433719”; a"; 3,: I .’ £1". 1' {5-9.1me S §3£;;}%£??57 mama w: Illllllllllltlllllllllllllllllllllll L U at? gtgity i 3 1293 00642 8894 SI!“ ‘1‘. This is to certify that the thesis entitled A MONITOR OF STUDENT SATISFACTION WITHIN THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY PARK AND RECREATION RESOURCES DEPARTMENT presented by KATHLEEN MARY WEIR has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master of Science degree in Park and Recreation Resources Major professor Date October 31 , 1981+ 0-7639 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from w your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. . .INV., AUG 0 6 :99: 27»: A MONITOR OF STUDENT SATISFACTION WITHIN THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY PARK AND RECREATION RESOURCES DEPARTMENT By Kathleen Mary Weir A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Park and Recreation Resources 1984 Copyright by KATHLEEN MARY WEIR 1984 ABSTRACT A MONITOR OF STUDENT SATISFACTION WITHIN THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY PARK AND RECREATION RESOURCES DEPARTMENT By Kathleen Mary Weir The Monitor of Student Satisfaction Survey was administered to students registered with the Michigan State University Department of Park and Recreation Resources. It identified sources of satisfaction/ dissatisfaction in terms of academic and administrative variables, and provides departmental decisionmakers with relevant and up-to—date in- formation. Quantitative multiple choice data, supplemented by qualitative handwritten information, was collected on computer scored optical scan sheets. Of the 171 PRR students registered Spring term 1984, 135 were surveyed: 102 undergraduates and 33 graduate students. This is a re— sponse rate of 78.9 percent. A combined total of 87 students expressed satisfaction with the department in general. Respondents that expres- sed dissatisfaction.were specifically concerned with the departmental orientation program, and with the accessibility, availability and pro- cedural knowledge of their advisors. The survey proved useful in identifying causes of student dissatis- faction. Now identified, these problem areas can be remedied and there- fore help to minimize departmental attrition. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks are in order to my Graduate Committee, Dr Lewis Mbncrief, Dr William Donohue and Dr Colleen Cooper; and to all who have helped with this project. Special thanks go to Dr Cooper for providing large amounts of background information and support; Rick Bradshaw for giving endless hours of assistance in terms of logistics and computer analysis; Dr Lee Olson for his help with the computer scoring; Cheryl Dyer and Dave Klenosky for explaining, and re—explaining, the SPSS program to me; and the 135 students who completed the Monitor of Student Satis- faction Survey. I also appreciate the help of the PRR secretaries who distributed the MOSS Surveys during registration--it would have been a much longer process without them. The women of Elsie Publishing Institute have endured many sched- ule changes, and have supported me throughout. I thank them all. I give my sincerest thanks to Denise Gruben for her constant encourage- ment and assistance. Without her help, it would have taken me a lot longer to get this far. The support of my family and friends has been unending throughout the duration of my graduate work. As I once read... "...they seldom knew what it all meant, but they know what it all means." It would be near impossible to name each and every person who has helped me through my graduate education-—from those who provided iii guidance and those who helped with technical assistance to those who lived and breathed attrition and retention with me--Thank you. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES O C C O O O O C O O O 0 Chapter ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . Objectives of the Study . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . RESEARCH CLASSIFICATIONS. RETENTION O O O O I O O C General Theoretical Mbdel Predicting Retention. . ATTRITION . . . . . . . . Demographic and Academic Factors. . COLLEGE PROGRAMS AND THEIR EFFECTS. . COMMUNICATION . . . . . . Facilitative Strategies . . OWRVIEW O O O O O O O O 0 RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES Data Collection Methods . Instrumentation . . . . . SURVEY RESULTS. . . . . . . DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES . . SATISFACTION VARIABLES. . Concentration . . . . . Age . . . . . . . . . Sex . . . . . . . . . . Race. . . . . . . . . . Class . . . . . . . . . Grade Point Average . . INTERPRETATION. . . . . . STUDY COMPARISON. . . Data. . . . . . . . . . Analysis. . . . . . . . SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION Summary and Recommendations . . Conclusion. . . . . . . . Page vii J.‘ \lflO‘O‘O‘U‘ 10 13 14 16 16 17 20 20 21 23 24 24 30 32 47 47 49 49 53 54 54 62 APPENDICES A. INSTRUCTOR NOTIFICATION OF SCHEDULED SURVEY TIME . . B. MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING STUDY TO PRR FACULTY MEMBERS . C. MONITOR OF STUDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY OP-SCAN SHEET AND SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION SHEET . . . . . . . . . D. FACTOR ANALYSIS OF SATISFACTION VARIABLES 1—22 . . . E. 1982 CANR.MOSS SURVEY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. QUALITATIVE WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM SURVEY SHEETS. . . LITERATURE CITED 0 O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O I O O O 0 GENERAL REFERHCES O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O I O O O O 0 vi Page 64 65 67 7O 71 76 78 81 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. LIST OF TABLES Number of PRR Students Surveyed with MOSS Survey. . . . Breakdown of Respondents by Departmental Concentration. Satisfaction (by Concentration) with the Department in General 0 C O O O O O C O C C C O C O O C O O O O O O 0 Distribution of Respondents by Age. . . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction (by Sex) with the Department in General. . Students Staying in Department and Why. . . . . . . . . Students Leaving Department and Why . . . . . . . . . . Competency of Advisors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Breakdown of Respondents by Race. . . . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction (by Racial/Ethnic Origin) With the Department in General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction (by Racial/Ethnic Origin) With Attitude of Faculty Toward Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Breakdown of Respondents by Class Level . . . . . . . . Satisfaction (by Class Level) With the Department in General 0 O O O C O O C O O O C C O O O O O O C O O O Satisfaction (by Class Level) With the Department's Contribution to Academic and Intellectual Development . Satisfaction (by Class Level) With the Relevance of the Department's Program Content to Career Aspirations. . . Satisfaction (by Class Level) With the Flexibility of the Progrm O O O O I O O O C O C O O O O C O O O O O O Satisfaction (by Class Level) With the Quality of the Progrm O O O C O O C C C O C O O O O O O C O O O I Satisfaction (by Class Level) With Application Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 20 22 23 25 25 26 27 28 29 3O 3O 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 Table 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. Satisfaction (by Class Level) With the Availability of Instructors Out of Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction (by Class Level) With Overall Quality of Instruction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction (by Class Level) With the Attitude of Faculty Toward Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction (by Class Level) With the Attitude of the Chairperson Toward Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction (by Class Level) With Faculty Concern for Academic and Intellectual Development . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction (by Class Level) With the Accessibility of AdVisors O O O O O O O O O O O C C O O O O C O O O O C O Satisfaction (by Class Level) With Advisor's Knowledge of Procedures, Course Content and Curriculum Options. . Satisfaction (by Class Level) With Career Advising] “maeling. C O C O C O O C C O I O O O O O C O C O C . Satisfaction (by Class Level) With Adviser's Attitude Toward Studwts . C C C O C O O C C C C . C C O C O C . Satisfaction (by Class Level) With Attitude of Departmental Secretarial Staff Toward Students. . . . . Involvement in Extracurricular Departmental Activities. Satisfaction (by Class Level) With the Department's Orientation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction (by Class Level) With Opportunities At Orientation For Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction (by Class Level) With Materials Available Before Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction (by Class Level) With Materials Available At orientation. 0 O O O O O O I O O C O O , O O O O O O O Satisfaction (by GPA) With the Department in General. . Satisfaction with the Department by Age of Respondent . Satisfaction with the College by Age of Respondent. . . Satisfaction (by Class Level) With College Academic AdViSing O C O O O O O O O O O O I O C O O O O O O O C 0 viii Page 35 36 37 37 38 39 39 4O 41 41 42 43 44 45 45 46 50 50 51 Table 38. 39. 40. Page Satisfaction (by Sex) With Equal Treatment of Men and women 0 O C C O C C O O O C C O O C O O O O O C C C O O C 52 Satisfaction (by Sex) With Equal Treatment of Minority and Majority StUdentS O C O C O O O O O O O C C C O C O O 52 Satisfaction (by Sex) With College Treatment of Women and Minorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 ix CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Student satisfaction and retention have always been important con- cerns of administrators. In 1982, Dr Colleen Cooper of the Michigan State University (MSU) Agriculture and Extension Education Office ad— ministered a survey within the MSU College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The survey assessed student's attitudes concerning their experiences while majoring in various curricula within this College. Academic integration, along with social climate and it's integra- tion, are important factors in student satisfaction, and are therefore important to the Recreation Resources program. Academic integration includes: grade performance, perception of faculty concern for teaching and student development, as well as formal and informal contacts with faculty concerning academic, intellectual and career matters. Social integration refers to extracurricular activities, peer group relation- ships and informal interactions with faculty. Once it is discovered why people come into and leave a department, administrators can work to develop quality academic programs which aid the retention process. Before this can be done however, information is required in connection with the student's decision to stay, leave, trans- fer or drop in and out of college. This information will be extremely helpful in designing ways to improve the quality of assistance given to students. 2 As part of this thesis research, a survey similar to the one done by Dr. Cooper in 1982, was administered to 135 students within the Parks and Recreation Resources (PRR) Department. It dealt specifically with the notions of student satisfaction, retention and attrition within the Recreation Resources program. Both undergraduate and graduate students were surveyed regarding their perceptions of academic programs, social climate and administrative procedures within the department. General background information was not solicited as a part of this 1984 satisfaction survey. However, a study to characterize the "typi- cal" MSU PRR student was done by Robert Dunlavey in 1974. Although dated, this information will be presented in order to give the reader an idea of the general characteristics of PRR students. According to the 1974 survey results, PRR students come from an essentially middle to upper-middle class background, having lived mostly in a suburban environment. Results indicate that students enter PRR from a variety of academic backgrounds, usually transferring into the department at the junior or sophomore level. Outstanding among the survey results is the characterization of PRR students as completely outdoors-oriented in terms of their interests, recreation, lifestyle and employment preferences (Dunlavey, 1974). Each day, administrators must make decisions that will, in the long run, affect many people. Analysis of the data collected from this PRR Survey (1984) will provide decisionmakers with important up-to-date information concerning student's perceived needs within the academic climate so that areas of concern can be identified. This solid and relevant information, gathered directly from students, can serve as a 3 guideline for future decisionmaking. With access to this type of infor- mation, administrators can better handle the problems of student satis- faction and retention. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The primary objective of this research was to identify areas within the PRR Department which contribute to student dissatisfaction, and often attrition. Removing or at least reducing the areas of dissatis- faction should work to improve the overall academic climate within the department and lead, in turn, to student retention. Mbre specific objectives were: 1. To survey all Michigan State University Parks and Recreation Resources students in regards to their perceptions of the academic programs and administrative procedures of the department. 2. To survey these students in order to determine points of student dissatisfaction. 3. To utilize the acquired information as a tool for bettering the department's programs in terms of both academic and social inte- gration. CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The problem of dropouts has been a national as well as an interna- tional concern at all levels of education. It is not a new phenomenon. As early as 1872 the problem of dropouts was discussed at the annual convention of the National Education Association (Kowalski,l977). Nearly a century later Lenning, Beal and Sauer (1980) defined the dropout as "one who leaves the institution and does not return for additional study at any time, or at the time of the study". Researchers (Bean, 1982; Pascarella, 1982) have called to our at- tention that "despite many years of research, hundreds of publications, and many carefully controlled studies on factors contributing to attri- tion and retention, very few solutions to the complex problem have been identified". Findings are far from consistent or clear, therefore the main conclusion to draw from the research is that it "is impossible to isolate a single cause for attrition - no simple solution exists" (Beal and Noel, 1980; Bean, 1982). Still, general conclusions can be drawn from the research, which show that improved retention is possible, and that action programs can be formulated to respond to circumstances on particular college campuses (Beal and Noel, 1980). Beal and Noel have worked to shift the focus of their research from "the negative to the positive - from why students leave college to how they can be encouraged to stay, from attrition to retention". 4 5 They suggest a new focus on "tractable" variables--those the college can do something about such as orientation programs, counseling, financial aid and adequate information (Beal and Noel, 1980). RESEARCH CLASSIFICATIONS In his article entitled "College Dropouts - A Review", Lee Marsh (1966) noted that studies concerned with student dropout could be con- veniently classified into three categories. These classifications in- clude: (l) Philosophical and Theoretical, (2) Descriptive, and (3) Pre- dictive studies. Philosophical and Theoretical studies are those which usually include recommendations for action based on the assumption that dropouts could be prevented. Descriptive studies describe the general characteristics of dropouts, how they live as students and the reasons these students gave for leaving school. Predictive studies are those that utilize a range of admission variables in order to generate predic- tion equations for a variety of college "success" measures. It appears that survival in college is dependent largely on a clear and realistic set of goals and having interests that are compatible with the influences and expectations of departmental faculty and curricula (Spady, 1970; Cope and Hannah, 1975; Kowalski, 1977; Dressel, 1983). "The degree to which the attitudes and values of the student correspond with those of the in- stitution is also the degree to which the student is likely to persist at that institution" (Pantages and Creedon, 1978). Cope and Hannah (1975) explain that there is "no dropout personality, only individual personali- ties interacting with different campus environments, at various times in” their mutual and changing lives". RETENTION General Theoretical Model Tinto (1975) formulated a theoretical model that "explains the pro- cess of interaction between the individual and the institution that leads differing individuals to drop out from institutions of higher education, and that also distinguishes between those processes that result in de- finably different forms of dropout behavior". It is an institutional rather than a systems model of dropout. His conceptual scheme is based on a theoretical synthesis of recent research and takes into considera- tion a wide variety of "student backgroun variables related to family history, individual attributes and pre-college schooling in addition to interaction with the college itself (Cooper and Bradshaw, 1982). Tinto postulated that attrition occurs "when the student no longer is socially integrated with other members of the college community and when the stu— dent no longer holds the dominant values reflected in the institution's functioning (Lenning, Beal and Sauer, 1980). Tinto's general postulate states that "attrition results from a social and cultural interaction between the dropout and other persons both inside and outside the college community over a period of time" (Lenning, Beal and Sauer, 1980). Predicting Retention Robert Iffert's 1958 report of a study done on "Retention and With- drawal of College Students" is one that is often referred to today. If- fert's study, done for the US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, was designed to answer the following three questions. (1) What is the rate of student dropout in relation to type of institu- tion, economic status of the family, motivation of the student, academic performance, amount of self help, participation in extra-curricular ac- tivities and residence of the student? (2) What reasons do students 7 give for transferring to other institutions and for discontinuing college attendance? and (3) What implications do the characteristics of students and their mobility have for higher educational institutions with refer- ence to recruitment, selection, admission, counseling, instruction, schol- arship aid, and other functions? These same questions are still being asked. According to Iffert, withdrawal from college is not so much as- sociated with dissatisfaction as with the inability, or unwillingness, to endure dissatisfaction. An assumption has prevailed that students who are satisfied with a college will stay and those who are dissatisfied will leave. However, this is not necessarily true. Persistence may be related more to will- ingness or ability to endure dissatisfaction than to the dissatisfaction itself. On the other hand, if a student is satisfied, that satisfaction probably contributes to retention (Lenning, Beal and Sauer, 1980). "The extent to which the student can meet the demands of the college and de- rive satisfaction from doing so is the degree to which the student may be expected to persist at the college" (Pantages and Creedon, 1978). ATTRITION Demographic and Academic Factors The academic and socioeconomic backgrounds of college students are known to influence overall persistence (Spady, 1970; Astin, 1972, 1975 a, b; Feldman and Newcomb, 1973; Kowalski, 1977; Bianchi and Bean, 1980). Background variables such as potential and past performance are important determinants of attrition rates. Housing situation, proximity and ac- cessability of home, membership in fraternity or sorority and participa- tion in extra-curricular activities also govern dropout frequency 8 Iffert, 1958; Spady, 1970; Astin, 1972, 1975a; Feldman and Newcomb, 1973; Cope and Hannah, 1975; Ramist, 1981; Pascarella, 1982). Astin (1975b) emphasizes that the greater the involvement with others at the college, the more likely the student will persist. Aspirations and motivations are listed as key retention predictors. These predictors include (1) level of degree aspiration--those who aspire to advanced degrees are more likely to persist (Feldman and Newcomb, 1973; Cope and Hannah, 1975; Lenning, Beal and Sauer, 1980; Ramist, 1981); (2) transfer p1ans--intention to transfer or dropout at time of initial entrance is positively related to attrition (Lenning, Beal and Sauer, 1980); (3) commitment--commitment to college is positively related to persistence (Tinto, 1975); when student-institution fit is poor, commit- ment becomes necessary for persistence (Lenning, Beal and Sauer, 1980); and (4) peer group influence--inf1uence of peer group is positively re- lated to persistence (Lenning, Beal and Sauer, 1980). Iffert (1958) and Cope and Hannah (1975) point out that reasons for going to college and reasons for leaving college had a common character- istic, namely complexity. Few students identified an overriding reason for either action. Characteristics that may encourage withdrawal at one type of college may be irrelevant at another type (Feldman and Newcomb, 1973; Cape and Hannah, 1975; Ramist, 1981). Previous research points to the importance of considering the "fit" between the climate of the col- lege and the kinds of students who find their way there (Meyer and Bowers, 1965; Astin, 1975a, b; Cope and Hannah, 1975, Ramist, 1981). This relates to what Lenning, Beal and Sauer (1980) see as the dominant theme of re- tention research: that attrition and retention result from the inter- actions that take place between students and the institution. 9 Fit can involve many things, but it does include moral and social integration, meaningful contact between the student and the faculty, development of relationships between students and those who care about them, and the responsiveness of the institution to the need students feel (Feldman and Newcomb, 1973; Cope and Hannah, 1975; Kowalski, 1977; Lenning, Beal and Sauer, 1980; Ramist, 1981; Pascarella, 1982; Allen and Jones, 1983). "Until we know something about the opportunities and rewards that a college offers in_relation‘£g_the goals and desires of the students it recruits, we will remain ignorant of the causes of drop- out" (Meyer and Bowers, 1965). Feldman and Newcomb suggest that the causes for withdrawal given by students be viewed with some skepticism and caution, as the causes of departure are often distorted. One example is student concern about finances. Cope and Hannah (1975) came to the conclusion that financing college is not a major problem in persistence. Yet Lenning, Beal and Sauer (1980) point out that even the student with apparently adequate financial support might perceive a problem and withdraw to solve it. Conversely, some students can work neardmiracles with limited finances and thus persist in college. Lenning, Beal and Sauer (1980) and Ramist (1981) also discuss how the amount and type of financial aid is related to persistence. Apparently, a student had a better chance of staying in college if s/he received a major part of support from parents, scholarship or from personal savings (Astin, 1972). Scholarships and grants, particularly those of major pro- portions, seem to increase persistence while loans, especially those for large amounts, seem to contribute to attrition. Part time on-campus em- ployment also seems to improve persistence. Astin (1975a, b) writes that 10 the type of financial aid can influence persistence: loans work negatively when combined with grants, work study is best with no grants, and any type of aid is best if not combined with other forms. This is particularly true in the case of work-study programs, which tend to lose their bene- ficial impact when combined with grants or loans. Institutional characteristics can also work to positively influence persistence. Student services in the form of counseling, academic ad- vising, and orientation programs are all important factors of retention (Astin, 1975a; Kowalski, 1977; Lenning, Beal and Sauer, 1980; Ramist,l981). COLLEGE PROGRAMS AND THEIR EFFECTS Ramist (1981) writes, "one way of promoting student satisfaction with the college is to ensure that from the beginning - that is, before enrollment - the student receives information about the college that is as accurate, up-to-date, complete, and understandable as possible". What may be a small, insignificant disappointment if known before enrollment can become a major source of dissatisfaction if discovered after enroll- ment. The orientation program plays an extremely important role in help- ing students make the most of their college experience(Ramist, 1981). Pantages and Creedon (1975) suggest the use of a comprehensive and one going orientation program to better integrate students into the college environment. Advising is much more than just assisting students in choosing classes so that they may progress efficiently and effectively through their required and elective academic programs. Student advising 11 includes some personal adjustment assistance, some career development assistance, and the development of a positive faculty-student relation- ship (in Allen and Jones, 1983). Kenneth Eble (1979) tells us that ad- vising and counseling are part of the necessary interchange between teacher and student. Advising should be performed by individuals with some training and sincere interest in counseling students, particularly relative to career-related issues (Pantages and Creedon, 1975; Dressel, 1983). The good counselor must have a thorough knowledge of the re- sources and services of the college, must be able to assess (and even anticipate) student needs accurately, and must be able to match student needs and college services. The counselor must be easily accessible to the student, and the advisory relationship is best when there is rea- sonable continuity (Ramist, 1981). According to Tinto's theoretical model, the greater the degree of integration into the college, the greater the student's commitment will be. Studies (Bean, 1980; Pascarella and Terenzini, 1980; Beal and Pascarella, 1982) support the role of social and academic integration as being significantly related to leaving and staying. Cooper and Bradshaw (1982) interpreted Tinto's (1975) model and provided examples of ways to improve integration in college's social and academic systems. Some of their suggested methods for improving social integration are: -publish a college-wide and departmental newsletter -expand Opportunities for student involvement in clubs, organi- zations and college activities -construction of a multi-purpose student 'center' for the college to facilitate interaction between faculty and students, and be- tween students -assessment of student perceptions of faculty-student interactions 12 followed by investigation and improvement of those interactions found to result in student dissatisfaction Improvement of academic integration can be accomplished through: -thorough investigation, and subsequent improvement of departments and courses with which many students express dissatisfaction -completion of job market surveys for occupational fields in which students expressed dissatisfactions concerning lack of program relevance to career aspirations and/or lack of preparation for future occupation -modification of programs based upon results of such surveys (i.e. making programs more relevant to the needs of employers in the field) thereby enhancing both the employment opportunities and professional competence of graduates of programs -provision of high quality career counseling in conjunction.with competent academic advising, to assist students in identifying and meeting appropriate individualized occupational goals and comprehending the relevance of specific courses and program clus- ters to these goals. COMMUNICATION Communication (the process by which messages are transferred from a source to a receiver through certain channels), is a component of change, and therefore integrally related to the concepts of attrition and retention. Specifically, it is interpersonal communication which will help uncover the causes of dissatisfaction.which contribute to attrition. Interpersonal communication, that which occurs in the con- text of face-to-face interaction, is relatively unstructured and marked by informality .nd flexibility (Barnlund in Littlejohn, 1978). In the absence of formal communication, an honest discussion of ideas and concerns may emerge from interaction among students, faculty, or stu- dents and faculty. Students can be dissatisfied with any number of things within the school system, but these dissatisfactions cannot be dealt with if they are not made known to those who can do something about them. It is imperative that information concerning the real 13 sources of student dissatisfaction be gathered through these interper- sonal channels. The guiding generalization, according to Littlejohn (1978), is that communication results in change. By using interpersonal channels we can reveal some sources of dissatisfaction and work to alleviate them. This communication can help us to better the programs offered by the department. Once causes of dissatisfaction are identified through interper- sonal communication, facilitative strategies can be used to implement the necessary changes. Facilitative Strategies Facilitative strategies are those which make easier the implemen- tation of changes by and/or among a target group (Zaltman and Duncan, 1977). The use of facilitative strategies assumes that the target group (in this instance a college or subunit therof) (1) already recognizes a problem, (2) is in general agreement that remedial action is necessary, and (3) is open to external assistance and willing to engage in self- help. Facilitating strategies do not work simply be virtue of assis- tance being made available to the client system (students). Awareness within the client group as to the availability of help must exist in sufficient detail and clarity so that those involved know exactly what is available and where and how assistance can be obtained. Students should be made aware of the fact that the department is trying to identify and eliminate sources of dissatisfaction. Only after the department knows about dissatisfactions, can it work to improve the situation. Once dissatisfaction has been identified, and it has been agreed upon that action is necessary, students should be encouraged to '14 give input. If they are experiencing a problem, chances are they have some ideas on how it can be alleviated. By encouraging effective communication between students and facul- ty, change, leading to satisfaction and therefore attrition, can be facilitated. OVERVIEW Cooper and Bradshaw (1982) explain that Dressel stresses a need for a shift in orientation from institutional needs to student needs. Among his suggestions for ways to reduce attrition within college systems: (a) grant credit for life experience, summer internships and volunteer practice. Credit earned for "hands-on" breaks from traditional learning will reduce attrition; and (b) minimize the number of general education and prerequisite courses. Students should be given opportunities to take courses during their first year which have some direct relevance to their occupation or life goals. Excessive general education and program prerequisite requirements will increase student attrition, particularly during the freshman year. Re- search results indicate that programs with a lack of clear focus and a lack of career implications may cause low student persistence rates. Dressel emphasizes that in addition to program improvements (aimed at retention and the development of means to prevent students from with- drawing), colleges should be striving for more attractive and relevant programs. Both the student and university can benefit from such program enhancements. "However constructed or designed, no program to reduce attrition is better than its implementation and management within the institution. It is one thing to conceive of, even 15 design, an institutional retention effort; it is another to implement and manage one within the often rigid maze of institutional structures" (Tinto, 1982). Tinto reviews the facts that successful retention programs are most fre- quently longitudinal, almost always integrally tied into the admission process, and generally involve a wide range of institutional actors in their implementation. The best retention program may not really be a specific retention program: "it may be an effort to upgrade the level of educational service, in its broadest sense, that is provided for the benefit of the students" (Ramist, 1981). CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES This chapter provides an overview of the methods used in obtaining data necessary to meet the general study objective: identifying causes of student dissatisfaction within the MSU Parks and Recreation Resources Department. Data Collection Methods This study involved the total student population of the MSU PRR De— partment. Both undergraduate and graduate students were surveyed re- garding their perceptions of the academic programs, social climate and administrative procedures of this department. A one-page, back-to-back survey instrument (designed by Cooper and Bradshaw, 1982), was used to collect the data. The survey was printed on optical scan sheets, so that it could be computer scored. The Scoring Office at MSU scanned the survey sheets and automatically transferred the results onto keypunched Fortran computer cards for use in later computer analysis. In order to systematically reach the needed student population, the survey was administered in PRR classes offered during the 1984 Spring term. By going over class enrollment lists, it was possible to tell which classes would be the best to administer the survey in, in order to reach the greatest amount of students at a given time. Once it was de- cided which classes were to be surveyed, a memo was given to each faculty 16 17 member involved, detailing the specifics of the survey. (See Appendix A.) At the same time, a memorandum was distributed to all faculty members within the department. (See Appendix B.) This gave a brief explanation of the proposed study and the plans for its implementation. Faculty concerns and suggestions were requested. After memos concerning the scheduled in-class surveying were dis- tributed to faculty, adjustments were made based on comments received. These adjustments included requests to: l) distribute the surveys at the end of the class period instead of at the beginning, as was originally planned; and 2) switch the day/date of distribution due to previously planned class activities. Instrumentation Class distribution of the surveys followed a general pattern. In all four classes, the instructor introduced the researcher, and explained that the project was a Masters Thesis research and a topic of importance to the department. Some instructors knew a bit more about the project and provided the students with as much information as possible. The re- searcher then added any other pertinent information necessary to complete the survey form. The surveys, op scan sheets plus a sheet with supple- mentary questions, were distributed. After administering the first two sets of surveys, it became evident to the researcher that the presence and amount of written comments (Sec- tion VI of the survey form), was indeed related to the way the project was introduced by the instructor. Those surveys distributed at the be- ginning of class, with time provided for completion and an evidence of faculty concern, were filled out much more completely than those distrib— uted at the end of the class session. Most students were reluctant to 18 stay after class to complete the survey. Of those surveys that were taken home by the students for completion at a later time, few were re- covered for analysis. Not all surveys distributed at the end of class proved to be problems. Of the four classes surveyed, two were surveyed at the beginning of the class period, one 15 minutes before the end of the period, and one just as the class was ending. As one would probably suspect, those surveys completed during class time were filled out more completely than those done after class. Most of the students reached during class time were undergraduates. Most of the graduate students were not enrolled in PRR classes for Spring term. In order to reach these graduate students, surveys accom- panied by directions for completion, were placed in each of their mail- boxes. In this way they could conveniently obtain the survey, fill it out, and return it to the box provided. Ten days into the data collec- tion, 46.2 percent of the department had been surveyed. (This 46.2 per- cent included 39.5 percent of the graduate students and 35.4 percent of undergraduates.) In order to reach more students, the decision was made to distribute those surveys still outstanding during pre-registration in March, and also during registration at the end of March. The secretarial staff of the department played a big part in the second and third distributions of the survey. Before pre-registration began, the secretaries were given a packet that included a list of all students who still needed to fill out the survey, and a sufficient number of surveys to cover all those students. The survey sheet was paper clipped to the supplementary ques- tion sheet for easy distribution. Scoring pencils were also provided. The surveys were given to the students when they arrived at the PRR office 19 to pick up their registration cards. Prior to registration, the re- searcher had obtained permission from the department chairperson to dis- tribute the remaining surveys in this manner. Students had to complete and return the survey form.before they were given their "Permit to Reg- ister" cards for that term. This method of distribution worked very well and increased the number of undergraduates surveyed from 35.4 per- cent to 69.2 percent. Surveys were again distributed in this manner during the regular registration period and another 9 undergraduates were reached. For the duration of the survey period, a box was provided so that anyone who had a survey outstanding could easily return it for analysis. For easy access, the box was kept near the graduate student mailboxes. Students were asked to cross their names off the list on the box top when they returned their surveys. A followbup study was done in order to reach 1 out of every 5 stu- dents who had an outstanding survey (Deming, 1960). All students in- volved in the follow-up were telephoned in order to find out the best way to get a survey to them. One survey was actually done over the phone. Three surveys were mailed to students with a self-addressed stamped envelope so that the surveys could be returned to the researcher. The followbup was successful. Within the confines of the entire survey period, 78.9 percent of the PRR students enrolled Spring term, 1984, had been contacted and surveyed. CHAPTER FOUR SURVEY RESULTS This chapter will include the descriptive results of the MOSS Survey as administered to the Park and Recreation Resources students at Michigan State University. Of the 171 students registered with the department, 135 (78.9%) were surveyed. (See Table 1.) Table 1 Number of PRR Students Surveyed with MOSS Survey Number Class Level of Students Number Percentages Registered Surveyed Undergraduates 130 102 78.4 Graduates 41 33 80.4 Total Respondents (135) DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES The first section of the survey gathered general demographic infor- mation about the respondents. (See Appendix C for complete MOSS Survey form.) This information included departmental concentration, age, sex, racial/ethnic origin, class level and cumulative grade point average (GPA). 20 21 SATISFACTION VARIABLES Section II (items 1 - 22) of the survey, dealt with variables of satisfaction. These 22 questions elicit information concerning the student's general satisfaction levels in connection with such factors as: quality of the academic program and its relevance to career as- pirations; concerns with faculty, advisors and support staff; equal treatment of all students; and overall contentment with the depart- ment in general. Satisfaction was measured in terms of (1) very sat- isfied, (2) satisfied, (3) neutral, (4) dissatisfied, (5) very dis- satisfied, and (6) insufficient information. Items 23 - 27, which comprise Section III, were used to gather information about the student's integration into extracurricular ac- tivities. Involvement and leadership in departmental clubs and ac- tivities was one of the questions asked. By completing Section IV (items 28a-d) of the MOSS Survey, sur- vey respondents indicated their academic plans for the future. Re- spondents were asked if they planned to remain in the department and why or, if they planned on leaving. Reasons for leaving include graduation, transfer and dropout with supporting reasons for the latter two. Section V was used to gather supplemental information about ad- visors and orientation. Section VI provided the respondents with an opportunity to express in writing any comments, concerns, or ideas they had in connection with the department. In order to process the data collected with this Monitor of Stu- dent Satisfaction Survey, the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used. Data analysis consisted of three basic 22 components: (1) crosstabulations; (2) factor analysis; and (3) creating graphic displays from the data output. A factor analysis was used to check the internal validity of the questions in Section II (items 1-22). After trying various rotations, it became evident that a 3 factor solution was best for this sample (N=135). This 3 factor solution accounted for most of the variance and illustrates how respondents perceived each of the 22 questions. After the analysis was done, the questions could be easily grouped into the following categories: (1) Career relevance/Quality of program; (2) Ad- vising; and (3) Equality of treatment/Fairness of Opportunities. Items 17 and 20 did not fall into any of the 3 factors and were therefore eliminated from further analysis. (See Appendix D for the complete factor analysis results.) The separate discussions below deal with each survey section and set of corresponding variables, which produced statistically signifi- cant data. They take the independent variables of concentration, age, sex, racial/ethnic origin, class level and cumulative grade point average, and show how the dependent variables in Sections II, III, IV, and V are affected. Comparisons with significant amounts of relevant information are shown in tabular form for purposes of clarity. 23 Concentration A breakdown of the 135 respondents by departmental concentration is illustrated by Table 2. Table 2 Breakdown of Respondents by Departmental Concentration Concentration Frequency Percentage Administration 20 14.8 Commercial 11 8.1 Interpretation 12 8.9 Planning 5 Design 7 5.2 Recreation Program Management 13 9.6 Therapeutic 27 20.0 Other* 10 7.4 No Demographic Info Provided 35 25.9 * this includes: Recreation and Youth Leadership; Tourism, Communication and Interpretation; Recreation Resources Analysis; Resource Economics. Total Respondents (135) 24 Table 3 shows how satisfied respondents were with the department in general (item 22). Respondents are classified by concentration. Table 3 Satisfaction (by Concentration) With the Department in General Very Very Insufficient gggcentration Satisfied Satisfied Ieutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information F (2) I (I) P (I) F (I) F (I) I (1) Administration 7 5.1 6 5.9 4 3.0 1 0.7 hercial 6 4.4 4 3.0 l 0.7 Interpretation 6 5.9 3 2.2 1 0.7 Planning a Design 5 3.7 1 0.7 1 0.7 Recreation Program Management 3 2.2 6 4.4 2 1.5 1 0.7 l 0.7 Therapeutic 6 4.4 12 6.9 6 4.4 3 2.2 Other 2 1.5 5 3.7 3 2.2 In Demographic Info Provided 5 3.7 13 9.6 10 7.4 4 3.0 2 1.5 F Frequency 1 Percentage Total Respondents (135) A32 The distribution of respondents by age is shown in Table 4. Age will not be shown in comparison with any of the dependent variables, as it bears no significant influence over them in the survey. Sex Of the 135 student respondents, 86 (63.7%) were female and 47 (34.8%) were male. Once again, two students did not complete the demo- graphic section of the survey, thus leaving 1.5 percent undefined. Sixty-four and five-tenths percent of the students expressed sat- isfaction with the Michigan State University Park and Recreation De- partment in general. A neutral position was expressed by 27.4 percent of the respondents, while 5.9 percent expressed general dissatisfac- tion. Table 5 illustrates satisfaction (by sex) with the department in general. 25 Thirty-four students ( 13 males, 21 females) make up the 25.2 per- cent of respondents involved in at least 1 extracurricular club or ac- tivity. Nine females (6.7%) are active in more than 1 activity, while 38 students (17 males, 20 females and 1 who gave no demographic infor- mation), 28.1 percent, report occasional involvement. Excluding the three students who did not answer the question, there are 51 students (37.8%) who are not involved in any extracurricular departmental clubs or activities. Item 28a-d asked respondents if they were planning on staying in the Park and Recreation Department, and why; or if they were planning to leave, and why. Table 6 depicts the demographic characteristics of those students planning to remain in the department, while Table 7 characterizes those who plan to leave. Items 31 through 33 were used to gather insight as to how the students view the competency of advisors in terms of dispensing accu- rate, comprehensive and timely information. (See Table 8.) Respondents were also asked to give their satisfaction levels concerning the availability of up-to—date career information. Satis- faction with availability was expressed by 34 (25.2%) of the respon- dents and dissatisfaction was expressed by 13 (9.62). 26 Table 4 Distribution of Respondents by Age Range Frequency Percentage 18 or under 2 1.5 19 - 20 22 16.3 21 - 22 58 43.0 23 - 25 19 14.0 26 - 28 11 8.1 29 or over 21 15.6 No demographic info provided 2 1.5 Total Respondents (135) Table 5 Satisfaction (by Sex) With the Department in General Very very Insufficient 8e: Satisfied Satisfied leutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information I (1) P (I) P (I) P (2) P (X) P (1) Isle 5 3.7 25 18.5 14 10.4 2 1.5 1 0.7 Penale 14 10.4 42 31.1 22 16.3 6 4.4 2 1.5 In Desographic Info Provided 1 0.7 1 0.7 P Prequency 1 Percentage Total Respondents (135) 27’ AnMAV ououvconoux Hench venu>onn oucu adeneunoaov oz ouunonnuoch a N voodooun new a uo>o no aw H ucosoueenz own“ also oz a ensues: n cwuoa c sinuous .00: a c.c|n.n n nou:Um a usage H eon-sum n manna N denouelaou u coda-«new oc.nnc.n v uoficnn a ensuoeonso 5 sons: n owned a couueuueucdlv< n uoz nonwoonn owed uwsneuuosoo oz NH nosuo o auunoasnesh cu vovw>oun assoc N unconnecex owed also oz u azm an seuo< n neon uo ow an sinuoum .usx a c.c|m.n we ensues: a ecsuoeoneu no canon a cause: o¢.n.o.n on opossum nu «>«u-z canann< n~un~ an a anaconda c oo.~|n.« an ououcnn an \oeuasu csouuel< a NNnHN an souusueunuuucn s n.~uc.~ nu souolozoom o sued: sod-sum no canon o douche-loo n voquouuem c.~ seen soon n seseoouu n \ceouuoloun oucw ousneuuosov oz a noeuo N cannonnnosh a vena>oun unoiuwnon: vov«>oun can“ also on H nevu>oun Isuuouz .ooz n anon anon on a can a voun>ona anon game on H cannon c.cun.n a ensues: ~ owed anon on u voodooua ue>o no mu m a memos-«m N oc.nuo.n a enoucom nu oaceoouzxocsuaeu owed also on a nulnm c nodueuononoucu n oe.~un.~ o uuoacnn o \ceuuuon oa sown-assoc nouuueueuusm sefineuue> ousnnuuolea 0 ounce as: one use-unease on noun-um eucovsum 128 Anna. ascooaoauuu Anson amt Du nuauflu no: c.Nao.N N noNan N nsteuoeu N «Ne-om N oNIaN N oNnaenenesH N was usolnona oNnnooenenh N c.vum.n N and N ne>o no aN N ace-ensue: oa.n-¢.n n .nonaqz n «nu-um n n~.n~ n cannons .9»: n an: on nuance o.N nesu oneN N noNsem N eceNneoneo n eeNe: n NNINN N noNuenueNcNI6< N was uncloonn noon no oN N oe.nno.n c enoNcan c NNuNN N noeuo N au.Nun.N n senolosnom N eoNeaom n cNuoN c UNunenenoch N an: as eNONNoo c.Ns°.N N cess-enz N scsNeeuneu a eeNe: n nova: no 0N N ooNuenuaNchn< n noenouuNa new-csnh ceNssuneu N a..n.o.n n nouns -nn~ n ¢z< no unannoo c.Nno.N N onoann N \ceONnelNueN=I=o non scones: eONaane> uNnnsnnoluo N uanh as: one use-unease ucNosoN euceennm 29 AmnNO oucovconnoz Nsnoa ownucoonoh N zonenvonz m also 62 N also 02 N seNslum NN oONeluz NN ouNIlem c oeNeaoh ON soNeauz NN noNoluz ON soanuz n o.nN eeNex o n.ON seNex N O.n O.NN eeNez o N.nN oONnx MN n.NN eoNe! o e.c ooNex n hNOINH also oz N oluv oz N eeNIlom ON oeNelum n oeNoluz e eoNsluz ON oeanom ON nOanum NN noNsaum nN o.nN eeNex ON N.n N.n oeNs: n O.NN neNex O N.NN eeNox NN Q.NN ooNex 0N O.NN ooNsx N o>Nocosunmlou also oz N oluv oz N soNeluz ON eanuz N QONelum c seanom O noNnaum ON eoNQIUh NN oonlom ON a.¢N eoNe: a n.N 0N1: N N.n eNex N a.o noqu a N.ON eoNn: NN o.aN eONez MN n.nN ooan 0 unannoo< Anv z NNV m Auv m Anv m any h NNV b any h neaoc< ooNuelnoucN veNusNueonNO veNueNueooNO Nonuoez uoNueNusm veNuoNuem coNnnlnoucN u.chO ncoNoNuuoocN ano> >n0> snooN>u< uo honouonnou O UNAIH 30 ‘gagg One hundred nineteen (88.12) of the student respondents were cau- casian, with the remaining 13 (9.62) being members of minority groups. Three respondents did not provide demographic information. See Table 9 for breakdown by race. In this situation, minority group is used in reference to Afro-Americans/Blacks; American Indian/Alaskan Native; Mexican-American/Chicano/Hispanic; Asian; or other. Table 9 Breakdown of Respondents by Race Race Frequency Percentage Afro-American/Black 4 3.0 American Indian or Alaskan Native 1 0.7 Caucasian 119 88.1 Mexican-American/ Chicano/Hispanic l 0.7 Asian 4 3.0 Other 3 2.2 No demographic information provided 3 2.2 Total Respondents (135) 31 Satisfaction of respondents by race, with the department in general (item 22), is shown in Table 10. Table 10 Satisfaction (by Racial/Ethnic Origin) With the Department in General Very Very Insufficiqst Race Satisfied Satisfied Ieutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information P (2) P (I) P (I) P (I) P (1) P (I) Afro-American/Rlack 1 0.7 1 0.7 2 1.5 American Indian or Alaskan Native 1 0.7 Caucasian 18 13.3 61 45.2 30 22.2 7 5.2 1 0.7 2 1.5 lexican-American/ Oaicano/llispanic 1 0. 7 Asian 1 0.7 3 2.2 Other 1 0.7 1 0.7 1 0.7 In demographic info provided 2 1.5 1 0.7 P Prequency 1 Percentage Total Respondents (135) Students were surveyed about the attitude of faculty toward stu- dents (item 9). Table 11 illustrates student satisfaction levels by race. Table 11 Satisfaction (by Racial/Ethnic Origin) With Attitude of Faculty Toward Students Very Very Insufficient Race Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information P (I) F (1) P (1) P (I) P (1) P I) Afro-American/Dlack l 0.7 1 0.7 2 1.5 American Indian or Alaskan Native 1 0.7 Caucasian 27 20.0 54 40.0 26 19.3 8 5.9 3 2.2 Hexican—American/ Chicano/Hispanic 1 0.7 Asian 2 1.5 2 1.5 Other 3 2.2 No demographic info provided 1 0.7 2 1.5 One (1) Caucasian did not answer the question P Frequency 1 Percentage Total Respondents (135) 32 Item 25 surveyed involvement in extracurricular departmental ac- tivities by race. Results show that of 13 minority students within the department, 5 (38.5%) are not involved in any extracurricular events, 6 (46.1%) have occasional involvement and 2 (15.4%) are in- volved in 1 club or activity. Of the 119 caucasian students 45 (37.8%) are not involved in any extracurricular departmental activities, 30 (25.2%) are occasionally involved, 32 (26.9%) are involved in 1 club or activity and 9 (7.6%) are involved in more than 1 activity. Three students did not provide demographic information. Item 26 indicates that only three minority students have leader- ship roles in extracurricular departmental activities. Thirty-one Caucasians report holding one or more leadership roles in extracur- ricular activities. Elias Over half of the respondents (63.0%) were undergraduates in the upper class levels (Juniors and Seniors). Graduate students made up another 24.4 percent. Freshmen and Sophomores comprised the remaining 11.1 percent. As with the other demographic questions, two students did not respond accounting for the missing 1.5 percent. A breakdown of students by class level is shown in Table 12. Table 13 shows satisfaction with the department in general by class level (item 22). The table shows that only 8 of the students (5.9%) express dissatisfaction with the department in general. This 5.9 percent is comprised of 2 Juniors, 5 Masters and l Doctoral stu- dent. One Senior expressed a satisfaction level of very dissatisfied. 33 Table 12 Breakdown of Respondents by Class Level Class Frequency Percentage Freshmen 5 3.7 Sophomore 10 7.4 Junior 43 31.9 Senior 42 31.1 Masters 18 13.3 PhD. 15 11.1 No demographic information provided 2 1.5 Total Respondents (135) Table 13 Satisfaction (by Class Level) With the Department in General Very Very Insufficient Class Level Satisfied Satisfied leutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information P (1) F (I) P (I) P (1) P (1) P 1) Preshmen 1 0.7 3 2.2 1 0.7 Sophomore 1 0.7 5 3.7 4 3.0 Junior 8 5.9 22 16.3 9 6.7 2 1.5 2 1.5 Senior 7 5.2 22 16.3 12 8.9 1 0.7 Masters 1 0.7 6 4.4 6 4.4 5 3.7 PhD. 1 0.7 9 6.7 4 3.0 1 0.7 Io demographic info provided 1 0.7 1 0.7 P Pregnancy 3 Percentage Total Respondents (135) 34 The department's contribution to academic and intellectual devel- opment by class (item 1) is shown in Table 14. Satisfaction (by Class Level) Table 14 With the Department's Contribution to Academic and Intellectual Development Very Very Insufficient Class Level Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied nigsatisfied Information P (I) P (I) P (I) P (1) P (I) P (I) Preshnen 2 1.5 2 1.5 1 0.7 Sophomore 5 3.7 5 3.7 Junior 4 3.0 25 16.5 10 7.4 2 1.5 2 1.5 Senior 4 3.0 30 22.2 4 3.0 4 3.0 Masters 1 0.7 10 7.4 2 1.5 5 3.7 PhD. 1 0.7 10 7.4 3 2.2 1 0.7 lo demographic info provided 2 1.5 P Prequency I Percentage Total Respondents (135) Table 15 illustrates the satisfaction of respondents by class, with the relevance of the PRR Department's program content to career aspirations (item 2). Satisfaction (by Class Level) Table 15 With the Relevance of the Department's Program Content To Career Aspirations Very Very Insufficient Class Level Satisfied Satisfied leutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information P (1) P (I) P I) P (I) P (I) P (I) Preshnen 3 2.2 2 1.5 Sophomore 2 1.5 4 3.0 4 3.0 Junior 10 7.4 16 11.9 11 8.1 4 3.0 1 0 7 1 0 7 Senior 7 5.2 20 14.8 7 5.2 0 5.9 Heaters 2 1.5 9 6.7 l 0.7 5 3.7 l 0.7 PhD. 1 0.7 8 5.9 2 1.5 4 3.0 In demographic info provided 1 0.7 1 0.7 P Prequency 3 Percentage Total Respondents (135) 35 Table 16 gives a general idea of how each class rates the flexibility of the recreation program to meet their educational needs (item 4). Table 16 Satisfaction (by Class Level) With the Flexibility of the Program Very Very Insufficient Class Level Satisfied Satisfied leutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information P (2) P (I) P (I) P (I) P (X) P (2) Freshmen 3 2.2 2 1.5 Saphomore 2 1.5 3 2.2 4 3.0 1 0.7 Junior 8 5.9 19 14.1 9 6.7 5 3.7 2 1.5 Senior 9 6.7 17 12.6 11 8.1 5 3.7 Iasters 5 3.7 4 3.0 6 4.4 3 2.2 PhD. 5 3.7 3 2.2 4 3.0 2 1.5 1 0.7 lo denographic info provided 1 0.7 l 0.7 P Frequency 2 Percentage Total Respondents (135) When asked about the overall quality of the academic program (item 5), 82 of the 135 respondents (60.7%) expressed satisfaction. for specifics. Table 17 See Table 17 Satisfaction (by Class Level) With the Quality of the Program Very Very Insufficient Class Level Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information P (I) P (I) P (X) P (I) P (I) P (I) Freshmen 3 2.2 1 0.7 l 0.7 Sophomore 1 0.7 5 3.7 3 2.2 1 0.7 Junior 6 4.4 23 17.0 S 5.9 4 3.0 2 1.5 Senior 3 2.2 22 16.3 15 11.1 2 1.5 Masters 1 0.7 8 5.9 6 4.4 2 1.5 1 0.7 PhD. 2 1.5 7 5.2 2 1.5 3 2.2 1 0.7 lo demographic info provided 1 0.7 1 0.7 P Frequency 2 Percentage Total Respondents (135) 36 Results of survey item 6 show how respondents, by class, are satisfied with the opportunity to apply what they learn in the classroom. Table 18. Table 18 See Satisfaction (by Class Level) With Application Opportunities Very Very Insufficient Class Level Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information P 1) P (I) P (1) P (I) P l) Freshmen 2 1.5 1 0.7 1 0.7 1 0.7 Sophomore 3 2.2 3 2.2 3 2.2 1 0.7 Junior 8 5.9 16 11.9 13 9.6 4 3.0 2 1.5 Senior 8 5.9 23 17.0 10 7.4 l 0.7 Masters 7 5.2 5 3.7 2 1.5 3 2.2 1 0.7 PhD. 8 5.9 4 3.0 2 1.5 1 0.7 No demographic info provided 1 0.7 1 0.7 P Frequency 2 Percentage Total Respondents (135) Satisfaction items 7 through 15 deal with variables such as in- structors, faculty and advisors. of these items by class. Table 19 Satisfaction (by Class Level) The following tables show the results With the Availability of Instructors Out of Class Very Very Insufficient Class Level Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information P (I) P (I) P (1) P (I) P (2) P (I) Freshmen 1 0.7 2 1.5 2 1.5 Sophomore 1 0.7 2 1.5 7 5.2 Junior 5 3.7 14 10.4 15 11.1 5 3.7 2 1.5 2 1.5 Senior 6 4.4 20 14.8 10 7.4 5 3.7 1 0.7 Masters 7 5.2 5 3.7 2 1.5 3 2.2 1 0.7 PhD. 6 4.4 3 2.2 5 3.7 l 0.7 No demographic info provided 1 0.7 1 0.7 P Frequency 1 Percentage Total Respondents (135) 37 As Table 19 illustrates, 52.4 percent of the student respondents express satisfaction with the availability of instructors (item 7) while only 13.5 percent indicate dissatisfaction. The neutral position is claimed by 30.4 percent of the respondents. As shown in Table 20, 67.4 percent are satisfied with the overall quality of instruction within the department (item 8). Dissatisfaction was expressed by 5.1 percent. Table 20 Satisfaction (by Class Level) With Overall Quality of Instruction *:§:ry Very Insufficient Class Level Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied gigsatisfied Information P (1) P (I) P (1) P (1) P (1) P (I) Preshmen 1 0.7 2 1.5 l 0.7 1 0.7 Sophomore 1 0.7 5 3.7 3 2.2 1 0.7 Junior 4 3.0 24 17.8 12 8.9 2 1.5 1 0.7 Senior 5 3.7 28 20.7 9 6.7 Masters 2 1.5 10 7.4 3 2.2 3 2.2 PhD. 1 0.7 7 5.2 6 4.4 1 0.7 No demographic info provided 1 0.7 1 0.7 P Frequency 2 Percentage Total Respondents (135) Survey item 9 questioned the respondents about their perception of the attitude of faculty toward students. Table 21 illustrates that 64.5 percent expressed satisfaction. Note that of the 8 dissatisfied re- spondents, 4 were Masters students, 2 were SOphomores, 2 were Juniors, and 1 was a Doctoral Candidate. 38 Table 21 Satisfaction (by Class Level) With the Attitude of Faculty Toward Students Very Very Insufficient Class Level Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information P (I) P (l) P (I) P (1) P (I) P (I) Preshmen 1 0.7 3 2.2 1 0.7 Sophomore l 0.7 4 3.0 4 3.0 1 0.7 Junior 13 9.6 15 11.1 11 8.1 2 1.5 2 1.5 Senior 8 5.9 23 17.0 10 7.4 Masters 3 2.2 5 3.7 6 4.4 4 3.0 PhD. 2 1.5 8 5.9 3 2.2 1 0.7 1 0.7 No demographic info provided 1 0.7 1 0.7 One (1) Senior did not answer the question P Frequency 2 Percentage Total Respondents (135) As is illustrated by Table 22, a combined total of 81 students (60.0%) were satisfied with the attitude of the chairperson toward students (item 10). Once again, it is the Masters students who express the most dissatisfaction. Table 22 Satisfaction (by Class Level) With the Attitude of the Chairperson Toward Students Very Very Insufficient Class Level Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information P (I) P (I) P (I) P (I) P (I) P (I) Preshmen 1 0.7 2 1.5 2 1.5 Sophomore 2 1.5 4 3.0 1 0.7 3 2.2 Junior 1 0.7 9 6.7 14 10.4 2 1.5 1 0.7 16 11.9 Senior 2 1.5 16 11.9 14 10.4 1 0.7 9 6.7 Masters 4 3.0 2 1.5 6 4.4 4 3.0 1 0.7 1 0.7 PhD. 3 2.2 6 4.4 3 2.2 1 0.7 1 0.7 1 0.7 No demographic info provided 1 0.7 l 0.7 F Prequency 3 Percentage Total Respondents (135) 39 Item 11 asked respondents how satisfied they were with the faculty's concern for student's academic/intellectual development. In this in- stance, Juniors and Seniors express the most dissatisfaction. Results are shown in Table 23. Table 23 Satisfaction (by Class Level) With Faculty Concern for Academic and Intellectual Development Very Very Insufficient Class Level Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information P (I) P (I) P (1) P (X) P (I) P (1) Freshmen 1 0.7 2 1.5 2 1.5 Sophomore 4 3.0 5 3.7 1 0.7 Junior 3 2.2 18 13.3 15 11.1 4 3.0 3 2.2 Senior 5 3.7 14 10.4 19 14.1 4 3.0 Masters 3 2.2 8 5.9 4 3.0 3 2.2 PhD. 4 3.0 6 4.4 3 2.2 2 1.5 No demographic info provided 1 0.7 1 0.7 F Frequency 2 Percentage Total Respondents (135) A total of 76 respondents (56.3%) express satisfaction, on the whole, with the accessibility of advisors (item 12). There are 24 re- spondents (17.7%) who express dissatisfaction. A further breakdown by class is shown in Table 24. Satisfaction with advisor's knowledge of procedures, course con- tent and curriculum options (item 13) was expressed by a combined total of 79 respondents (58.5%). Specifics are shown in Table 25. Table 24 40 Satisfaction (by Class Level) With the Accessibility of Advisors Very Very Insufficient Class Level Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information P (I) P (I) F (I) F (I) P (I) F (I) Preshmen 3 2.2 2 1.5 Sophomore 5 3.7 2 1.5 2 1.5 1 0.7 Junior 5 3.7 13 9.6 16 11.9 5 3.7 2 1.5 1 0.7 Senior 7 5.2 16 11.9 7 5.2 7 5.2 4 3.0 1 0.7 Masters 6 4.4 8 5.9 4 3.0 PhD. 9 6.7 3 2.2 3 2.2 No demographic info provided 1 0.7 1 0.7 One (1) Junior did not answer the question F Frequency 3 Percentage Total Respondents (135) Table 25 Satisfaction (by Class Level) With Advisor's Knowledge of Procedures, Course Content and Curriculum Options Very Very Insufficient Class Level Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information 1F“Tfl’ -r-7nr' P—_GT "T‘7fi__' 'T‘_UW" r Preshmen 3 2.2 2 1.5 Sophomore 1 0.7 5 3.7 2 1.5 l 0.7 l 0.7 Junior 5 3.7 15 11.1 13 9.6 7 5.2 2 1.5 1 0.7 Senior 8 5.9 14 10.4 10 7.4 7 5.2 3 2.2 Masters 4 3.0 10 7.4 3 2.2 1 0.7 PhD. 5 3.7 8 5.9 2 1.5 No demographic info provided 1 0.7 1 0.7 P Frequency 1 Percentage Total Respondents (135) 41 Iten l4 asked the respondents about their satisfaction with the quality of career advising and counseling within the PRR Department. As is in- dicated in Table 26, 58 students (42.9%) expressed general satisfaction; 29 (21.5%) were dissatisfied. Table 26 Satisfaction (by Class Level) With Career Advising/Counseling Very Very Insufficient Class Level Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information P (1) P (X) P (I) P (I) P (I) P (I) Freshmen 2 1.5 2 1.5 1 0.7 Sophomore 1 0.7 3 2.2 3 2.2 1 0.7 1 0.7 Junior 3 2.2 13 9.6 16 11.9 9 6.7 l 0.7 1 0.7 Senior 4 3.0 11 8.1 13 9.6 9 6.7 4 3.0 1 0.7 Masters 2 1.5 8 5.9 5 3.7 2 1.5 1 0.7 PhD. 3 2.2 7 5.2 3 2.2 2 1.5 No demographic info provided 1 0.7 1 0.7 One (1) Sophomore did not answer the question F Frequency 2 Percentage Total Respondents (135) Item 15 was the last of the satisfaction questions concerning advising/ counseling. Table 27 shows that of the 135 respondents, 90 (66.7%) were satisfied with the advisor's attitude toward students. Only 9 (6.6%) expressed dissatisfaction. Respondents were asked about their satisfaction with the attitude of departmental secretarial staff towards students (item 16). As Table 28 illustrates, an overwhelming majority of 109 students (80.8%) expressed levels of very satisfied or satisfied. Twenty-two responr dents (16.3%) claimed the neutral position. Note that the only record of dissatisfaction is by 3 Masters students (2.2%). One student stated that s/he had insufficient information with which to answer the question. 42 Table 27 Satisfaction (by Class Level) With Advisor's Attitude Toward Students Very Very Insufficient Class Level Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information P I P (2) F ) F I) F I Freshmen 3 2.2 2 1.5 Sophomore 6 4.4 3 2.2 l 0.7 Junior 8 5.9 14 10.4 17 12.6 1 0.7 l 0.7 2 1.5 Senior 10 7.4 17 12.6 8 5.9 5 3.7 2 1.5 Masters 6 4.4 10 7.4 2 1.5 PhD. 7 5.2 7 5.2 1 0.7 No demographic info provided 2 1.5 F Frequency 3 Percentage Total Respondents (135) Table 28 Satisfaction (by Class Level) With Attitude of Departmental Secretarial Staff Toward Students Very Very Insufficient Class Level Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information P (I) F (I) F (I) P (1) F (I) P 1) Preshmen l 0.7 3 2.2 l 0.7 Sophomore 2 1.5 3 2.2 5 3.7 Junior 14 10.4 17 12.6 11 8.1 l 0.7 Senior 25 18.5 16 11.9 1 0.7 Masters 7 5.2 6 4.4 2 1.5 3 2.2 PhD. 9 6.7 6 4.4 No demographic info provided 2 1.5 P Frequency 1 Percentage Total Respondents (135) 43 As Table 29 illustrates, it is the Juniors and Seniors within the PRR Department that are most involved with extracurricular depart- mental activities (iton 25). Table 29 Involvement in Extracurricular Departmental Activities Involvement l l or more Didn't Class None Occasional Activity ‘égtivity_, Answer F (I) F (I) F (I) F (1) F (1) Freshmen 2 1.5 3 2.2 Sophomore 7 5.2 2 1.5 1 0.7 Junior 22 16.3 13 9.6 4 3.0 3 2.2 l 0.7 Senior 11 8.1 11 8.1 13 9.6 5 3.7 2 1.5 Masters 5 3.7 1 0.7 12 8.9 PhD. 3 2.2 7 5.2 4 3.0 l 0.7 No demo info provided 1 0.7 1 0.7 F Frequency % Percentage Total Respondents (135) Most of the leadership roles within these extracurricular activities ap- pear to be held by Seniors. Those reporting leadership roles in one ex- tracurricular activity include: 11 Seniors, 5 Masters, 1 Juniors and l Doctoral Student. Three Seniors and l Freshman have 2 leadership roles; 3 Seniors, 2 Juniors and 2 Doctoral students have 3 roles; and 2 Juniors, 2 Masters and l Doctoral student have 4 or more extracurricular leader- ship roles. Item 35 dealt with the respondent's satisfaction with the depart- ment's orientation program. The department holds two separate 44 orientations: one for undergraduate students and one for graduates. A total of 20 students (14.8%) did not even answer the question. The re- maining 115 (85.2%) were spread out over the satisfaction scale. As can be seen in Table 30, 34 (25.2%) of the respondents were very satis- fied or satisfied; 40 (29.6%) held the neutral position; 17 (12.5%) were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied; and 24(17.8%) claimed they had insufficient information to answer the question. Table 30 shows the specific breakdown of replies from item 35. Table 30 Satisfaction (by Class Level) With the Department's Orientation Program Very (Very Insufficient Class Level Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information P (1) P (I) P (i) P (I) P (1) P (1) Freshmen l 0.7 3 2.2 Sophomore 3 2.2 4 3.0 2 1.5 Junior 1 0.7 11 8.1 10 7.4 4 3.0 2 1.5 11 8.1 Senior 10 7.4 16 11.9 2 1.5 1 0.7 7 5.2 Masters 1 0.7 4 3.0 2 1.5 2 1.5 2 1.5 3 2.2 PhD. 1 0.7 2 1.5 5 3.7 2 1.5 l 0.7 l 0.7 No demographic info provided 1 0.7 Non-respondents included: 1 Freshman, 1 Sophomore, 4 Juniors, 6 Seniors, 4 M.S., 3 PhD., 1 no demographic info F Frequency 1 Percentage Total Respondents (135) 45 Survey item 36 also dealt with the orientation program, as it asked re— spondents how satisfied they were with the opportunities they had to ask questions at orientation. While 28 (20.8%) were satisfied on the whole, 17 (12.6%) were generally dissatisfied. Table 31 shows the breakdown of these figures. Table 31 Satisfaction (by Class Level) With Opportunities At Orientation For Questions Very Very Insufficient Class Level Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information P (I) P (I) F (I) P (I) P (I) F I Preshmen 1 0.7 1 0.7 l 0.7 l 0.7 sOPhOIOPC 3 2.2 4 3.0 2 1.5 Junior 2 1.5 8 5.9 10 7.4 3 2.2 3 2.2 12 8.9 Senior 9 6.7 17 12.6 2 1.5 1 0.7 7 5.2 Masters 1 0.7 5 3.7 2 1.5 2 1.5 4 3.0 PhD. 1 0.7 2 1.5 5 3.7 2 1.5 1 0.7 1 0.7 No demographic info provided 1 0.7 Non-respondents included: 1 Freshman, 1 Sophomore, 5 Juniors, 6 Seniors, 4 M.S., 3 PhD., 1 no demographic info P Frequency 1 Percentage Total Respondents (135) In items 37 and 38, respondents were asked for their satisfaction with the availability of materials before their respective orientation pro- grams (item 37) and at the orientation program (item 38). Results are shown in Tables 32 and 33 so that satisfaction levels for both the graduate and undergraduate orientation can be noted. 46 Table 32 Satisfaction (by Class Level) With Materials Available Before Orientation Very Very Insufficient Class Level Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Eigsatisfied Information P (I) P (l) P (2) P (I) P (1) P (I) Freshmen 3 2.2 Sophomore 3 2.2 4 3.0 2 1.5 Junior 1 0.7 11 8.1 10 7.4 4 3.0 2 1.5 11 8.1 Senior 11 8.1 16 11.9 2 1.5 l 0.7 7 5.2 Masters 1 0.7 4 3.0 2 1.5 2 1.5 2 1.5 3 2.2 PhD. 1 0.7 2 1.5 5 3.7 2 1.5 1 0.7 1 0.7 No demographic info provided 1 0.7 Non—Respondents included: 1 Preshmen, 1 Sophomore, 4 Juniors, 6 Seniors, 4 M.S., 3 PhD., 1 no demographic info F Frequency 1 Percentage Total Respondents (135) Table 33 Satisfaction (by Class Level) With Materials Available At Orientation Very Very Insufficient Class Level Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information P (I) P (1) P (I) P (I) P (1) P (I) Preshmen 1 0.7 1 0.7 1 0.7 l 0.7 Sophomore 3 2.2 4 3.0 2 1.5 Junior 2 1.5 8 5.9 10 7.4 3 2.2 3 2.2 12 8.9 Senior 9 6.7 17 12.6 2 1.5 1 0.7 7 5.2 Masters 1 0.7 5 3.7 2 1.5 2 1.5 4 3.0 PhD. 1 0.7 2 1.5 5 3.7 2 1.5 1 0.7 1 0.7 No demographic info provided 1 0.7 Non-Respondents included: 1 Freshman, 1 Sophomore, 5 Juniors, 6 Seniors, 4 M.S., 3 PhD., 1 no demographic info F Frequency 3 Percentage Total Respondents (135) 47 Grade Point Average The last piece of information to be collected in the demographic section of the survey (Part I), was the respondent's cumulative grade point average. The statistical results of crosstabulations involving this variable are, for the most part, irrelevant. They have been used to clarify points where necessary. Table 34 shows satisfaction levels by GPA.with the department in general. Table 34 Satisfaction (by GPA) With the Department in General Very Very Insufficient Grade Point Average Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information P (I) P (X) P (1) P (I) P (I) P (1) less than 2.0 1 0.7 2 1.5 2 1.5 1 0.7 200 - 2.‘ 2 105 1‘ 1°e‘ . Sag 2.5 - 2e99 9 6e? 20 l‘ea a 5e9 3.0 - 3.49 5 3.7 18 13.3 7 5.2 6 4.4 1 0.7 3.5 - 4.0 1 0.7 12 8.9 11 8.1 1 0.7 1 0.7 No demographic info provided 1 0.7 2 1.5 1 0.7 l 0.7 F Frequency 1 Percentage Total Respondents (135) INTERPRETATION After reviewing the results of the survey, it seems that the Park and Recreation Department should be most concerned with the information involving advising, transfers, drapouts, and orientation procedures. These seem to be the items which have generated large amounts of student response, and which will, in the end, influence general satisfaction. As is seen in Table 23, just a little over one-half of the survey re- apondents (56.3%) were satisfied with the accessibility of advisors. Table 24 illustrates that over half of the respondents (58.5%) were asatisfied with their advisor's knowledge of procedures, course content Etnd curriculum options. These are very important parts of an advisor's 48 role and should not be overlooked or trivialized. Survey item 14 asked respondents about their general satisfaction with career advising/coun- seling within the Park and Recreation Department. Only 42.9 percent expressed satisfaction. Advising plays a big part in a student's gen- eral satisfaction with the department. Section VI of the survey sheet gave respondents the opportunity to express in writing, any comments they had that were not covered in the survey. Advising was often re- ferred to in these comments. See Appendix F.for specific comments. Table 7 shows exactly who will be leaving the department and why. Of the 17 students planning to leave, only three will be doing so be- cause of graduation. Five respondents plan to transfer due to a lack of career opportunities, one is leaving MSU because of a change in career plans and two are leaving as a result of financial difficulties. The other six students did not give their reasons for leaving. With the exception of graduation and change in career plans, the other reasons for leaving appear to be problems that the department may be able to alleviate. The five students leaving due to lack of career op- portunities may actually be leaving because of a lack of knowledge about the career opportunities available. This circles back to a lack of information and, in a way, to advising/counseling. Change is a general result of communication. Only when students know about the op- portunities available to them, can they take advantage of them. Ad- visors must work to provide students with this information. Financial difficulties are often cited as reasons for leaving school. If the department has the monetary resources, these concerns could also be al- .leviated, if not eliminated. However, the department must know about these problems before it can work to ease them. Facilitative communica— t3:10n strategies can be employed once the department becomes aware of a 49 need for change. The nature of these strategies make the implementation of change easier by making known the facts that information is available and where and how assistance can be obtained. Part of the supplementary questions section.was used to field re- sponses about experiences with the department's orientation program. Table 29 illustrates the specific numbers of satisfied, neutral and dissatisfied students, plus those who claim to have insufficient infor- mation to answer the question. One is lead to assume that the 24 re- spondents who weren't able to answer the question, did not attend an orientation program. Could it be they didn't know about it? Was it a conflict with a job commitment in the case of the graduate orienta- tion? The reasons for students not attending these very important orientation sessions should be looked into. A good orientation can help a student feel that s/he is a vital part of the department, which will help in her/his general satisfaction in the long run. Of the students surveyed, 64.2 percent expressed satisfaction with the department in general. While administrators must strive to retain these satisfied students, it is the other 35.8 percent which must be reached -- whether through improved orientation, financial assistance, improved quality of advising, or other variables not necessarily pin- pointed through this survey. STUDY COMPARISON Dggg In order to compare the results of the PRR Department Monitor of Student Satisfaction Survey with those of the survey administered to the students of the entire College of Agriculture and Natural Resources in 1982, three different variables have been presented for analysis. (See Appendix E for a copy of the 1982 Questionnaire.) 50 As is illustrated by Table 35, 64.5 percent of the PRR students surveyed were satisfied with the department in general. Of the 589 students responding to the 1982 study, 75.9 percent indicated satis- faction with the College (item 51). Table 35 shows satisfaction with the department by age of respondent, while Table 36 shows satisfaction by age with the College. Table 35 Satisfaction with the Department by Age of Respondent Very Very Insufficient Age Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information P (I) P (I) F (I) P (1) F (I) F X) 18 or under 1 0.7 1 0.7 19 - 20 3 2.2 13 9.6 5 3.7 l 0.7 21 - 22 9 6.7 32 23.7 14 10.4 1 0.7 1 0.7 l 0.7 23 - 25 3 2.2 8 5.9 6 4.4 2 1.5 26 - 28 4 3.0 4 3.0 3 2.2 29 or over 4 3.0 9 6.7 6 4.4 1 0.7 1 0.7 No demographic info provided 1 0.7 l 0.7 P Frequency % Percentage Total Respondents (135) Table 36 Satisfaction with the College by Age of Respondent Very Very Insufficient Age Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information P (2) P (I) F (I) F (I) P (I) F (I) 18 or under 3 0.5 11 1.9 1 0.2 19 - 20 23 3.9 66 11.2 26 4.4 1 0.2 1 0.2 4 0.7 21 - 22 20 3.4 151 25.6 36 6.1 6 1.0 l 0.2 4 0.7 23 - 25 8 1.4 60 10.1 16 2.7 5 0.8 2 0.3 2 0.3 26 or over 21 3.6 70 11.9 33 5.6 8 1.4 l 0.2 7 1.2 No demographic info provided 1 0.2 1 0.2 P Frequency 2 Percentage Total Respondents (589) 51 Satisfaction with the quality of career advising/counseling (item 14, 1984) has been expressed by 42.9 percent of the respondents. Specific results are illustrated in Table 26 (page 41). Item 34 of the 1982 survey questioned respondents about academic advising. Fifty-six and three tenths percent expressed satisfaction with advising at the college level (See Table 37). Table 37 Satisfaction (by Class Level) With College Academic Advising Very Very Insufficient Class Level Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information P (1) P (1) P (I) P (1) P (I) P (I) Freshmen 8 1.4 13 2.2 5 0.8 2 0.3 1 0.2 1 0.2 Sophomore 12 2.0 21 3.6 16 2.7 12 2.0 2 0.3 1 0.2 Junior 33 5.6 55 9.0 37 6.3 17 2.9 10 1.7 2 0.3 Senior 28 4.8 61 10.4 60 10.2 29 4.9 20 3.4 3 0.5 Graduate/ Professional 42 7.1 52 8.8 29 4.9 8 1.4 4 0.7 4 0.7 No demographic info provided 1 0.2 P Frequency 1 Percentage Total Respondents (589) Satisfaction with the equal treatment of women and men and ethnic minority/majority students was addressed in questions 18 and 19 of the PRR study (1984). The department survey showed satisfaction levels of 65.9 percent and 48.9 percent respectively. These 2 topics were ad- dressed together in question 48 of the 1982 study, where 52.1 percent satisfaction was indicated. Results are illustrated in Tables 38, 39 and 40. 52 Table 38 Satisfaction (by Sex) With Equal Treatment of Men and Women Very Very Insufficient Sex Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information F (2) F (I) F (I) F (2) F (I) F (1) Male 10 7.4 15 11.1 14 10.4 1 0.7 7 5.2 Female 19 14.1 43 31.9 18 13.3 6 4.4 No demographic info provided 2 1.5 F Frequency 2 Percentage Total Respondents (135) Table 39 Satisfaction (by Sex) With Equal Treatment of Minority and Majority Students Very Very Insufficient Sex Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information P (2) F (I) F (I) F (I) F (X) P 1) Male 9 6.7 14 10.4 17 12.6 1 0.7 6 4.4 Female 11 8.1 31 23.0 23 17.0 20 14.8 No demographic info provided 1 0.7 1 0.7 Non-rggpondents included 1 Female F Frequency 1 Percentage Total Respondents (135) Table 40 Satisfaction (by Sex) With College Treatment of Women and Minorities Very Very Insufficient Sex Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Information P (I) F (I) F (2) F (I) F (2) F (1) Male 34 5.8 127 21.6 152 25.9 15 2.5 10 1.7 13 2.2 Female 36 6.1 97 16.5 64 10.9 26 4.4 3 0.5 6 1.0 No demographic info provided 1 0.2 4 0.7 1 0.2 Non-respondents include: 13 Males and 6 Females F Frequency 2 Percentage Total Respondents (589) 53 Analysis Each of these examples represent one of the three factor categories gleaned from the factor analysis--quality, advising, and fairness. Gen- eral trends are difficult to extract even when comparing similar ques- tions. This is due in part to vastly different experiences of the sub- ject pepulations. What the results do show is that the majority of both sample populations were satisfied with the college or department in general. The college study stated that "students...were somewhat less than satisfied with academic advising." This point appears to be emphasized in the results of the PRR study where an even lower percent (less than half of those surveyed) expressed satisfaction. In the college study, it is hard to differentiate between those ex- pressing satisfaction.with treatment by race or gender since only one question was used to cover both issues. A relatively equal proportion of satisfaction and neutrality/dissatisfaction was reported by respondents to the college survey. In the PRR survey, treatment by race or gender were separated into two questions. Survey results indicate satisfaction with the equal treatment of males and females, but dissatisfaction where the equal treatment of minority/majority students are concerned. CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION Summary and Recommendations The Park and Recreation Resources Monitor of Student Satisfaction Survey was designed and administered with 3 main purposes in mind: (1) to survey students as to their perceptions of departmental programs and procedures; (2) determine points of student dissatisfaction; and (3) utilize the acquired information as a tool for bettering the Depart— ment's programs in terms of both academic and social integration. Chapter One provides background information on the MOSS Survey and why it should be used as an instrument to gather data about student satisfaction levels that lead to attrition or retention. The review of literature presented in Chapter Two explains why at- trition studies should be an ongoing project in schools. By strength- ening communication links, studies can be centered on retention rather than attrition. Researchers can then concern themselves with bettering the school environment--to encourage students to remain, rather than trying to figure out why they are leaving. Communication, or rather the lack thereof, is a big part of the attrition problem. Students are leaving school and, oftentimes, admin- istrators do not know the real reasons for why this is happening. Al- though brief, the review of communication literature provides background information on which attrition and retention studies can be based. 54 55 Communication appears to be the key to attrition and retention. By means of interpersonal communication, students find out why other stu- dents are leaving, yet this information may never actually reach those in administrative positions--those who need to hear the information most, if they are going to be able to change the system in even a small way. Several authors of retention studies suggest having those who leave the school system (or department in this case), go through an "exit interview". This could help determine why a student is leaving, and perhaps help to retain other students who could plan on leaving for similar reasons. If a student is enrolled one term, but not the next (excluding summer), and was not in a position to graduate, they should be located and questioned as to their reason for departure. A simple mail questionnaire including return envelope would serve this prupose well. The survey would only have to ask enough questions to find out the students reasons for leaving and plans for the future (i.e. transfer, return, etc). By acquiring information such as this from students who are dropping - or stapping (planning to return) - out, administrators will be able to come up with a preventive plan against attrition, rather than something that happens "after the fact". Once the reasons for attrition are realized, facilitative come munication strategies can be used to implement a change in the system. Recommendation: Use an "exit interview" (perhaps in the form of a mail survey) to determine student's reasons for leaving the department, as well as their plans for the future. For example, are they planning to re- turn, transfer or just drop out? Recommendation: Make the student population aware of the fact that facilitative strategies are being utilized to al- leviate the attrition problem. Encourage students to voice their concerns and suggestions, and provide a specific channel through which they can do this. 56 Chapter Three explained the methods and procedures used to gather the data necessary for this study. The survey form, developed by Cooper and Bradshaw (1982) was, on the whole, well thought out and designed. Having the survey printed on optical scan sheets for computer scoring was a benefit in the long run. Should the survey form itself ever be re-done, some space problems need to be taken care of, for instance, the overlap of supplementary question numbers 29 and 30 with answers on side one. Also, not all of the questions on the form were entirely relevant to a department-scale retention program. Some of the infor- mation gathered from these questions did help however, when elaboration on other items was necessary. Recommendation: Before another printing run of this survey form is done, relocate the supplementary question block (items 29 - 38) so that overlap is eliminated. After generating a factor analysis to check the internal validity of survey questions 1-22, it became evident that 2 of the questions (17 and 20) did not fall into the 3 factor validity solution. These questions were removed from further analysis. Recommendation: A validity check (factor analysis) should be completed before a survey instrument is analyzed. This eliminates invalid questions and allows the researcher to gather only that information which is important and useful to the study. It is difficult to directly measure attitudes. What ends up being measured is the respondent's conception of an attitude, based on her/his experiences. Recommendation: Avoid survey items that question a respondent's ideas/ thoughts about another person's attitudes. Different people read different things into a question - therefore inferences drawn from the resulting statistics are some- times invalid. Surveys were distributed in classes where they would reach the largest amount of students. As more and more surveys were administered, 57 it became evident that the more the respondent knew about the project the more likely they were to fill out the survey completely and provide additional written comments. The manner in which the researcher, and the research itself, was presented to the student respondents also had bearing on the quality of response. As was discussed in Chapter Three: when the surveys were distributed, and how long the respondents had to fill them out, had a good deal to do with their full and accurate completion. Those surveys completed during class time were "taken more seriously" than those dis- tributed after class. Students were very reluctant to remain after class in order to complete the survey. Of those surveys that were taken home for completion, relatively few were recovered for analysis. Grad- uate students were more understanding of the content and use of the survey and therefore seemed, on the whole, more willing to complete and return their surveys. Recommendation: Make arrangements to survey during class time - and stay with these agreements. Be sure that the in- volved faculty members have an understanding of the research - its purpose and importance - so that they can pass this information on to the students. Recommendation: Have the appropriate number of #2 pencils available for use on the optical scan scoring sheets. The sheets must be re-copied if the wrong type of writing implement is used. Recommendation: As was recommended by Cooper and Bradshaw (1982): do not plan to administer the study when it will inter- fere in any way with the midterm or final examination periods. Several students were reluctant to provide demographic information on the survey form, as they felt they could be identified from that type of information. Written comments were also a big concern - as students felt that faculty would recognize their handwriting. After making it clear that the department faculty would not see the original 58 form, some students included written comments; many didn't. This lack of written qualitative comments is unfortunate as these are extremely helpful in elaborating on the direct quantitative results. Recommendation: Assure students of anonymity before they begin to fill out the survey. Many written comments were omitted because the researcher found out about this concern too late. An analysis of the data gathered by the Park and Recreation Re- sources Monitor of Student Satisfaction Survey is found in Chapter Four. Within the confines of the survey period, a total of 135 of the 171 stu- dents registered with the PRR Department were surveyed. This is a re- sponse rate of 78.9 percent. Included are: 102 of the 130 registered undergraduates (78.4%) and 33 of the 41 registered graduate students (80.4%) Survey results are presented throughout the chapter in terms of demographic information. Much of the data is shown in tabular form with a majority of the tables being in the class level category. This seemed to be the most logical place to present the data for easy analy- sis. Due to the location of the item requesting the students depart- mental concentration, in the upper left hand corner, 35 of the 135 re- spondents did not provide this useful information. Concentration in- formation is helpful, for example, when determining areas of satisfac- tion/dissatisfaction with advisors and classes. Recommendation: Use one of the supplementary questions on side 2 of the survey to request information on the respondents departmental concentration. Also, specify where to elaborate if option 6 (other) is chosen. (For clar- ity, see Appendix C) A good number of respondents report having at least occasional involvement in extracurricular departmental clubs and/or activities. 59 Fifty-one students report no involvement at all. Once again, commun- ication is a key. In the written comments section of the survey, sev- eral people reported problems with attending meetings due to the time at which they were held. Some expressed difficulty in finding out a- bout meetings. (See Appendix F) Signs and announcements are usually put up before a meeting, but perhaps not far enough in advance. Sev- eral PRR students only attend night classes once a week. Signs must be posted at least one week in advance so that these people can know about meetings or special activities. Oftentimes, the bulletin boards on which announcements are posted are so cluttered, that new informa- tion is difficult to locate. Sectioning off a part of the bulletin board for meeting notices (as was done on the board outside the PRR of- fice) makes timely information more noticeable and keeps the students up-to-date on meetings and events. Distributing a small but informative newsletter can also help in the dissemination of information. Mailing a list of events and happen- ings to all students registered with the PRR Department could help to improve involvement. If students are notified of meetings ahead of time, they will have more of an opportunity to plan on attending. Interpersonal communication among peers can also help to bring more students to meetings and events. Have students express times/ days that are better than others for meetings at an orientation/general information type gathering in the beginning of the term. A true con- census will never be reached but perhaps alternating the days and times of the meetings on a regular basis will help attendance and involvement. If students know a club meeting will be held the second Tuesday of each month, they can plan for it ahead of time,instead of having to alter their plans two days before the meeting. Consistency in the form of 60 regular meetings can help improve extracurricular involvement. Recommendation: Improve extracurricular departmental involvement by: A) Posting notice of meetings/eventslactivities at least one week in advance; B) Keep part of the bulletin board outside of Room 131 of the Natural Resources Building sectioned off for club information, and remove old notices as soon as possible; C) Mail a list of meetings and events to all regis- tered PRR students to ensure that ALL students know about an event; D) Encourage consistency in planning meeting days and times so that students can plan on attending a specific meeting and mark that time slot off in advance. Based on responses received, there appears to be no evidence of discrimination in terms of sex or race within the department. In terms of the demographic characteristic of class level, it should be noted that it is the Masters students who express the highest percent of dissatisfaction with the Park and Recreation Resources Department in general (See Table 14). Once again, written comments helped to clarify dissatisfaction. Several Masters students expressed the opinion that the Graduate orientation program should more accurately reflect what the department offers; and what it is involved in (e.g. tourism). Present dissatisfaction with the department stems from.being mislead in the beginning of ones program. Recommendation: Organize a more structured orientation program that paints an accurate picture of the PRR Department. Involve students in the planning as they know what would be most helpful to incoming students. In both the quantitative and qualitative sections of the survey, some dissatisfaction with advisors was expressed. A total of 24 stu- dents were dissatisfied with the accessibility of their advisor. Looking at the written comments, (Appendix F), will show that students feel "second to extension war and ask advisors/faculty to think a- bout why they are there. Concern is expressed that advisors are more 61 concerned with their research and extension work than with the students. There appears to be an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with ad- visors. Knowledge of procedures, course content and curriculum options, quality of career advising/counseling and advisors attitude toward stu- dents is felt to be lacking. Students may not know the best way to contact their advisor, or may be expecting too much of them--this could be covered in the orientation materials or program. Recommendation: Explain the advising/counseling system to students as a part of the orientation procedure. A flow chart of "who to see about what and when" would be helpful and would eliminate having the student assume what s/he is supposed to do about a particular concern. Under the demographic heading of class level, orientation seems to be a cause of student dissatisfaction. Presenting an accurate picture of the department has already been discussed. A major problem with the orientation program seems to be lack of involvement in the program it- self. Some students report that they didn't even know there was an orientation. Graduate students question the lack of faculty involvement (See Appendix F). The unavailability of written/administrative mate- rials at orientation was also a concern. Be sure everyone in atten— dance has an outline of information being discussed, or have a copy available for them. Recommendation: To improve the orientation session: A) Involve students in planning; B) Plan the program for a date when a good majority of the faculty can be present; C) Have materials that were mailed out ahead of time readily available in case some students did not receive their copy; D) Provide opportunities for questions both during the formal orientation and in an interpersonal setting after the program; E) Include a tour of the department. For graduate stu- dents, have their study cubes and mailboxes assigned- this will help them feel more a part of the depart- ment right from the beginning; 62 F) Follow orientation with an informal get-together complete with refreshments. Having it at a student's or faculty member's home is nice, but may tend to exclude some of the new students (lack of transpor- tation, didn't want to go alone...). Providing refreshments after orientation invites people to stay a bit longer, get to know each other, ask questions, etc. Information gathered about the student's cumulative grade point average was used for purposes of elaboration only. Conclusion A student's level of satisfaction is a major component of a decision to stay in, or to leave, school. After analyzing the results of the data collected with the Monitor of Student Satisfaction Survey, it ap- pears that those students registered with the MSU Department of Park and Recreation Resources are generally satisfied with the program they are involved in. There are some displays of dissatisfaction - as there will always be - but none so overwheLming that they can't be dealt with. The main problems encountered in this department seem to be directly attributed to the orientation program and with the PRR advisors. Rec- ommendations to alleviate, if not eliminate, some of these concerns have been presented in the previous section. One suggestion which seems to come up again and again is that of bettering the communication links between the students and faculty. Part of the existing dissatisfaction is present because of lack of procedural orientation. Students don't know when to consult advisors or how much they should expect from these advisors. Providing information to this effect, be it written or oral, can only help clear up some of the dissatisfaction. As a result of in- terpersonal communication students are aware of other student's concerns and problems. This information must find its way to those in adminis- trative positions if change, on any level, is to occur. 63 The recommendations provided herein seem simplistic, yet they are key components in the process of eliminating sources of student dissat- isfaction. Taking several small steps toward the general goal of re- ducing attrition is better than taking no steps at all. Student attri- tion is not caused by any one variable, it is, instead, a compilation of many small dissatisfactions, one of which ultimately happens to "tip the bucket" and cause a student to leave. Students should be informed about the implementation of a retention/ attrition program. Let them know what is available to them, and what is being changed in accordance with their requests. This type of communi- cative process can serve to minimize attrition while maximizing retention. APPENDICES APPENDIX A INSTRUCTOR NOTIFICATION OF SCHEDULED SURVEY TIME APPENDIX A INSTRUCTOR NOTIFICATION OF SCHEDULED SURVEY TIME MONITOR OF STUDENT SATISFACTION (MOSS) SURVEY On at I will be in your class (Room'____) to distribute the MOSS Survey. It should take no longer than 10 minutes of class time. Thanks for your cooperation. -Kathi Weir 64 APPENDIX B MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING STUDY TO PRR FACULTY MEMBERS APPENDIX B MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING STUDY T0 PRR FACULTY MEMBERS February 17, 1984 I-IEI-EORAIIDUII TO: All PRR Faculty FROM: (athi Heir RE: Monitor of Student Satisfaction Survey Student satisfaction and retention have always been important con- cerns of college administrators. In 1982, Dr. Colleen Cooper of the Agriculture and Extension Education Office administered a survey within the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The survey assessed student's attitudes concerning their experiences within the College as a whole. It is my intention, as part of my thesis research, to administer a similar survey to the students within the Parks and Recreation Re— sources Department. It will deal specifically with the notions of student satisfaction, retention and attrition within the program. Both undergraduate and graduate students will be surveyed regarding their perceptions of academic programs, social climate and adminis- trative procedures within the department. In order to systematically reach the needed student population, I will be administering the survey in all PRR classes offered this term. PRR students not currently enrolled in PRR classes will also have an opportunity to complete the questionnaire. All information obtained will be analyzed, and a full report will be submitted to the department. Underlying theories plus a review of retention and attrition literature will also be included. Some proposed points of analysis include: 1) Determine points of student dissatisfaction with rules and procedures. 2) Check the availability of advisors and assess their compe- tency in relating accurate, comprehensive and timely infor- mation to students about courses and career opportunities. 3) Assess the availability of updated career information. 65 66 4) Evaluate the orientation program to determine whether it is a display of administrative materials and detail, or a program that addresses the questions and concerns of entering students. Analysis of the questionnaire should provide the department with solid, up-to-date, relevant information on which to base future decisions. The survey will provide decisionmakers with information directly from the student-~an important component of decisionmaking as it is the student who will be affected by new rules and regu- lations. SUBVEY DISTRIBUTION DATES: Monday, February 27; Tuesday, February 28; Thursday, March 1 TIME: during the first 10 minutes of class *‘Each instructor will be notified of the exact date and time the survey will be administered in class. SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS (#29-38 on back of survey sheet) 29. omit due to space overlap with side 1. 30. omit due to space overlap with side 1. 31. Competency of advisor in relating accurate information. 32. Competency of advisor in relating comprehensive information. 33. Competency of advisor in relating timely information. 34. Availability of up-to—date career information. 35. Satisfaction with orientation program given by the department. 36. Opportunities at orientation for asking queStions dealing with the concerns of a new student. 37. Availability of administrative materials (handbooks) before the actual orientation program. 38. Availability of administrative materials at orientation program. Should anyone have any concerns or suggestions in relation to this survey, or my thesis research in general, I can be reached at 484-4886 (mornings) or through my mailbox in Room 150. Thank you for your cooperation, 116%; New. APPENDIX C MONITOR OF STUDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY OP-SCAN SHEET AND SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION SHEET ."'.'.'.'-’.'- OQOQOQOOOQOOO.00..9000...0'...0.9.0.909...09.0.0.0...-OQOQW'Q'QOQOQOQMOQ'Q'o-poooo‘.'cocoovcosooouvupqno APPENDIX C MONITOR OF STUDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY OP-SCAN SHEET AND SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION SHEET College oi Agriculture and Natural Resources o o s coo-om a" 'o' g HQ) 6 O a e e (9 OO 0 Michigan State University 62 o 6 6 o E) 6- O o o Monitor of Student Satisfaction O “629 Our department is interested in learning more about student opinions at its programs. courses. and adwsing tantammwmmummmmmwumnmwmm quality oi pregame and a: better prepare you tor your cueer. Pleaserespondtoaliquestionsbymarki‘ngdarklyintheappropriateapacemairigaeilpencil. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\ Age Sex Racial/Ethnic Origin ct... Level Cumulative GPA O is or under 0 Male 0 Airo-Americarveiaoir O Freshmen 0 Less than 2 0 01920 0 Female 0 American lndan or Alasiiian Nallve O Sophomore O 2 0249 021-22 0 Caucasian 0 Junior 0 2.52.99 0 2325 O “ ' ..‘ _'_._:*“ til-ow: 0 Senior 0 some 0 2523 0 Asian 0 Masters 0 3.5.4.0 O 29 or Over 0 Other 0 PM). “Will "'0 “W “i: 1 Very sciatica a neutral 6 Very Dieeatieiled a Satieiled e Diaeatlefled e iiiauiilcteni attenuation lMlcata your level d 3.001061% with M DEPARTMENT due to: . Contribution to your academic’intellectual development Relevance oi the Department program content to your career aspirations . Preparation lor iuture omupationcareer . Flexibility oi the program to meet yOur educational needs Overall Quality oi the academic program Opportunity to apply what is learned in the classroom Availability oi instructors out oi class Overall quality at instruction Attitude oi laculty toward students Attitude oi department chairperson toward students Faculty concern tor y0ur academic intellectual development Accessabiirty oi y0ur advisor Y0ur advisor 5 knowledge at procedures. caurse content curriculum options. etc Quality at career advising coanseling Attitude oi yOur advisor toward students Attitude of deputmental secretarial stall towards studens Attitude of departmental administrative stall toward students Equal treatment oi women and men . EQuai ueatment oi ethnic minority and majority students Satislaction with initial contact: with your department Opportunities lor involvement in departmental proteasional activities This department in general ‘ OOO‘IOG‘UN-fi ”gddddddddd r‘ OOVOU‘UN.‘ 22 Which word or number beetdeecritiee: W Minimum @GGGCDGGGQGGDQN'DG “in-- @@®@®@®®®®®®®®®®©®®®®® .3) GGGGGOGGGGOGGGGGGOGGGG MW @QGGQQQQQQGGGGGGGGGDGQG i“- ®©G®®©®®©©©©®®®@G)®®®®® W @GGGC9®®Q®®®®GGGGGGGG)GG M (9699695959 iii 23 The average number ol out oi Class laCuity contacts in the department you have had per term. lor academic and or career adwsing 0 None 01-2 0 34 0 5-6 0 7-8 0 9. 24. The number oi extracurricular prolessional activities clubs available to you in THE DEPARTMENT. 0 None 0 i O 2 O 3 O 4 25 Your involvement in extracurricular DEPARTMENTAL CCIIVIIIQS' 0 None 0 occasional 0 active in 1 club 0 active in more than 1 club organization organization 26 Your leadership role in extraCurriculurn DEPARTMENTAL actrwties ONone Ol 02 O3 OdorMore 27 Number or students yOu know on a tirst name basis in THIS DEPARTMENT 00-5 0640 01145 01520 021+ 67 68 O 0 Following the appropriate responses to question as. indicate your luture plane: Next term i plan to remain in this department: 3Y6 i no. limit 28 a 28 b 0 because I'm very satisiied graduate (please go on to 29) 0 because I'm "Sicily sairslioo K .“be “I! w h are me d Am 0 although I am not sairslied (please explain) " a" o a” w at MSU O dropout and return to MSU at a later date O dim-out and not return to MSU A 28c ‘28d iplaniotransieroutoisiadapteri-Iaesaaetl:m 'WMN'MMSUNCN990' enema-rim) _'~ -' . Oachangeincareeiplans ' . ' ;t i Oaacildcueerm , . 3:.“ _—+ O financiaioiiicuiires O aMhmm . ._; .. , - ., -,,, . ~' {- a 7;! O Magmtyoiacademicprograms Q mums-ppm . f ‘ ,'-.'.s ~§ O amwaclionmmmyacademrcperiormance meuwm " 3 " Ooeiertpleaseexolaini Oaummmnuummuuui _3; O ”(Issues-fiat) . " Supplementary Questions 8®®®®©© 31ACDCDCDCDGDCD 33OGDCDCDCIDG) fi®®®®®© N®®©®®® n®®®®©© uQ®®®©© 3iCDGDCDCDGDG) l®®®®®® uG®®®®® Thank you ior yoor cooperation, Your responses and comments will be put to use to improve the quality oi programs and the overall climate both in yOur department and the college. Please continue with written comments on the back. llllLl'l'TlTTl'TlllTTlTlTIlllllll l Written Comments: What are you MOST SATISFIED vvith in THIS DEPARTMENT? you test as you do. prepare you ior yOur career? List question numbers where your response was DISSATISFIED OR VERY DISSATISFIED and explain why What would help us lurther IMPROVE OUR ACADEMIC PROGRAMS and academic climate to better MSU is an Affirmative Act-onrtouel Opparumiy insrirurion Michigan State Universiry hinting DEPARTMENT CODE — Top left-hand corner of survey sheet lsl T 1 *ALL PRR CONCENTRATION MAJORS O-Administration ENTER l-Commercial 15 2-Interpretation 3-Planning & Design 4-Recreation Program Management ' S-Therapeutic 6-0ther (please explain in written comments section) SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS - '29-l38 on back of survey sheet Use the following key: 1 Very Satisfied 3 Neutral 5 Very Dissatisfied 2 Satisfied 4 Dissatisfied 6 Insufficient Infdrmation 29. Skip 30. Skip 31. Competency of advisor in relating accurate information. 32. Competency of advisor in relating comprehensive information. 33. Competency of advisor in relating timely information. 34. Availability of up-to-date career information. 35. Satisfaction with orientation program given by the department. 36. Opportunities at orientation for asking questions dealing with the concerns of a new student. 37. Availability of administrative materials (handbooks) before the actual orientation program. 38. Availability of administrative materials at orientation program. Please continue with the written comments section of the survey. Thank you. APPENDIX D FACTOR ANALYSIS OF SATISFACTION VARIABLES 1-22 APPENDIX D FACTOR ANALYSIS OF SATISFACTION VARIABLES 1-22 Item Factor Factor Factor Number 1 2 3 1. .69400 .22829 .12017 2. .74290 .10881 .00471 3. .64879 .22893 .23128 4. .54038 .37019 .19626 5. .82255 .19553 .03414 6. .62230 .05632 .16304 7. .26492 .47424 .09759 8. .58493 .17601 .09345 9. .58043 .29320 .23353 10. .03385 .35390 .27825 11. .32940 .59625 .17554 12. .03463 .78294 .04277 13. .19005 .76902 .09005 14. .37756 .58722 .00078 15. .24272 .79239 .06221 16. .45925 .22821 .24959 17. .23142 .31158 .23868 18. .27636 .00443 .63995 19. .00073 .08604 .73002 20. .32289 .38248 .29638 21. .28556 .24281 .40334 22. .63245 .42619 .15367 70 APPENDIX E 1982 CANR MOSS SURVEY .APHIEFH)I)( E2 1982 CANR MOSS SURVEY STUDENT OPINION SURVEY College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Spring. 1982 Background Information I Age l. l8 or under 2. 19-20 3. 21-22 4. 23 to 25 5. 26 or over 2. Racial/Ethnic group Afro-American/Black American Indian or Alaskan Native Causasian-American/white Hexican-American/Chicano/Hispanic Other mfiurod 3. Class Level I. freshman 2. sophomore 3. junior 4. senior 5. graduate or professional student 4. For what purpose did you enter this college? (select only one) I. to complete a vocational technical program 2. to obtain a Bachelor's Degree 3. to obtain a Master's Degree 4. to take courses necessary for transferring to another college 5. no definite purpose in mind 5. Sex 1. male 2. female 6. Martial Status l. unmarried (including single. divorced. and widowed) 2. married 3. separated 4. prefer not to respond Please continue on the back of this sheet 71 ‘72 Student Opinion -2- 7. IO. 12. 13. Indicate the number of hours per week you are currently employed 1. O or only occassional jobs 2. l to lo 3. II to 20 4. 21 to 30 5. 3l or over what is your current enrollment status at this college? I. full-time student 2. part—time student Hhat type of tuition do you pay at this college? I. in-state tuition 2. out-of—state tuition Hhat is your residence classification at this college? l. in-state student 2. out-of-state student 3. international student (not U.S. citizen) What type of school did you attend just prior to entering this college? l. high school 2. vocational-technical school 3. 2-year college 4. 4-year college of university 5. graduate professional college Indicate your current college residence college residence hall fraternity or sorority married student housing off campus room/apartment own home or with parents 01$de Do you receive any type of federal, state. or college-sponsored student financial aid? (scholarships, grants, work-study, etc.) 1. yes 2. no Indicate your major using the appropriate item l4-22 14. Agricultural Technology dairy livestock cash crops fruit production vegetable production mwad 73 Student Opinion -3- 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Agricultural Technology cont. electrical technology for agriculture commercial floriculture elevator a farm supply power equipment technology landscape a nursery MbUNd o a e e 0 Agricultural Technology cont. 1. soil 5 chemical technology 2. turfgrass management 3. animal technology Agriculture: undergrad 8 graduate agriculture a natural resources - no preference agriculture economics food systems economics a management public affairs management agribusiness a natural resources education 0|.UN-I a e o o 0 Agriculture: undergrad a graduate cont. agriculture and natural resources communications agriculture engineering agricultural engineering technology animal husbandry dairy science 0'! hUN-i a a a o 0 Agriculture: undergrade a graduate cont. crop a soil sciences fisheries a wildlife food science packaging building construction mbuN—o e o o e 0 Agriculture: undergrade L graduate cont. forestry agricultural biochemistry horticulture poultry science resource development 0"de Agriculture: undergrade a graduate cont. 1. park a recreation resources Natural resources a environmental education: undergrad a graduate fisheries a wildlife forestry resource development park a recreation resources buN-fi Please continue on the back of this sheet 74. Student Opinion -4- 23. The program I am currently in is: my initial enrollment choice a change of major, but within the same department a change of major, but within the College of ANR a change of major from another college at MSU a transfer from another institution. U'IbtnN—O 24. Next term I plan to: remain in my current program transfer to a different major in the same department transfer to a different major within the College of ANR transfer to a different college at MSU leave MSU U‘bUN-d 25. In terms of my educational future I plan to: finish my degree in the College of ANR finish a degree at MSU but in a different college drop-out of MSU - with no intent of returning stop-out of MSU - but return and complete my education at a later date 5. other (please explain on a separate sheet) wa-f 26. If you plan to transfer out of the College of ANR was it primarily due to: l. change in career plans 2. uncertain about career goals 3. dissatisfaction with the program 4 dissatisfied with the quality of instruction 5. other (please state reason on a separate sheet) 27. If you plan to leave MSU it is primarily due to: change career goals or plans financial difficulties quality of programs dissatisfaction with my grades other (please state reason on a separate sheet) U‘buNd In reference to the College of Agriculture a Natural Resources please indicate your level of satisfaction for the following items using the following scale: (I) very (2) satisfied (3) neutral (4) dissatisfied (5) very satisfied dissatisfied Academics: 28. Relevance of the program content to your career aspirations 29. Flexibility of the program to meet your education needs 30. Opportunity to apply what is learned in the classroom 3l. Quality of instruction 75 Student Opinion -5- 32. Attitude of faculty toward students 33. Out of class availability of instructors 34. Academic advising 35. Preparation for future occupation Admission: Orientation. Helcome Heek. Academic Procedures * please continue to use the l to 5 scale* 36. General admissions procedures 37. Completeness and accuracy of information received before enrolling 38. Timeliness of information 39. Summer orientation session 40. Welcome week 41. Initial contacts with the college. 42. Initial contacts with your department 43. On going contacts with the college 44. On going contacts with your department 45. General academic procedures in the college (re-admission into upper college) General: 46. Concerns for you as an individual 47. Attitude of non teaching staff towards students 48. Equality of women and ethnic minorities 49. Opportunities for involvement in college activities 50. Clubs and organizations (i.e. Dairy Club. Hort Club. Block G Bridle) Sl. The college in general 52. Your department in general Thank you for your cooperation. Your responses and comments will be put to use to improve the academic climate in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Please return the answer sheet and any connents in the enclosed envelope by MAY 28.. THANKS AGAIN APPENDIX F QUALITATIVE WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM SURVEY SHEETS APPENDIX F QUALITATIVE WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM SURVEY SHEETS ADVISING A) B) C) Advisors unavailable; problems meeting with students who work during the day Impersonal meetings Advisors need to know more about classes, procedures, etc Students request advisors to "give more information" concerning program basics Students feel "second to extension work"; advisors seem more concerned with their research and extension work than with the students CURRICULUM A) B) C) Very oriented toward career development Most satisfied: class size availability for interaction with staff curriculum offered; diversity availability of experiential learning More practical experience and quality internships - experiential education Organize program - too much flexibility Offer more classes more often - keep class schedules well known Irrelevant required classes Get students into business and HRI classes Reinstate the travel class - might help participation in PRR club Make required courses (especially undergraduate) more rigorous More info/requirements/guidelines on paper FACULTY A) B) Helpful and concerned with student's career development Genuine interest in helping students Faculty diversity, expertise, friendliness Unavailable, uninvolved attitude Expressed concern for faculty showing more interest in extension work than in students Suggest the faculty think about why they are there Major concern should be students 76 77 ORIENTATION A) B) Inform "older" students of orientation Not aware that there was an orientation program Program itself: -Undergraduate slide show had no minority peOple in it Content did not include opportunities for inner city recreation -Give better picture to incomdng students of what department is involved in Accurately relate what department offers to prospective students incorrect info at this stage leads to mistakes -Orientation was a let down due to lack of faculty involvement Why bother having it when there aren't any faculty members in town? Make it so all (or most) faculty can attend Have material available STUDENT CLIMATE/SERVICES A) B) Undergraduates request better communication concerning clubs and activities Want to know what clubs are available to students within the major WOrking students express problems with meeting times Expressed satisfaction with program flexibility and efficiency Undergraduates liked the friendliness of those within the department Graduate concern about honest portrayal of programs to students SUPPORTIVE SERVICES A) B) More two-way interaction More understanding of student's life Better communication More info on jobs; career counseling Improve job search program Update and organize bulletin boards Get more space Budget money for equipment LITERATURE CITED LITERATURE CITED Allen, Albert and Johnny Jones. 1983. "Student's Feelings Toward Advisers" NACTA Journal. March: 20-23. Astin, Alexander. 1964. "Personal and Environmental Factors Asso- ciated With College Dropouts Among High Aptitude Students" Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 4: 219-227. Astin, Alexander. 1972. College Dropouts: A National Profile. Amer- ican Council on Education Research Reports, Feb. Vbl. 7 No. 1. Astin, Alexander. 1975. Financial Aid and Student Persistence. Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) Research Report No. 75-2. Los Angeles: HERI. Astin, Alexander. 1975. Preventigg Students From Dropping Out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Barnlund, Dean. In Littlejohn, Stephen. 1978. Theories of Human Com- munication. 0H: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company. Beal, Philip and Lee Noel. 1980. What Works in Student Retention. American College Testing Program.and the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. Beal, Philip and Ernest Pascarella. 1982. "Designing Retention In- terventions and Verifying Their Effectiveness" New Directions for Institutional Research, December Vol. 36: 73-88. Bean, John P. 1982. "Conceptual Models of Student Attrition: How Theory Can Help the Institutional Researcher" New Directions for Institutional Research, December V01. 36: 17-33. Bianchi, JR and Andrew Bean. 1980. "The Prediction of Voluntary Withdrawals From College: An Unsolved Problem" Journal of Ex- _perimental Education, Fall Vol. 49 No. 1: 29-33. Chapman, David W. 1982. "Resources for Research on Student Attrition" New Directions for Institutional Research, December VOl 36: 93-100. Cooper, Colleen and Richard Bradshaw. 1982. Michigan State University College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Student Opinion Sur- vey. Michigan State University. 78 79 Cooper, Colleen and Richard Bradshaw. 1984. "How Green Is Your Aca- demic Climate? Check It Out With MOSS: A.Monitor of Student Sat- isfaction" College and University, Spring Vol. 59, No. 3:251-259. Cope, Robert and William Hannah. 1975. Revolving College Doors. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Deming, William E. 1960. Sample Design in Business Research. New York: Wiley. Dressel, Paul. 1958. Evaluation in the Basic College at Michigan State University. New York: Harper and Brothers. Dressel, Paul and William Simpson. 1983. Student Persistence and Benefits: Program Selection and Degree Completion. ERIC, ED 219996. Dunlavey, Robert. 1974. "A Description of Personal Backgrounds, EXr periences and Attitudes of Park and Recreation Resources under- graduates at Michigan State University" Masters Thesis, Depart— ment of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University. Eble, Kenneth E. 1976. The Craft of Teaching. San Francisco: Jos- sey-Bass Publications. Feldman, Kenneth A. and Theodore Newcomb. 1973. The Impact of Col- lege on Students. washington: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Iffert, Robert. 1958. "Retention and Withdrawal of College Students" US Department Health, Education and Welfare; Office of Education Bulletin 1958 #1. Kowalski, Cash. 1977. The Impact of Collgge on Persisting;and Non- persisting Students. New York: Philosophical Library. Lenning, Oscar, Philip Beal and Ken Sauer. 1980. Retention and At- trition: Evidence for Action and Research. National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. Littlejohn, Stephen. 1978. Theories of Human Communication. 0H: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company. Marsh, Lee. 1966. "College Dropouts - A Review" Personnel and Guidance Journal. January: 475-481. Mississippi State University. 1982. (in Allen and Jones, 1983) "Placement and Career Information Center Portfolio, January, 1982" Academic Advising/Career Counseling, Vol 2 No. l. Nie, Norman, C. Hadlai Hull, Jean G. Jenkins, Karin Steinbrenner and Dale H. Bent. 1975. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. 80 Pantages, Timothy and Carol Creedon. 1978. "Studies of College At- trition: 1950-1975" Review of Educational Research. Winter, Pascarella, Ernest T. 1982. "Concluding Thoughts" New Directions for Institutional Research. December, Vol. 36: 89-91. Pascarella, Ernest and Patrick Terenzini. 1979. "Interaction Effects in Spady's and Tinto's Conceptual Models of College Dropouts" Sociology of Education. October, Vol. 52: 197-210. Ramist, Leonard. 1981. Collegg Student Attrition and Retention. College Board Report No. 81-1. New York: College Entrance Exam- ination Board. Rogers, Everett. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press. Spady, William G. 1970. "Dropouts from Higher Education: An Inter- disciplinary Review and Synthesis" Interchange. Vol. 1 No. 1: State of Illinois Board of Higher Education. 1963. Admission and . Retention of Students. December. Tinto, Vincent. 1975. "Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research" Review of Educational Research Winter Vol. 45 No. 1: 89-125. Tinto, Vincent. 1982. "Limits of Theory and Practice in Student Attrition" Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 53 No. 6: 687-700. Zaltman, Gerald and Robert Duncan. 1977. Strategies for Planned Chang . New York: John Wiley and Sons. GENERAL REFERENCES GENERAL REFERENCES Babbie, Earl. 1983. The Practice of Social Research. CA: Wads- worth Publishing Company. Blalock, Hubert. 1972. Social Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Chesney, Clyde. 1980. "Information Diffusion and Career Decision Making of Natural Resource Graduates: Implications for Recruit- ment of Racial Minorities" PhD Dissertation, Department of Re- source Development, Michigan State University. Chase, Clinton, Starrette Dalton, Judith Johnson and Mary Anastasiow. 1976. Persistence and Conditions Related To It: A Persistent Question. Bloomington, IN: Bureau of Educational Studies and Testing. Farace, Richard, Peter Monge and Hamish Russell. 1977. Communicating and Organizing. MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Fitz-Gibbon, Carol Taylor and Lynn Lyons Morris. 1978. How To Desigg A Program Evaluation. CA: Sage Publications. Klecka, William, Norman Hie and C.Hadlai Hull. SPSS Primer. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Mazanec, Joseph. 1972. "The Effect of Course Intensity on Academic Achievement, Student Attitudes, and Mortality Rate" PhD Disser- tation, Michigan State University. Nisbet, R.A. 1969. Social Change 6 History: Aspects of the Western Theory of Development. New York: Oxford University Press. Patrick, Cathleen, Edward Myers and William Van Dusen. 1979. A Manual For Conducting Student Attrition Studies. National Center for Higher Education Management Sustems and The College Board. Poister, Theodore. 1978. Public Program Analysis. Baltimore: Uni- versity Park Press. Rogers, Everett. 1976. Communication and Development. CA: Sage Publications. 81 82 Tull, Donald and Del Hawkins. 1980. Marketing Research: Measurement and Method. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc. Vess, Donald. 1966. "The Relationship of Environmental Change To Student Performance and Attrition" PhD Dissertation. Michigan State University. Zaltman, Gerald, Philip Kotler and Ira Kaufman. 1972. Creating Social Changg. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.