the academic community. An essential ingredient for personalization in higher education is provi— sion for privacy of the individual student. Except for considerations of safety, there is no justification for the dean of students to violate the confidentiality of a counseling relationship Attempts by deans of students to influence students to adopt values held to be important by the institution are questionable behavio s. The essential ingredients of procedural due process are nothing more than natural expression of the college's respect and concern for the individual 8 t udent. Students by their nature desire liberalization of campus regulations. Students should not be involved in top level institutional policy deci— sions because they lack sufficient matur ty Although the results have been unfortunate in some instances, the present C11mate of dissent represents a significant positive development in higher ed“Cation. HOW DO YOU PERSONALLY FEEL ABOUT THE STATEMENT? :1 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES N0 N0 N0 N0 NO NO NO N0 N0 N0 ‘%1 N0 N0 I APPENDIX B Naflonal Association or student Personnel Aamlmsttators (THE ASSOCIATION Of DEANS AND ADMINISTRATORS OF STUDENT AFFMRS FOUNDED IN I919) —— - eggs-3"" I’InIIlr-II [mu 1". Univ" II, ”(I “run"! iIk, N" jrncy M005 I'I. I'HI III. dAII'IIIIAl'LIN "I In”: '1 e”I'IIIIIL (III-In. anun IIIIIIIIJ III In II I'IIiu-r. Ilv rIIIIIII “.JIIJI I In: nun-Ill ( III' II" l( 'l.I ARI) I‘. IlUlJ" ch l'rI-IIIIrnI lav SIIIIlI-III Servin- IIIIIm oil SI 1- II nit Ily Nnr IIuI. III-in! I-I7l- l Rmioual I' ‘1" I'rnI'IIrIIlI IIII .IIHIH II “KIA-AIM)" \l I in l'rrqIImI IIIeI m Mhln NMI IMP": IIIIivrme Ilosl s.IoII Mn MIMI-cil- I'RESTIIN I'ARR Dun III Slmkm I if: It“ II "III; 'Idhlchun. l'InII-ylumn "(all N AIIIII. N H I'RIH'ZI'NI II II'." 'II! III! LII IIi-IIIIn Slulr I'Iuiver n-Ily 'I- luv! "Inner. IIIIIiIIiamn 7m 0! IIII‘C. "'.TI II I’.. _:III'I’.'IF. vke "1":IIIEI ' . .-I v Ila-I'Imum I I «In: )lIIIN \V 'II” II' T Vice ‘I'r M m: II»: ‘IIIIIPIII All-In mli II III II nivruily TI-nr IIaIII'c. IlllIInfl-I 47 III” I IIANNIFII IIIIIIJN I I: "III y MIIIIIII. IIIIIIIII‘III |7JIIII l’rI-Iruum-Ill III/nu "II and \ III AMI-am- I InivoIIIIIy, AIIIIIIIIIIII 154“ ”r: th ‘II-I I’IIbII‘ IIIIIIIII THOMAS I INTI-'0" (Id-Item." Chui an" lIeIIigII-Ie .I n15 'IIIIII-nIII Mr Mn 2 'I' III IIII'JI Nl'lI II It. In": (IIIIIIII I“"" \«16 an QI" "rm 'IIIIvI II- "'II-z 51:" I' kn :I 'um "he lam I J'IIOII‘II 914-.“ . IANFS IIIIIJ. Arnn "an d SIIIIII'MII Ann'nhu College . I lune-Mn 55:0: “nut;- .-.~. ~-- ”:1: .-.—.—r=.-;2..___. November 18, 1968 TO: NASPA Members FROM: Thomas B. Dutton, Director Division of Research and Publications In January 1966, the Division of Re— search and Publications initiated a study of the convictions and values of student personnel administrators. Using this study as a foundation, the division has developed a new investi— gation dealing with the assumptions and beliefs of not only student personnel administrators but also other members of the academic community. The purpose of the study is to gain insight into the convictions and value orientations that determine how selected members of the academic community respond to im- portant issues in higher education. The inquiry is based on the premise that regardless of academic training or back- ground administrators, faculty and stu~ dents, with varying degrees of awareness, make assumptions and hold beliefs that influence behavior and responses to campus problems. Knowledge of these assumptions and beliefs should assist institutions in graining a better under- standing of some of the sources of con- flict and differences in position among members of the academic community and how institutions might deal more effec- tively with campus difficulties. Another important dimension of the study focuses on the perceptions that others in the institution have of the student personnel administrator. It seems clear that various factions on the campus per- ceive him in different ways and that it is important for him to be aware of those perceptions that might interfere 130 SluzAnnhnnuuy Confluence Jung HknzL DhnvIDfleang La. April 13- 16, 1969 131 November 18, 1968 NASPA Members with his ability to assist students in their personal, in- tellectual, and social development. It is our hope that increased knowledge of such perceptions will provide in- sights that will be of value to institutions and deans of students in evaluating the activities and practices of student personnel administrators, how they respond to issues, and how they might more effectively contribute to the learning process. II: the packet of material that you have received, instru- nuants have been provided for you, your president, a faculty Inennber holding the highest or a high elected position in ycnar faculty senate or comparable body, the editor of your stnldent newspaper, and the president of your student body. I" vvould like to request that the envelope containing the irlsstrument be given directly to each of these persons, tllaat you explain the purpose of the study to them, and tllait you ask them to return the instrument directly to me The success of it: the self-addressed envelope provided. tllea study depends on a good return from them; accordingly, yc>t1r direct contact and encouragement is most Vital. I' vvould like to request that you record the names and addresses of the persons to whom you give the packets on tile: enclosed card. This will permit us to communicate directly with the persons listed if we do not hear from tilearn. It is our hope that the data will be received in 12iIn£a to permit the preparation of a report for the NASPA meeting in New Orleans. YVDIJJ: help would be greatly appreciated. 153:3/finm Enc losures 132 TO: NASPA Members Thomas B. Dutton, Director, Division of Research and Publications If you have not returned the questionnaire used in the assumptions and beliefs research, please do so as soon as Would you please also contact your president, possible. student body president, student newspaper editor, and the faculty member who received the questionnaire to determine if their forms have been returned. To date the return has been good, but more forms must be secured to make the data FROM : most worthwhile. Your cooperation would be greatly appreciated. January 6 , 1969 mm APPENDIX C 133 EIGENVALUES USED TO DETERMINE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ROTATIONS IN VARIMAX ROTATION PROCEDURE WITH THRESHOLD VALUE SET AT 1.0 1 2.8353 5 1.1273 9 1.0100 2 1.9750 6 1.0886 10 0.9888 3 1.4034 7 1.0577 11 0.9407 4 1.1623 8 1.0210 12 0.9229 13 0.9003 17 0.8298 21 0.7484 14 0.8919 18 0.8141 22 0.7418 15 0.8674 19 0.7888 23 0.6944 16 0.8578 20 0.7604 24 0.6862 25 0.6646 6 0.6349 0.5858 (Computer Message from Principle Component Factor Analysis Program) "Since Eigenvalues 10 through 27 are less than the threshold Value, the associated factors are not rotated“ HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES \HIIIHHIH1lll‘HIHWIWIIUIIHmIHIIHIHIHWIWI 31293000797450