x LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. _—___ DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution . c:\circ\dnedm. prna-p. 1 STLHDEPLT CHOICES AND CREDIT DISTRIBUTION IN GENERAL EDUCATION: AN EVALUATION MODEL By Bruce T. Harger A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partia] fuifiiiment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education T991 552— #80 ABSTRACT STUDENT CHOICES AND CREDIT DISTRIBUTION IN GENERAL EDUCATION: AN EVALUATION MODEL By Bruce T. Harger The purpose in this study was to deve]op a nmde] to ewa]uate student choices to meet genera] education distributiona] requirements. Reform efforts focusing on program contents and phiTosophy wi]] have ]itt]e effect if students fai] 11> understand the va]ue of genera] education or re]ate its contents to their major fieids of study. This researcher examined the seiections students made to meet distributiona] requirements, factors that influenced those choices, credits earned in distributiona] areas, and students’ perceptions of the benefit of genera] education to their genera] deve]opment and in understanding of their majors. Data were co]]ected through interviews and transcript audits of bacca]aureate students from Lake Superior State University; Using ana]ysis of variance, differences were ana]yzed based on discip]inary major, gender, transfer status, age, and nationa]ity of students. The findings were as fo]]ows: ]. Departments, through degree requirements, determined, to a great extent, the genera] education experience of students by constraining their choices. Bruce T. Harger 2. Students earned few credits in the distributiona] areas of genera] education. Mean tota] credits earned in the humanities were near the minimum requirements. Tota] credits earned in the socia] and natura] sciences were greater for some discip]inary majors. Business and engineering techno]ogy students earned the ]east credit in the three distributiona] areas. 3. Students attached the ]east importance to facu]ty advice in making their course se]ections. Reputation of the instructor, fo]]owed by persona] preferences of students with respect to scheduied times CH“ days, were most inmortant. Differences among students based on discip]inary major were found. 4. Students attached ]ow va]ue to genera] education courses outside the distributiona] area of their majors. Students in business and engineering techno]ogy programs perceived the ]east benefit from genera] education. Students rated humanities courses as ]east beneficia]. 0]der students and students who comp]eted requirements as juniors or seniors rated humanities courses as more beneficia] to their genera] deve]opment than did younger students or those who comp]eted requirements as freshmen or sophomores. This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Linda, for her unwavering support and the sacrifices she made to a]]ow me this opportunity for growth. Her continuous beTief in me and the motivation she provided he]ped me to bring this study to c]osure. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The comp]etion of this dissertation wou]d not have been possibie without the assistance and support of many individua]s. Acknow]edge of their contributions can on]y partia]]y convey my gratitude. The members of my guidance committee demonstrated commitment to the peop]e of the upper peninsu]a of Michigan, and without them this doctora] program wou]d not have been possib]e. A]] of them taught in northern Michigan and were sensitive to the needs of students ]ocated a great distance from campus. Dr. George Ferns served as chairperson of my committee. His wi]]ingness to continue in that ro]e into his retirement provided needed encouragement. His attention to detai] was especia]]y he]pfu]. Dr. Marvin Grandstaff assumed the responsibiiity of disserta- tion director ]ate in my program. His confidence in me was a source of motivation. His friendiy encouragement was inva]uab]e. Dr. Char]es B]ackman deve]oped the doctora] program in Curricu]um and Instruction in the upper peninsu]a, which afforded many of us an opportunity for professiona] growth that wou]d not have been avai]ab]e otherwise. His commitment to service is exemp]ary and ref]ects the spirit of Michigan State University. Dr. Samue] Moore 11 taught me much about administration. His standards of exce]]ence were a source of pride and motivation. Severa] co]]eagues at Lake Superior State University provided va]uab]e assistance and encouragement” Dr. Margaret Ma]mberg read severa] versions of this dissertation and offered suggestions. Dr. Susan Ratwick was very he]pfu] with the statistica] ana]ysis. Dr. Richard Conboy assisted with the deve]opment of the survey instrument and the training of the student interviewers. AT] three individua]s were instrumenta] 'Hi the deve]opment (Hi the research project and in securing resources which a]]owed comp]etion of the research in a timeiy fashion. My studies and dissertation, at times, piaced a tremendous burden on my famiiy. I sha]] forever be in their debt for their understanding and sacrifices. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................... LIST OF FIGURES ....................... THE PROBLEM ..................... Changes in Genera] Education ........... Demand for Genera] Education ........... Purpose ...................... Issues ..................... Rationaie .................... An Evaiuation Mode] ............... Genera] Education at Lake Superior State University ................... Transfer Students ................ Other Barriers to a Common Experience ...... Research Questions ................ De]imitations ................... Limitations .................... PRECEDENTS IN THE LITERATURE ............ Genera] Education ................. Historica] Deve]opment of Genera] Education . . . Goa]s of Genera] Education ........... Mode]s of Genera] Education ........... Other Issues in Genera] Education ........ Reform of Genera] Education ............ Eva]uation Mode]s ................. Transcript Studies and Surveys .......... Summary ...................... RESEARCH PROCEDURE ................. Data Sources ................... Popuiation and Samp]ing .............. Interview Guides ................. Student Records .................. Audit Procedures ................. Interviewers .................. J Ana]ysis of the Data ............... Exp]oratory Data Ana]ysis ............. Riva] Hypotheses ................. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS ................ Courses Se]ected ................. Humanities ................... Socia] Sciences ................. Natura] Sciences ................ Credit Distribution ................ Differences Among Discip]inary Majors ...... Differences Among Other Student Groups ..... C]ass Standing Upon Comp]etion of Genera] Education .................... Factors Affecting Course Se]ection ........ Facu]ty Advice ................. Student Advice ................. Pubiished Information .............. Information Sources ............... Reputation of Instructor ............ Course Content ................. Course-Reiated Factors ............. Persona] Schedu]ing Preferences ......... Schedu]ing ProbTems ............... Schedu]ing Factors ............... Student Perception of the Benefit of Genera] Education .................... Differences Among Discip]inary Majors ...... Differences Among Other Student Groups ..... Desired Changes in Credit Hour Requirements . . . . Student Eva1uation of Genera] Education ...... CONCLUSIONS . .- ................... Summary ...................... Issue One .................... Issue Two .................... Issue Three ................... Issue Four ................... Issue Five ................... Issue Six .................... Conciusions .................... Genera] Education or Specia]ized Education . . . Facu]ty Advice and Other Factors ........ Connections ................... Methodo]ogy and Issues for Further Study viii Page 103 104 105 105 108 108 109 113 120 127 127 133 136 147 148 151 154 157 157 159 164 165 169 172 174 174 181 186 195 198 198 198 199 199 200 202 203 203 203 205 209 210 APPENDICES A. LSSU GENERAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS ......... B INTERVIEW GUIDE AND INSTRUCTIONS .......... C. AUDIT OF STUDENT RECORDS .............. D CREDIT HOUR DISTRIBUTION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE DISCIPLINES ..................... E. CREDIT HOUR DISTRIBUTION IN NATURAL SCIENCE DISCIPLINES ..................... F., ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TEST DATA ............ G. DISTRIBUTION OF CREDIT HOURS EARNED UPON COMPLETION OF GENERAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS ..... H. DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENT RESPONSES TO FACTORS OR PERSONS AFFECTING COURSE SELECTION .......... I. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENT SAMPLE ..... J. APPROVAL BY THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS ............... LIST OF REFERENCES ...................... ix Page 213 216 237 241 258 355 Tab]e 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. LIST OF TABLES Issues and Research Questions ............. Popu1ation and Samp1e Size .............. Noncomp]eters for Interviews ............. Humanities Credit Distribution by Discip]inary Major Group ........................ Humanities Credit Distribution by Transfer Status of Student ..................... Humanities Credit Distribution by Age of Student Humanities Credit Distribution by Country of Secondary Education ................. Humanities Credit Distribution by Gender of Student . . Socia] Science Credit Distribution by Discip]inary Major Group ..................... Socia] Science Credit Distribution by Transfer Status of Student ..................... Socia] Science Credit Distribution by Age of Student Socia] Science Credit Distribution by Country of Secondary Education ................. Socia] Science Credit Distribution by Gender of Student ....................... Natura] Science Credit Distribution by Discip]inary Major Group ..................... Natura] Science Credit Distribution by Transfer Status of Student .................. Natura] Science Credit Distribution by Age of Student . Page 22 90 110 110 111 112 113 114 116 117 118 119 121 123 124 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Natura] Science Credit Distribution by Country of Secondary Education . . 000000000000000 Natura] Science Credit Distribution by Gender of Student ........ 000000000000000 Mean Tota] Credits in Genera] Education Areas by Discip]inary Major Group .............. Mean Tota] Credits in Genera] Education Areas by Gender of Student . . . OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Mean Tota] Credits in Genera] Education Areas by Transfer Status of Student ............. Mean Tota1 Credits in Genera] Education Areas by Age of Student . . . . 000000000000000 Mean Tota] Credits in Genera] Education Areas by Country of Secondary Education ........... Mean Credits Earned Upon Education Requirements Group ......... Mean Credits Earned Upon Education Requirements Student ........ Mean Credits Earned Upon Education Requirements Education ....... Mean Credits Earned Upon Education Requirements Mean Credits Earned Upon Education Requirements Compietion of Genera] by Discip]inary Major Compietion of Genera] by Transfer Status of OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Compietion of Genera] by Country of Secondary OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Compietion of Genera] by Gender of Student ..... Compietion of Genera] by Age of Student ...... Re1iance on Facu]ty Advice in Making Course Se]ections ...... OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Re1iance on Student Advice in Making Course Se]ections ...... Re1iance on Pub1ished Information in Making Course Se]ections ...... 000000000000000 xi Page 125 126 128 134 135 137 138 140 142 144 145 146 149 152 155 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. Re1iance on Information Sources in Making Course Se]ections ..................... Importance of Reputation of Instructor in Making Course Se]ections .................. Importance of Course Content in Making Course Se]ections .................. Importance of Course Information in Making Course Se]ections ..................... Importance of Persona] Schedu]ing Preferences in Making Course Se]ections .............. Importance of Schedu]ing Prob1ems in Making Course Se]ections .................. . Importance of Course Schedu]ing in Making Course Se]ections .......... . . ......... Benefit of Genera] Education to Genera] Deve]opment by Discip]inary Major Group ...... Benefit of Genera] Education to Understanding of Major by Discip]inary Major Group ....... Benefit of Genera] Education to Genera] Deve]opment by Gender of Student ................ Benefit of Genera] Education to Understanding of Major by Gender of Student . . . . Benefit of Genera] Education to Genera] Deve]opment by Transfer Status of Student . ........... Benefit of Genera] Education to Understanding of Major by Transfer Status of Student ..... . Benefit of Genera] Education to Genera] Deve]opment by Age of Student .................. Benefit of Genera] Education to Understanding of Major by Age of Student ............... Benefit of Genera] Education to Genera] Deve]opment by Country of Secondary Educat1on .......... Page 150 162 166 167 170 173 175 176 181 182 183 183 184 184 186 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. Benefit of Genera] Education to Understanding of , Major by Country of Secondary Education ....... Desired Change in Genera] Education Credit Hour Requirements by Discip]inary Major Group ...... Desired Change in Genera] Education Credit Hour Requirements by Gender of Student .......... Desired Change in Genera] Education Credit Hour Requirements by Age of Student ........... Desired Change in Genera] Education Credit Hour Requirements by Transfer Status of Students ..... Desired Change in Genera] Education Credit Hour Requirements by Country of Secondary Education Student Evaiuation of Genera] Education . . . ..... Importance of Factors in Making Course Se]ections . . xiii Page 186 188 190 192 193 194 196 201 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Stake’s Countenance Mode] .............. 10 2. Mean Tota] Credits in Genera] Education by Discip]inary Major Group .............. 129 3. Mean Tota] Credits in Each Distributiona] Area Per Discip]inary Major Group ............ 130 4. Re]iance on Facu]ty Advice in Course Se]ection . . . . 150 5. Re]iance on Student Advice in Course Se]ection . . . . 153 6. Re]iance on Pub1ished Information in Course Se]ection ..................... 156 7. Importance of Reputation of Instructor in Course Se]ection ..................... 161 8. Importance of Course Content in Course Se]ection . . . 163 9. Importance of Persona] Schedu]ing Preferences in Course Se]ection .................. 168 10. Importance of Schedu]ing Prob1ems in Course Se]ection ..................... 17] 11. Benefit of Genera] Education to Genera] Deve]opment by Discip]inary Major Group ............ 178 12. Benefit of Genera] Education to Understanding of Major by Discip]inary Major Group ......... 179 13. Desired Changes in Genera] Education Credit Hour Requirements by Discip]inary Major Group ...... 189 xiv CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM The genera] education component of undergraduate education in the United States is under scrutiny. Interest in reforming genera] education did not dissipate after the reform efforts of the ear1y 19805. Gaff (cited in Reardon, 1990) reported that more than 90% of American co]1eges have undertaken reviews of their genera] education offerings. Changes in Genera] Education One movement has been toward more prescription of requirements. Bok (1986) described this question as one of the three perennia] issues in the discussion of the 1ibera1 arts curricu1um: The first of these is how much to prescribe and iwnv much to 1eave to the free choice of students. Those who argue for detai1ed requirements c1aim that co]1ege students are too young to know what subjects are tru1y important and too disposed toward courses of immediate or practica1 re1evance. Those who favor more e1ectives be1ieve that students are much too varied in their interests to be forced into a sing1e curricu1ar mo1d. (p. 40) A Carnegie Foundation (1985) survey regarding genera] education reveaTed that 60% of the four-year institutions surveyed were reviewing or revising genera] education requirements. The Carnegie Foundation reported that an a11-campus review committee was the format used by about 60% of the institutions, whereas ]eadership by chief academic. or administrative officers ran a «distant second. Reviews and revisions were most common at research and doctorate- granting universities. Increases in credit-hour requirements in the socia] sciences, natura] sciences, and humanities have been experienced at about 30% of the institutions since 1970, and decreases in requirements occurred at about 15% of the schoo1s. The academic officers were in agreement, in the Carnegie Foundation (1985) survey, about the nfission (Hi genera] education. The goa] ranked number one by more than two-thirds of the administrators was "to discover the broad range of human know1edge through an introduction to the academic discip]ines" (p. 28). The respondents indicated that this goa] was, in fact, being rea1ized by students. Some disparity between other goa1s and the extent of their rea1ization was noted in the survey. The second most important goa] was "to guide students toward an ethica] and socia11y responsib1e phi1osophy of 1ife." Academic officers ranked this goa] fifth in the extent to which it was being achieved by students. Academic administrators ranked high1y the effectiveness of their institutions’ genera] education programs. The Carnegie Foundation (1985) survey revea1ed that a1most 80% (H’ the ]eaders be1ieved their programs were more effective in 1985 than they were in 1970. More than 75% be1ieved their programs were more effective than those at other institutions, and a1most that number stated their be1ief that programs were meeting the needs of students (p. 29). Administrator and facu]ty commitment to genera] education had increased since 1970, according to administrators; however, the strength of student commitment was 1ess dramatic (p. 30). Students’ perceptions of their genera] education experiences have received 1ess attention in the 1iterature than the competing perspectives of facu]ty members and administrators. A 1989-90 survey of facu]ty members by the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of Ca1ifornia at Los Ange1es (UCLA study) found continued strong support of genera] education (Mooney, 1991). More than 70% of the facu]ty respondents agreed that facu]ty members at their institutions were positive about their genera] education programs. More than 28% of the facu]ty agreed that the curricu1um had suffered from facu]ty overspecia1ization, yet 76% of the facu]ty be1ieved that facu]ty members were strong]y interested in the academic prob1ems of undergraduates. In a recent survey of Michigan facu]ty, Sederburg (1989) reported that 64% of Michigan facu]ty members rated genera] education as exce]]ent or better than adequate. The goa1s and means of genera] education, as typica11y represented in the 1iterature, are i11ustrated by the issues facu]ty inc1ude as high-priority issues at their institutions (Mooney, 1991, p. 16). The percentage of respondents 1isting the issue in the UCLA study is stated in parentheses. Promoting the inte11ectua1 deve]opment of students (76.1%) He1ping students examine and understand their persona] va]ues (47.4%) Deve]oping a sense of community among students and facu]ty (41.0%) Faci1itating student invo1vement in community-service projects (23.3%) He1ping students ]earn how to bring about change 'hi American society (21.1%) He1ping so]ve major socia] and environmenta1 prob1ems (26.3%) Maintaining a campus c1imate where differences of opinion can be aired open1y (52.0%) Deve]oping among students and facu]ty an appreciation for a mu1ticu1tura1 society (46.5%) Creating a more positive undergraduate experience (69.2%) Creating a more diverse mu1ticu1tura1 environment on campus (40.0%) Enhancing the out—of—c1ass experiences of students (28.8%) The support for genera] education and its improvement remains strong. Obstac1es to improvement remain. The Carnegie Foundation (1985) survey ranked obstac1es to reform as academic ]eaders viewed them: First was department turfism; second and third, respective1y, were competition from department majors and Specia]ization, and competition from the career orientation of students (p. 29). Demand for Genera] Education Litt1e research has been done regarding what Reardon (1990) referred to as the "demand side" of genera] education. Reports on genera] education have focused on the "supp1y side" of genera] education: program contents and phi1osophyu 'The best efforts at curricu1um design and instructiona] reform have 1itt1e effect when students fai] to' understand the meaning and va]ue of genera] education (H‘ re1ate its contributions to their major fie1ds of study. Needed demand-side research inc1udes the study of the student choice process. The va1idity of criticism of genera] education programs can better be eva1uated if this criticism is informed by data describing factors associated with students’ se1ection of courses to meet genera] education requirements. The university now offers no distinctive visage 1x1 the young person. He finds a democracy of the discip]ines. . . . This democracy is rea11y an anarchy. . . . In short, there is no vision, nor is there a set of competing visions, of what an educated human being is. . . . Out of chaos emerges dispiritedness because it is impossib1e to make a reasonab1e choice. Better to give up on a 1ibera1 education and get on with a specia1ty' in which there is at ]east a prescribed curricu1um and a prospective career. (B1oom, 1987, p. 337) B]oom (1987) framed the issue not on]y as a question of choice but as a question of how one course of study re1ates to another. He argued that they do not: "They are competing and contradictory, without being aware of it. The prob1em of the who1e . . . is never systematica11y posed" (p. 339). Boyer (1987) made the argument 1%n* the integrated core curricu1um--a program that makes connections across discip]ines: Undergraduates pick and choose their way to graduation using what food service peop]e ca11 the "scramb1e system." This cafeteria—1ike arrangement offers a smattering of courses. Students move from one narrow department requirement to another, rare1y discovering connections, rare1y seeing the who1e. . . . More coherence is required to re1ate the core program to the ]ives of students and to the wor1d they are inheriting. There is a need for students to go beyond their separate interests and gain a more integrated view of know1edge and a more authentic view of 1ife. (pp. 90-91) This criticism of the e1ective system ]eaves unanswered the question of the baSes for student choices. Purpose The researcher’s purpose in this study was to deve]op.a mode] to eva1uate students’ responses to distributiona] requirements in genera] education. Under some constraints with regard to course se1ection for genera] education, what do students choose? How might an examination of these choices he1p educators assess the factors that inf1uence course se1ection? What benefit do students report from the courses they do se1ect? The mode] was app1ied, by way of i11ustration, to describe the genera] education experience of bacca1aureate students at Lake Superior State University. The mode] wi11 prove usefu] to persons at other' educationa] institutions in assessing the responses of their students to distributiona] requirements. The findings may have imp]ications for transfer credit articu1ation with other institutions, progranl eva1uation, advising for genera] education courses, marketing of the genera] education program, and dissemination of information to prospective students and other members of the higher education community. Iss_ue_s Data were co]1ected to provide information regarding the fo]]owing six issues: 1. What courses were se1ected by students to meet distribution requirements in the humanities, socia] sciences, and natura] sciences? 2. How many credit hours were earned in each of the three distributiona] areas ‘required, i.eu, the humanities,. socia] sciences, and natura] sciences? I 3. How many credit hours were accumu1ated when distribution requirements in genera] education were met? 4. What 'factors CM“ individua]s. were important. in assisting students to make their se1ection of courses to meet distribution requirements? 5. What were the students’ perceptions of the benefit of courses 'h1 the three distributiona] areas to their persona] deve]opment and in understanding their majors? 6. Did students indicate that credit hour requirements in each of the three distributiona] areas shou1d be increased, decreased, or remain unchanged? Rationa1e Reardon (1990) argued that part of the demand-side view of genera] education dea1s with communicating with students about the nature and benefits of genera] education. Student goa1s must be 1inked with institutiona1 goa1s. Reardon cited studies indicating student endorsement of both breadth in genera] education and narrower‘ vocationa] goa1s. Whereas students appear' to have an understanding of the nfission of genera] education, they appear to 1ack a strategy of how to integrate the goa1s of genera] education with those of more Specia]ized education ]eading to emp1oyment. The current research, in that it identifies the degree of student re1iance on different sources of information when se1ecting genera] education courses, wi11 be usefu] to administrators. and. facu]ty members in deve]oping, schedu1ing, and promoting genera] education. Institutiona] goa1s, the supp1y side of genera] education, wi11 be more achievab1e when attention is given to the demand side. The schedu1ing of genera] education courses may have an effect on course se1ection by students, either because of other commitments or preferences of students, or because of 1ack of coordination by departments and schedu1ing of courses in conf1ict with each other. Sworder (1986) found a wi]]ingness on the part of students to take afternoon c1asses in genera] education. The wi]]ingness varied by age, gender, and the intentions of ‘the student, with respect to transferring to another institution. This wi]]ingness wou]d appear to vary from institution to institution, depending on the demographic characteristics of the student body. Such information wi11 be important to consider if student behavior in course se1ection is expected to conform to intentions of curricu1um designers. Kramer (cited in Suskie, 1983) stated that 95% of the nation’s co11eges have genera] education distribution requirements. Suskie conducted a 'transcript study and found deviations from expected resu1ts in terms of courses se1ected to meet distribution requirements and in terms of fai1ure of students to comp]ete requirements in the humanities. Suskie ca11ed attention to the paucity of references in the 1iterature regarding the need for curricu1um deve]opers to consider student choice in eva1uating distribution requirements. More research is needed to determine how students actua11y satisfy the distributiona] requirements that are commonTy imposed. Identification of the factors that inf1uence students’ se1ection of courses to meet distributiona] requirements is a key component of the 1arger issue of assessment of the outcomes of genera] education. An Eva1uation Mode] Stake deve]oped a matrix containing 13 information ce11s representing the kinds of data needed in various kinds of eva1uation studies (Kemmis & Stake, 1988, pp. 144—162). For different kinds of eva1uations, differentia] emphasis shou1d be p1aced on the descrip- tive and judgmenta] sides of the matrix (see Figure 1). Information about antecedents, transactions, and outcomes wi11 be given different emphasis, depending on the nature of the eva1uation. Antecedents are conditions existing before instruction that may affect outcomes. Transactions are the process component of instruction. Outcomes are the effects of the program. The mode] deve]oped for the present study focuses on descriptive information about transactions. Are intended student behaviors (choices) consistent with rea1ity? Are facu]ty conceptions of the context in which genera] education is experienced rea1istic? In this descriptive study, information is provided to check these congruences for students at Lake Superior State University. Findings may have imp]ications for articu1ation 10 “.mwm_ .mxapm a WCEme satay x_m._.<_>_ him—2002. .Pmuoz mocwcmpczou m.mxmwm "_ mczmwm X_I._.<_2 zOFmEDmmo mm EDP—.30 wZn V_._.O¢m_me 2.25.2. m._m> -esm cw eo .mmcw_awumwv oWEmnmmm mg» mo :mmm cw emcemm muwumeo mo emne:c :mms mg“ was ems: wmmu:m_mm Pmezpm: cam .mmmcmwmm Fwwoom .mmwpwcm535 msp ..m.w .vmewzcme mmmem chowpzpwepmwv mmecp mg» mo summ cw emcemm memz mesa; Hemmeu xcms 3o: _ wmmocmwum Fmespm: new .mmucmWUm meuom .mmwpwcmszs mca cw mucmsmewzcme cowpsneepmwc umms op mpcmuzpm zn cmpomme memz mmmezoo was: :owummso :uemmmmm mammH .mcowpwmzc cuemmmme use mmzmmH--.— m—amh 23 mmcmuwmwcmwm mmucm -emewvv memz new .pme memz mpcmsmewzcme mmcm -wom Fmezpmc cam .mmcmem Fmvuom .mmvewcmszz msp cmcz .om>wmume mm: cowpmuzum xemvcoumm mzp ;u_;z cw xemczou mew co vmmmn .mmcmnspm an umcemm wwwnmeu we emne:c came mcp mm; was: wucmuwwwcmwm mmucmemmeec memz cam .uma memz mucmEmewzcme mmcmwmm Fmezpm: ucm .mocmwom meuom .mmwmwcmszs mcp cmzz .mpcmvzpm mo mapmpm ememcmepcoc\emmmcmem an .vmcemm muwvmeo eo emnE:c cams msp mm: “as: Nucmmwewcmwm mmucmemmmwc memz cam .pms memz mesmEmewsome mocmPUm Fmespmc cam .mocmwum meoom .mmwp -wcm535 mgu cmsz .mpcmuzmm mo mmem mmemmv An .umcemm mmwcmeo mo emnszc :mme ms“ mm: mag: wacmuwewcmwm mmucmemeewc memz mam .cm>wmume mm: cowpmusnm xemncoumm cows; cw xemcsoo mgp co ummmn mgcmvzpm An mocm -Pmm Pmezpmc mam .mocmwom FmPUOm .mmwpwcm535 cw emcemm mpwvmeo mo emne=c :mms mcp mm; ems: meme memz cowammsum Fmemcmm cw mpcmsmewzcme cowpznwepmwn 2mg: mmme -sszmmm memz mesa; “enmeo meme 30: cowpmmzo guemmmmm mammH .umscepcom--.F a_n~e mmmucvam Fmespmc vcm .mmmcmwmm FmPUOM .mmvp -wcm535 mcp cw mpcmsmewscme pmmE om mmmezom mcwmumme cw mpcmuspm mcwmm_mmm cw xp_mem> -wc: meg mo mcovpmowpnsa memz pcmmeoaew 30: wmmucmPUm Fmezpm: cam .mmmcmwmm FmeOW .mmep -wcmszc mzp cw mmcmsmewzcme mmme om mmmezom mcwpmmme cw mpcmusmm op mmcmcsmm emeeoe eo mpcmuzpm mo mmw>vm mcm was “cameoqaw so: wmmmcmemm Fmesmmc Ucm .mmmcmWUm _m_mom .mmwmwcm535 mcp Ce mpcms -mewscme mmms om mmmezom mcwmmmme cw mmcmcsmm om memnEmE emmpm eo au_:mme emcmo eo me0m_>cm Ampzmme :mme mo mow>cm mew mm; pcmpeoqew go: 24 «memo -wewcmwm mmucmemmmwn memz new .mme memz mpcme -mewsume mucmwum Fmezpm: new .mmcmemm PMVUOM .mmwpwcm535 mg» cmgz .mpcmnsmm eo mum mg .umcemm mpwumem we emn53: cams mcm mm; mmzz emcmu -wmwcmwm mmucmemmewu memz Ucm .mme memz mpcme -mewscme mocmPUm Fmezpm: cam .mmcmwmm memom .mmwuwcmssz mzp cmzz .mmcmcspm we emncmm an .umcemm muwumeu eo emnssc cams mg“ was ems: .vw .mF .N_ .o_ wmmcmEmeescme.cowmznwepmwu pmme om mmmesom mo corpumme ewmcp meme op mpcmuzmm mcwmmwmmm cw pampeoasw memz Mszvw>wucw eo meopmmm macs cowpmmzo cmemmmmm mammH .emzcepcom--._ a_nme 25 wmmecmwem wmeepme eem .mmeemwem Feweem .mmwewee53e mew cw mmmeeee eeww mmem mmemme xe meeme -epm ewe .meewms ewmep meweemememee: ee eem .eemsee_m>me wmememm ewmee ee wewewwmeme 3e: mmmeemwem wmeepee eee .mmeemwem wmweem .mmwewcmsee mep cw meemEmeweeme pmmE ee mmmeeee mcwpemwmm cw .mpewwweee mweemeem ee meewpemm wwew mm eesm .weeeeee m.eeme:em mee ecexme mam—eeee mcwweemeem memz eempeeeew 2e: mmmeemwem wmeeeme eem .mmeemwem Feweem .mmwpwemsee mee cw meema -meweeme pmmE ea mmmeeee mewpemwmm cw mecme -eem ee emweemeew we: mmeeee mew awe mee we eeee ee xmmz me» we xme mew we; pemeeeesw 3e: wmmecmwem wmeepme ecm .mmeemwem weweem .mmwp -wee53e mew cw mpemEmeweeme emme ee mmmeeee mewpemwmm cw mesmeeem ee emeema pemheem ee mmeeee mew we eempeee mew we; pempeeeew 3e: memeemwem wmeeeee eee .mmeemwem weweem .mmwe -wemsee mew cw meemsmeweeme emms ee mmmeeee mewwemwmm cw mesmeeum op eeeeseemew Eeee -mmmwe mew we eewempeeme mee mm; pemeeeeew 3e: .m_ .w_ .w_ .ow .mw emeenms ewmep mcweeeem -emee: cw eem gemseewm>me wmcememe ewmee op memem wmeewpeewepmwe mmeep mew cw mmmeeee we pwwmeme mep we meewpemeeme .mpemeepm mew memz pee: cewummso eeemmmmm memmH .easeeecoe--._ swede 26 memm mew :wmsme ee .emmmmeeme .emmmmeeew me eweeem mmeemwem wmeepme eem .mmeemwem Feweem .mmwpwem53e mew cw emewseme mezee ewemee xewee mmem mmemme an meemesem ewe «mmeemwem wmeeume eem .mmeemwem wmweem .mmwewemsee mee ew mmmeeee eeww eewemeeem zemeeeemm ewmee em>wmeme xmee eewez cw xeeeeee mee me meeme -epm ewe .meenme ewmee meweemememee: op eem .pemEee_m>me wmememm ewmep ee wmwewwmeme 3e: wmmecmwem wmeeem: eem .mmeemwem wmweem .mmwpwemE:e mew cw mmmeeee eeww mam xe meeme -eem ewe .meenme ewmee meweempmemee: ee eem .pemsee_m>me wmememm ewmep ee wmwewwmeme 3e: «mememwem weeseme eem .mmeemwem Feweem .mmwpwemsee mew cw mmmeeee eeww mepmpm emwmcmepeee\emwmemep xe mpeme -epm ewe .meewms ewmep mcweempmemece op eem .uemseewm>me wmememm ewmep op Fewewwmeme 3e: wmmecmwem wmeepe: ecm .mmeemwem Feweem .mmwe -wemsee me» cw mmmeeee eeww emeemm me meeme -eum ewe .meehme ewmee meweemememee: ee eem .uemsee—m>me wmemcmm ewmee em wmwewwmcme 3e: .em .mm .mm .om Nemmemeeee ewmsme ee .emmmmemme .emmmmeeew me eweeem memem wmeewpeewepmwe mmeep mew we eemm cw mesmEmeweeme eeee ewemee peep memewecw mesmeepm ewe :ewpmmeo eeemmmmm memmH .emsewecoe--.e swede 27 memm mew :meme ee .emmmmeeme .emmmmeeew me eweeem mmecmwem wmeewme eem .mmecmwem wmweem .mmwwwce53e mew cw emeweeme meeee wwemee eewew cewwmeeem weeeeeemm ewmew em>wmeme Amew eewez cw xewceee mew we mwemeewm ewe wmsmm mew ewesme ee .emmmmeeme .emmemeeew me eweeem mmeemwem wmeewm: eem .mmecmwem wmweem .mmwwwemsee mew cw emeweeme meeee wwemee eewew mewewm emwmemewee:\emwmemew we mwemezwm ewe wmeem mew cwmsme ee .emmmmeeme .emmemeoew me eweeem mmeemwem wmeewme eem .mmucmwem Feweem .mmwwwemsee mew cw emeweeme meeee wwemee xcwew mum we mwemeewm ewe mmsmm mew ewmame ee .emmmmeeme .emmmmeeew me eweeem mmeemwem wmeewme eem .mmeemwem Feweem .mmwwwemsee mew ew emewzeme meeee wwemee eewew emeemm we mwemeewm ewe .mm .mm .mm .mm cewwmmeo eeemmmmm memmw .emzcwwcoe--.w awemw 28 audit sheets, which were subsequent1y reviewed by the advisor, department head, anwi Registrar. In other situations, department heads or facu]ty advisors comp]eted the forms. Audit sheets for most degree programs specified courses "se1ected" to meet requirements, especia]]y in distributiona] fie1ds outside the fie1d of the major. Where more than the minimum number of credits was taken in a distributiona] area, the specification of courses as "se1ected" was arbitrary. The student, if asked, may have provided a different set of courses than those 1isted on the audit sheet. As an operationa] definition of courses meeting the genera] education requirements, this researcher used those courses 1isted in the designated genera] education category (N1 the audit sheet. This determination was made because the department invo1ved required those courses ix) be comp]eted. Students cou1d meet degree requirements with those specific courses and not with other se1ections. The existence of a1ternative means of specification of genera] education courses se1ected, such as using students’ responses or using the first 12 credits 1isted on the transcript, ]imits the genera1izabi1ity of the resu1ts. The interview protoco] asked the same set (Hi questions three times: once for each of the three distributiona] areas of the humanities, socia] sciences, and natura] sciences. The redundancy was tedious for both interviewers and respondents. Moreover, the responses to the first set of questions might have inf1uenced responses to the questions when they were repeated for other 29 distributiona] areas. Re]iabi1ity may be reduced according1y. The use of a 1arger response samp1e to a11ow asking each respondent one set of questions was deemed impractica]. I The 1apse of time between the comp]etion of distributiona] requirements by students and the interview may have resu1ted in incomp1ete or inaccurate reca11 of the importance of factors or persons in inf1uencing choices. Students may not have responded honest1y, even to student interviewers. The number of degrees awarded during 1990—91 in certain programs was sma11: three in mathematics, seven in Eng1ish ]anguage and 1iterature, eight in history, and five in geo1ogy. Some department tota1s (which inc1ude severa] degree programs) were sma11: 15 in Arts and Letters and 19 in Mathematica], Computer, and Geo1ogica1 Sciences. To overcome prob1ems of samp1ing from these sma11 programs and departments, the researcher made assumptions about simi1arities among students in degree programs and conso1idated the degree programs into five groups. A1though this action increased the samp1e size of each new1y defined degree group, differences among the different degree programs may appear sma11er because each group was more heterogeneous than a sing1e degree or program. When students from different degree programs were grouped together, their distinctive characteristics and responses were 1ess observab1e, and the group means were c]oser to the average for a1] students. 30 Limitations The resu1ts of this study app1y to graduates of LSSU. The demographic characteristics of LSSU students are different lfrom those of students at most other institutions in the state. The choices, factors affecting those choices, and eva1uation of genera] education by LSSU students ]ike1y differ from the factors inf1uencing students at other institutions, their choices, and eva1uations of genera] education. These differences are not 1ike1y as great when data are compared at the discip]inary—group 1eve1. The methods used in this study can be rep1icated, with appropriate modifications, at other universities to answer simi1ar questions. CHAPTER II PRECEDENTS IN THE LITERATURE This chapter contains a review of the aims, deve]opment, and forms of genera] education as a component of the undergraduate experience. The higher education 1iterature abounds with discussion of the purposes of genera] education. Themes such as connectedness and integration and phrases such as critica] thinking ski11s and common ]earning experiences appear frequent1y. Eva1uation and reform of genera] education is a continuous process for institutions of higher ]earning. Eva1uation mode1s and methodo1ogy are reviewed in the second part of this chapter. Procedura] precedents for the methodo1ogy used in this study are noted. Genera] Education Among the eight points of tension that Boyer (1987) found on the campuses of American co11eges and universities was confusion over goa1s. Scramb1ing for students and driven by marketp1ace demands, many undergraduate co11eges have 1ost their sense of mission. They are confused about their mission and how to impart shared va]ues. . . . And co11eges appear to be searching for meaning in a wor1d where diversity, not commona1ity, is the guiding vision. C1ose1y re1ated is the conf1ict between careerism and the 1ibera1 arts. Today’s students worry about jobs. Narrow 31 32 vocationa1ism, with its emphasis on ski11s training, dominates the campus. . . . [As one] president observed, "It’ 5 a1] right to ta1k about 1ibera1 arts goa1s but we have to face up to what students want today. “ (pp. 3-4) Boyer "found renewed interest in genera] education, in the qua1ity of teaching, and in the eva1uation of the undergraduate experience" (p. 7). The points of tension were a1so points of opportunity. Historica] Deve]opment of Genera] Education The confusion over goa1s to which Boyer referred "ref]ects a search for meaning within this new paradigm [of the Techno1ogica1 Revo]ution]" argued Mi11er (1988) in The Meaning of Genera] Education (pp. 1—2). Mi11er argued that the Industria] Revo]ution has been succeeded by the Techno1ogica1 Revo]ution, with new economic, socia], and po]itica1 ru1es no one knows how to teach. Genera] education has become the cata1yst for curricu]ar innovation as co11eges try to dea1 with the paradigm shift. Confusion over the meaning of genera] education has hampered serious discussion. Mi11er (1988) described genera] education as fo]]ows: Genera] education is a comprehensive, se1f—conscious1y deve]oped and maintained program that deve]ops in individua] students the attitude of inquiry; the ski11s of prob1em so]ving; the individua] and community va]ues associated with a democratic society; and the know1edge needed to app1y these attitudes, ski11s and va]ues so that the students may maintain the ]earning process over a 1ifetime and function as se1f- fu1fi11ed individua]s and as fu11 participants in a society committed to change through democratic processes. As such, it is marked by its comprehensive scope, by its emphasis on specific and rea] prob1ems and issues of immediate concern to students and society, by its concern with the needs of the future, and by the app1ication of democratic princip1es in the 33 methods and procedures of education as we11 as the goa1s of education. (p. 5) Boyer (1987) traced the deve10pment of genera] education and described the goa1s of an effective co11ege as f1owing from the needs of society and from the needs of students, in terms of two powerfu] traditions, individua1ity and community (pp. 58-69). The ear1iest co11eges in America provided a common, c1assica1 curricu1um. These institutions sought "to deve]op a sense of unity where, in a society created from many of the nations of Europe, there might otherwise by aim1essness and uncontro11ed diversity" (Rudo1ph, cited in Boyer, 1987, p. 60). After the American Revo]ution, minds turned toward the future, and the mood of individua1isn1 was ref]ected on campus. New courses were added. Students from 1ess privi1eged backgrounds were admitted. C011eges began to offer professiona] education. The Land Grant Act of 1862 wedded higher education to the practica1 arts. Char]es E1iot moved Harvard to an e1ective curricu1um. He is quoted by Boyer (1987) as stating the fo]]owing in his 1869 inaugura] address: The end1ess controversies whether ]anguage, phi1osophy, mathematics, or science supp1ies the best menta] training, whether genera] education shou1d be chief1y 1iterary or chief1y scientific, have no practica1 1esson for us today. This university recognizes no rea] antagonism between 1iterature and science, and consents to no such narrow a1ternatives as mathematics or c1assics, science or metaphysics. We wou]d have them a1], and at their best. (p. 63) The abandonment of the c1assica1 curricu1um 1ed some educators to worry about the 1ack of coherence. At Harvard, distribution requirements were introduced by E1iot’s successor, Lawrence Lowe11. 34 Distribution requirements represented a compromise between the 01d c1assica1 core and the free e1ective system. Reviva] of- genera] education requirements, in the form of survey courses and Great Books curricu1a after Wor1d War I, and in the form of western civi1ization sequences and programs with va1idity for a free society after Wor1d War II, i11ustrate the choices co11eges must make between individua1ism and the needs of society. The two powerfu] traditions to which Boyer referred--individua1ity and community—- have defined "the boundaries of the co]1egiate debate about purposes and goa1s and within these traditions there is, perhaps, sufficient common ground on which a vita] academic program can be bui1t" (pp. 66-67). Mi]1er (1988) argued for a different approach to the question of ba1ance than the ba1ance between individua1ity and community to which Boyer referred. Citing Ferguson, Mi]1er stated, "The person and society are yoked, 1ike mind and body. Arguing which is more important is 1ike debating whether oxygen or hydrogen is the more essentia] property (Hi water" (pp. 5-6). Genera] education represents a third option, according to Mi]1er, "that recognizes and bui1ds on this inseparab1e re1ationship between the individua] and community." This option "offers a way of articu1ating a curricu1um that can meet the cha11enges facing postindustria] society." Mi]1er traced the deve]opment of genera] education through history to exp1ain the third option. 35 Genera] education in the nineteenth century. In the nineteenth century, the propriety of c1assica1 education was cha11enged within a democracy. Citing Tocquevi11e, Mi]1er (1988) exp1ained how co11eges and universities responded to the need to prepare Americans for professions and vocations. In America there are but few wea1thy persons; near1y a1] Americans have to take a profession. Now, every profession requires an apprenticeship. The Americans can devote to genera] education on]y the ear1y years of ]ife. At fifteen, they enter upon their ca11ing and thus their education genera11y ends at the age when ours begins. If it is continued beyond that point, it aims on]y toward a particu1ar Specia]ized and profitab1e purpose; one studies science as one takes up a business; and one takes up on]y those app1ications whose immediate practica1ity is recognized. (p. 8) Genera] education became a reform movement, responding to the controversy that was a1ready evident when Tocquevi11e visited in 1831. Mi]1er said that American co11eges resisted, successfu11y for a1most two centuries, pressure to make education responsive to vocationa] needs of students and society. The forces of the American Revo]ution and the Industria] Revo]ution re-formed higher education. The Ya1e Report of 1828 represented the view that the same education shou1d be offered to a1] students to prepare them for citizenship. By the end of the Civi1 War, the uti1itarian movement and the inf1uence of the German university, with its emphasis on research, brought profound change to American higher education (Mi]1er, 1988). The United States, by the end of the Civi1 War, was becoming an industria1 power. Pressure mounted to make the curricu1um more vocationa] and Inore 11ti1itarian. The free e1ective system 36 instituted by Char]es E1iot at Harvard was revo1utionary. The ]and grant movement was a further stimu1us to change in this direction. At Corne11 University, a curricu1um was deve]oped by President White based on divisions and departments. At the University of Wisconsin, facu]ty members served as experts in a statewide extension service. Greater emphasis. was being p1aced on professiona] education and Specia]ization. Graduate education deve]oped and changed the orientation of undergraduate instruction from genera] studies to preprofessiona] instruction. The inf1uence from German universities fostered the deve]opment of the research mission of the university witil concomitant. greater Specia]ization and fragmentation of 'the curricu1um and deve10pment of a 1aissez-faire attitude toward students by facu]ty members (Mi]1er, 1988). A number of attempts at curricu]ar reform occurred around the turn of the century. Mi]1er (1988) cited the cu1ture movement as an examp1e of a group that was opposed to "materia1istic vocationa1ism and to socia] scientists who had come to dominate the uti1ity movement. Members of the cu1ture movement a1so were opposed to the narrow inte11ectua1ism they feTt had become associated with scientific research" (p. 19). The cu1ture movement was strongest in departments of modern ]anguages, Eng1ish 1iterature, phi1osophy, and the arts and was concerned with aesthetics, ethics, and artistic taste and appreciation. The cu1turists shared with the c1assicists a concern about the structure of curricu1um, centered on the unity of study. Cu1turists active1y supported a prescribed curricu1um. 37 Other' ear1y attempts at refornl inc1uded the deve]opment of majors or concentrations in an attempt to provide coherence to the curricu1um, and the deve]opment of honors programs. At Princeton, Woodrow Wi]son adopted the preceptor system in an attempt to gain contro] over extracurricu1ar activities which were deemed anti- inte11ectua1. C011eges began to change the content of the curricu1um, as we11 as the structure, to respond to changing student bodies and changing socia] prob1ems (Mi]1er, 1988). The socia] context ir1 which these curricu]ar changes were occurring was one of transformation. Not on]y was the United States deve]oping into a premier industria1 power, but the country was becoming an urban society. The deve]opment of the midd1e c1ass was accompanied and assisted by newspapers and magazines, which he]ped Americans see themse1ves as midd1e C]ass and caused rising expectations. Raised expectations were accompanied by :1 sense of individua] socia] responsibi1ity and ]ed to socia] reform movements. At the end of Wor1d War I, idea1ism was rep1aced with disi11usion- ment, except in higher education. The reform movement in education was accompanied by growth in enr011ment. The prob1em of dea1ing with 1arger numbers of students, who were genera11y' different from traditiona] students, and the prob1em of how to app1y the resources of the co]1ege to make a new wor1d were not unre1ated. Out of 'these prob1ems, the genera] education movement deve]oped (Mi]1er, 1988). The humanist approach. One approach to genera] education deve]oped out of the c1assica1 tradition and the cu1ture movement. 38 The humanist approach to genera] education evo1ved from "natura]istic" humanism. Natura1istic humanism differs-from traditiona] humanism in that it p1aced human beings at the center and stressed persona] responsibi1ity for behavior. Natura1istic humanism invo1ves the deve10pment of individual values as a means to achieve socia] ends of a sort much broader than those of the traditiona] humanists. The natura1ists a1so abandoned the c1assica1 authors as the so1e authority for those va]ues and became more concerned with the present. (Mi]1er, 1988, pp. 34-35) Mi]1er (1988) cited the Contemporary Civi1ization program at Co1umbia C011ege and the work of A1exander Meik1ejohn in estab1ishing the Experimenta] C011ege at the University of Wisconsin as examp1es of genera] education that drew upon the approach of natura1istic humanism. The Contemporary Civi1ization sequence at Wisconsin deve]oped out of a War Issues course deve]oped for the War Department before the conc1usion of Wor1d War I. A group of facu]ty began to deve]op a Peace Issues course 111 ease the transition of students from war to peace. This course became Contemporary Civi1ization. 'The interdiscip1inary course was required of a1] freshmen. The emphasis was on "the deve]opment of a student’s abi1ity to app7y ]earning to current problems and to make informed judgments" rather than on the acquisition of know1edge in traditiona] discip]ine areas (p. 36). Equa11y important was the emphasis on contemporary prob1ems rather than western cu1tura] heritage. Mi]1er (1988) described Meik1ejohn as ec1ectic in his approach. Whi1e Meik1ejohn remained 1oya1 to many basic assumptions of III. 39 traditiona] humanism, he brought new ideas from natura1istic humanism to the curricu1um, and these were important in the deve]opment of genera] education. Meik1ejohn be1ieved the goa] of education was the training of a student’s menta] facu]ties through discip]ine. Form was separate from content. This forma1ism was basic ix) the c1assica1 curricu1um. Meik1ejohn (cited ir1 Mi]1er, 1988) be1ieved that "the 01d curricu1um was founded by men who had a theory of the wor1d and of human 1ife. They had a know1edge of human experience by which they cou1d ]ive and which they cou1d teach others engaged in the activities of ]iving" (p. 42). Meik1ejohn’s phi1osophy was that the experience of the past cou1d he1p students cope with the prob1ems (Hi the present. For Meik1ejohn, the absence of a nationa] mind was a danger to democracy in the years fo]]owing Wor1d War I. At the University of Wisconsin, Meik1ejohn estab1ished a program with the goa] of "teaching genera] inte11igence" (Mi]1er, 1988, p. 45). Inte11igence was defined as "readiness for any human situation: it is the power, wherever one goes, of being ab1e to see, in any set of circumstances, the best response which a human being can make to those circumstances." The approach used by Meik1ejohn was to study two civi1izations--one ancient and one modern--to provide understanding of what constitutes a civi1ization and to ]earn to app1y these insights to contemporary prob1ems. He sought to avoid re1iance on discip]ine-based know1edge and to avoid the question of ends versus means. Whi1e he retained the forma1ism of the c1assica1 curricu1um, the study of the 40 humanities was not "for their own sake, but 1%”: a ho1istic understanding of the re1ationships that are invo1ved in. a human community" (p. 44). Mi]1er (1988) contrasted the efforts at Co1umbia and Wisconsin with the curricu]ar reforms of Robert Maynard Hutchins at the University of Chicago to support his thesis that the former were representations of new and distinct curricu1a rather than reforms within the traditiona] structure of 1ibera1 education. Hutchins be1ieved that a 1ove of money which had fostered vocationa1ism, a confused notion of democracy which had made education too responsive to socia] prob1ems, and an erroneous notion of progress had created an anti-inte11ectua1 university. Hutchins’s response was the Great Books program (Mi]1er, 1988). The progressive education movement. The second approach to genera] education deve]oped (nu: of the progressive education movement and the phi1osophy of pragmatism. Mi]1er (1988) described the phi1osophy of pragmatimn as uniqueTy American, ref]ecting and growing out of the experiences of the frontier in the ]ate nineteenth century. [Pragmatism] was shaped by the same forces that were re-forming American 1ife at the end (Hi the Industria] Revo]ution; pragmatism ref]ected the vita1ity in American 1ife and, at the same time, made an active contribution to that vitaTity. As such, pragmatism owed 1itt1e a11egiance to the rationa1ist tradition of Europe; in fact, it is rooted in opposition to that tradition. Its founders were very conscious of a direct re1ationship between pragmatism and the American brand of po]itica1 and socia] democracy. They wanted a phi1osophy that wou]d he1p insure that the vita1ity of American cu1ture was maintained. (p. 55) 41 Pragmatism was part of a genera] revo1t against forma1ism and contributed to the notion that socia] arrangements were "products of a society in which institutions were constant1y created and re-created. As a resu1t, the society was oriented to the future rather than to the past" (Mi]1er, 1988, p. 57). The future cou1d be changed just as the frontier was transformed. Mi]1er (1988) stated, "John Dewey transformed pragmatism into instrumenta1ism, in the process giving the basic e1ements of pragmatism a distinct1y socia] meaning and app1ying them to education" (pp. 58-59). I became more and more troub1ed by the inte11ectua1 scanda] that seemed to be invo1ved in the current (and traditiona]) dua1ism in ]ogica] standpoint and method between something ca11ed "science" on the one hand and something ca11ed "mora1s" on the other. I have 1ong fe1t that the construction of a 1ogic, that is, a method of effective inquiry, which wou]d app1y without abrupt breach of continuity to the fie1ds desig— nated by both of these words, is at once our needed theoretica1 so]vent and the supp1y of our greatest practica1 event. This be1ief has had much more to do with the deve]opment of what I termed, for 1ack of a better word, "instrumenta1ism," than have most of the reasons that have been assigned. (Dewey, cited in Mi]1er, 1988, p. 61) "Dewey’s goa] was use of scientific processes to create socia] change" (Mi]1er, 1988, p. 62). Dewey wanted to empower individua]s to so]ve socia] prob1ems by transforming the environment. Inquiry was an instrument. of 'transformation. '10 acquire know1edge, the individua] had to participate and to perceive the re1ationship between action and changes in the environment. Action was to be purposefu] and to be based on ref]ection. Dewey (cited in Mi]1er, 1988) saw a c]ose re1ationship between pragmatism and democracy: . IIII-IH 42 The very idea of democracy, the meaning of democracy, must be continua11y exp1ored afresh. It has in) be constant1y discovered and rediscovered, remade and reorganized; whi1e the po]itica1 and economic and socia] institutions in which it is embodied have to be remade and reorganized to meet the changes that are going on in the deve]opment of new needs on the part of human beings and new resources for satisfying those needs. (p. 63) Education was at the center of Dewey’s conception of pragmatism. Education cou1d not be separated from the process that defined pragmatism. Education was a continuous process of growth, not a preparation for a profession or a preparation for 1ife. Dewey defined education as "that reconstruction or reorganization of experience which adds to the meaning of experience" (Mi]1er, 1988, p. 65). "The educationa] process has no end beyond itse1f; it is its own end." The three components of the process are reorganizing, reconstructing and transforming. De]iberate change in the environment is intended. Ends, or aims as Dewey ca11ed them, are the same as means. Continuous growth, as the aim of education, imp]ies that education is a 1ife1ong process. Education must be concerned with the present prob1ems of the ]earner if the growth of the ]earner is to be cha11enged. Dewey rejected the separation of subject matter from‘ educationa] methods. Subject matter is a resource to he1p students so]ve prob1ems of immediate concern. "The know1edge of the past becomes a means for understanding the present and creating the future" (Mi]1er, 1988, p. 67). Dewey’s work stimu1ated the progressive education movement. Tensions deve]oped between those who advocated a chi1d-centered curricu1um and those who advocated a socia] reconstructionist 43 curricu1um. The chi1d-centered curricu1un1 deve]oped out of the measurement movement. If inte11igence and aptitude cou1d be measured, educationa] programs cou1d be constructed for each individua] student. The chi1d—centered approach was we11 suited for the 19205 with its emphasis on individua1isnL With the Great Depression and the growth of fascism, attention turned to the schoo1’s ro]e in society. The socia] reconstructionist curricu1um understood democracy to be a c1ass]ess and co]1ectivist society. The issue was the re1ationship between the needs of the individua] and the ro]e of education in bringing about socia] change. Dewey saw “these two issues as two sides of the same coin. Despite differences among Dewey’s fo]]owers, the progressive educators he1d in common the view that education and democracy were intertwined concepts. As such, educators had to be concerned with the ro]e of the individua] in society because that re1ationship defines a democracy. The contribution of progressive education to genera] education was the premise that "education designed to he1p individua]s become capab1e citizens of a democratic community must invo1ve them in direct experience with issues of immediate interest. . . Such an education is inescapab1y concerned with individua] and socia] transformation--with change" (Mi]1er, 1988, p. 78). The postwar years. The unity of process and substance present in the instrumenta1ist approach and in the vision of democracy he1d by its advocates--the unity of ends and means--was 1ess visib1e in the years fo]]owing Wor1d War II. The founders of the genera] education movement viewed democracy as :1 process. In the postwar 44 society, democracy was perceived as an institution. Preservation of democracy became the goa] of education. The re1ationship of the individua] to society changed from one where the concern was with the process of change to one where the concern was with the individua1’s civic responsibi1ities to society. To the progressives, the process of the curricu1um had imp]ications for the substance of the curricu1um. The unity of ends and means f1owed from this process—oriented view of democracy. The postwar view of democracy, by contrast, did not foster a concern with methods. Estab1ished institutions, such as Harvard, had to dea1 with their own history. Confusion between genera] education and 1ibera1 education deve]oped as such schoo1s tried to dea1 with the contradictory assumptions and demands of both. As the view of democracy shifted from the transformation of the individua] to the preservation of institutions, Harvard facu]ty tried to reconci1e the instrumenta1ist phi1osophy of change with the heritage of shared va]ues. Harvard’s Committee on the Objectives (cited in Mi]1er, 1988) attempted to strike the ba1ance: Education can therefore be who11y devoted neither to tradition nor to the be1ief that the idea] in itse1f is enough nor to the view that means are va]uab]e apart from the idea]. It must upho1d at the same time tradition and experiment, the idea and the means, subserving, 1ike our cu1ture itse1f, change within commitment. (p. 136) Harvard’s curricu]ar changes resu1ted in more prescription. Heritage overpowered change. By trying to strike a ba1ance between the goa1s of instrumenta1ism and c1assica1 humanism, the committee missed the spirit of both according to Mi]1er (1988): 45 Harvard’s attempt 1x1 institutiona1ize genera] education i11ustrates the prob1em that many of the e1itist, four-year institutions had in trying to introduce genera] education concepts into an institutiona] setting that had deve]oped around an entire1y different set of assumptions. It ref]ects the di1emma facing the traditiona]]y e1itist institutions as they tried to respond to the democratization of education and to the new ‘re1ationship between education and society that deve]oped in the postwar years. (p. 139) At Michigan State C011ege, a ]and grant institution serving a very different student from the student attending Harvard, a discussion began in 1943 of the type of education the institution wanted to offer students after the war ended. The facu]ty decided by unanimous vote to create a Basic Co11ege, ]ater known as the University C011ege, for every freshman and sophomore. The program wou]d be under the supervision of a separate facu]ty, and every student wou]d take the core courses. Michigan State, un1ike Harvard, was not hindered by its history and its traditions so it cou1d bring about change more easi1y. Its facu]ty had enough confidence to do what they be1ieved to [we in the best interest of Michigan State without undue concern about the opinions or actions at other, more prestigious institutions. John Hannah (1980) reca11ed: Our peop]e became convinced that what other universities were doing might be interesting, but not necessari1y right for Michigan State. But the 01d [Michigan Agricu1tura1 C011ege] attitude was we11 exemp1ified by the distinguished professor of botany, Dean Ernst Bessey, who repeated1y at facu]ty meetings wou]d ask the question, "Is there precedent for this?" And if Chicago or Michigan or Harvard or Stanford was doing something that we suggested, why, of course, that was a1] right. But if there was not an examp1e somewhere e1se, if a so-ca11ed major university was not doing exact1y what we had proposed, then in the view of Dr. Bessey and others, it shou1d be forgotten. 46 M. S. C. had overcome that attitude by the postwar years. . Our facu]ty was convinced that if they tried to out- Harvard Harvard, they were not going to succeed. And if they were not carefu], they might find in the process that the objectives Michigan State had been designed for wou]d not be achieved. Our university had reached the point where it cou1d move in the direction it shou1d to become tru1y distinguished. (p. 51) The forces behind the genera] education movement at Michigan State inc1uded greater access and the 1arger number of students to be served after Wor1d War II, and the fact that many of these students wou]d be from fami1ies where they were the first generation to be exposed to higher education. High schoo] preparation cou1d not be assumed to be universa11y strong. Hannah argued that the free e1ective systenI preva1ent in higher education had made it possib1e for a person to gain a co11ege degree and know a great dea1 about very 1itt1e. For 'this reason, the decision was made at Michigan State to require the Basic C011ege program of a1] students, irrespective of the major. The ]and grant tradition at Michigan State University made the deve]opment of a genera] education program easier than it wou]d have been at a 1ibera1 arts schoo1. Griffith (1947) discussed the changing structure of higher education. The ]and grant tradition, a1ong with the 1ibera1 arts tradition and the tradition of 'the professions, is one of three bases of structure for the university. Writing in 1947, Griffith cited a vast increase in the number of students seeking higher education and the creation of a variety of new professions that require different abiTities and education as forces for change. Griffith distinguished between horizonta1 and vertica] instruction and research. Horizonta] instruction and 47 research is organized across department and schoo] 1ines and is designed to satisfy the 1ife-activities of severa] c1asses of peop]e. Griffith argued that the ]and grant and professiona] strands of education are based on horizonta1 organization, whereas 1ibera1 arts education is organized vertica11y, or in a 1adder fashion. P1ans and priorities for genera] education were identified by Griffith (1947) as one of five adjustments needed in higher education: The reason for interest in, and genuine distress about, genera] education is p1ain enough. . . . Most programs of genera] education have spring [sic] up more as a reaction against the 1adder-1ike structure of training programs which ]ead to the doctorate than as positive and aggressive p1ans for finding within the we1ter of current know1edge that common core of information and that centra] means of promoting menta] growth which somewhere, somehow, must be essentia] features of any program of genera] education. A program of genera] education for our co11eges and universities is not, and cannot be, simpTy a matter of shuff1ing 1arge numbers of Specia]ized courses and then dea1ing them out in the hope that a good game, whose ru1es are not yet known, can be p1ayed. . . . Understanding imp]ies, of course, a common core of know1edge, but it a1so imp]ies a rising 1eve1 of abi1ity. . . . The rise in abi1ity must be so universa] that the gap between the best-informed and the ]east-informed is diminished rather than increased. This may be an inmossib1e goa] for an educationa] system of a democracy, but the unique thing about a democracy is that it has done, and if it survives, it wi11 continue to do, the inmossib1e. . . . The means of doing the impossib1e is a nationa] system of education within whose structure wi11 be found . . . a program of genera] education. (pp. 13-14) Within the traditions described by Griffith, the genera] education movement found a more comfortab1e home in institutions with the ]and grant phi1osophy than in 1ibera1 arts co11eges. 48 The major innovation during the 19405 and 19505, according to Mi]1er (1988), was the contribution of the new1y deve]oping community co11eges. Their community-centered curricu1um deve]oped a ba1ance between the interests of the individua] and the interests of the communityu Mi]1er cited the community co11ege experiences in Ca1ifornia and Iowa to i11ustrate this contention. A1though TH) c1ear vision of genera] education emerged nationa]]y during the postwar years, genera] education did become part of the mainstream rather than a movement separate from the mainstream. [fining this period, the pendu1um swung away from the individua] toward the community. The 19605 and individua1ism. The 19605 and 19705 witnessed a return to individua1ism. The curricu1um became more student centered and future oriented again. Institutions were becoming more diverse to serve a more diverse and 1arger student popu1ation by providing more diverse, more technica], and more vocationa] programs. Whi1e increased diversity resu1ted in more Specia]ization and fragmentation of the curricu1um and worked against genera] education in some ways, it simu1taneous1y increased the interest in genera] education as-a means of bringing order to the process of change brought on by the know1edge exp1osion. Student unrest, in part a consequence of the 1055 of community on the campuses of 1arge universities, served to create a new sense of community and forced universities to take curricu]ar action and incorporate some of the ideas for the revision of genera] education he1d by student activists. Mi]1er (1988) cited part of the "Port 49 Huron Statement," written for the first meeting of the Students for a Democratic Society, as an examp1e of the thinking of mainstream student movements: "We are peop]e of this generation bred in at ]east modest comfort, housed now in universities, 1ooking uncomfortab1y to the wor1d we inherit." Racia] bigotry and "the enc1osing fact of the Co1d War, symbo1ized by the presence of the Bomb," caused their discomfort. "The vita] democratic connection between community and ]eadership . . . has been so wrenched and perverted that disastrous po]icies go uncha11enged time and again" (p. 148). The ]anguage of this statement is reminiscent of the work of Dewey. The genera] education paradigm. At Co1umbia University, Danie] Be11 began his reconsideration of genera] education. Be11 noted severa1 trends that wou]d affect genera] education: the deve]opment of’ a nationa] economy' with the government as the Inajor funding sources for research, the know1edge revo1ution, the deve]oping future orientation and p1anning of society, and the prizing of inte11ectua1 achievement. Pub1ic service, as defined by research activity, was becoming paramount to the university as a consequence of ‘these trends. Facu]ty members were identifying with their discip]ines rather than their institutions, with graduate education rather than undergraduate instruction. Whi1e the university’s future orientation and emphasis on p1anning, and the focus on a nationa] community, were positive forces for high1ighting the va]ue of genera] education, the increased discip]inary fragmentation and 50 the orientation of facu]ty toward graduate education were detrimenta] to the deve]opment of genera] education (Mi]1er, 1988). Be11 be1ieved the distribution system CH“ traditiona] 1ibera1 arts curricu1um wou]d not meet the needs for genera] education. Be11 be1ieved the distinction between genera] and Specia]ized education was wrong. He argued for movement away from a know1edge- based curricu1um to a system that focused on methods "and on meaningfu] prob1ems and mora] choices that students wou]d encounter in their professiona] ]ives. He defined genera] education as ’education in the conduct and strategy of inquiry itse1f’" (Mi]1er, 1988, pp. 154-155). Be11 be1ieved that genera] education required vertica], as vnfl] as horizonta1, integration and shou1d not be confined to the first two years of undergraduate instruction. Mi]1er (1988) said the confusion over genera] education is so great that perhaps there is TH) such thing as a sing1e genera] education paradigm. He suggested that this 1ack of a unifying theme is para1yzing hi its effect (”1 the curricu1um. A common understanding of genera] education is essentia] for the deve]opment of a genera] education curricu1um. Mi]1er conc1uded that genera] education is not 1ibera1 education, nor is genera] education the same thing as interdiscip1inary study. The re1ationship between interdiscip1inary study and genera] education rests with purpose and the treatment of the content, not with the content per se. Genera] education is not the same thing as undergraduate education, nor is it synonymous with a prescribed curricu1um. 51 Having said what genera] education is not, Mi]1er (1988) conc1uded with what he be1ieved it is. Genera] education is purposefu]. "The ends--the stated purposes--of genera] education guide every aspect of the curricu1um." Eva1uation is a part of this characteristic. Genera] education is comprehensive. "It gives equa] weight hto the goa1s, the procedures or' methods, and the content of the curricu1um. . . . Genera] education is intimate1y concerned with democratic processes and with the needs of a democratic society and it a1ways has been" (pp. 186-190). Mi]1er thought it was hard to think of a time and a set of'cjrcumstances when the need for genera] education cou1d be greater. [It is] essentia] that co11eges and universities tack1e the issue of genera] education and try to arrive at a community of shared understanding that wi11 make possib1e the deve]opment of coherent genera] education curricu1a that respond to the needs of both individua]s and democratic society in a time of change. (Mi]1er, 1988, p. 190) Goa]s of Genera] Education Boyer (1987) argued that "genera1 education is not comp]ete unti1 the subject matter of one discip]ine is made to touch another . and the core program must be seen u1timate1y as re1ating the curricu1um consequentia11y to 1ife" (p. 9]). Boyer suggested the integrated core as a means to a11ow graduates to "p1ace their know1edge and ]ives in perspective" (p. 91). He proposed seven areas of inquiry to re1ate the curricu1um to experiences common to a1] peop]e (p. 92): 52 Language: The Crucia] Connection Art: The Esthetic Experience Heritage: The Living Past Institutions: The Socia] Web Nature: Eco1ogy of the P1anet Work: The Va1ue of Vocation Identity: The Search for Meaning Boyer (1987) i11ustrated the themes of in“; seven areas with examp1es of courses and sequences from numerous institutions. He cautioned the reader not to s1ip existing courses into a genera] education curricu1wn unexamined. . . . The way the course is actua11y taught may, in fact, promote Specia]ized, not genera], education. The centra] question is . . . whether students are he]ped in) see integration across the discip]ines and discover the shared re1ationship common to a1] peop]e. (p. 100) Boyer (1987) made the point that genera] education is not just a set of courses, but it is a program that inc1ude5 the extracurricu1ar. He argued for vertica1 integration. Genera] education is not something to get out of the way but 5hou1d extend through a1] four years. Boyer argued for the joining of genera] education and Specia]ization in his proposa] for the enriched major. Genera] and Specia]ized education shou1d be viewed as contributing to the same end. Citing A1fred North Whitehead, Boyer argued that the goa1s of" genera] education can be accomp1ished through the major: . There can be no adequate technica] education which is not 1ibera1, and no 1ibera1 education which is not technica]. Education shou1d turn out the pupi] with something he knows we11 and something he can do we11. (p. 112) Bok (1986) described three issues in 1ibera1 arts education: prescription versus choice, the means used 11) provide breadth in education, and the means used to achieve integration. He saw three 53 deve]opments in the ewo1ution of genera] education as being important over the 1ast 75 years. First is the greater comp]exity of know1edge. Second is the increase in extracurricu1ar activities, which has expanded the inf1uence of the co11ege over every aspect of the students’ ]ives. Third is the greater diversity of the student body in terms of economic status, minority status, gender, and age. Bok stated the fo]]owing as goa1s: Undergraduates 5hou1d acquire an amp1e store of know1edge, both in depth, by concentrating in a particu1ar fie1d, and in breadth, by devoting attention to severa1 discip]ines. They 5hou1d gain an abi1ity to communicate with precision and sty1e, a basic competence in quantitative 5ki11s, a fami1iarity with at ]east one foreign ]anguage, and a capacity to think c1ear1y and critica]]yx Students shou1d a1so become acquainted with the important methods of inquiry and thought by which we acquire know1edge and understanding of‘ nature, society, and ourse1ves. They shou1d deve]op an awareness of other cu1tures with their differing va]ues, traditions, and institutions. By having a chance to exp1ore many opportunities, they shou1d gain in se1f—know1edge, and u1timate1y be ab1e to make sound choices about their future ]ives and careers. Through working and ]iving with a wide variety of fe11ow students, they shou1d achieve greater socia] maturity and acquire a ‘to1erance of human diversity. Last but not ]east, they shou1d enjoy their co11ege years or at ]east 1ook back on them ]ater as :1 time when their interests and enthusiamns were engaged in 21 particu1ar1y memorab1e way. (pp. 54-55) Gaff (1983) stated that, despite the simp1icity of the term, genera] education is an ambiguous concept. He drew on four distinctive phi1osophica1 approaches to exp1ain the debate about genera] education. Idea1ism, as exemp1ified by John Henry Newman, argues that the university is a center for teaching and ]earning. Within a community of 5cho1ars, activities take p1ace to prepare students for '1ife, not for £1 particu1ar vocation or profession. Research is a1ien to this wor1d, as is activity aimed at curing 54 socia] 1115. The goa] is 1ibera1 education. Humanistic study is the best way to prepare for 1ife. Progressivism is exemp1ified by Whitehead and Dewey. No essentia1 difference exists between Specia]ized and genera] study; a comp]ete education contains both. The essentia1ist perspective is identified with Hutchins. The goa] of education is to train the inte11ect, and the study of great books is the best way to do this. Universities were viewed by Hutchins as too narrow, too Specia]ized, too vocationa], and too concerned with the extracurricu1um. Pragmatisni is 'the fina] phi1osophica1 position discussed by Gaff. C]ark Kerr is a representative of this perspective. Kerr suggested modest improvements in undergraduate education, not radica] restructuring. David Riesman is another incrementa1ist. He is quoted as saying, "I’m proud to be a tinkerer. That’s a1] one is Iike1y to be ab1e to do" (Gaff, 1983, p. 6). A1though the members of these different schoo1s differed in significant ways, Gaff (1983) cu11ed the fo]]owing as representations of genera] education with which a1] cou1d agree. Genera] education: is rooted in the 1ibera1 tradition and invo1ves study of the basic 1ibera1 arts and sciences; stresses breadth and provides students with fami1iarity with various branches of human understanding as we11 as the methodo1ogies and ]anguages particu1ar to different bodies of know1edge; strives to foster education, synthesis, and cennectedness of know1edge rather than discrete bits of Specia]ized information; 55 encourages the understanding and appreciation of one’s heritage as we11 as respect for other peop]e and cu1tures; inc1udes an examination of va]ues~-both those re1evant to current controversia] issues and those imp]icit in a discip]ine’s methodo1ogy; prizes a common educationa] experience for at ]east part of the co11ege years; requires the mastery of the 1inguistic, ana]ytic, critica], and computationa] ski11s necessary for 1ife10ng ]earning; and fosters the deve]opment of persona] qua1ities, such as to1er- ance of ambiguity, empathy for persons with different va]ues, and an expanded view of se1f. (p. 708) The .Association (Hi American Co11eges, in its 1985 report, Integrity in the Co11eqe Curricu]um, 1isted the fo]]owing nine experiences as essentia] to a coherent undergraduate curricu1um: 1. Inquiry, abstract 1ogica1 thinking, critica] ana]ysis. How do we know? Why do we be1ieve? What is the evidence? . . . To reason we11, to recognize when reason and evidence are not enough, to cHscover the 1egitimaey of intuition, to subject inert data to the probing ana]ysis of the mind--these are the primary experiences required of the undergraduate course of study. 2. Literacy. writing, reading, speaking, 1istening. . . A bache1or’ 5 degree shou1d mean that its ho1ders can read, write, and speak at 1eve1s of distinction and have been given many opportunities to ]earn how. It a1so shou1d mean that many of them do so with sty1e. 3. Understanding numerica] data. . . . We are arguing for a recognition throughout the course of study of the necessity for sharpening the abi1ity of students to understand numerica] data, to recognize their misuse, the mu1tip1e interpretations they often permit, and the ways that they can be manipu1ated to mis1ead. . . . In a wor1d of numbers students shou1d encounter concepts that permit a sophisticated response to arguments and positions which depend on numbers and statistics. 4. Historica] consciousness. . . . A consciousness of history a11ow5 us to impose some inte11ectua1 order on the disorder of random facts. It invites the app1ication of abstract 1ogica1 thinking, critica] ana]ysis, and inquiry to the past, but it 56 a1so requires imagination and intuition if the past is going to make sense. . . . To exercise historica] consciousness is to stretch the mind and to avoid the pitfa115 of oversimp1ifica- tion, sha]]owness, and unexamined and uncha11enged evidence. 5. Science. . . . A person who understands what science is recognizes that scientific. concepts are created by acts of human inte11igence and imagination; comprehends the distinction between observation and inference and between the occasiona1 ro]e of accidenta] discovery in scientific investigation and the de1iberate strategy of forming and testing hypotheses; understands. how 'theories are formed, tested, va1idated, and accorded provisiona] acceptance; and discriminates between conc1usions that rest on unverified assertion and those that are deve]oped from the app1ication of scientific reasoning. . By demystifying science, to some extent emphasizing the human, socia], and po]itica1 imp]ications of scientific research, such study shou1d ]ead students to greater resi1iency and a greater sense of their own capacity to p1ay a ro]e in how the resu1ts of science are used. 6. Va1ues. . . . We may be wary of fina] answers, but we cannot avoid the necessity of choice, decision, judgment. . . The opportunities are there, but they are too se1dom taken by teachers so far gone into Specia]ization and into the scien- tific understanding of their specia1ties that the cha11enges of bringing students into humanistic re1ationship with their subjects, into the arena of va]ues and choice and judgment, are beyond their interest and capacity. 7. Art. Appreciation and experience of the fine and performing arts are as essentia] as any other qua1ities appropriate to a civi1ized human being and a democratic society. . . . Without a know1edge of the ]anguage of the fine arts, we see 1ess and hear 1ess. Without some experience in the performing arts we are denied the know1edge of discip]ined creativity and its meaning as a bu1wark. of freedom and an instrument of socia] cohesion. . . . [With the arts] we become 1ess barbaric, more civi1ized, more fit 1x1 be the standard- bearers of a vibrant democratic society. 8. Internationa1 and mu1ticu1tura1 experiences. . . . Co11eges must create a curricu1um in which the insights and understandings, the ]ives and aspirations of the distant and foreign, the different and neg1ected, are more wide1y comprehended by their graduates. 9. Study in depth. . . . Depth requires sequentia] ]earning, bui1ding on b1ocks of know1edge that ]ead to more sophisticated understanding and encourage ]eaps of the imagination and efforts at synthesis. . . . The year-1on9 essay, the senior 57 thesis, the artistic project, undertaken after a sound grasp of the fundamenta15 . . . have been estab1ished, provides an experience in which two great 1essons are ]earned; the joy of mastery, the thri11 of moving forward in a forma1 body of know1edge and gaining some effective contro] over it, integrating it, perhaps even making some sma11 contribution to it; and the 1esson that no matter how deep1y and wide1y students dig, no matter how much they know, they cannot know enough, they cannot know everything. Depth is an enemy of arrogance. (pp. 15-24) The Association report p1aced emphasis on methods of ]earning rather than content of the curricu1um. The report did not propose a prescribed curricu1um, nor :1 mere strengthening of distribution requirements, nor adding mu1tidiscip1inary genera] education courses to the curricu1um. The proposa] did not envision any sing1e approach to meeting its objectives. The emphasis was on responsibiTity to the goa1s of the program rather than the structure of the curricu1um a]ong the three traditiona] 1ines of the humanities, socia] sciences, and natura] sciences. Responsibi1ity a1so encompasses responsibi1ity for instruction; the report emphasized the need for active ]earning. The 1988 report of the Association of American Co11eges, tit1ed A New Vita1ity in Genera] Education, a fo]]ow-up to Integrity in the Co11eqe Curricu]um defined genera] education "as the cu1tivation of the know1edge, ski11s, and attitudes that a11 of us use and 1ive by during most of our 1ives--whether as parents, citizens, 1overs, trave1ers, participants in the arts, 1eaders, vo1unteers, or good Samaritans" (p. 3). The report emphasized continuous ]earning and programs "to prevent stagnation of perception and to vivify thought and action through continuous ref]ection." The report continued: 58 The chief task of the co11ege years is for students not on]y to gain the abi1ity to identify perspectives, weigh evidence, and make wise decisions, but a1so to ]earn how to think about thinking and to enjoy thinking. (p. 4) - Rather than focusing on the goa1s or content of genera] education, A New Vita1ity in Genera] Education emphasizes some of the qua1ities of genera] education. Despite the diversity of the student body, the report argued for a common ]earning experience to communicate to students and facu]ty the fact that they are a1] part of a community committed to inquiry. Programs shou1d cut across department boundaries. "When we start with departmenta] turf as our frame of reference, we miss the opportunity to he1p our students exp1ore potentia] 1inkages and cemp1ementaries across discip]ines and subjects" (p. 7). Students must be he]ped to see the connections between the content of their study emu! prob1ems they wi11 face as citizens. Students must be exposed to broad, integrative dimensions in their study ir1 their nmjor. "Whatever their chosen fie1d, study in the major 5hou1d he1p students p1ace their particu1ar academic commitments in 1arger inte11ectua1, historica], and cu1tura1 perspectives" (p. 9). Introductory courses in a discip]ine shou1d be p1anned and taught with the view in mind that for many students this wi11 be the on]y course taken. The introductory course shou1d be regarded as a genera] education course with some guidance provided so students can continue study in the discip]ine on their own. Cheney’s (1989) 50 Hours, a report from the Nationa] Endowment for the Humanities, proposed a core curricu1um. The stated purposes 59 for considering a core requirement inc1ude increased per5pective to aid in making choices, the provision of needed order and coherence, and the encouragement of a sense of community. The report from the Nationa] Endowment for the Humanities p1aced history, 1iterature, phi1osophy, and art at the heart of this curricu1um because 1ife 1ived in their company is richer and fu11er than 1ife spent in their absence. . . . The humanities and arts extend our domain. They a11ow us to reach beyond ourse1ves as we seek insight--and beyond the present moment. (p. 21) Two years of foreign ]anguage is suggested in the core to increase mastery of the student’s own ]anguage and to give insight into the nature and power of ]anguage. Second, study of a foreign ]anguage a11ows students: to "enter into the written cu1ture in significant ways . . . to experience in the origina], rather than through trans1ation, profound and beautifu] works that show how other peop]e 1ive and what they va]ue" (Cheney, 1989, p. 29). Mathematics wou]d be required in the core for students not majoring in programs requiring mathematics. "To participate rationa11y in a wor1d where discussions about everything from finance to the environment, from persona] hea1th to po]itics, are increasing]y informed by mathematics, one must understand mathematica] methods and concepts, their assumptions and imp]ications" (p. 35). Study of the natura] sciences is inc1uded in the proposed core. "Our abi1ity to make everyday decisions wise1y is diminished when we do not comprehend scientific princip1es and the techno]ogies bui1t upon them. And so is our capacity for answering momentous questions" (p. 43). A one-year course in the socia] sciences is inc1uded "to 60 exp1ain po]itica1, economic, and socia] 1ife" (p. 51). The course wou]d range over the socia] science discip]ines, focusing (”1 works "that estab1ished theoretica1 constructs that have profound1y affected subsequent generations" (p. 52). Another vehic1e for inc1uding the goa1s of genera] education in the curricu1um is to merge them with professiona] study. Stark and Lowther (1989) out1ined ten 1ibera1 education outcomes of professiona] education. These outcomes c]ose1y resemb1e goa1s of 1ibera1 education according to the authors. They inc1ude the fo]]owing: 1. Communication competence-~writing, reading, speaking, and 1istening. 2. Critica] thinking--the abi1ity ix> acquire, eva1uate, and synthesize information. 3. Contextua] competence-~the capabi1ity to adopt mu1tip1e perspectives and to make judgments in 1ight of historica], socia], economic, scientific, and po]itica1 rea1ities. 4. Aesthetic sensibi1ity--awareness of and sensitivity to re1ationships among 'the arts, the natura] environment, and human concerns. 5. Professiona1 identity--to strengthen one’s p1ace in the wor1d as an individua] and citizen. 6. Professiona1 ethics--a5 standards that guide behavior. 7. Adaptive competence-~the abi1ity to anticipate, adapt to, and promote change. 61 8. Leadership capacity--the capacity to assume ]eadership ro]es and to app1y know1edge and 5ki115 in inte11igent and humane ways. - 9. Scho1ar1y concern for improvement--recognition of the need to increase know1edge and advance the profession through research on theory and practice. 10. Motivation for continued ]earning. Stark and Lowther (1989) surveyed more than 2,000 facu]ty members in ten professiona] fie1ds and found the stereotypica] view of professiona] facu]ty as being educationa]]y narrow to be wrong. Substantia1 agreement among professiona] facu]ty members was found regarding the importance of 1ibera1 ]earning outcomes. Whi1e va]uing '1ibera1 education outcomes, professiona] facu]ty' did not desire their students to take more 1ibera1 arts courses. They be1ieved that 1ibera1 arts courses, as currentTy taught, 1ack re1evance, focus, and interest for their students. . . . On1y 532 of the 13,461 educationa] activities facu]ty mentioned [as activities to achieve 1ibera1 education outcomes] entai1ed course work outside the professiona] program. (p. 13) Mohrman (1983) argued that business graduates re1ied more and more on genera] education and 1ess and 1ess on specific training as their careers deve]oped. Studies at Chase Manhattan Bank and AT&T found more genera11y trained 1ibera1 arts graduates more successfu] in management positions than business or engineering graduates. Mohrman made the case for integrating ]ibera] arts studies with more specific ski11s acquisition. 62 Putnam and Stevens (1991) argued that management education shou1d be restructured to bring it into the 1ibera1 arts tradition. Business schoo1s have a1ready reorganized their curricu1a a]ong these 1ines. "Accounting and finance . . . organizationa] behavior and information systems can be part of the 1ibera1 arts tradition if taught in the proper, innovative context" (p. 82). Martin (1982) made the argument for the synoptic function of the co11ege. He meant that programs of study are comprehensive in the sense that they meet the needs of the who1e person, inc1uding both genera] education and professiona] education. His is an argument for integration: . . b1ending of themes and subject matter from genera] and humane studies with those of professiona] or vocationa] progranw. so often substituted for genera] and 1ibera1 education. . . . The co11ege is the p1ace where studies count most when they re1ate to one another, where ski11s are acquired and app1ied not as mere techniques but with concern for their meaning and their effects. (p. 33) Mode]s of Genera] Education Cheney (1989) argued that a core curricu1um is not ]imiting, as its critics argue, but it, if "devised so that students encounter c1a55ic works and significant ideas, is just the opposite. It expands choices and enriches possibi1ities for the individua]" (p. 59). Campbe11 and F1ynn (1990) argued for a return to the core curricu1um to provide coherence and integration and to restore integrity and purpose in undergraduate education. They stated that 63 this suggestion requires a co11ege’5 facu]ty to agree ("1 what every student shou1d ]earn, to create broad1y conceived courses inc1uding materia] outside their specia1ty, and to put student growth before their own academic interests and research. (p. 9) The authors re1ated how a core curricu1um was imp1emented at Mount Saint Mary’s Co11ege. 'The rationa1e-and-goa1s statement was approved unanimous1y by the facu]ty. Whi1e "imp]ementing a core curricu1um is much harder than mandating distribution requirements" (p. 9), it does not seem impossib1e. A1though Hirsch (1988) addressed the needs of e1ementary and secondary schoo] students for cu1tura1 1iteracy, his arguments can be app1ied to the need for common ]earning at the postsecondary 1eve1 as we11. True 1iteracy requires the abi1ity to grasp the meaning of any piece of writing addressed to the genera] reader, and it depends on shared know1edge. This shared know1edge tends to have a nationa] character. "A mastery of a nationa] cu1ture is essentia1 to mastery of the standard ]anguage in every modern nation" (p. 18). Hirsch argued that cu1tura1 to1erance and cu1tura1 p1ura1ism are enhanced by our "big-tented and to1erant" civi] re1igion which, "as expressed in our nationa] rites and symbo1s, is in fact a centra] source of coherence' in. American pub1ic cu1ture, ho1ding together various and even contradictory e1ements of its tradition" (p. 99). Our nationa] vocabu1ary, by which Hirsch meant our cu1tura1 1iteracy-~the who1e system of wide1y shared information, is more to1erant of diversity than the civi] re1igion. What counts in the sphere of pub1ic discourse is "simp1y being ab1e to use the ]anguage of cu1ture in order to communicate any point of view effective1y" 64 (p. 103). Hirsch argued that the idea of 1iteracy inc1udes a 1arger vocabu1ary which inc1udes shared scientific and technica] know1edge. We require not on]y that ordinary citizens be scientifica11y 1iterate but that technicians and scientists master the nonscientific 1iterate cu1ture. To exp1ain the imp]ications of their work to others, experts must be aware of the shared associations in our 1iterate vocabu1ary and be ab1e to bui1d ana1ogies on those associations. (p. 108) Hirsch (1988) b1amed forma1ism for the dec1ine of American 1iteracy and the fragmentation of the curricu1um. Forma1ism stresses that content does not matter as 1ong as it is tied to what the chi1d a1ready knows. He c1aimed the schoo1 curricu1um is fragmented both "horizonta11y across subjects and vertica11y within subjects" (p. 116). This fragmentation was b1amed on the movement away from traditiona] humanism with its prescribed curricu1um to American pragmatism and European romanticimn. Dewey’s emphasis on socia] uti1ity as an educationa] goa] and Rousseau’s and Wordsworth’s emphasis on the deve]opment of the who1e chi1d--that the chi1d’s positive se1f—concept is the key to 1earning--1ed to abandonment of the prescribed curricu1um. Forma1ism 1ed to the use of different contents for different students to accomp1ish the same aims. Accommodation of individua] differences through tracking and grouping reinforced the fragmentation that was being introduced by vocationa] schoo1s. Hirsch c1aimed, Any educationa] movement that avoids coming to terms with the specific contents of 1iterate education or evades the responsibi1ity of conveying them to a1] citizens is committing a fundamenta] error. However nob1e its aims, any movement that deprecates facts as antiquated or irre1evant injures the cause of higher nationa] 1iteracy. (p. 133) 65 B1oom (1987) advocated the Great Books approach. He dismissed two typica] responses to the excess openness of the 19605: a breadth requirement met through distribution requirements, and the offering of composite courses. The distribution requirements are usua11y' met with existing introductory courses. This approach provides a genera] education, in the sense in which a jack-of-a11-trades is a genera1ist. . . . It just teaches that there is no high- 1eve1 genera1ism. . . . Thus they desire to get it over with and get on with what professors do serious1y. (pp. 342-343) The dangers of composite courses "are trendiness, mere popu1arization and 1ack of substantive rigor" (p. 343). . The on]y serious so1ution i5 . . . the good 01d Great Books approach, in which a 1ibera1 education means reading certain genera11y recognized c1assic texts, just reading them, 1etting them dictate what the questions are and the method of approaching them. . . . One thing 'Hs certain: wherever the Great Books make up a centra] part of the curricu1um, the students are excited and satisfied, fee] they are doing something that is independent and fu1fi11ing, getting something from the university they cannot get e1sewhere. . . . Libera] education f1ourished when it prepared the way for the discussion of a unified view of nature and man’s p1ace in it, which the best minds debated on the highest 1eve1. It decayed when what 1ay beyond it were on]y 5pecia1ties, the premises of which do not 1ead to any such vision. (pp. 344-347) Gow (1989) discussed "The True Purpose of Education" and conc1uded: The rigorous study of and conversation about the great works of the mora] and inte11ectua1 giants of civi1ization wi11 remind us that the true aims of education are wisdom and virtue. These qua1ities are much needed not on]y in our persona] and socia] ]ives, but in our professiona] and economic ]ives as we11. (p. 546) Kirk (cited in Gow, 1989) asserted: 66 From the beginnings of formal education, a primary aim of schooling has been the development of sound character. The end of 'true education is ethical; that end is to be .attained through inte11ectua1 means. (p. 545) - Gow argued that the intellectual means are through study in the humanities and the classics. Hall (1983) claimed the designation of liberal education has changed from one leading to cultural completeness to one involving indiscriminate choice. Consumerism has replaced the primary functions of liberal education. The term liberal means "the spectrum of human affairs connecting us to all our values and achievements, without which our perspectives would be distorted and our judgments and communications fragmented" (p. 9). Hall (1983) was critical of distribution requirements: This label is not merely tactless; it is a bureaucratic violation of the language of liberal education. No wonder it raises hack1e5--it suggests illiberal constraints. It is properly replaceable by core curriculum. A core curriculum by definition is not a set of regulations and requirements regimenting faculties and students. It is a central paradigm of the liberal education in which both are engaged. It does not constrain, it organizes them. 'The vexation, theoretical and empirical, here as elsewhere can hardly diminish until the entire semantic structure has been improved. (p. 11) At Harvard, the core curriculum created in 1945 was dissipated by the events of the 19605. Never before had there been such freedom for faculty and students to pursue their particular interests. But in the process, as in Eliot’s day, something important had "fallen through the mesh of the academic basket." That something was what critics of the general education movement called its tacitly po]itica1 concern with preparing students for their lives as responsible human beings and citizens in a democratic society. (Keller, 1982, pp. 32-33) 67 The Task Force on the Core Curriculum at Harvard reached agreement that "the aims of general education are run; compatible with unrestrained choice" (Keller, 1982, p. 51). The group agreed upon eight areas of study and allowed flexibility to meet goals established for each of the areas. Keller said, "The eight requirements added up to a program for fostering skills and conveying basic modes of academic thought, not a program for passing on a received body of information and ideas" (p. 54). .A balance between too much structure and too much flexibility was sought by allowing a reasonable number of courses in each of the eight areas. Nelson (1990) was critical of what he considered to be the content-free character of the core. The philosophy behind the core is that educated people are not those ‘who have read books and have learned lnany facts but rather those who could analyze facts if they should ever encounter any, and who could "approach" books if it were ever necessary to do 50. Facts may change or become irrelevant, but analytic faculties will always be useful. (p. 76) Nelson (1990) characterized the core as a "strange bunch of distribution requirements" or, as one faculty member called it, "old garbage in new pails" (p. 76). Nelson concluded that "students can graduate from Harvard without ever having studied the books that are commonly considered great or the events that are commonly considered most important" (p. 80). Hansen (1982) summarized what general education should include and described responses of four institutions. The components include advanced learning skills, distribution requirements, and integrated learning experiences. 68 The advanced learning skills include composition, mathematics, foreign languages, and physical education. For less selective schools, the "advanced" learning skills may translate 11) basic or remedial skills. The» distribution requirement, or breadth component, requires students to take courses in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences (typically); sometimes specific courses are required, but more commonly students are allowed to take any course in the area. Fragmentation and lack of direction are often the results. Integrated learning experiences are frequently used to overcome the fragmentation of a distribution model. Capstone courses, thematic or problem approaches, central subjects, and core courses are examples of the integrated learning experience. Hansen (1982) stated that the interdisciplinary approach and the core course are the two most common approaches. Citing Fulcher, Hansen defined a topic as integrative "if some of its details and their relations are apt to be misperceived or misinterpreted or omitted when viewed by only a single discipline" (p. 252). Because the ability of students to synthesize is often a function of maturity, integrating experiences may have more meaning as upper division offerings. The core approach emphasizes common learning experiences. Drawing on Arden, Hansen (1982) stated that a successful core curriculum must draw on other components of the curriculum, be allotted sufficient time (25% to 50% of the program), and extend over the entire four years. 69 Hansen (1982) reviewed four models of reform: Harvard, Bowling Green State University; St. Anselm’s, and Los Medanos Community College. The Harvard mode] emphasizes methods of thought rather than specialized subject areas. The intention is 1x1 reduce fragmentation, which is a result of the elective-distribution model. The Bowling Green model uses an outcomes approach, focusing on ends rather than means. The model culminates in a capstone experience that allows students to approach a problem from the perspective of the "enlightened generalist" and to synthesize general education (p. 256). A Great Books approach is used an: St. Anselm’s College. The focus is (”1 historical personalities, "people VON) exemplify outstanding performance in various forms of human activity [and who] are studied through a mu1ti-disciplinary format" (p. 257). The program has allowed for the interpretation of western civilization and exploration of human values in a systematic way. At Los Medanos, two goals of general education are predominant: to make respect for cultural pluralism pervasive in the curriculum and to encourage students to develop their own programs for continuing education. The program consists of an interdisciplinary core of courses and the opportunity to explore a problem or idea in depth. Hansen (1982) concluded that no single ideal program of general education exists. The strength of American education is its diversity. Nevertheless, he saw certain shared characteristics of successful general education programs: 70 l. A general education program should be a distinct recogniz- able entity. - 2. A general education program should equip students with the skills and interests to ensure lifelong learning. 3 A general education program should acquaint students with the broad domains of knowledge. 4. A general education program should enable students to understand methods of inquiry. 5. A general education program should encourage students to be competent users of information systems, including libraries and computers. 6. A general education program should be distributed through- out the college years, rather than being concentrated at the beginning. 7. A general education program should offer integrative and synthesizing experiences, preferably ir1 the senior year. (p. 26]) Butts (1982) proposed a core curriculum centered on the civic function of preparing citizens for their roles in a political community governed by law rather than kinship, religion, or status. He traced this purpose of' education back to ‘the views of the founding fathers. Butts argued that the purposes of the prescribed curriculum of the Experimental College at the University of Wisconsin, founded by Meiklejohn, were primarily civic and moral: to prepare students 1x1 take their places as free and responsible members of the American Community, to think about important and significant problems required for creating a just and free civilization, and to build a sense of civic community in a segmented society and fragmented world. (p. 383) Butts cited Boyer and Levine regarding the purposes of the general education movement. The themes point to a common set of values: the preservation of idemocracy, the sharing of citizen responsibility, the commitment to ethical and moral behavior, the enhancement of global perspectives, and the integration of diverse groups into the larger society. . . . The emphasis appeared consistently to be on shared values, shared heritages, shared responsibilities, shared governance, and a shared world vision. (p. 385) 71 Butts (1982) proposed a set of ten value-oriented claims to use as a framework for a common civic core. A parallel exists between the traditions of individuality and community that Boyer said are at the heart of undergraduate education and the value-concepts Butts provided. One type of concept promotes "desirable, cohesive and unifying elements," and 21 second type promotes "desirable, pluralistic and individualistic elements ir1 a democratic political community" (p. 39]). Butts argued that "there is a continuing tension, and sometimes overt conflict, between the values of unum and the values of plur1’bus, but I believe that liberal education must, just as American democracy must, try to balance, honor, and promote both" (p. 39]). Butts (1982) stated that these normative concepts should be confronted directly throughout the undergraduate education and account for one-third to one-half of a student’s time. The ten value concepts are as follows: 1. Justice, in a public sense, as used by John Rawls. 2. Freedom, of the person and of private action; and of the mind and of intellectual inquiry. 3. Equality of rights and opportunity. 4. Diversity, but with stability. 5. Authority as legitimate power. 6. Privacy as the right to be left alone and the right to determine what information about oneself is revealed. 7. Due process. 8. Participation, both as an idea and as practice. 72 9. Personal obligation for the public good as a sense of responsibility symbolized by loyalty, patriotism, discipline,- and duty. 10. International human rights which honors diversity but seeks cohesion (pp. 391-398). Butts (1982) concluded that the curriculum should combine the values of stable pluralism with cosmopolitan civism. In a desirably pluralistic society, civic liberal education must honor cultural pluribus, but it must also strengthen political unum. Somehow, we must redouble our efforts to redesign a liberal general education, one that will promote and protect the rights of all persons to hold a 1diversity of beliefs, but also develop a commitment to actions that uphold the common bonds of a free government, the surest guarantee of the very holding of a pluralism of beliefs. (pp. 398-399) Mears (1986) proposed evolutionary' process as 2H1 organizing principle to overcome the fragmentation of the curriculum and the disintegration of a shared set of beliefs about the goals of undergraduate education. "We must be prepared to demonstrate the interrelationships and linkages between departmentally separated fields" (p. 314). Mears’s lZ-credit core curriculum would include one course dealing with physics, astronomy, and geology; a second course focusing on chemistry and biology; the third course taught by anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians; and the final course taught by historians and social scientists. Historical process is viewed as a means of establishing connections across fields and over tine. Mears argued that specialization does not necessarily add to deep insight: 73 We might consider the possibility . . . that an exhaustive investigation of narrow topics is likely to evoke profound understanding only when coupled with background breadth, while specialization will yield shallowness if it divorces particular information from the larger context. Once we accept that idea, we are ready to appreciate the value of a common educational experience for all undergraduates . . . through a number of core courses . . . in the first two years of the bachelor’s degree. (pp. 314-315) Smith (1983) argued that the major dominates the curriculum 'because of the political power of the department. Neither the major, nor departments, are justified on educational grounds. Smith claimed that the major lacks coherence and that most "are miniaturized distribution requirements, and fall prey to the same criticism of such requirements at a more general level" (p. 14). Smith said, Students ought not to be asked to organize and integrate what the faculty will not. Distribution requirements--whether at the level (Hi general education or the Iniddle-range of the major, violate these two injunctions at will. (p. 15) Ferris State University (1990) has developed 11 general educa— tion proposal that illustrates the outcomes approach. Eight outcomes are specified: 1. Communications competence--reading, writing, speaking, and listening. 2. Lifelong learning and organizational skills, including library and information skills, project organization skills, collaborative skills, and computer competence. 3. Quantitative skills in mathematics and statistics. 74 4. Reasoning ability, including demonstrated competence in problem .solving, critical thinking, independent decision making, ethical decision making, va]uing, and civic responsibility. 5. Scientific understanding. 6. Social awareness and the ability to assess issues involving social institutions, interpersonal and group dynamics, social tradition and change, cultural diversity, and human development and behavior. 7. Global consciousness. 8. Cultural enrichment. The Ferris proposal includes both a core that all students must complete and a restricted distribution of courses allowing some choice by students. The requirements include coursework in the upper division to foster lifelong learning skills and to match the growing maturity of students. Active learning, assessment, academic support, and professional development. are other' elements of the proposal. The Draft Report of the Council to Review Undergraduate Education (CRUE) of Michigan State University (1988) included several proposals regarding the general education component of undergraduate education. Spreading general education across four years would help students see the relationship between the major and general education and allow more complex courses to be offered. Integrating experiences are proposed, including vertically arranged core courses in the arts and humanities, the behavioral and social 75 sciences, and the natural sciences. The integrative senior capstone course would draw on general education courses. Woditsch, Schlesinger, and Giardina (1987) made the case for liberal education over the four-year period. Citing studies supporting the claim that liberal arts graduates are superior to the more technically trained, they argued that it is the approach to the subject matter, not the subject matter itself, in which liberal and specialized instruction differ. Given that 'good ‘thinking occurs only in context, the baccalaureate should demand throughout its breadth and depth the exercise of intellectual skill. Curriculum becomes more than a sequence of courses; in this light, it becomes an orchestrated sequence of summonings for the student to think skillfully. (p. 53) Students need 111 operate on information, not simply retain it. Thinking skills mature recursively and need to be caught in action to be guided. Integration and coherence are objectives of the cluster approach to structuring the general education curriculum. Syracuse University requires students to take four-course, topical sequences in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. The core catalog identifies which clusters are thematically re1ated. Albright College allows students to meet the humanities requirement by choosing six general studies courses from an; least four departments. An integrating course, which is team taught, is required for each cluster. Students are identified as cluster students, and a notation is made on the transcript when the cluster 76 is completed. '10 provide additional coherence, cocurricular activities are offered to complement the classes (Brown, 1985). Johnson County Community College (1989) developed a nonmandated core curriculum as an alternative to distribution requirements. Because of the diverse needs of students, some of whom will transfer to other institutions that require different courses, and because of staffing constraints, the core is not required of all students. The goal of coherence is believed to be more effectively met for students electing the core. Boyer and Ahlgren (1987) stated that 95% of the nation’s colleges and universities impose distribution requirements. The distinction between the core curriculum and the distribution requirements model should be viewed in terms of a continuum rather than an either-or choice. A distribution model with a restricted number of choices is frequently referred to as a core curriculum (e.g., Harvard). A common core plus additional distribution requirements is not uncommon. Clustering and thematic approaches represent another approach midway on the continuum. The changes that have occurred, and are occurring, are in the direction of greater prescription and less choice, to use Bok’s dichotomy. Other Issues in General Education The value of general education is another area of concern. Students must be helped to see the relevance of general education and to make connections across disciplines. 77 Boyer (1987) reported on the ranking of reasons for going to college given by high school seniors and their parents. Students were more career oriented than their parents, who placed greater value on reasons associated with general education. College students’ ratings of general education subjects indicated that only a small minority of students thought course requirements should be increased; computer science was the exception. Student support for general education diminished between 1976 and 1984. Green (1982) discussed the ways of detecting "educational worth" in liberal education. He argued that the question has changed from "how persons can be educated to value (verb) those things that have worth (predicate) . . . [to what are] people’s values [and how can we] change them?" (p. 129). Green argued that evaluation can start only after we learn to recognize the education of worth. Hinni and Eison (1990) reported that parents of college freshmen surveyed at summer orientation programs indicated that skills identified as most needed for the future were correlated with skills taught in general education. Parents are included in a two- day summer orientation program and attend parents’ classes in which they learn about the general education program and witness instructional strategies being modeled. The results of the program include the development of a better understanding of the academic program and general education requirements. Parents are able to discuss program specifics with students and provide intellectual and emotional support for freshmen. 78 The Freshman Seminar Program at 'Hwa Pennsylvania State University, described by Mark and Romano (1982), provides a detailed introduction to liberal arts disciplines, using a seminar format. The instructors, who also serve as academic advisors, teach small classes, emphasize writing, and attempt to convey the types of activities that are necessary to be active members of the discipline. Program participants volunteered after learning about the program during a summer orientation program. Viewed in terms of affective outcomes, the program was successful.. Students were more satisfied with advising, had improved general attitudes toward the institution and toward liberal arts education, and had increased confidence and a sense of excitement about the issues that had arisen in their classes. If outcomes are measured in terms of grade point averages, retention, or ratings by nonseminar instructors, no significant differences were observed. The Association of“ American Colleges (1988) report, A__New Vitality in General Education, supported a change in practice to combine freshman orientation with introductory courses ir1 general education. 'The report urged a half-year, if not 21 full year, of orientation. A sense of the educational worth of general education may be enhanced through the use of activities designed to help students see the value of general education during orientation or the fyeshman year. Bok (1986) said, 79 Colleges must communicate the goals to students and explain their importance. Members of departments . . . need to come together . . . to make sure the shared purposes -are not forgotten amid the private aims and interests of individual professors. (p. 63) ‘ Should general education be placed in the first two years or spread over four? While the official view of "academe is that general education is essential, [the] working position, for many people out in the trenches, is that general education is a nuisance or a waste" (Wee, 1987, p. 454). Wee argued that, instead of getting general education out of the way, specialized education should get out of the way of general education. "General education should be part of every educational program, from the students’ first year to their last" (p. 460). Mears (1986) Inade EH1 argument for' general education in the first two years, before study in the major. Hindern (1984) believed that the distinction between the first two years of college, reserved for general education, and the second two, for which specialization is appropriate, must be reinforced. Connectedness between disciplines could be improved. The Memphis State University model, mandated by the Tennessee State Board of Regents, reserved general education for the first two years (Petry, 1987). An Association of American Colleges (1988) report argued that general education is not preparatory-~not something to be gotten out of the way. The report said that efforts to confine general education to the first and second year of college are . . . self-defeating. They assume freshmen . . . can undertake syntheses that few 80 instructors could achieve; and they make general education appear to be an isolated activity--requirements to be finished, gotten out of the way, and then forgotten--rather than a continuing process of growing throughout the years. (pp. 22-23) This view is the dominant view. Advising for general education is another area singled out for reform. Coherence requires adequate advising. Faculty too often are involved in perfunctory scheduling activities instead of advising. Use of upperclass students and group advising can help improve advising (Association of American Colleges, 1988). Other issues are the improvement of college catalogs and publications to show how courses from different disciplines can be grouped or clustered around themes, differential treatment of commuter and nontraditional students, and use of extracurricular activities to provide coherence and integration of general and professional education (Association of American Colleges, 1988; Bok, 1986; Boyer, 1987). Most reports and efforts at reform of general education have not stopped with a discussion of the curriculum. Emphasis has been placed on the quality of instruction and the encouragement of active learning (Association of American Colleges, 1988; Bok, 1986; Gaff, 1983; Woditsch et a1., 1987). Evaluation of faculty performance (Association of American Colleges, 1985) and a new definition of scholarship to encourage: good teaching and research in teaching (Boyer, 1990) have also been discussed in the context of general education. 81 Reform of General Education Campbell and Flynn (1990) out1ined four planning principles for curricular reform. Sufficient flexibility in the plans is needed to modify goals and alter procedures. Risk taking must be balanced against scrupulous attention 11) procedure. Extensive involvement and participation by the faculty in the process will build enthusiasm for the program and help develop consensus. True collaboration and effective communication between the faculty and administrators are needed. The presence of these elements led to the successful reintroduction of 21 core curriculum at their institution. Keller (1982) cited two elements that contributed to curricular reform at Harvard: conservative financial management and the commitment to faculty governance. The financially inspired stress on priorities stimulated curricular reform. Dean Rosovsky saw his role at Harvard as engaging as many faculty as possible in the process of identifying goals. The only workable solution would be one that emerged from the faculty. The first task at Harvard was to convince the faculty that there was a problem with the status quo (Keller, 1982). After the faculty reached agreement in principle on the core curriculum, departmenta] turfism surfaced, what Rosovsky described as the "where is. mine phase" (p. 138). The» student press took. a negative, adversarial position with respect to the core. These anxieties had to be dealt with. Consensus building took four years. 82 Gaff (1983) also emphasized dialogue--within and across disciplines. The committee or task force reviewing general education must reach agreement on five issues: (a) understanding of the mission of the college, (b) definition of an educated person, (c) assessment of the adequacy of the current program, (d) determination of how to help faculty members make informed decisions, and (e) the philosophical basis of the curriculum. Gaff (1983) out1ined three misconceptions of which curriculum committees should be wary. First, a committee should not try to transplant a program that has been successful elsewhere. The program should reflect the institution’s strengths and interests. Second, a comprehensive reform does not have to be introduced all at once. Third, the committee should not view its task as merely restating distribution requirements. Gaff (1983) outlined procedural errors to avoid, emphasized the importance of understanding what is meant by general education and that there is more than one meaning, and provided valuable advice about securing faculty approval. Voting procedures need to be given attention. O’Banion and Shaw (1982) reviewed various obstacles to general education. Among the nethods they suggested for overcoming obstacles was to conceive general education as a core of outcomes rather than as a core of courses. Turfism will be less of an obstacle if outcomes can be achieved in a variety of ways. Grandstaff maintained that any reform in higher education will be evaluated in terms of its effect on the collegiate ideal (Raines, 83 Grandstaff, & Hekhuis, 1989). The elements of the collegiate ideal inc1ude centrality of teaching, autonomy of the institution and the faculty, the belief that learning is a good thing in itself, merit, and the importance of the faculty. Reform efforts that enhance the collegiate idea] will be given support. General education reforms are near and dear to the academic heart. The curriculum debate is healthy. The fact that curricular debates are inconclusive does not mean that they are unimportant. Far from itg Any college runs a serious risk if it does not undertake a full blown review of undergraduate education every fifteen or twenty years. . . . A faculty that has made a considered choice of some common philosophy is vastly better off than one that struggles along with no philosophy at all. (Bok, 1986) Evaluation Models Kemmis and Stake (1988) provided descriptions of several different types of evaluations. Relevant models for this study include the following. Evaluation for improvement, as contrasted with measurement of outcomes, focuses on the "why" and "how" instead of the "what." Formative evaluation differs from summative evaluation in purpose; it aims at improvement by providing information to help curriculum developers modify curricula. The distinction blurs when summarizing achievement as part of the curriculum-development purpose. Action research is self—evaluation by teachers or other school personnel to improve practice or to improve understanding of practice. Issues-centered evaluation focuses on the differences between the intended and unintended (antecedents, transactions, and outcomes) in curriculum and the 84 differences between how a curriculum works in practice and the judgments people make about it. Responsive evaluation orients more toward program activities than to program intentions. Issues may be used to structure an evaluation and make it responsive. Issues are circumstances about which people disagree. Other characteristics of issues are causal implication, concern, and contextual complexity. Stake’s Countenance Model (Kemmis & Stake, 1988) asks for data for antecedents, transactions, and outcomes. A distinction is made between intentions and observations in the description matrix. Antecedents are conditions existing before instruction that may affect outcomes. Transactions are the process of instruction. Outcomes are the effects of the program. This model is a responsive model, aimed at explaining the "why" of the outcomes. The model is issue oriented and intended to provide information to curriculum developers. Transcript Studies and Surveys Assessment of the implementation of distribution requirements has been minimal. In a study of the patterns of undergraduates’ credit; distributions, Boyer and .Ahlgren (1987) found significant differences among majors in different disciplines in terms of the number' of' credits taken outside the distributional area of the major, and in the degree of specialization of these "extra-major" courses. If liberal education is defined in terms of breadth of credit distribution and the number of credits earned in distributional areas outside the area of the major, then 85 distribution requirements may have achieved only limited success in ensuring breadth. The researchers did not argue for'more prescription. 'They' concluded that, when tinkering with general education requirements, not only should philosophy be debated, but the ways in which undergraduates respond to changed requirements should be considered. The Florida State Postsecondary Education Planning Commission (1989) conducted a study of community colleges and universities to determine compliance with the Gordon rule, which required credits in English or humanities and mathematics before the awarding of an associate degree or upper division status. The study included 1,260 transcript audits. Whereas community colleges were found in compliance, universities were not. Significantly higher scores were achieved by students meeting the Gordon rule before taking the College-Level Academic Skills Test. No attempt was made in the study to determine the reasons students chose certain courses to meet requirements (n: the effect cH’ personal preferences or scheduling problems. University students earned significantly greater numbers of credits in humanities and social sciences than did community college students. The latter earned significantly greater numbers of credits in English, mathematics, and the "other" category. Significant differences among majors were found regarding compliance with the Gordon rule. Suskie (1983) audited student transcripts to record choices made to meet distribution requirements, with particular emphasis on 86 the year when requirements were net. Most requirements were met during the freshman or sophomore year, except only one-third had met the humanities requirement by the junior year. Differences among majors were found. Course selection was concentrated. More than 40% of the students met social science requirements with psychology courses, and more than half of the students met humanities requirements with U.S. history courses. Suskie did not examine the reasons students made their selections. Morris, Leone, and Mannchen (1987) reported on students’ compliance with a new core requirement at Miami-Dade Community College. The study involved 377 transcript audits. The findings were that the vast majority of students (99%) had met the core requirements and that most students completed the core courses before taking courses to meet distributional requirements. Sworder (1986) studied class-time preferences of students by distributing questionnaires at registration. The findings indicated a willingness of both male and female students to take more afternoon classes in three-hour blocks. Students have restricted choices if colleges do not offer courses during this time. Lack of information regarding students’ preferences may lead to inadequate course offerings. Summary The literature described tensions between individuality and community, between choice and prescription in the curriculum, between the needs of the student and the needs of society, and 87 between increased specialization and fragmentation of the curriculum resulting from the demands of professional and occupational education and the increased need for general education in an increasingly complex and changing world. The reform of general education must provide for reconciliation of these competing demands. Issues of integration and coherence of the curriculum must be addressed. Curricu]um evaluation and change efforts need to include broad involvement and participation by the faculty. Reform efforts should include an examination of the bases of student choices and the likely response of students to changes in requirements. Student evaluation (Hi'the benefits of general education strongly suggests the need to help students make the connections between general and specialized education. CHAPTER III RESEARCH PROCEDURE Data. were collected from ‘transcript audits of 145 students graduating in baccalaureate programs at Lake Superior State Univer- sity (LSSU) during the period from fall quarter 1990 through summer quarter 1991. These 145 students represented a random sample equal to 27% of the population stratified on the basis of degree groups. A subset of this sample of students, equal to 20% of the population and stratified by degree group, was randomly selected for inter- views. The collected data were analyzed using analysis of variance as a statistical procedure. A1pha error levels were set at .05. Data Sources Data were collected from student records and interviews with students. Student audit sheets, which are submitted to the LSSU Registrar when students declare they are candidates 1%": a degree, were the primary source of information concerning the courses students chose to meet their general education requirements in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. Transfer credit evaluations were the source of information when degree audits indicated transfer credit was used to meet requirements. Transcripts from institutions from which courses were transferred 88 89 served as 21 supplementary source when transfer credit evaluations failed to fully disclose course information (n: provided ambiguous information. Transcripts from LSSU served as a supplementary source when audit sheets did not provide complete information. Transcripts were used to obtain information regarding the number of credit hours students had earned when they completed requirements in each of the disciplinary fields. The total number of quarter credits earned in each of the three areas was obtained from transcripts and the supplementary sources outlined above. Student interviews were conducted to obtain information about the individuals, publications, or factors affecting choice of courses to meet requirements. Interviews provided information about students’ perceptions of the contributions of general education to their' general development and 11) understanding of their' majors. Students’ opinions of whether credit hour requirements should be increased or decreased were collected. Population and Sampling The population for this study consisted (Hi all students declaring candidacy for a baccalaureate degree from LSSU during fall 1990, winter 1991, spring 1991, and summer 1991 quarters. The sample used for document audits was equal to 27% of the population and was proportionally stratified by degree group. The population inc1uded students who had filed Declaration of Candidacy forms with the Registrar’s Office by April 25, 1991. Some students in this population did not meet all of the requirements for their degrees by 90 the end of summer quarter; some students, who did not file declarations by the April 25 deadline, still may have met the degree requirements during this period. I Table 2 shows the population size, the sample size for interviews, and the sample size for document audits. The samples were drawn randomly and stratified on the basis of the five degree groups listed in Table 2 and explained in detail below. Table 2.--Population and sample size. Interview Document Degree Group Population Sample Audit Sample n n n Life Sciences 93 19 26 Social Sciences 113 23 31 Business 143 29 39 Math/Technology 96 19 28 Criminal Justice 73 15 24 Total 5T8 T05 148 Five groups of degrees were created for purposes of this study. Shortened 'titles, 'listed ir1 parentheses, are used “M1 tables and figures in this study. Group A: Biological and Health Sciences (Life Sciences) Bachelor of Arts in Biology Bachelor of Science in Biological Science Bachelor of Science in Environmental Science Bachelor of Science in Fisheries and Wildlife Bachelor of Science in Medical Technology Bachelor of Science in Nursing Bachelor of Science in Therapeutic Recreation Bachelor of Science in Exercise Science 91 Group B: Arts and Social Sciences (Social Sciences) Bachelor of Arts in English Language and Literature Bachelor of Arts in History Bachelor of Arts in Political Science Bachelor of Arts in Psychology Bachelor of Arts in Social Science Bachelor of Arts in Sociology Bachelor of Science in History Bachelor of Science in Political Science Bachelor of Science in Psychology Bachelor of Science in Social Science Bachelor of Science in Sociology Bachelor of Science in Human Services Bachelor of Science in Legal Assistant Studies Group C: Business, Accounting. Finance and Management (Business) Bachelor of Science in Accounting / Bachelor of Science in Business Administration Bachelor of Science in Finance and Economics Bachelor of Science in Recreation Management Group D: Mathematics and Engineering Technology (Math/Technology) Bachelor of Science in Automated Systems Engineering Technology Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering Technology Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering Technology Bachelor of Science in Computer and Mathematical Technology Bachelor of Science in Geology Bachelor of Science in Mathematics GrouD E: Criminal Justice (Criminal Justice) Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice and Conserva- tion Law Bachelor of Science in Fire Science The degree groupings were organized along current departmental lines with some exceptions to allow for larger sample sizes. Group A included degree candidates from three departments. Nursing students, from the Department of Health Sciences, and 92 Exercise Science and Therapeutic Recreation students, from the Department of Social Sciences, were combined with all majors-from the Department of Biology and Chemistry. The number of graduates in Nursing was small (34), and many of their service courses were taken from Biology and Chemistry. Furthermore, at one time the organizational structure included nursing and biology in one division. The Exercise Science and Therapeutic Recreation students share professional concerns with Nursing students. Social Sciences only recently was merged with another department to include these two degree programs. The population of Group A comprised 93 persons. Sample size for the interviews was 19 students, 20% of the population. Sample size for the document audits was 26 students, 28% of the population. Group B inc1uded graduates of Arts and Letters (English Language and Literature and History) and what may be considered the traditional social sciences (Sociology, Psychology, Political Science, and Social Science). The group included most other majors of the Department of Social Sciences (Human Services and Legal Assistant Studies). Excluded were Recreation Management (Group C) and Criminal Justice, Fire Science, and Conservation Law (Group E). History majors were included in Social Sciences until recently, and their numbers are small (8). English Language and Literature majors numbered seven and were included with Group B in the belief that they were most closely aligned with this group in terms of their interests. The population of Group B comprised 113 individuals. 93 Sample size for interviews was 23 students, 20% of the population. The sample for document audits included 31 students, 27% of the population. I Group C included all baccalaureate graduates of the Department of Business and Economics (Accounting, Business Administration, Finance, and Economics) as well as Recreation Management from Social Sciences. The latter degree includes a built—in business minor. Students regularly change majors between these two programs. The population included 143 students. Sample size for interviews was 20% of the population, 29 students. Sample size for the document audits was 39 students, 27% of the population. Group D combined the graduates of two departments: Engineering Technology and Mathematical, Computer and Geological Sciences. The latter department had (wfly! 19 graduates. Engineering Technology students earned a large number of credits (mathematics and physics) from the other department, and majors of both departments shared a common interest in computers. The population of this group was 96. Sample size for interviews was 19 students, 20% of the population. Sample size for document audits was 28 students, 29% of the popula- tion. Group E consisted of majors in Criminal Justice, Conservation Law, and Fire Science. All are part of Social Sciences, taught by the same faculty in the same classroom building. Population size was 73. Sample size was 15 students for interviews, 20% of the population. The sample for document audits comprised 24 students, 33% of the population. 94 Samples were drawn from a list of names provided by the Registrar’s Office. The list was organized alphabetically by degree designation, with B.A. degrees listed first followed by B.S. degrees. Students’ names were numbered, by degree grouping, in the order they appeared on the list. Using a random number table, names were drawn (as numbered) as proportionally stratified (by degree grouping) samples of the total population. Students receiving more than one baccalaureate degree were included only once in the population. Department heads or faculty members were consulted in instances in which students received more than one degree to determine the major emphasis of the student in order to place the student in a single degree grouping. A proportionally stratified sample equal to 27% of the population was drawn. Additional names were drawn as replacements for students who refused to participate or could not be contacted. A smaller sample comprising 20% of the population was used from which to collect interview data. The sample of students interviewed was chosen from students whose names appeared first on the list from the larger sample. The sample of students interviewed was a subset of the sample of students whose documents were audited for all five degree groups. For Groups A (Life Sciences) and E (Criminal Justice), replacement names had to be used because of student refusals to requests for interviews or because students could not be contacted. (Some students had graduated at an earlier date and current telephone numbers were not available.) For these two 95 groups, then, the population used for document audits was increased above 27% of the population: 29% for Group A and 33% for Group E. The trade-off ‘hi this decision was between maintaining a rtruly stratified sample, by degree groups, for document audits (but with different subjects in iflua two samples), and amintaining the interview subjects as a subset of the larger sample for document audits. The researcher chose the latter option. The sample used for' document audits increased to 28% (146 individuals) of the population as a result of this decision. The number and percentage of students in each group who refused an interview or who could not be contacted are shown in Table 3. The percentages are expressed as fractions of the numbers of students in each group whom interviewers attempted to contact. Table 3.--Noncompleters for interviews. Interview Sample Number Refused to Unable to Number Group Asked Interview Contact Completed n ' % n % n % n % Life Sciences 26 100 1 4 6 23 19 73 Social Sciences 29 100 2 7 4 14 23 79 Business 34 100 1 3 4 12 29 85 Math/Technology 26 100 3 12 4 15 19 73 Criminal Justice 24 100 l 4 8 33 15 63 1012118‘ 139 100 8 6 26 19 105 75 aPercentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 96 Demographic information about the student sample is provided in Appendix 1. Interview Guides Interview guides were constructed (see Appendix B) to obtain the following information: 1. Country of completion of secondary education (U.S. or non- U.S.). 2. Age at graduation (25 or older, or under 25). 3. Receipt of transfer credit in general education from another institution. 4. Whether general education requirements met through MACRAO Agreement. 5. Class status upon completion of requirements in humanities, social science, and natural science (freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior). . 6. Degree of reliance on advice of faculty advisor or other faculty or staff person in selecting courses to meet requirements. 7. Degree of reliance on advice of other students or former students in selecting courses to meet requirements. 8. Degree of reliance on printed information such as catalogs, curriculum guides, admission brochures, and course outlines in selecting courses to meet requirements. 9. Degree of reliance on the reputation of the course instructor in selecting courses to meet requirements. 97 10. Degree of importance of subject or course content in selecting courses to meet requirements. 11. Degree of importance of students’ personal preferences or other commitments with respect to the day of the week or time of the day the course is scheduled in making course selections. 12. Degree of importance of scheduling problems such as filled sections or limited offerings in making course selections. 13. Benefit of courses to general development. 14. Benefit of courses to understanding of major. 15. Student opinion of whether credit requirements should be increased, decreased, or remain unchanged. An interview guide was developed to seek information on Items 5 through 15 above for the humanities, social science, and natural science requirements independently by asking each of the related questions in three separate series. To lessen the effect that an answer for one discipline might have had on a respondent’s answers to questions for the other two disciplines, the entire series of questions was asked for one discipline before moving to the next discipline. The order of the disciplines was altered for different respondents to eliminate any systematic bias. The process was tedious for interviewers and for respondents; however, the researcher believed that the net result would be a reduction in the influence of the response to questions concerning choices in the first discipline upon responses to questions concerning choices in the second and third disciplines that might result if a single question was asked seeking three separate responses. An increase in 98 sample size to ask three sets of respondents, one for each disciplinary area, three sets of questions was deemed impractical and costly. Respondents were asked to give a response on a five-point Likert scale for Items 5 through 15. Interviewers read the meaning of the extremes of the scale; in; the same time, respondents were provided with a printed version of the scales with polar values identified. Some respondents who had left the local area were interviewed by telephone. They were asked to visualize a continuum with polar values identified and to give a response with a numerical value from 1 to 5. Interview' guides were coded with an identification number, major code, and gender code before the interview. The codes identified the specific degree program and department of respondents. Information sought in Items 3 through 5 above was verified through an audit of student records. The questions were asked in the interviews to stimulate the memory of respondents for the questions that followed about the influences on their choices of courses. The interview guide is included as Appendix B. Student Records A sample of student records was audited to obtain the following information: 1. Credits 'h1 disciplines used 1x1 meet requirements ir1 the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. 99 2. Number of credits taken in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. 3. Number of credits earned when requirements were met in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. 4. Number of transfer credits in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences used to meet requirements. 5. Transfer status of students as MACRAO transfer students, non—MACRAO transfer students, and nontransfer students. The Audit of Student Records is included as Appendix C. Audit Procedures Courses and credits were identified as "selected" by students to meet distributional requirements in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences using the following criteria in order: 1. Courses listed on the degree audit sheet and identified as meeting general education requirements were used first. In some instances, departments specified courses to be used to meet general education requirements. In other instances, courses were not identified by course number on the printed form, but space was provided to list the course. The course may have been listed by the student, faculty advisor, department head, or Registrar. Only the first 12 credits were counted in the audit. If courses 1isted totaled more than 12 credits, only a portion of the credits of the last course listed was counted. 100 2. For some degrees, credits in the major were used to meet distributional requirements as well as major requirements. The audit form did not always list courses under these circumstances. Then the first 12 credits listed on the transcript, or transfer credit evaluation, if appropriate, were counted as meeting the distributional requirement. Transcripts list courses alphabeti— cally, so a systematic bias exists. Transfer credit evaluation listings depend on the order in which courses were taken at the institution from which the credits were transferred and when the transfer credit evaluation was performed, i.e , the evaluation is updated when additional courses are transferred. 3. When audit sheets listed transfer credit as being used to meet distributional requirements, without identifying the specific course, the transfer credit evaluation was consulted to identify courses and credits. The order in which courses were listed on the evaluation determined the selection. 4. When students were completing requirements for a second baccalaureate degree and the first had been earned at another institution, the transfer credit evaluation simply noted that all general education requirements were met without specifying courses for which credit was received. Under these circumstances, the transcript from the institution from which the first degree was earned was consulted. Courses and credits were identified as selected in the order in which they appeared on that transcript. Credits were assigned to disciplines, or to survey sequences in the three distributional areas, for up to a maximum of 12 credits, — 101 using the rules set out above. Fractional credits were used for transfer of semester credits. The criteria used by LSSU identified disciplines in the distributional areas. When transfer credits were used to meet distributional requirements, the criteria used by the Registrar’s Office were used. Literature znwi western civilization could be used to meet requirements in humanities if the student had an associate degree from a Michigan community college. Mathematics could be used to meet natural science requirements by a student transferring credit with MACRAO certification and zn1 Associate of Arts or Science degree. These same courses could run: be used to meet these requirements if earned at LSSU. The total number of credits earned in each of the three distributional areas included both credits earned at LSSU and credits transferred. The definition of the disciplines included in each distributional area was as listed above. If the credit was earned at LSSU, LSSU’s classification was used. If the credit was transferred and used 1x1 meet a distributiona] requirement, the transferring institution’s classification was used. Mathematics was classified as natural science only if the student was able to use transfer credit for nethematics 111 meet the natural science requirement. The number of credits earned when the distributional requirement was met in a particular area was the total number of credits earned, including transfer credits, at the end of the term when the last course used to meet the distributional requirement was 102 completed. Credit for physical education given for completion of military service was not irmfluded ‘h1 the total. Credit by examination, e.g., CLEP or AP examinations, was not counted in the total unless the credit was applied toward the requirement. Credits that did not apply toward the total credits required for the degree, i.e., credits for courses numbered below 100, were not included in the total credits completed when the requirements were met. For students planning to graduate at the end of summer term 1991 who did not meet all of the requirements at the time of the document audit (spring 1991), the total number of credits earned when the distributiona] requirement was met was estimated as the total at the end of spring term plus the number of credits listed to be completed summer term on the preliminary verification of degree audit form provided by the Registrar. When a distributional requirement was met completely with transfer credit, the number (N: credits earned was calculated as the total credits, including credits from LSSU, at the end of the term when the credits were officially transferred. Transfer status of students was obtained from transfer credit evaluations. Studentstransferring with an Associate in Arts or Science and with MACRAO certification receive transfer credit evaluations with the notation "all general education requirements met." Included with non—MACRAO transfer students were students receiving credit by examination if that credit was used toward one of the distributional requirements in general education. 103 Interviewers Students from :1 senior-level marketing research class were trained and used to conduct the interviews. The interviewerstere trained by the researcher with the assistance of faculty members from the Social Science Department’s Center for Social Research. Students conducted two focus group sessions with classes of students to gain insight about the interview questions and students’ under- standing of general education requirements and concerns. Interview- ers and focus groups were videotaped as part of ‘the interview training. Interviewers, as part of their assignment in marketing research, participated ‘h1 the development of questions for the interview guide. They developed a proposal for analysis of their findings as part of this class assignment. The involvement was not only personally beneficial to students, but it also made them more effective and reliable interviewers. Interviewers were provided with a sample script to use in making telephone calls (see Appendix B). An explanation of the MACRAO Agreement was included in the interview guide, which could be read to the respondent. Elaboration to questions using the Likert scale response was sought where the response was 3 or higher (except for the last question, seeking opinion about changes in credit requirements). The purposes for seeking elaboration were to obtain qualitative information and to stimulate respondents’ recall. 104 Respondents were offered a chance in a $50 lottery as an inducement to participate. The refusal rate was 8% among those who were contacted and asked to interview. Analysis of the Data Data gathered from the document audits and personal interviews were entered into a computer using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences for a Personal Computer (SPSS/PC+) for analysis. Descriptive statistics and graphical presentations were generated from Research Questions 1 through 11, as stated in Chapter 1. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for statistical differences between groups of students based on classifications relating to disciplinary major, gender, transfer status, age, and country in which secondary education was received for the number of credits earned in the distributional areas and the number of credits earned when the requirements were met. Mean response values were calculated for Research Questions 12 through 18 regarding the influence of persons, publications, schedules, and other factors in selecting courses to meet distributional requirements. Using SPSS/PC+, differences in the factors influencing choice of courses were analyzed for different groups of students. ANOVA, with an alpha level of .05, was used in) test differences 'hi mean response values for different student groups. The responses from student interviews were not interval data, and ANOVA is not appropriate under such circumstances. Questions were combined, and summated scales were obtained. Each scale was then subjected to ANOVA. 105 Exp]oratory Data Analysis The individual items were subjected to ANOVA for purposes of exploratory data analysis. Hartwig and Dearing (1979) described exploratory data analysis as a state of mind as well as a way of doing data analysis. Skepticism and openness are both needed. Statistical analysis takes on a confirmatory mode. Exploratory data analysis opens up a wide range of possible explanations. The researcher’s purpose ir1 this study was ix) explore possible relationships for the purpose of informing curriculum development. Under such circumstances, the use of ANOVA for individual items using Likert-type responses would seem appropriate. Mean response values of different groups of students were calculated for Research Questions 19 through 28, dealing with the perceived benefits of general education to general development and understanding of majors, and with opinions as to whether required credits in the distributional areas should be increased, decreased, or remain the same. Differences in mean values of responses for different groups were analyzed using the summated scales and ANOVA in testing Hypothesis 1 through 5. Findings are reported in the following chapter. Riva] Hypotheses When degree programs require courses that may also be used to meet general education requirements, administrative efficiency may dictate listing those courses as general education courses on the degree audit form. The nethodology used in this study identified 106 such courses as student "selections." Students may have identified their selections differently. One alternative method would have been to identify the first 12 credits 'hi a distributional area listed (N1 the transcript as the courses selected to meet that distributional requirement. However, the student may have viewed those 12 credits as free electives or as requirements in nmjor (H‘ minor degree programs. The courses identified in the general education section of the audit sheet were designated by the degree program. Students did not have choices to take or not take the designated courses. The first 12 credits listed on the transcript, if not otherwise required in the program, would not have had to be earned for the degree and in that sense may be viewed as electives rather than general education se1ections. A second alternative method would have been to ask the student which courses had been selected to meet distributional requirements. The researcher’s experience in advising students led him to believe that this was impractical. Most students would not be able to recall specific courses selected to meet a distributional require- ment after a lapse of time up to four years or more. A clearer picture of program breadth is provided by examining the total number: of credits earned in each of the three distributional areas. Individuals intent on reforming general education may find the answers to that question more illuminating. The 1apse (Hi time between the student’s completion of distributional requirements and the date of the interview was, in 107 many cases, several years. Students’ recall of the factors influencing their se1ections was incomplete. Students’ knowledge of the options available to them was limited. Questions were included to stimulate recall in an attempt to nfinimize this problem. Students were asked when they completed requirements and whether they had 'transfer’ credits in 21 discipline; they' were asked to elaborate on responses greater than 3 on the Likert scale. Responses to questions about individuals or factors that may have influenced choices in one distributional area may have influenced responses to the same set of questions in another distributional area. To minimize any systematic bias, the order of the disciplines for which questions were asked was changed from one respondent to the next. Interviewers were trained and provided an opportunity to practice interviews. Fbcus groups were used as pilot projects to familiarize interviewers with the types of questions respondents may have and the options that were available to students in course selection. Interviewers coded the interview guides. The researcher reviewed each interview guide. These procedures were adopted to minimize error arising in the interview and coding process. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS The findings from the student interviews and transcript audits are presented in this chapter. Data were analyzed with the use of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences fCN~ PC (SPSS/PC+) software, Version 3.1. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were used to test for statistical differences between student groups. A1pha levels were set at .05 unless otherwise noted. ANOVA tables are presented in Appendix F. Courses Selected One purpose of the researcher was to determine the choices students made in selecting courses to meet the distributional requirements in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. Research Question 1 was expressed as follows: Research Question ‘1: What was the mean number of credits earned in each of the academic disciplines, or in survey sequence courses, to meet iNua LSSU requirements in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences? Data were obtained from transcript audits to provide information for Research Question 1. Credits were obtained from the general education section of the degree audit sheet. When courses were not specified on the degree audit sheet to meet a distributional requirement, the transcript was consulted. Under 108 109 these circumstances, the first 12 credits listed on the LSSU transcript in a distributional area were used. When transfer credit was used to meet a distributional requirement, and when the courses were not specified on the degree audit sheet, the first 12 credits in the distributional area listed on the LSSU transfer credit evaluation were used. If students had obtained a baccalaureate degree at another institution before the current degree, the transfer credit evaluation would not list specific courses. In the two instances in this sample when this occurred, the transcript from the institution where the first baccalaureate was earned was consulted and the first 12 credits listed in the distributional area were used. Humanities The single humanities survey course sequence offered at LSSU accounted for a mean of 9.9 credits of the 12 credits required in this distributional area. The remaining credits were widely distributed among disciplines. Table 4 shows the number of credits earned in the humanities sequence and the number of credits earned in all other courses by disciplinary major grouping. Table 5 shows the data for course selection in the humanities based on transfer status. Students who met part or all of the humanities requirement at LSSU earned 10.5 credits out of 12 with courses from the humanities sequence. By contrast, students who met all of the humanities requirement with transfer credit earned an average of 10.2 credits in disciplinary courses identified as 110 something other than a humanities sequence course. This result is not surprising, given the rules under which general education requirements at LSSU are met. Table 4.--Humanities credit distribution by disciplinary major group. Humanities Sequence Humanities--Other Major Area Mean Valid N Mean Valid N Life Sciences 10.5 26 1.5 26 Social Sciences 9.4 31 2.6 31 Business 9.4 39 2.6 39 Math/Technology 9 9 26 2.1 26 Criminal Justice 10 9 24 1.1 24 All areas 9.9 146 2.1 146 Table 5.-—Humanities credit distribution by transfer status of student. Humanities Sequence Humanities--Other Transfer Status Mean Valid N Mean Valid N Some LSSU humanities 10.5 136 1.5 136 All humanities transferred 1.8 10 10.2 10 All 9.9 146 2.1 146 111 Transfer students with associate degrees from Michigan community colleges are allowed to use credits in such courses as literature and western civilization to meet the humanities requirement if the community college classifies the courses as humanities. If the transfer student lacks the associate degree or is transferring from an institution other than a Michigan community college, such courses as literature and western civilization cannot be used to meet the humanities requirement. Under those circumstances, the student would meet the requirement, at least partially, with credits earned at LSSU. The student is then more likely to use a humanities sequence course to meet the requirement. Selection of courses to meet the humanities distribution requirement, reported by age of student, is illustrated in Table 6. Students age 25 or older at the time of graduation earned 9.2 credits of the 12 required credits in a humanities sequence. Those students under the age of 25 at the time of graduation earned 10.3 credits, out of 12, in sequence courses. Table 6.-—Humanities credit distribution by age of student. Humanities Sequence Humanities——Other Age Mean Valid N Mean Valid N 25+ 9.2 50 2.8 50 25- 10.3 96 1.7 96 All 9.9 146 2.1 146 112 Students who received their high school education in the United States met their' humanities requirement with an average of- 9.7 credits in the humanities sequence courses and 2.3 credits in disciplinary courses in the humanities area. Students who received their secondary education outside the United States (primarily Canada) met the humanities requirement with 10.6 credits, out of 12, in the humanities sequence courses (see Table 7). Table 7.-—Humanities credit distribution by country of secondary education. Humanities Sequence Humanities—-Other Secondary Education Mean Valid N Mean Valid N United States 9.7 103 2.3 103 Non-United States 10.6 43 1.4 43 All 9.9 146 2.1 146 The distribution of credits between the humanities sequence courses and disciplinary courses based on gender of students is shown in Table 8. Males earned a mean of 9.8 credits, and female students earned a mean of 10.2 credits, of the 12 credits required in the humanities area. 113 Table 8.--Humanities credit distribution by gender of student. Humanities Sequence Humanities--Other Gender Mean Valid N Mean Valid N Male 9.8 83 2.2 83 Female 10.2 63 1.8 63 All 9.9 146 2.1 146 Social Sciences Social science distribution requirements were met with a broad selection of courses. Unlike the course offerings in the humanities, a sequence of survey courses in the social sciences is not available at LSSU. Degrees granted 13/ the departments of social science, and business and economics, which offer courses that may be used to meet social science distribution requirements, either specify courses to be used to meet the social science requirement, or the audit sheet does not include 21 section listing social science requirements. Instead, courses in the-major are "double-counted" and used to meet the distribution requirement in social science. The differences in disciplines used by students in different degree groupings can be explained by these factors. Table 9 shows the credit hour distribution among disciplines, by disciplinary major group, to meet the social science distribution requirement. new m. mew o.w mew w.~ mew o.m mew m.— mew m.~ ww< SN o.w 4N o.m «N _.4 4N o.m 3N a. 4N m. aewwmze wacwewee eN m._ eN o.N eN m.N eN m._ eN N.m eN m.w emowoeeemw\ewaz mm N. mm N. am N. mm o._ mm N. am w.m mmmcwmzm mm em N. em e.N wm e.N _m 4.3 wm o.N wm a. mmeemwem waweom eN N. eN m. eN e.m eN m.m eN w. eN mmeemwem mwwe 2 :mm: 2 eemz z emmz 2 see: 2 emmz z. emmz ewwm> ew~m> cwwm> ewwm> ew—m> ew—m> eme< eemmz emewo .wem .wee amewewmem ameweeezme zeewmw: mewseceem .eeeem eenme weecwwewemwe we :ewweewewmwe wwemee meemwem Feweem--.m mwemw 115 Table 10 provides information for students who met the entire 12—credit requirement in social science with transfer credit compared to the distribution of credits for students who met part of the requirement with courses taken at LSSU. Differences among some disciplines (e.g., political science) may be accounted for by the fact that community colleges from which students transfer may require courses in that discipline irrespective of the degree program. The distribution of credits among social science disciplines for traditional students (those under age 25 at graduation) and nontraditional students (those 25 years of age or older at graduation) is compared in Table 11. Table 12 contains information about students who received their secondary education in the United States compared to those who received their secondary education outside the United States. Differences in credit hour distributions among social science disciplines might be explained by the disciplines for which transfer credit is likely to be earned by students receiving grade 13 transfer credit or by those who transfer from the more vocationally oriented Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology ir1 Ontario. Differences ir1 distribution (IF credits in social science based on differences between men and women are presented in Table 13. Female students are disproportionally represented in the nursing program, which may partially account for the greater number' of credits in the fields of psychology and sociology for women. The difference may be related to gender bias 116 mew m. mew e.w ee— w.~ mew o.m mew m.w mew m.~ ww< wm w._ Fm _.N Fm e.~ wm w.N wm m.w wm o.w emeemwmemew mm meee ee NF mww N. mww m.— mww m.N mww w.m mww ~.w mww N.m mm :mme mEem wmmmw w< 2 2mm: 2 emmz 2 see: 2 emmz 2 :mm: 2 :mm: wwm> ewwm> ew—m> ewwm> ewwm> ewwe> 1111111111 1111111111 mewmwm emwmemew emewo .wem .wee woeweweem ameweeexme zeewmw: mewseeeem .wemeewm we mewmwm emwmemew we eewweewewmwe wwemee meemwem wmweom--.ow eweaw 117 mew m. mew o.— mew w.m mew o.m mew m.w oe— m.m ww< mm m. om o.w em o.~ om m.m om w.w em m.m -mN om w. om e.w om o.m om e.m om w._ om e.w +m~ 2 :em: 2 2mm: 2 :mm: 2 :mm: 2 emmz z cmmz ewwm> ewwm> ewwm> ewwm> ewwm> ewwm> m 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 .111111111. 1111111111 1111111111 m < emewo .wem .wee ameweweem ameweeeame weewmw: mewEeeeem .wemeewm we mam we eewweewewmwe wwemee meemwem Feweem--.ww mwemh -I—I 118 mew m. mv— o.w mew w.m mew o.m mew m.— mew m.m FF< me o. me n. me m.m me m.m me m. me m.m mmwmwm emww:3-:oz mow m. mow o.N mow m.N mo— m.~ mow w.~ mow m.N mmwewm emwwc: 2 :mm: 2 emmz z emmz z emmz z cmmz z emmz ewwm> ew—m> ewwm> ewwm> ewwm> emcee .wem .wee zmeweweem zmeweeexme xeewmw: .mewaeceem eewwmeeem xemeceemm .eewwmeeem memeeeemm we xeweeee we eewweewewmwe wwemee meemwem wmweem--.mw m—emH 119 mew m. mew o.w ee— w.m mew o.m mew m.w mew m.~ ww< mm m. mo w.w me ~.m me N.e me e. mo m.N mmemw mm w. mm o.~ mm e.~ mm _.N mm o.~ mm m.N mwmz 2 :em: 2 emmz z emmz 2 :mm: 2 emmz z emmz wwe> ewwm> ew—m> ewwm> ewwm> ewwm> emeemu emewo .wem .wee Ameweweem ameweeexme xeewmw: mewseceem .wemeewm we emeemm we eewweewewmwe wwemee meemwem waweom--.mw aweaw 120 in the disciplinary major requiring the course rather than gender bias in selecting the course. Appendix D includes additional data regarding the credit hour distribution among disciplines for the social science distribution requirement. Natural Sciences The natural science distribution requirement is met by most students with a combination of courses that are identified with a natural science (NS) course prefix and by disciplinary courses. Whereas all "NS" courses were designed to be used to meet general education requirements, some courses with disciplinary course prefixes have evolved over time into general education courses; i.e., the courses are not taught as introductions to the discipline. The NS sequence designation is not as meaningful a designation as the HU prefix in humanities. Table 14 contains information, by disciplinary major group, about the distribution of the lZ-credit requirement in science among natural science «disciplines. The differences in the number of credit hours taken in disciplines, as opposed to the natural science sequence, by disciplinary major groups, can be accounted for by department prescription of courses. Life Science degrees prescribe credits in biology and chemistry. Mathematics/Technology degree programs prescribephysics. Some degree programs in social science prescribe credits in biology. 121 new e. we— o.m mew o.w mew w.w mew m.e ww< «N m. eN o.w eN eN m. eN N.m mewwmee wmcwewee N e. N N.N 8 3 N O; 8 _.N 3226322: mm m. mm w.N mm w. mm N. am m.m mmmewmem _m w. wm m.o wm w. wm N. Fm w.e mmeemwem wmweem 0N N. mN eN eN N.m eN w.w mmeemwem mwwe z emmz z emmz z emmz 2 came 2 .emmz wwm> ewwm> ewwm> wwm> ewwm> mme< eenmz emewo meemeemm mewmxee Newmwsmeu amewewm .wem .wmz .eeeem eehme xemewwewemwe we eewweewewmwe wwemee meemwem wmeewez--.ew mwemh 122 Table 15 shows disciplinary credit distributions for the natural science requirement for students who have earned all of the credits used to meet the requirement at LSSU as compared to students who have transferred some or all of the courses for the requirement. Transfer students with MACRAO certification are allowed to use mathematics to meet the science requirement if the community college allows it. The "other" category is accordingly greater for transfer students. Table 16 contains information regarding distribution of credits in natural science disciplines based on the age of the student at graduation. The credit hour distribution among disciplines based on the country in which the secondary education was received is shown in Table 17. Table 18 is a comparison of male students and female students with respect to credit distribution among natural science disciplines to meet the distributional requirement. Gender bias in the degree groupings coupled with prescribed coursework likely accounts for the differences. Nursing students are included in the Life Science group. These predominantly female students are required to take biology and chemistry to meet the natural science requirement. Engineering technology majors are predominantly male, and physics is a prescribed course. Appendix E provides additional information pertaining to the distribution of credits among the natural science disciplines to meet the general education requirement. 123 mew m. mew o.m mew o.w mew w.w mew m.e ww< mw m.w mw w.m mw N. mw w.w mw w.m emeemwmcmew mz meeE ee Nw FMF e. wmw N.m wmw o.w wmw w.w wmw N.e mz :mme meow wmmmw w< 2 :mm: 2 2mm: 2 emmz z emmz 2 2mm: ewwm> ewwm> ewwm> ewwm> ewwm> mewmwm emwmemew emewo meemeemm Newmzee aewmemeu amewewm . .wem .waz .wemeewm we mewmwm emwmemew we :ewweewewmwe wwemee mecmwem wmeewmz--.mw m—emb 124 me— o. mew o.m mew o.w mew w.w mew m.e ww< om e. om w.m om w.w mm m. om w.m -mN om m. om o.m om m. cm e.w om e.m +mN 2 :mm: 2 :mmz z :mmz z emmz z emmz ewwm> ewwm> ewwm> ewwm> ewwm> mm< emewo mecmeemm mewmxee zewmemeu awe—ewm .wem .wmz .wemeewm we mmm we :ewweewewmwe wwemee mecmwem rmezwmz--.o— m—emh 125 mew a. me— o.m mew o.w mew w.w mew m.e ww< me m. me m.m me N. me m.w me w.e mmwmwm emww::-:ez mow N. mow w.e mow e.w mow o.w mow w.e mmwmwm emwwe: 2 :mm: 2 :mm: 2 :mm: 2 emmz z :mmz ewwm> ewwm> ewwm> ewwm> ewwm> eewwmeeem memeeeemm emewo meemeemm mewmzee aewmemeu amewewm .wem .wmz .eewwmeeem xemeceemm we zeweeee we :ewweewewmwe wwemee meemwem weeswmz--.ww mwemh 126 mew o. mew o.m mew o.w mew w.w mew m.e ww< mo N. mo w.e mm mm m.w mo o.m m—mEme mm m. mm w.m mm m.w mm m. mm m.m mwmz z emmz z emmz z emmz z emmz 2 :mm: ewwm> ewwm> ewwm> ewwm> ewwm> emeemw emewo meemeemm mewmaee zewmemeu Amewewm .wem .wmz .wemeewm we emeemm we :ewweewewae wwemee meemwem wmeewmz--.mw mwemw 127 Credit Distribution A second purpose of the researcher in this study was to determine the number of credit hours LSSU students had earned in each of the three distribution areas. Information relating to Research Questions 2 through 6 will be provided. Reasearch Question 2: What was the mean number of credits earned in humanities, social science, and natural science by (degree area of students, and were differences significant? Differeances Among Disciplinary Majors Teable 19 shows the mean total credits earned in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences based on disciplinary major groups. A two-way ANOVA test showed significant differences at the .01 leave] of significance. Differences were significant among discipl inary major groups for total credits in the three general educat ion fie1ds. Differences were also significant among the three distriloutional areas. The interaction effect was significant. IEigure 2 shows the total number of credits earned by students in eaCii disciplinary major group per distributional area. The same inforfluation is displayed in Figure 3 in a different way: the total number: of credits earned in each of the three distributional areas, per d1 sciplinary major group. One—way ANOVA tests were run to determine whether significant differences existed for the mean credits earned within each distributional area among students in the five disciplinary major groups_ In the humanities area, no significant differences were found among students in the five disciplinary major groups. 128 eew N.mN mew a.eN mew m.we mew e.N_ mmmem ww< 4N m.mN 4N N.Nw 5N e.ee 5N N.Nw mewwmze waewewee eN m.om eN N.mN eN N.mw eN a.Nw emowoceemw\ewaz mm m.oe mm m.m_ mm o.NN mm o.mw mmmcwwzm _N e.o_w wm N.m_ em N.wm em N.mw meemwem waweom mN m.ee_ eN o.mm eN 4.0m eN m.Nw mmecmwem mwwe z ewwm> cam: z ewwme came 2 ewwa> cam: z ewwm> came meme< .eeeu mwwemeu wwwemeu wwwemeu mme< eemmz wmememu cw meemwem meemwem mmwwwemsez mwwemee wmwow waeawaz wawow waweom wawow wmwow .eeeem eewme memewwewemwe we memee eewwmeeem wmemcmm :w mwwemee wewew emmz--.mw mwemw 129 .eeeem eemme weeewwewemwe \3 eewweeeem wmememm cw mwwemee wmwew cmmz ”N meemE $0222 >mmo_o:eom. cam: z ewwm> cam: z ewwa> came 2 ewwm> came meme< .eeem wwwemeu wwwemeu mwwemeu emeemo wmememw cw meemwem meemwem mmwwweme=z wwwemee wmwew wmezwmz wmwew wmweom wawow wmwow .wemeewm we emecmm we memem eewwmeeem wmememm cw wwwemee wmwew :mmz--.0N mwemh 135 mew m.mw oe— m.eN mew m.—e mew m.Nw w~< Fm e.ww Fm w.eN wm e.mm wm w.mw emwmemew emewo o m.om m N.ON o m.wo m m.e— o came 2 ewwm> came 2 ewwm> came 2 ewwm> cam: meme< .eeem wwwemeu wwwemeu wwwemeu mswmwm emwmemeh wmemcmw cw meemwem meemwem mmwwwem531 wwwemee wawow wmezwmz wmwow wmweom wawow wawow .wemeewm we mzwmwm emwmemew we memem eewwmeeem weememm cw wwwemee wmwew cmmz--.—N mwemh 136 Table 22 contains data in response to Research Question 5, which was: Research Question 5: What was the mean number of credits earned in humanities, social science, and natural science by traditional/nontraditional age status of students, and were differences significant? No significant differences were found in the mean total credits earned in general education fields based on the age of students at graduation. Research Question 6 was as follows: Research Question 6: What was the mean number of credits earned in humanities, social science, and natural science by students based on the country in which secondary education was received, and were differences significant? No significant. differences ‘were found between students receiving their secondary education in the United States and those students receiving their secondary education outside the United States with respect to the mean total credits earned in the three distributional fields. Data with regard to Research Question 6 are reported in Table 23. Class Standing Upon Completion of General Education Research Questions 7 through 11 relate to the issue of class standing of students when the general education requirements in each of the three distributional areas were completed. Data relating to these questions were obtained from transcript audits. The number of credit hours earned, including transfer credit, when the last course was completed to meet the distributional requirement in each field 137 mew m.mw mew m.eN mew m._e mew m.Nw ww< mm m.ww om N.eN om o.—e om w.N~ -mN om F.Nm om m.oN om w.Ne om —.m_ +mN z ewwm> cam: z ewwm> cam: z ewwm> cam: z ewwm> came mmme< .eeem wwwemeu mwwemeu mwwemeu . mm< wmememu cw meemwem meemwem mmwwwcmsez wwwemee wmwow waegwmz wawow waweom wmwow wmwow .wemeewm we mam we memem eewwmeeem wmemcmm cw wwwemee wmwew emmz--.NN mwemw 138 mew m.mw me w.mw mow ¢.mw mew m.eN me N.¢N mow N.mN mew m.we me o.Ne mow e.we mew m.Nw me m.Nw mow m.N~ ww< mmeawm emww==-:oz mmwwwm emwwce z ew—m> :mmz meme< .eeem wmememu cw wwwemee wawow z ew—m> :mmz wwwemee mecmwem weeswmz wawow z ewwm> cmmz wwwemeu meemwem waweom wawow z ew—m> :mmz wwwemee mmwwweme:: wawow :ewwmezem xemeceemm .eewwmeeem hemeeeemm we xeweeee we memem eewweeeem wmememm cw mwwemee wmwew emmz--.mN mwemw 139 was recorded for each student. A two-way ANOVA was used to test for differences among different groups of students and among distributiona] areas in general education, as well as interaction effects, at the .05 level of significance. Table 24 is a summary of the response to Research Question 7: Research Question 7: What was the mean number of credits earned, by degree area of students, when the humanities, social science, and natural science requirements were met, and were differences significant? Significant differences in the mean credits earned when a distributional requirement was met among groups of students based on disciplinary major were found (alpha level of .4”). Significant differences in the mean number of credits earned when requirements were met were found among the three distributional requirements. Interaction effects between disciplinary major groups and distributional fields were also significant. The differences may relate to the specification of courses to be used for general education purposes on degree audit sheets and to suggested quarter- by—quarter layouts of programs included in the university catalog, in some cases. The ANOVA tables are presented in Appendix F. Graphical presentations of the distribution of credit hours earned upon completion of distributional requirements are included in Appendix G. 140 mew m.Naw mew m.ON_ mew o.mww mmmea echae ww< 4N m.mmw 4N w.NN 4N m.wew mewwmze emewewee eN m.emw eN N.wa eN m.me woo—oceemw\ewmz mm e._ew mm N.New mm N.mww mmmcwmsm em e._mw wm N.me em N.Nm_ mmecmwem wmweom eN m.wm NN N.wa mN m.wa mmecmwem mwwe z ewwm> cam: z ewwm> came 2 ewwm> came wmz wememeweemm m2 awe: emcemm meee: wwemeu wmz wcmsmeweemm mm eme3 emcemm meee: wwemeu wmz wemEmeweemm a: ewe: emeeam meeez wwemeu mme< eenmz .eeeem eenmE xemcwwewemwe we mwcmEmeweeme :ewwmueem wmememm we eewwmweEee :ee: emeemm mwwemeu emmz--.eN mwemw 141 Significant differences were found between transfer students and nontransfer students with respect to ina mean credits earned when distributional requirements were met (alpha level of .01). Transfer students often complete degree requirements with a greater number of total credits than minimal requirements due to nonapplicability of some transfer credits. If the transfer student lacks MACRAO certification and therefore must complete general education requirements, the number of credits earned upon completion may be greater. Significant differences were not unexpected. Significant differences in the mean credits earned when distributional requirements were met were found at the .05 level among distributional areas as well. The interaction effect was not significant. Research Question 8 was: Research Question 8: What was the mean number of credits earned, by transfer/ nontransfer status of students, when the humanities, social science, zNNi natural science requirements were met, and were differences significant? The data related to Research Question 8 are summarized in Table 25. Research Question 9 was: Research Question~ 9: What was the mean number of credits earned by students, based on the country in which the secondary education was received, when the humanities, social science, and natural science requirements were met, and were differences significant? Significant differences at the .05 level were found between students who had received their secondary education 'N1 the United States and those who had received their secondary education outside the United States with respect to the mean credits earned upon completion of the distributional requirements. No interaction mew wmw me— New mew wNw mew mew ww< wm wmw wm mmw wm mmw wm wow emwmemew mm ow— mm NNw mm mow mm er emwmcmeweez m z ewwm> :mm: 2 ewwm> emmz z ewwm> emmz z ewwm> emmz wmz mwemEmeweemm wmz wemEmeweemm wmz wemEmeweemm wmz wemEmeweemm mewmwm .eeem wmememu ww< m2 emez emeemm mm cmez emeemm a: emez emeemm emwmemeh emez emcemm meeeI wwemeu meson wwemeo meee: wwemeu meme: wwemeu .wemeewm we mewmwm emwmcmew we mwemEmeweeme eewweeeem wmememm we eewwmweEee eee: emeemm mwwemee :mmz--.mN mwemw 143 effect was found. The mean credits earned upon completion of distributional requirements were significantly different at the .01 level among distributional areas of general education. The data related to this research question are reported in Table 26. The ANOVA tables are included in Appendix F. Research Question 10 relates to differences among students based (N1 gender. No significant differences “N1 the mean credits earned upon completion of the distributional requirements were found between men and women. The data related to Research Question 10 are presented in Table 27. The question was: Research Question 10: What was the mean number of credits earned, by gender of students, when the humanities, social science and natural science requirements were met, and were differences significant? Research Question 11 addressed differences in mean credits earned upon completion of distributional requirements based on age of the student at graduation. No significant differences, based on age of the graduate, were found in the mean credits earned when distributional requirements were met. Table 28 contains the data for this question, which was: Research Question 11: What was the mean number of credits earned, by age of students, when the humanities, social science, and natural science requirements were met, and were differences significant? 144 mew wmw me— New mew wNw mew mew ww< me omw me mew me wmw me New mmwmwm emww::-eez mow wa mow mmw mow eww mew New mmwmwm emwwe: z ewwm> :mm: 2 ewwm> 2mm: 2 ewwm> emmz z ewwm> emmz wmz mwemsmeweemm wmz wemEmewzemm wmz wemsmeweemm wmz wememeweemm :ewwmeeem .eeem wmememw ww< mz emez emeemu mm emez emeemm a: see: emcemm Nemeeeemm emez emeemm meee: wwemeu meee: wwemeu meeez wwemeu meee: wwemeu we xeweeeu we mwemsmeweeme eewwmeeem wmemcmm we eewwmwesee .eewwmeeem Nemeeeemm eee: emeemm mwwemee :mmz--.eN mwemw 145 mew wm~ me— New oe— wNw mew mew ww< mo wa mm em— mo ON— mm mew mmemm mm Few MN New mm wNw mm wa m—mz z ewwa> came 2 ewwa> came 2 ewwm> came 2 ewwm> cam: wmz mwemsmewzemm wmz wemEmeweemm wmz wememeweemm wmz wcmsmeweemm emeemw .ezem waememe wwa mz ewe; emeeam mm gee: emcemm a: see: emceam :me: emeemm meee: wwemeu meee: wwemeu meee: wwemeo meee: wwemeu we emeemm we mwemEmeweeme :ewwmeeem wmememm we eewwmwesee .wemeewm gee: emeemm wwwemee emmz--.wN mwemw 146 mew wm— mew New mew wNw mew mew ww< mm emw mm oew om wNw we we— -mN om New om mew om ONw om wow +mN z ewwm> :mm: 2 ewwm> emmz z ewwm> emmz z ewwm> :mmz wmz mwemsmeweemm wmz wemEmeweemm wmz wemsmeweemm wmz wemsmewzemm .eeem wmememw ww< mz emez emeemm mm emez emeemm 3: cmez emeemm mm< emez emeemm meeez wwemeu meee: wwemeu meze: wwemeu meeez wwemeu .wemeewm we mam we mwemEmeweeme eewwmeeem wmememm we eewwmweeee eee: emeemm wwwemee :mmz--.mN mwemh 147 Factors Affecting Course Selection Research Questions 12 through 18 related to the persons or factors that influenced the selection of courses to meet distribution requirements in general education. Data were collected from student interviews to respond to these questions. A five-point Likert-type scale was used to record responses to the questions. The questions were grouped, based on a priori assumptions about their relatedness, to obtain summated scales. The summated scales were then used to test for differences in mean values among student groups. Two-way ANOVA tests were used to test for differences among student groups and among distributional areas with respect to the mean response of the importance of factors or persons influencing selection of courses. Significance was tested at the .05 level unless otherwise indicated. Each research question was analyzed, in addition to the summated scales, for exploratory purposes. Two-way ANOVA tests were used to test for significant differences between student groups and between distributional areas with respect to the mean response of the importance of factors or persons influencing selection of courses. Data for each research question will be reported. Then data for summated scales will be reported. 148 Faculty Advice Research Question 12 was addressed with the data reported in Table 29. The question was: I Research Question 12: How important was the advice of LSSU faculty advisors or other faculty or staff members to students in selecting courses to meet requirements in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences? A response of 5 indicated great reliance was placed on faculty advice in selecting courses. A response of 1 indicated no reliance was placed on such advice. Using ANOVA as an exploratory tool, tests of differences were run on the mean responses of students in the five disciplinary major groups and for the three distributional areas of the curriculum. No differences were found in the mean responses among the five disciplinary major groups; however, differences in mean responses of students in the three distributional areas were significant at the .05 level. This finding may be related to the greater degree of perceived freedom in making course selections in the natural sciences and social sciences as compared to the humanities. One explanation of the finding that most credits earned to meet the humanities requirement are for sequence courses is that students are unaware of options. If students are unaware of options, they might not seek faculty advice “hi se1ecting courses for the humanities requirement. The data from Table 29 are depicted graphically in Figure 4. If a response of 3 is viewed as a neutral response, students do not seek faculty advice to a great degree in making course se1ections, 149 New mN.N Now om.N mow Ne.N sow mm.w meme“ wee me NN.N mw NN.N mw Ne.N mw NN._ mewwmze wacwewee Nw ON.N Nw mm.N aw mm.N mw em._ eeowoceemw\ewmz NN No.N mN sm.N mN ow.N NN eN._ mmmcwmsm NN NN.N NN mN.N NN mm.N NN eo.N mmeeawem wmweom ow ma.N aw oo.m aw eN.N aw wN.N mmecmwem mwwe ewwa> cam: z ewwm> came 2 ewwm> came ewwm> came meme< ww< mmeemwem weeewmz mmeemwem wmweem mmwwwemszz mme< eehmz mew>e< wwweeme ee meemwwmm .meewwemwmm mmeeee mewema cw mew>em wwweemw ee meemwwmm--.mN mwemw 150 .eewwemwmm mmeeeuew mew>e< ISSUE :e mecewwmm Ne mesa: mo_oceem._.\ewm2 mmmeem mmecmfim _m_eow - mmocmfiw mw: I £0me Em:__n__om_n_ SEDN li‘v’H 151 irrespective of the disciplinary major or the distributional area of the general education requirement. Appendix H includes additional data showing the distribution of student responses to Research Question 12. Student Advice Student advice may 1N2 another factor ir1 making course selections. Research Question 13 was as follows: Research Question 13: How important was the advice of students or former students to students in selecting courses to meet requirements “N1 the humanities, social sciences, (NNi natural sciences? The mean student responses to the reliance they placed on the advice of students or former students in making course selections to meet distributional requirements are reported in Table 30. A response of 5 indicated great reliance was placed on such advice and a response of I meant no reliance was placed on such advice. Mean response values were higher for the reliance on student advice than for the reliance on faculty advice. .As an exploratory technique, ANOVA tests were run to determine whether any significant differences in mean responses relating to the importance of student advice in making course se1ections existed based (N1 distributional area of iflua general education requirement. or disciplinary major group of the respondent. No significant differences were found. Figure 5 depicts graphically the data reported in Table 30. The distribution of student responses 1x1 the question related to Research Question 13 is included in Appendix H. 152 New Ne.m New No.m mow mw.m wow Na.N mamem ww< me Ne.m mw NN.N mw oe.m mw NN.N mewwmze waewewee Ne eN.N Nw eN.N aw mm.N mw mm.N emowoceeew\ewaz mN ow.m mN No.m mN wN.m mN No.m mmmewmzm NN ae.m NN N_.N NN Nw.m NN mN.N mmeemwem waweom me eo.m aw NN.N aw Ne.m mw mm.N mmecmwem mwwe z ewwm> came 2 ewwa> came 2 ewwm> cam: z ewwa>. came meme< ww< mmecmwem wmeewez mmeemwem wmweem mmwwwcm531 mme< eemmz mew>e< wemeewm ee meemwwmm .meewwemwmm mmeeee mcweme cw mew>em wcmeewm :e meemwwmm--.om mwemw 153 .eewwemwmm mmeeeo E 8.53. wemezwm eo meemwwmm ”m meemw... mo_o:eemw.\ewm2 E 00._. mmmEmem @ 00.? 8825 _m_oow 00.N mme:m_ew mw: - 00d 20.722 cod 00.0 >emc__n__em_n_ 00% EN ILVH 154 Published Information Research Question 14 deals with the reliance of students on published information when they make course selections to. meet distributional requirements. ANOVA was used as an exploratory tool to determine what differences might be significant. Significant differences, at the .05 level, existed among distributional areas, but not among disciplinary major groups, in the mean responses to the question of reliance on published information in making course selections. If students are unaware of options in meeting the humanities requirement, they might. not rely on published information to the same degree as they rely on it for selecting natural and social science courses. This reasoning is cempatible with the data reported in Table 31. The distribution of student responses is included in Appendix H for Research Question 14. Figure 6 presents this information graphically. Research Question 14 was: Research Question 14: How important were publications of the university in assisting students in selecting courses to meet requirements in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences? A response of 5 indicated great reliance was placed on published information in making course se1ections. A response of 1 indicated no reliance was placed on this information in making course selections. 155 New mm.N New No.N mow eo.m eow 5N.N mmmea __< m_ NN.N me NN.N mw oo.m mw Ns.N aewwmse wmewewee Nw we.N Ne m_.N aw Ne.N we mm.N eeowoceemw\ewaz mN eo.m mN wN.N aN oo.m mN mm.N mmmcwmzm NN mo.m NN mo.N NN eN.m NN wm.N mmecmwem waweom aw NN.N aw Ne.m aw NN.m aw oo.m mmecmwem mewe z ewwa> cam: z ewwm> cam: z ewwm> came 2 ewwm>. cam: meme< ww< mmecmwem wmezwmz mmeemwem wmweem mmwwwcmsez mme< eehmz eewwmseewcH ememwweee ee meemwwmm .meewwemwmm mmeeee meweme cw eewwmeeewew ememwweee ee meemw—mm--.wm mwemw 156 .eewwemwmm mmeeee cw eewweEeewew ememwweee :e meeewwmm no mesa; _DI mo _Hw_l— —J _m C _ E _-— O ”mam”? >mo_o:eom._.\ewm_>_ E mmmEmsm mmecmfim _m_eow r 80:28 E: - 20.722 Em:__n__em_n_ ENLLVEI 157 Information Sources Research Questions 12, 13, and 14 an] dealt with information sources that might be used in course selection. .A summated scale was constructed using responses for all three questions. Mean responses for the summated scale were tested for differences based on disciplinary major groups. No significant differences were found at the .05 level. Significant differences were found among the three distributional areas. As discussed above, a plausible explanation for less reliance on information, irrespective of source, in nmking course se1ections 1x1 meet requirements “N1 the humanities is the perceived unavailability of options. Table 32 contains the mean responses to the summated scale (maximum value is 15; minimum value is 3). Reputation of Instructor Research Question 15 involved the mean response of students to the question asking the degree of their reliance on the reputation of the classroom instructor in making their course selections to meet distributional requirements. A response of 5 indicated great reliance was placed on the reputation of the instructor. A response of 1 indicated no reliance was placed on the reputation of the instructor. The research question was: Research Question 15: How important was the reputation of the classroom instructor to students in selecting courses to meet requirements “N1 the humanities, social sciences, EHKI natural sciences? Mean responses to this question, by disciplinary major group of the respondents, and by distributional area of the requirement, are 158 New m.m New m.m mow N.e wow e.N meme” ww< me a.m me s.m me w.a me N.N mewwmse wacwewee Ne e.N Nw m.N aw N.N me e.e emowoceeaw\ewaz NN N.e mN e.m mN N.e mN N.N mmmcwmsm mN m.m NN e.m NN m.m NN N.N mmeemwem waweom aw m.m aw a.m aw _.a aw w.e mmeemwem mwwe z ewwm> cam: z ewwa> came 2 ewwm> came 2 ewwa>. ewe: meme< ww< mmeemwem wmeewmz mmeemwem wmweem mmwwwemE=x mme< eenmz mmULzow cowumeowcH :0 macaw—hm .meewwemwmm mmesee meweme cw mmeeeem :ewwmseewew ee meemwwmm--.Nm mwemw 159 presented in Table 33 and graphically in Figure 7. The distribution of student responses is included in Appendix H. An ANOVA test was performed, for exploratory analysis. Significant differences were found among the three distributional areas in the mean responses of respondents (alpha level of' .01). Significant differences were found in the mean responses of students to this question, based on disciplinary major group, at the .05 level. The interaction effect was not significant. The mean responses were considerably higher for this question (reputation of the instructor) than for the informational source questions except for natural science courses. The greater number of Options, in terms of courses or instructors, in social sciences and humanities may account for the relatively lesser role that instructor reputation appears to play in the natural sciences. Course Content Table 34 and Figure 8 contain the data related to Research Question 16: Research Question 16: How important was the content of the course or subject matter to students in selecting courses to meet requirements in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences? A response of 5 indicated great reliance was placed on the content of the course in making course se1ections. A response of 1 indicated no reliance was placed on the course content in making course se1ections. The distribution of student responses to this question is provided in Appendix H. 160 New NN.N New mm.N mow ON.N wow ae.m meme“ ww< me NN.N mw Nm.m me NN.N mw 00.4 mewwmze wmcwewee Ne NN.N Nw mm.N me em.N Ne ww.m emowoceemw\ewmz mN mm.m NN NN.N aN we.m mN oo.e mmaewm=m MN em.m NN em.N NN NN.N NN mm.m mmecawem waweom aw mN.m aw NN.N aw NN.N aw mm.m mmecmwem mwwe ewwm> cam: z ewwm> came 2 ewwm> cam: z ewwm> .camz meme< ww< mmecmwem wmeewmz mmeemwem wmweem mmwwwemsez mme< eemmz eeweeewmew we eewwmweemm we meeeweeeew .meewwemwmm mmeeee mewems cw eeweeewmew we eewwmweeme we meeeweeeew--.mm mwemh 161 .eewwemwmm mmezee ew eeweeewmew we eewweweeme we meeeweeeew ”w mesa: came 2 ewwa> cam: z ewwm> cam: ewwa> .caez meme< ww< mmeemwem weeewmz mmeemwem wmweem mmwwwemse: mme< eehmz wemweeu mmeeeu we meeeweeesw .mcowuumrwm mmwzou 9.:me Cw Hcmwcou mmLDOU $0 meemweeeew--.em mwemw AI 163 mesmee _m:_E_eo >me_e:eem._.\ewm2 89:95 $9.28 _m_eow mmecmfiw mw_1_ - EmEEBmE .eewwemwmm mmeeee cw wemweee mmeeee we meeeweeesw ”w meemwe _ IE)N|.|_‘v'1:1 164 A two—way ANOVA test was performed on the mean responses of students to the question of the degree of reliance they placed on information relating to content or subject matter of the course in making their course selections to meet distributional requirements. The ANOVA was performed for exploratory purposes. No significant differences in the mean responses of students in different disciplinary major groups were found. A significant difference at the .01 level was found for the mean responses of students based on distributional area. The interaction effect was not significant. A plausible explanation for this difference among distributional areas in the importance of course content in making course se1ections is the fact that, for many students, courses in the natural and social sciences are prescribed and used to meet both major and general education requirements. For the vast majority of students at LSSU, humanities courses serve the sole purpose of meeting general education requirements. Under these circumstances, course content would be more important in the natural and social sciences than in the humanities. Course-Related Factors The responses to Research Questions 15 and 16, related to reputation of the instructor and course content, respectively, were combined to obtain a summated scale, which was then subjected to ANOVA. The summated scale represents information related to the particular course and section (instructor), which affects selection of the course to meet the distributional requirement. The greater 165 the mean response, the greater the reliance students place on this information when they make their course selections. The nmximum value of the mean response on this summated scale is 10; the minimum value is 2. The mean response values for this summated scale, by disciplinary major group and by distributional area, are shown in Table 35. No significant differences were found by disciplinary major group in student mean responses. Differences were significant at the .01 level in the mean responses by distributional area. This type of information is most important in making course selections in social sciences and least important in making selections in the natural sciences. Personal Scheduling Preferences The data related to Research Question 17 are presented in Table 36 and Figure 9. Two-way ANOVA tests were run for exploratory purposes. No significant differences were found among the responses of students, based on disciplinary major group or distributional area, to the question asking the degree to which their personal commitments or preferences affected their selection of ceurses to meet distributional requirements. The interaction effect was also not significant. Research Question 17 was: Research Question 17: How important was the day of the week or hour of the day the course was scheduled to students in selecting courses to meet requirements in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences? A response of 5 indicated personal preferences and commitments were very important in making course selections; a response of l 166 New o.e mow e.m mow 4.e 4o_ o.e mamea ww< mw e.e mw N.e me N.N mw m.e mewwmze wmewewee Nw N.m Ne w.m aw 4.m m_ 4.4 eeowoceemw\ewmz mN m.m mN m.m mN _.m 4N 4.e mmmcwmsm NN m.e NN m.m NN e.e NN N.e mmecmwem waweom 4w w.e aw m.m aw 4.0 aw w.e mmecmwem mwwe z eww4> :44: z ew44> :44: z eww4> cam: ewwa> cam: meme< ww< mmeemwem wmeewez mmecmwem wmweem mmwwwce532 mme< eewmz :ewwmseewew mmeeeu we meemweeesw .meewwemwmm mmeeee meweme cw eewwmseewew mmeeee we meemweeesw--.mm mwemw 167 mow FN.m mow o_.m mow ow.m eow mm.m memem ww< mw wo.m mw ON.m mw oo.m m— oo.m muwwmsn wmcweweu w— om.N ww mm.N ow mo.N ww oo.m 4AmoweceumHEwmz mN 0N.m mN eN.m mN Fm.m mN eN.m mmmcwmem MN mo.m mN ww.N MN oo.m mm om.m mmucmwum wmwuem mp em.m mw wo.m aw ew.m mw ww.e mmucmwum mwwe z ewwa> ewe: z eww4> :44: z ewwm> cam: ewwa> 1:44: meme< ww< mmeemwem wmeewmz mmeemwem wmweem mmwwwem532 mme< eewez mmeememwmee mewweemeem we mecmweeeew .meewwemwmm mmesee mewees cw mmeememwmee mewweemeem wmeememe we meemweeeew--.om mwemw 168 .eewwemwmm mmeeee E mmeememwmee mewweemeem wmeememe we meeeweeesw no menu: mo_e:eem._.\ewm2 E 82.63 $me mme:m_ew_m_eow _ . _1 [111111 mmecmfiw mw: - weo_m_>_ Emc__n__em_n_ BNILVH 169 indicated no importance was attached to such factors in making course se1ections. Appendix H contains the distribution of student responses to this question. Scheduling Problems Research Question 18 was related to the effect of scheduling problems beyond the control of the student (e 9., closed sections, limited course offerings, and conflicts) on course selection to meet general education requirements. Two—way ANOVA tests were run for exploratory purposes. No significant differences were found among distributional areas in the mean responses of students; however, significant differences at the .05 level were found in the mean responses of students in different disciplinary major groups. Students in Life Sciences and Criminal Justice gave mean responses that were significantly greater than the mean responses for students in other disciplinary groups. Scheduling problems had a greater effect on course selection for these students. The mean response data related to Research Question 18 are displayed in Table 37 and Figure 10. The question was: Research Question 18: How important were scheduling problems beyond the student’s control, such as full sections or schedule conflicts, in selecting courses to meet requirements in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences? A response of 5 indicated that scheduling problems were very important in course selection. A response of 1 indicated that scheduling problems were of no importance in making course selections. The distribution of student responses is included in Appendix H. 170 New 4N.N mow Nm.N mow NN.N 40w eN.N meme“ __< m_ NN.N me om.N me om.N me oe.N aewwmse waewewee Nw e_.N Nw Nw.N aw Nm.N we 4m.w emowoceemw\ewmz aN N_.N 4N ow.N 4N N_.N 4N o_.N mmmewmsm NN _O.N NN eN.N NN oo.N NN eN._ mmeemwem waweom aw _N.N aw mN.N aw 4m.N aw __.m mmecawem mews z ewwm> cam: z eww4> :44: z ewwa> cam: ew_4>. came meme< ww< mmeemwem wmeewmz mmeemwem wmweem mmwwwemE=I mme< eemmz mamweeee mewweemeem we meemweeeew .mcewwemwmm mmeeee mewems cw memweeee mewweemeem we meemweeeaw1-.wm mwemw 171 .eewwemwmm mmeeee cw mEmweeee mewweemeem we meemweeeaw Now meemwn. 000: z 0..0> 000: z 0..0> 000: 0..0> .000: mmme< ww< 0meemwem weeewez meecmwem wmweem 0m.w.:mE:: mme< eehmz mewweemeem mmeeeu we meemweeeew .mcewwemwmm mmeeee mcweme e. mewweemeem mmeeee we meemweeee.--.mm mweew 174 students is the large number of laboratory classes they must take and the greater likelihood of class conflicts that results. The mean response of students in Life Sciences regarding the importance of scheduling problems and preferences as an influencing factor in their course selections for all three distributional areas combined was significantly higher than the mean responses of stu- dents in Social Sciences and Mathematics/Technology (alpha level of .05). Student Perception of the Benefit of General Education The final area of focus in this study was the evaluation by students of the contributions of general education to their personal and professional lives, and their assessment of whether more or fewer credits should be required in the different areas. Differences Among Disciplinary Majors Table 39 contains the mean responses by students in different disciplinary majors relating the benefit of general education distribution courses to their general development. The mean responses of students in different discip]inary majors relating the benefit of general education distribution courses to understanding of their majors are reported in Table 40. Research Question 19 was: Research Question 19: How beneficial to their general development, and to understanding their majors, did students by degree area find courses in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences? A response of 5 indicated that the courses were very beneficial; a response of" 1 indicated that no benefit was received. The distribution of student responses is included in Appendix H. 175 N0. 00.0 00. 00.0 40. NN.0 40. NN.N 00000 ..< 0. 00.N 0. 00.N 0. 00.0 0. 00.N 00.0000 .00.0.00 0. 0N.N N. 00.N 0. 00.N 0. 44.N 000.00000NN0000 0N 00.N 0N N0.N 0N 00.N 0N 00.N 0000.000 0N 0..0 0N 00.0 0N 00.0 0N .0.N 00000.00 .0.000 0. 40.0 0. 0N.0 0. 00.0 0. 0N.0 00000.00 00.0 0..0> 000: z 0..0> 0000 z 0..0> 000: 0..0> 000: 00me< ww< 0meemwem wmeewez 0mecmwem wmweem 0mwwwe000: eme< eewmz wemEeewm>mo wmememw ew wwwmemm .eeeem eenme memewwewe0we 0e wemEQewm>me .mememm ew eewwmeeem wmememm we wwwmemm--.mm mwemw 176 Now me.N mow Nm.N eow 00.N eow 00.N mmmem ~w< 0. 0N.N 0. 04.N 0. 00.0 0. NN.N 00.0000 .00.0.00 0. 00.. N. 00.N 0. 00.. 0. 00.. 000.00000.\0000 0N N0.. 0N 00.. 0N 4N.N 0N 00.. 0000.000 0N 00.N 0N 00.N 0N 0N.0 0N 00.N 00000.00 .0.000 0. 00.N 0. 00.0 0. 0..0 0. 0..N 00000.00 00.0 0..0> 000: z 0..0> 0000 z 0..0> 000: z 0..0> 0000 00me< ww< 0meemwem .meewez 0mecm.em .mweem 0mwwwe000: 0me< eemmz eehmz we meweemw0emee: ew w.wmemm .eeeem eenes 0e0c..ewe0.e we eemee we me.ee0w0eme00 ew ee.wmeeem .mememm we wwwmemm--.oe mweeh 177 The data related to Research Question 19 are displayed graphically in Figures 11 and 12. Hypotheses 1 through 3 were tested with respect to Research Question 19. Hypothesis '1: Students majoring in the natural sciences, mathematics, computer science, engineering technology, and health—related fields will rate natural science courses as more beneficial to their general development and 1x1 understanding their majors than will students majoring in other disciplines. Hypothesis 2: Students majoring in the social sciences, busi- ness, criminal justice, human services, recreation management, and legal assistant studies will rate courses “N1 the social sciences as more beneficial to their general development and to their understanding of their majors than will students majoring in other disciplines. Hypothesis 3: Students majoring in social sciences and arts and letters will rate courses in the humanities as more bene- ficial to their general development and to their understanding of their majors than will students majoring “N1 other disci- p1ines. A two—way ANOVA test was used, for exploratory purposes, to test for significant differences in the mean response of students in different disciplinary major groups, and among different distributional areas, with respect to the benefits of general education courses to their general development and to the understanding of their majors. Contributions to general development. Significant differences, at the .01 level, in mean responses of students in different distributional areas were found with respect to the contributions of general education 11) their' general development. No significant differences were found in mean responses of students, by disciplinary major group, with regard to the benefit to general 178 .35.... eeheE xeeewwewe0we 03 wemEeewm>me .mememm ew :ewweeeem .0ememm we wwwmemm 0: mega; mo_e:eem._.\ewm2 E mmmEmzm mmecmfim .m_oow wmecmfiw 00..... I 000.00.). 0.0.05.0..005 _L|:IEJNE|8 179 .eeeem eenm... 0200:3002. 03 eehms we meweeew0emee: ew eewwmeeem .mememm we wwwmemm 0N. mesa: <.11..m.< 1. 000: z 0..0> 0000 z 0..0> 000: z 0..0> 000: 00me< ww< 0meem.em .meewmz 0meemwem .mweem 0mwwwemsez 0me< eehez 0wemsmeweemm eee: wwemeu mmemeu .eeeem eemms hemc.we.e0.e 0e 0wemEme.:eme eeee w.emee ee.wmeeem .mememm :. mmcmee emewmmo--.me m.e00 .eeeem e900... 0200:2300? 43 0wemEmeweeme eeee wwemee eowwmesem .mememm e. 0mmeeee eme..0mo 0m. mesa: mo_oceemwwewm2 0..N.N mmmEmem -. 00.N mmecmew _m_eew mm _ 00.N 08.5.8 00..... I mm . 00.0 90.6.). ................. . 0N.0 >000:__0._em_n_ 04.0 BNILVH 190 No. 0N mo. N.N mo. 0..N 40. 0..N .2 me m.N me o.N me m.N me 0.N mmem0 mm w.N om w.N oo w.N we e.N m—mz z nwwm> :mm: 2 vwwm> cmmz z v.0m> :mmz z ewwm> cmmz 00me< ww< 0meemwem .meewmz 0meem.em .0.eem 0mww000001 emeemu 0wemEme.eemm ego: w.emeu mmcmeu .wcmeewm we emeemm 0e 0wemEme.eeme eeee w.emee ee.wme:em .memcmm 0. mmemee eme.0mo--.om mwemp 191 Data relating to Research Question 26 are presented in Table 51. No significant difference in the wean responses of students based on age] at graduation was found relating to this research question. Differences based on distributiona] areas were significant at the .01 level. The interaction effect was not significant. The research question was: Research Question 26: Did students by age think credit hours required in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences should be increased, decreased, or remain the same? No significant differences were found in the mean responses of students 1x1 the question regarding change “N1 credit requirements based on distributional area, transfer status of students, or interaction effect. Table 52 contains the data for Research Question 27, which was: Research Question 27: Did students by transfer/nontransfer status think credit hours required “N1 the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences should be increased, decreased, or remain the same? Students receiving their secondary education outside the United States gave a lower mean response to the question regarding changing credit hour requirements. The data are reported in Table 53. Research Question 28 was: Research Question 28: Did students by the country in which they received their secondary education think credit hours required in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences should be increased, decreased, or remain the same? The two-way ANOVA test indicated that differences in the mean responses of students to this question were significant, at the .01 level, based on the distributional area, and at the .05 level, based 192 Now m.N mo~ w.N mow m.N eow m.N 00< ow m.N ow N.N ww m.N 00 m.N -mN Nm w.N mm w.N Nm o.m mm e.N +mN z Ume> 2mm: 2 ewwm> cmmz z ewwm> :mm: 2 nwrm> cmmz 0mme< ww< 0meem.em .meewmz 0meem.em .0.eem 0m.w.emeez mm< 0w0mEmeweemm eeeI wwemeu mmemeu .wemeew0 we mam 0e 0w0mEme.0eme eeee w.emee ee.wmeeem .mememm 0. mme0em emew0mo--..m 0.000 193 NOF o.~ mo? N.N mor w.N vor m.N FF< mm m.N mm N.N mm o.m mm N.N memcmgh m¢ m.m mq m.N mg _.m mu ¢.N memcmgpcoz z uwpm> saw: 2 uw_m> saw: 2 Uwrm> 2mm: 2 uw_m> cam: mmmg< PF< mmucowum Fmgzgmz mmucmwum meuom mmwpwcmszz mzpmgm gmmmcmgh mgcmamgwscmm L30: pwvmgu mmcmcu .mpcmuzpm mo magnum memcmgp >3 mpcmEmL_:cmL Lao; pwnmgu cowgmuzcm Fmgmcwm c_ mmcmzu cmgvmmo--.mm anmH 194 mop o.m mop N.m mo— m.m «or m.N FF< Fm ¢.N Fm m.m Fm m.N _m _.N mmpmum vmpwc:-coz PK m.m Nu m.m NR m.~ MN ¢.N magnum vwawc: z cwrm> cum: 2 cwrm> cam: z Uw_m> cum: 2 UFFm> cmmz co_awu:vm mmmg< FF< mmucwwum ngzgmz mmucmwum meuom mmvacmssz zgmucoumm mangmezcmm Lao: pwumgu mmcmcu .co_pwu:nm xgmvcoumm mo prczou An mpcwsmgvscwg Lao; pwnmgu cowpmuzum ngmcmm cw mmcmcu nmgwmmo--.mm mFQmH 195 on the country in which the secondary education was received. No significant interaction effect was found. Student EvaTuation of Genera] Education A summated scaTe was created by combining the responses to Research Questions T9 and 24. The maximum mean vaTue for each distributiona] area was 15. The minimum vaTue was 3. The summated scaie represents the perceived va]ue p1aced (Hi the distributiona] course in terms of benefit to generaT deve10pment, benefit to understanding of the major, and student eva1uation of whether credit requirements shoqu be changed and in what direction. The mean va]ues were subjected to aa two-way ANOVA. test to find whether differences in mean responses, based on discip]inary major group or distributiona] area of the course, were significant. Differences in mean responses were significant at the .OT TeveT based on distributiona] area of the course and on discip]inary major group (H: the student respondents. The findings are presented in Tab]e 54. Using a one-way ANOVA to find significance within each distributiona] area by discip]inary major grouping, no significant differences (at the .05 1eve1) were found in the evaTuation of humanities. No two discip]inary groups were significantTy different with respect to the eva1uation of sociaT sciences. Life Science students provided a mean rating for natural science courses of 10.2, which was significantTy greater (at the .05 TeveT) than the mean rating of Business students of 7.4. For aTT distributionaT areas, 196 NOM _.M Mo_ N.M Mo_ o.M Mo_ _.N MMQLM __< M_ ¢.M MM M.N M_ _.o_ M_ N.N auwpmso Mmcwsweu M_ o.N NM M.N NM M.N M_ N.M Mmo_oceump\epmz MN N.N MN M.N MN M.N MN M.M mmmcwmzm MN M.M MN N.M MN _.o_ MN o.M Madearom _M_UOM M_ M.M MM N.o_ M_ 0.0_ M_ M.N Madcawam ac_s z UPMM> ems: z UFMM> sea: 2 ee_m> gem: UNMM> cmmz mmc< Lehmz mmmg< PF< mmocmwom Facsgmz mmucmwum ~M_oom mepwcmssz .cowpmuznm chmcmm we covpms_m>m pcwvzpm--.¢m m—nMH -I. 197 Life Science students gave a nman rating (H: 9.3, which was significantTy above (at the .05 1eve1) the mean rating of Business students of 7.2 and the mean rating of Mathematics/Techno1ogy students of 7.0. A t-test was performed to test Hypothesis 5, which stated: Hypothesis 5: Students comp1eting their humanities require— ments in their junior or senior years wi11 rate courses in the humanities as more beneficia1 to their genera1 deve10pment than wi11 other students. Hypothesis 5 was not supported. Students who comp1eted the humanities requirement when they had earned 90 or more credits gave a mean rating of 2.8387 using the summated sca1e described above. Students who comp1eted the humanities requirement before they had earned 90 credits gave a mean rating of 2.1818 on the summated sca1e. The difference was not significant at the .05 1eve1. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS The findings of the researcher in this study 1end support to the concerns expressed in the 1iterature and reiterated in Chapters I and II of this dissertation. The major findings of the researcher were the fo110wing: 1. The r01e of the discipTinary major in determining the courses se1ected by students to meet genera1 education distributiona1 requirements and 'Hi determining the breadth of a student’s curricu1um was substantia1. 2. Students’ re1iance on facuTty advice when they made their course se1ections was 1imited. 3. Students perceived 1itt1e va1ue ‘Hi the contributions of genera1 education courses to their genera1 deve10pment or understanding of their majors. Summary The foTTowing discussion represents a summary of the findings for the six issues investigated in this research. Issue One What courses were se1ected by students to meet distribution requirements ir1 the humanities, socia1 sciences, emu! natura1 sciences? 198 199 Freedom of choice in se1ecting courses to meet the distributiona1 requirements in genera1 education at LSSU is 1imited by the designation of specific courses to meet both genera1 education requirements and requirements of discip1inary majors. Choice is aiso 1imited by students’ perceptions of 1imited options in the humanities. Issue Two How many credit hours were earned ir1 each (Hi the three distributiona1 areas required, i.e., the humanities, socia1 sciences, and natura1 sciences? Students earned few credits in the distributiona1 areas of ,genera1 education outside of the distributiona1 area of their majors. Mean tota1 credits earned in the humanities were near the minimum required. Mean tota1 credits earned in the natura1 sciences and the socia1 sciences were significant1y greater for some discip1inary majors. Business and mathematics/engineering techno1ogy majors earned the fewest credits in the three distributiona1 areas. No significant differences were found in the mean tota1 credits earned in any of the three distributiona1 areas, or in the mean tota1 credits earned in the three areas combined, as a function of' the gender, age, transfer status, or country of secondary education of students. Issue Three How many credit hours were accumu1ated when distribution requirements in genera1 education were met? 200 The findings reveaied significant differences among groups of students with respect to this issue; however, the researcher be1ieved that these findings reflected the operationaT definition used for data c011ection. A distribution requirement was considered to be met when the Tast course designated on the degree audit sheet was comp]eted. Departments often designated senior-1eve1 courses and, as a consequence, credit hour accumu1ations were greater in such departments than in other departments. The statistica1 differences were more a consequence of design than a ref1ection of a1ternative patterns in the actua1 experience of students. Issue Four What factors (H‘ individua1s were important ir1 assisting students to make their se1ection of courses to meet distribu— tion requirements? Of the factors studied, students attached the 1east importance to facu1ty advice in making their se1ections of courses to meet distributiona1 requirements. Reputation of the instructor, foT1owed by persona1 preferences or commitments with respect to the day of the week or the time of the day, were the most important factors in course se1ection (see 'Tab1e 55). Significant differences among discip1inary major groups were found 1%n‘ the importance of instructor reputation and schedu1ing prob1ems beyond the student’s contr01 in making course se1ections. Significant differences among the three distributiona1 areas of genera1 education were found for the fo110wing four factors: facu1ty advice, pub1ished information, reputation of the instructor, and course content. No interaction effects were found. 201 mm.m or.m m~.N Fo.m Fm.m em.w mcwrsnmcum No.m om.m mm.m mo.m cw.m rm.m mmucmgm¢mcm FN.N m¢.N om.m rm.m mm.m mo.m pampcou mmgzou mm.m MN.N mm.m mm.m mm.m mm.m co_pmpsqmm MN.N —¢.N Fo.m mo.m mm.m mm.N cowpmseomcw nmcmw—nza Nv.m m~.N o_.m wo.m wo.m mo.m mow>vm ucmuzpm NN.N 0N.N No.m om.m m¢.N mN.N muw>cm >#_=owu muwpmzw zoo—ocsowH mmmcwmsm mucmwum mucmmum FNNOP Logan; 255.5 2:: 2.58 3.5 .McoMPUQFmM wmczou mcwxms cw mcopumw yo wocmpcoqu--.mm anMH 202 Issue Five What were the students’ perceptions of the benefit of courses in the three distributiona1 areas to their persona1 deve10pment and in understanding their majors? Significant differences were found by distributiona1 area in the perceived benefit of genera1 education to genera1 deve10pment. No significant differences were found among ratings of students based on discip1inary major. Humanities courses were perceived to be 1east beneficia1 to genera1 deve10pment. 01der students rated the benefit of humanities to genera1 deve10pment significant1y greater than younger students rated the contributions. Students who comp1eted requirements in humanities as juniors or seniors rated the benefit to genera1 deve10pment greater, but the difference was not significant1y greater than the rating by students who comp1eted the requirement as freshmen or sophomores. No other significant differences among student groups based on gender, transfer status, or nationa1ity c1assifications were found. Significant differences were found in the perceived contribution of genera1 education to the understanding of their majors by students with different discip1inary majors and as a function of the distributiona1 area. Interaction effects were found. Students in business and mathematics/engineering technoTogy perceived the 1east benefit. No significant differences based on age, gender, transfer status, and nationa1ity c1assifications were reported. 203 Issue Six Did students indicate that credit hour requirements in each of the three distributiona1 areas shou1d be increased, decreased, or remain unchanged? No significant differences were found in the students’ responses to the question regarding changing credit hour requirements based on the discip1inary major, age, gender, or transfer status of students. Significant differences were found in students’ responses based on the distributiona1 area. The mean response was 1ower for humanities, a finding that indicated more students thought requirements shou1d be decreased in this area. Students who received their secondary education outside the United States gave a significant1y Tower response to this question. Conc1usions Three concerns of the researcher emerged from the findings in this study: 1. Shou1d the department, through its degree requirements, p1ay such a major ro1e in determining the genera1 education experi- ences of its students? 2. How can facu1ty advising for genera1 education purposes be made more effective? 3. How can we he1p students see the benefit of genera1 educa— tion, or how can we make genera1 education more meaningfui? Genera1 Education or SpeciaTized Education Departments p1ay a major ro1e in determining the genera1 education experience of students majoring in their discip1ines at 204 LSSU. The findings revea1ed that genera1 education course se1ection was constrained by designation of courses to be used for genera1 education purposes by the major department. Such a practice a110wed departments to require a greater number of credits for the major through the practice of doubTe-counting. The twactice determines which discip1ine is used to meet distributiona1 requirements and, in so doing, the actua1 breadth of a student’s curricu1um. The menu of course offerings that may be used to meet genera1 education requirements in the socia1 and natura1 sciences is Tong and varied for the student body as a who1e, but for a student within a specific degree program, the menu is 1imited. The question of how much to prescribe and how much to 1eave to choice may not be an issue at a11. A more important concern may be the extent to which genera1 education requirements ought to be determined by discip1inary major requirements. Institutions undertaking reform of genera1 education shou1d serious1y consider the extent to which academic nmjors shou1d be a110wed to prescribe genera1 education courses. The question of to what extent such courses address concerns of genera1 education and to what extent the purposes of specia1ized education are addressed needs to be asked. This researcher did not examine the number of credits students earned in the three distributiona1 areas beyond the courses required by the major or the minor. Findings bearing on this question wou1d give a more accurate measurement of breadth. 205 Facu1ty Advice and Other Factors The re1ative1y 10w re1iance students p1aced on facu1ty advice when they made their course se1ections to meet genera1 education requirements may be attributabTe to a number of factors. Access to facu1ty members, especia11y in departments with 1arge numbers of majors, may have been a 1imiting factor. When students schedu1ed courses, facu1ty advisors may not have been ab1e to spend the time needed to discuss genera1 education options. Efforts designed to 1engthen the schedu1ing period, the time when students need information about courses, may increase accessibiTity of advisors. Reducing the advisee work10ad may have the same effect, but at the cost of teaming more students with facu1ty advisors outside their majors. Second, students may not view facu1ty in their discip1inary majors as competent advisors for genera1 education purposes, and they may not seek their advice. Facu1ty members may not view themse1ves as competent advisors with regard to genera1 education. Facu1ty members may not va1ue genera1 education, and consequent1y they may not advise for genera1 education. Assigning two advisors, one to advise for the major and one who teaches genera1 education coursework to advise for genera1 education purposes, might be he1pfu1; however, the dup1ication of effort wou1d probab1y be burdensome, not on1y to facu1ty members but a1$o to students, who wou1d be required to see two advisors. Assignment of facu1ty advisors from the genera1 education facu1ty to advise Tower-division students with dec1ared majors may 206 be a means of providing facu1ty advice regarding genera1 education courses. Facu1ty members outside the major resist advising students in the major, c1aiming they 1ack competence in advising for major requirements. The argument for assignment of a facu1ty member in the major area as the academic advisor, based on his/her expertise in the major, is an argument that genera1 education is 1ess important than coursework in the major and that the facu1ty advisor does not need to be competent to advise for genera1 education. For the 1ower-division student who has dec1ared a major, with a11 the certainty that is possib1e at that state of his/her education, advising by a facu1ty member outside the major shou1d be uncomp1icated, as required courses in the major are usua11y introductory in nature and c1ear1y spe11ed out. The assignment of facu1ty members in the major as academic advisors is more important when students, as upperciassmen, are se1ecting e1ectives in the major, and for Tower-division students who are uncertain of their specific majors, but who know the genera1 areas in which they wish to study. Inservice training of genera1 education facu1ty members with regard to specia1ized curricu1a or of specia1ized facu1ty members with regard to the genera1 education curricu1um may improve the qua1ity of advising. Information from other sources may be current1y sufficient so that students do not need to seek advice from facu1ty members regarding genera1 education. Converse1y, pub1ications can be improved to provide more information regarding genera1 education 207 options. Peer advising, or group advising, can re1ieve facu1ty members for advising by permitting peer advisors to assume more of the responsibi1ity for routine schedu1ing tasks. Training of peer advisors may be a desirab1e investment to provide accurate information. Use of students in the advising function may be desirab1e if the 1ack of re1iance on facu1ty advice is caused by students’ re1uctance to seek facu1ty advice and not inaccessibi1ity of facu1ty advisors. If students are given choices in a distributiona1 mode1 of genera1 education, facu1ty advice shou1d be one source of information that students wou1d use to make inte11igent, informed decisions. The findings of the researcher in this study suggest that students wi11 re1y on facu1ty advice to a greater extent where the choices are greater. A1though the ratings given to the importance of this factor were 10w, significant differences in the importance of facu1ty advice in se1ecting courses in the three distributiona1 areas were found. Students p1aced greater reTiance on facu1ty advice in the se1ection of courses in the natura1 and socia1 sciences than they p1aced on that factor when se1ecting courses in the humanities. The concentration of credits in the humanities sequence courses suggests that students did not understand the options that were avai1ab1e. Students re1ied on pub1ished information regarding courses to make choices in the natura1 and socia1 sciences more than they re1ied on that information to make course se1ections in the humanities. The summated sca1e combining responses to the three 208 questions concerning sources of information (facu1ty advice, student advice, and pub1ications) indicated significant differences in the degree of students’ re1iance on these information sources in making course se1ections in the three distributiona1 areas. The greater student re1iance on these information sources in the areas where students had, or perceived they had, greater Tatitude in making choices to meet requirements Tends support to the conc1usion that students wi11 make informed choices when they have the freedom to do so. The type of information sought by students was re1ated to the freedom a110wed to students in making course se1ections. The importance of information regarding instructor reputation was inverseTy re1ated to the number of course options a110wed students. The importance of course content was direct1y re1ated to the number of course options. When given the freedom to se1ect courses, students p1aced greater importance on course content. When course options were 1imited, students p1aced greater importance on instructor reputation. When course options and instructor option were both greater, students p1aced greater importance on both course content and instructor reputation. The re1ative1y high mean response for the importance of the reputation of the instructor in making course se1ections suggests the need to exp10re in greater depth what students mean by this response. Are students Tooking for good instruction? What is the re1ationship of eva1uation methods and grading sca1es to this 209 concern? The student response strategies indicate the importance of giving attention to instruction and professiona] deve10pment, as we11 as curricu1um, when considering changes in genera1 education. Schedu1ing of genera1 education c1asses was important for LSSU students. The high rating given to persona1 preferences and commitments is evidence that genera1 education shou1d not be schedu1ed at unpopuTar times mere1y because the course is required. Schedu1ing prob1ems, on the other hand, did not seem to be an important issue at LSSU, except for students majoring in programs with 1aboratory and internship c1asses. Connections Students in vocationa11y oriented programs attached 1ess va1ue to genera1 education in terms of its contribution to their understanding of their major. Students genera11y attached 1ess va1ue to humanities coursework for its contribution to their genera1 deveTopment. By contrast, students in Life Science and Socia1 Science major groups attached more significance to genera1 education, within the distributiona1 area of their majors, for its contribution to their understanding of their majors. Students must be he1ped to make connections between their studies in genera1 education and their studies in their specia1ized majors. The need for coherence of genera1 education and integration with the major is part of the nationa1 debate and is ref1ected in these findings. The sequencing of genera1 education courses within the four- year curricu1um is a factor that may he1p students make the 210 connections. The findings that re1ated the perceived benefits of humanities to the student’s genera1 deve10pment with age and c1ass standing suggest that genera1 education shou1d be schedu1ed over the fu11 four years of the bacca1aureate program. Integration of genera1 education with the major may be easier to accomp1ish after the student has a good grounding in the major. Meaningfu1 orientation programs and the freshman-year experience may provide opportunities to exp1ain the potentia1 benefits of genera1 education to students before coursework is begun. The finding that students fai1 to recognize the benefits of genera1 education might provide the impetus to c1ose1y examine the means by which genera1 education courses are de1ivered. C1ass size, methods of instruction, professiona1 deve10pment of facu1ty members, and course content are important issues for consideration. Methodo1oqv and Issues for Further Study Modification of this mode1 to meet the particu1ar characteristics and needs of other institutions shou1d resu1t in a mode1 that wi11 prove usefu1 e1sewhere in assessing genera1 education. Decisions regarding the advising system for genera1 education and program articu1ation with other institutions for transfer of genera1 education wi11 be informed by data obtained from this mode1. This researcher wou1d make the foiiowing modifications in the mode1 before using it at LSSU. The specification of courses used to meet the genera1 education requirements as those courses 1isted on 211 the degree audit forms fi1ed with the Registrar 1ed to the co11ection of data that were not usefu1. For examp1e, information regarding the c1ass standing of students when they comp1eted their genera1 education requirements was determined by the courses so designated as genera1 education. Often this proved to be arbitrary. The a1ternative of specifying genera1 education courses as the first 12 credits 1isted on the transcript wou1d have 1ed to very different resu1ts. The same bias was evident in the specification of the discip1ines represented by the course se1ections. The time required in the transcript audit to c011ect this information might be used more effectiveiy in c011ecting other data. Second, this researcher wou1d seek more detaiTed information regarding facu1ty advice, student schedu1ing preferences, and the meaning of reputation of the instructor from the student interviews. More open—ended questioning of a sma11er subsamp1e of the respondents might provide usefu1 data. Qua1itative methods, inc1uding focus groups, may have yie1ded richer and more persuasive data. Third, data wou1d be co11ected with respect to the number of credits earned in each of the three distributiona1 areas that was not used to meet major or minor requirements. This number might better represent the credits devoted to genera1, as opposed to specia1ized, education. The researcher’s purpose was to deveiop a mode1 to eva1uate students’ responses to distributiona1 requirements, the bases for 212 students’ choices, and students’ perceptions of benefit. Institutions considering changes in their genera1 education requirements shou1d take these factors into consideration when deve10ping the curricu1um. Responsive, issue—oriented eva1uation can be a usefu1 tooT to he1p bring about meaningfu1 change. STUDENT CHOICES AND CREDIT DISTRIBUTION IN GENERAL EDUCATION: AN EVALUATION MODEL By Bruce T. Harger VOLUME II A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partia1 fu1fi11ment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1991 APPENDICES APPENDIX A LSSU GENERAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS 213 LAKE SUPERIOR STATE UNIVERSITY offers bachelor’s, or bac- calaureate, degrees, associate degrees, and certificates. Degrees are offered in a wide variety of fields. Many requirements for degrees in particular fields of study are specific and may be found in other parts of the Catalog. However, some requirements apply to all, or almost all, degrees —- especially the bachelor’s degree. These are discussed below. ' BACHELOR’S DEGREES: A bachelor’s degree requires a minimum of 186 hours (credits) for graduation. These required hours fall into four categories: general education, bachelor of arts, bachelor of science or cognate re- quirements, departmental requirements, and free electives. All bachelor‘s degree candidates must also demonstrate proficiency in mathematics and writing. General education 51 HOURS AS THE NAME APPLIES, general educa- tion consists of courses required of all students regardless of their specialized area of study. The purpose of general education is to develop skills and knowledge useful for all students, regardless of their career choices. Thus, requirements in English and speech will enhance fundamental skills of writing and speaking. The physical edumtion require- ment will lay the foundation for a lifetime of physical activity that will promote health and well~being. Requirements in humantities, natural sciences, and social sciences broaden intellectual perspective and familiarize students with fundamentalfields of human knowledge. ENGLISH (9 credit hours): EN101-102-103 meet the nine credit-hour requirement. Everyone must take ENIOI. However, some bachelor of arts and bachelor of science degrees allow EN101, EN190, EN390. ENI90 may be substituted for ENIOZ. Do not take EN102 and EN190, or you will be duplicating credits. You may, however, take both EN103 and EN390 and receive credit for them. SPEECH (3): SD] 10, Fundamentals of Speech is required of all students. HUMANITIES (l2): HU295-296-297 meets the 12 credit-hour humanities requirement. Courses in philosophy and music, art, theatre appreciation and mythology, religion and second-year foreign language may be substituted. If substitute courses are taken, a maximum of 6 credit hours may be taken in one area. For example, MU230 and 231 may be substituted for 6 of the 12 credit-hour humanities requirement, but MU232 with MU230 and 231 could not be counted toward the 12 credit-hour requirement. Students tak- ing art or music courses must take apprecia- tion courses, such as AT268 or MU230, not the skill courses such as AT125-126-127 or MU112-113-114. SOCIAL SCIENCES (12): Any combination of economics, geography (except 00106, GGIOS, 00370, NSIOS and NSloT), history, political science, psychology and sociology may be taken. NATURAL SCIENCE (12): Both a physical and a biological science course must be taken. BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES: NSIO3 or any BL course except BL130, BL190, or BL280, will meet this requirement; plus: PHYSICAL SCIENCES: Any CH, GE, or PH course may be taken and 00106, 00108 are acceptable courses. (Other 00 courses are considered social science courses.) NSlOI, 102, 104, 105, 107 or NS] 19 may be taken. PHYSICAL EDUCATION (3): Three dif- ferent loo-level activity courses. BA or BS requirements 12 HOURS BOTH bachelor of arts and bachelor of science degrees are offered. The requirements differ for these two kinds of degrees. These requirements are sometimes referred to as "cognate requirements." BACHELOR OF ARTS: This degree requires a minimum of one year (12 hours) of a modern foreign language. Some majors re- quire the second year for a total of 24 hours in a foreign language. BACHELOR OF SCIENCE: This degree re- quires a minimum of 12 quarter hours of social science, natural science or mathematics beyond those courses used to meet general education requirements. Specific re- quirements are usually included with the departmental curriculum. Foreign language is generally not required but is recommended. Departmental requirements 75 HOURS MINIMUM MOST DEGREES require at least one major and one minor. Students will be assigned a faculty advisor from their major department. Majors and minors are specifically defined by the department concerned. Free electives IN ADDITION to all of the above re- quirements students must select the necessary 214 hours and courses to complete a minimum of 186 quarter hours. Proficiency requirements MATHEMATICS: Students seeking two- or f our-year degrees are required to demonstrate competence in mathematics at approximately the level of high school first-year algebra. Testing is in two steps: arithmetic skills followed by elementary algebra skills. Both the counseling center and the department of computer, geologic, and mathematical sciences administer exams. Students can satisfy the mathematics competency require- ment in the following ways: (1) Score 15 or higher on the intermediate algebra placement exam, given at the time the student enters the University, (2) Take and pass the algebra skills exam (which is given only to students who have passed the arithmetic skills exam or MA090), (3) Complete a Lake Superior State University mathematics course at MA091 or higher. Transfer students who have previous- ly completed a course equivalent to MAO92, or higher (specifically excluding MA207), with a grade of C, or higher, will have satisfied the University’s mathematics profi- ciency graduation requirement. The student’s transfer credit evaluation form must indicate that LSSU’s math proficiency requirements have been satisfied. WRITING COM- PETENCY EXAMINATION: All students who enter or re-enter LSSU, beginning with the 1983-84 academic year, must pass a writing competency examination as part of their graduation requirements. FRESHMEN will be administered this examination during the final exam period following completion of Freshman English III, EN103. NEW TRANSFER STU DENTS, returning students who had interrupted their edueation and have re-entered, and current students may take the writing competency examination by appoint- ment at Brown Hall. For examination ap- pointments call Brown Hall, extension 452. 2155 LAKE SUPERIOR SETS UNIVEIBITY 9/90 Quartersystem DegreeRequirements (Refer to Pages 60—61 of 1988-90 and 1990—91 catalog) I. General Education (51; Number of credits required for each category is in parenthesis) II. III. English (9) - ENlOl, EN102 or ENl90, and ENlOB or EN390 Speedh (3) - $0110 Humanities (12) - Any HU course or courses, or any of the courses AT267, 268, 269; FR271, 272; GN281, 282; MU230, 231, 232, 240; PL201, 202, 203, 301; SD361, 362; SP291, 292, 301, 302, 303; any second-year foreign language course; with a maximum of six credits g discipline or totgl in foreign lmages (excluding HU) counting for this requirement. Social Science (12) — Any combination of courses in economics (EC) , geography (GG; except GG106 and GG108), history (HS), political science (PS), psychology (PY) or sociology ($0) for which credit adds to twelve. Natural Science ( 12) — At least one course from each of the following two categories life sciences — BLlOl, 102, 105, 121, 122 or NSlO3 Physical sciences - (It-{112; GE101,102, 110; GG106, 108; NSlOl, 102, 105, 107, 119; PHZOl, 202, 207, 208 Physical Education (3) - Any three different 100 level physical education (PE) activities courses (excluding P3130) . (One credit from each of PE208 and P3209 may be used for this requirement.) BA and as Requirements (12 credits) Bachelor of Arts Degree - one year of a modern foreign language (if taken at ISSU, this would be FRl71—3 or 271-3; GN18l-3 or 281-3; SPl9l-3 or 291-3) Bachelor of Science Degree — at least twelve credits, in addition to courses used for general education requirements (above), from categories of social science, natural science (see above) or mathematics (MA). Specific departmental requiranents of the department offering the desired degree. This includes elective courses chosen so that minimum total credits specified for the degree have been earned. (This latter total may range from 186 to 202 credits.) Carpetency in mathematics and writing. All degrees require that students demonstrate competency in mathematics and writing. See the University Catalog and term scheduling booklets for specific information. Miscellaneous graduation requirements such as residency and minimum grade point averages (in major and overall) are stated on pages 10-12 of the catalogs for 1988-90 and 1990-91. APPENDIX B INTERVIEW GUIDE AND INSTRUCTIONS 216 instructionsmto_Interviewer Telephone contacts with respondents You should cover the following in your telephone contacts with respondents. a. b. C. e . identify yourself; identify your task (research project) and course (marketing research); explain in general terms the research project (study of general education requirements; seeking information from graduating seniors); indicate that their participation is important; the interview will take under one-half hour; the interview will be scheduled at their convenience mention the $50 lottery as an inducement. Smile when you are talking! A sample script follows. You may want to use it initially and then develop your own as you become comfortable. Hello. My name is Jill Jones. Our marketing research class is conducting a study as part of a class project. Your name has been chosen as part of the sample. The research deals with the opinions of graduating seniors about the general education requirements. The results will be used to develop and schedule courses. The interview will take less than half an hour of your time. As an added incentive, your name will be placed in a lottery with names of other partic— ipants. One name will be drawn for a $50 prize. Your participation is important. What time would be convenient for our interview? Then schedule the interview by time and place. 217 Completing the Interview Guide a. attached to each interview guide is a sheet with the scaled responses for questions five through fourteen. Use this sheet to help students choose their responses. This sheet has the name of the student listed. Add the telephone number and return with the completed interview guide. The sheet will be used in the drawing for the $50 prize. Use red ink in coding the interview guides. The interview guides can be picked up and returned to the department office (207 South Hall). The ID number, major and gender will be coded. The guides will be organized by group (A,B,C,D,E) and number. Be careful to match the guide to the respondent. 218 Introductory comments You have been selected as part of a sample of graduating seniors to answer questions regarding general education courses. We are particularly interested in the courses you selected to meet requirements in the social sciences, natural sciences and the humanities. Your answers will help us to improve the general education requirements. We’re going to look at course selection, schedu1ing, advising and instruction. Your privacy will be protected. Your responses will not be connected to your name in any way. The interview will take under 30 minutes to complete. Thank you for your cooperation. 1. ID Number 1 2 3 2 Major 4 S 6 3. Gender (A 9.) 3c:_ 219 Interview Guide In what country did you complete your high school education? 1. U.S. 2. non~U.8. 8 Will you be 25 years or older when you graduate, or under 25? 1. 25 or older 2. 24 or younger 9 Do you have transfer credit from a Michigan Community College? 1. yes (go to question 3a) 2. no (go to question 3b) “I0 Did you meet your general education requirements under the MACRAO Agreement? (You may need to read the explanation of the MACRAO Agreement at this point). 1. yes (go to question 4) 2. no (go to question So) 3. don’t know (go to question So) Did you transfer credit from any other college, university or grade 13? 1. yes (go to question So) 2. no (go to question 4) 12 Did you transfer any credits which were used to meet general education requirements in the humanities? which courses? 1. yes 220 the social sciences? which courses? 1. yes ”w 2. no 14 the natural sciences? which courses? 1. yes 2. no 15 4. What was your class status when you completed your course requirements in the humanities? 1. freshman 2. sophomore 3. junior 16 4. senior The next series of questions will ask you to give a antimerical response on a scale of one to five. You will be asked to respond to the same questions regarding the choices )lCDLl made to meet your general education requirements in the sscaczial sciences, natural sciences and humanities. Please £15563 this chart (hand respondent chart now) to give me your nu merical reponse. (AS YOU ASK EACH QUESTION, POINT TO THE APPROPRIATE SCALE AND STATE THE QUESTION NUMBER.) 221 The following questions are about the courses you took to meet your humanities requirement. 5. How much did you rely on the advice of your faculty advisor, or other faculty or staff member, when you selected courses to meet the general education requirements in the humanities? ”~— 17 For question 5, a response of five represents great reliance was placed on such advice and a response of one means no reliance was placed on such advice. How much did you rely on the advice or recommendations of students or former students when you selected courses to meet the general education requirements in the humanities? 18 For question 6, a response of five represents great reliance was placed on such advice and a response of one means no reliance was placed on such advice. How much did you rely on printed information, such as the catalog, admissions brochures, departmental curriculum guides or course outlines, when you selected courses to meet the humanities requirement? (,1 is (N N l—d w 19 For question 7, a response of five represents great reliance was placed on published information and a response of one means no reliance was placed on published information. How much did you rely on the reputation of the classroom instructors when you selected courses to meet the humanities requirements? 5 4 3 2 1 - . 5.1.1.1.!!! “All .1. . .l(D 222 For question 8, a response of five represents great reliance was placed on the reputation of the classroom instructor and a response of one means no reliance was placed on the reputation or the reputation was unknown. (If the response is 3 or greater, seek elaboration: In what way did the reputation of the instructor affect your choices?) e.g. good/bad instruction; easy/fair tests; To what extent was the content or subject matter of the course important in selecting courses to meet the humanities requirement? “a.” 21 For question 9, five represents that the subject matter was of great importance in making your selection and one represents that this was of no importance or the subject matter was not known. (If the response is 3 or greater, seek elaboration: In what way did the knowledge of course content affect your choices? How did you gain this knowledge of course content?) e.g. wanted to know more; required by major/minor Students might avoid taking classes on certain days or at certain times because of personal preferences or commitments. To what extent were the days of the week, or the time of the day, important in making your selection of courses to meet the humanities requirement? IN) r0 1.1.. 223 For question 10, five represents that great importance was placed on the time of day or day of week in making selections and one represents that this factor was of no importance in making selections. (If the response is 3 or greater, seek elaboration: In what way did the scheduling of courses affect your choices? e.g. avoided 8 o’clocks; had to work afternoons Students might select a particular course because of scheduling problems with other courses. Other courses may not have been offered that term or sections may have been full. Other courses might have been in conflict with required courses. To what extent were scheduling problems a factor in your selection of courses to meet the humanities requirement? 5 4 3 2 l u...- 23 For question 11, five represents that scheduling problems were substantial factors in making selections and one represents that this factor was of no importance in making selections. (If the response is 3 or greater. seek elaboration: Explain what courses you were unable to take, or what courses you were forced to take, because of the lack of course availability or scheduling conflict.) e.g. desired course not offered or section full; conflict How beneficial to your general development were the contributions of courses in the humanities? 24 For question 12, five represents that humanities courses were very beneficial to your general development. One represents that humanities were not beneficial at all to your general development. I4. 224 How beneficial in understanding your major were the contributions of courses in the humanities? 2'3" For question 13, five represents that humanities courses made very valuable contributions to your understanding of your major. One represents that humanities were not beneficial at all in your major. The university is considering changes in the general education requirements. Do you think the number of credits required in humanities should be increased or decreased? 5 4 3 2 l 26 For question 14, a response of five represents a substantial increase in credits should be required; a response of three means the number of credits required should remain unchanged; a one means the number of credits required should be substantially reduced. 225 This series of questions concerns the social science equirement in general education. 4a. 6a. 7a. What was your class status when you completed your course requirements in the social sciences? 1. freshman 2. sophomore 3. junior 27 4. senior How much did you rely on the advice of your faculty advisor, or other faculty or staff member, when you selected courses to meet the general education requirements in the social sciences? 28 For question 5, a response of five represents great reliance was placed on such advice and a response of one means no re1iance was placed on such advice How much did you rely on the advice or recommendations of students or former students when you selected courses to meet the general education requirements in the social sciences? 5 4 3 2 l .m 29 For question 5, a response of five represents great reliance was placed on such advice and a response of one means no reliance was placed on such advice. How much did you rely on printed information, such as the catalog, admissions brochures, departmental curriculum guides or course outlines, when you selected courses to meet the social science requirement? 8a. 226 For question 7, a response of five represents great re1iance was placed on published information and a response of one means no reliance was placed on published information. . How much did you rely on the reputation of the classroom instructors when you selected courses to meet the social science requirement? 5 4 3 2 l 31 For question 8, a response of five represents great reliance was placed on the reputation of the classroom instructor and a response of one means no reliance was placed on the reputation or the reputation was unknown. (If the response is 3 or greater, seek elaboration: In what way did the reputation of the instructor affect your choices?) e.g. good or bad instruction; easy/fair tests To what extent was the content or subject matter of the course important in selecting courses to meet the social science requirement? 3'2“ For question 9, five represents that the subject matter was of great importance in making your selection and one represents that this was of no importance or the subject matter was not known. (If the response is 3 or greater, seek elaboration: In what way did the knowledge of course content affect your choices? How did you gain this knowledge of course content?) e.g. wanted to know more: required by major or minor 10a. ;Lla. 227 Students might avoid taking classes on certain days or at certain times because of personal- preferences or commitments. To what extent were the days of the week, or the time of the day, important in making your selection of courses to meet the social science requirement? 5 4 3 2 l ‘m_ 53 For question 10, five represents that great importance was placed on the time of day or day of week in making selections and one represents that this factor was of no importance in making selections. (If the response is 3 or greater, seek elaboration: In what way did the scheduling of courses affect your choices?) e.g. avoided 8 o’clocks; had to work afternoons Students might select a particular course because of scheduling problems with other courses. Other courses may not have been offered that term or sections may have been full. Other courses might have been in conflict with required courses. To what extent were scheduling problems a factor in your selection of courses to meet the social science requirement? 5 4 3 2 l .m- 34 For question 11, five represents that scheduling problems were substantial factors in making selections and one represents that this factor was of no importance in making selections. (If the response is 3 or greater, seek elaboration: Explain what courses you were unable to take, or what courses you were forced to take, because of the lack of course availability or scheduling conflict.) e.g. desired course not offered or section full; conflict ‘ 1233. .1451 228 How beneficial to your general development were the contributions of courses in the social sciences? 5 4 3 2 l m 35 For question 12, five represents that social science courses were very beneficial to your general development. One represents that social sciences were not beneficial at all to your general development. How beneficial in understanding your major were the contributions of courses in the social sciences? 36 For question 13, five represents that social science courses made very valuable contributions to your understanding of your major. One represents that social sciences were not beneficial at all in your major. The university is considering changes in the general education requirements. Do you think the number of credits required in the social sciences should be increased or decreased? 5 4 3 2 l 37 For question 14, a response of five represents a substantial increase in credits should be required; a response of three means the number of (credits required should remain unchanged; a one Ineans the number of credits required should be =substantially reduced 229 These questions are about the requirements in the rwaatural sciences. 4b. (:1 0‘ 6b. 7b. What was your class status when you completed your course requirements in the natural sciences? 1. freshman 2. sophomore 3. junior 4. senior How much did you rely on the advice of your faculty advisor, or other faculty or staff member, when you selected courses to meet the general education requirements in the natural sciences? 5 4 3 2 l g 39 For question 5, a response of five represents great reliance was placed on such advice and a response of one means no reliance was placed on such advice. How much did you rely on the advice or recommendations of students or former students when you selected courses to meet the general education requirements in the natural sciences? 5 4 3 2 1 W 40 For question 5, a response of five represents great reliance was placed on such advice and a response of one means no reliance was placed on such advice. How much did you rely on printed information, such as the catalog, admissions brochures, departmental curriculum guides or course outlines, when you selected courses to meet the natural science requirement? 5 4 3 2 l m 41 For question 7, a response of five represents great reliance was placed on published information and a response of one means no reliance was placed on published information. 8b— 9b). 230 How much did you rely on the reputation of the classroom instructors when you selected courses to meet the natural science requirement? 5 4 3 2 l ‘ 42 For question 8, a response of five represents great reliance was placed on the reputation of the classroom instructor and a response of one means no reliance was placed on the reputation or the reputation was unknown. (If the response is 3 or greater, seek elaboration: In what way did the reputation of the instructor affect your choices?) e.g. good or bad instruction; fair or easy tests To what extent was the content or subject matter of the course important in selecting courses to meet the natural science requirement? 5 4 3 2 1 ~__ 43 For question 9, five represents that the subject matter was of great importance in making your selection and one represents that this was of no importance or the subject matter was not known. (If the response is 3 or greater, seek elaboration: In what way did the knowledge of course content affect your choices? How did you sgain this knowledge of course content?) ee.g. wanted to know more; required by major or rninor lob- .11k)- 231 Students might avoid taking classes on certain days or at certain times because of personal preferences or commitments. To what extent were the days of the week, or the time of the day, important in making your selection of courses to meet the natural science requirement? 5 4 3 2 l M 44 For question 10, five represents that great importance was placed on the time of day or day of week in making selections and one represents that this factor was of no importance in making selections. (If the response is 3 or greater, seek elaboration: In what way did the scheduling of courses affect your choices?) e.g. avoided 8 o’clocks; had to work afternoons Students might select a particular course because of scheduling problems with other courses. Other courses may not have been offered that term or sections may have been full. Other courses might have been in conflict with required courses. To what extent were scheduling problems a factor in your selection of courses to meet the natural science requirement? .5 4 3 2 1 Fror question 11, five represents that scheduling Kbroblems were substantial factors in making sselections and one represents that this factor was (of no importance in making selections. (If the response is 3 or greater, seek eelaboration: Explain what courses you were unable 'to take, or what courses you were forced to take, kaecause of the lack of course availability or 'scheduling conflict.) 63.9. desired course not offered or section full; conflict 12b. I£3t>_ 14k) 232 How beneficial to your general development were the contributions of courses in the natural sciences? 5 4 3 2 1 —-———- 4a For question 12, five represents that natural science courses were very beneficial to your general development. One represents that natural sciences were not beneficial at all to your general development. How beneficial in understanding your major were the contributions of courses in the natural sciences? 4 3 2 1 m ~w.—— 47 For question 13, five represents that natural science courses made very valuable contributions to your understanding of your major. One represents that natural sciences were not beneficial at all in your major. The university is considering changes in the general education requirements. Do you think the number of credits required in the natural sciences should be increased or decreased? 5 4 3 2 1 For question 14, a response of five represents a substantial increase in credits should be required; a response of three means the number of credits required should remain unchanged; a one means the number of credits required should be substantially reduced 233 LL53— Do you wish to make any additional comments regarding the general education requirements? ‘Thank you for your participation in this survey 234 MACRAO EXPLANATION The MACRAO Agreement is between Michigan Community colleges and four~year universities. The universities accept all the general education requirements as completed if a student has a MACRAO certified Associate of Arts or Associate of Science from a community college. It does’t matter if the specific courses aren’t the same at the two places. [Other degrees like associate of applied science don’t count.) 5 ....~a.. ‘- .- ‘0..— great reliance on advice from faculty 5 235 so.» om— .. great reliance on advice from students -l_§ great reliance on published information ~_“5 great reliance on reputation of instructor 5 subject matter of great importance ()1 ll-uxiwl.rll No reliance on advice from faculty 1 .ml no reliance on advice from students _“1 no reliance on published information 1 no reliance or instructors reputation not known 1 no importance or subject matter not known 1<> - 123- 13- 14. 5 _-l-- --.. 4 --.l.-- great importance placed on time of day or days of week 5 4 lack of availability or scheduling conflicts were substantial factors in selection 5_W,MWWWWWMWW very beneficial in general development MWW§WMWMW Very beneficial in understanding major -llll5_ilim_llllmlw-- i.ncreased tsubstantially 5'45 236 3 credits shauidmwmwm remain about the same 10 -MZWW_ 1 time of day or days of week of no importance in making selection 1 ““”hot“a“%3655; at all 1 mMfiot agaériaigl at all 1 T“aa£”5aagrEEEai‘ at all m .- 1 reduced substantially APPENDIX C AUDIT OF STUDENT RECORDS 237 Document Audit Crwecflits taken to meet the humanities requirement: 1. HU295-6-7 or other sequence 49 2. philosophy l__ 50 3. music appreciation 51 4. art appreciation 52 5. second year foreign language 53 6. literature 54 7. western civilization _~ 55 8. film, drama, theater 56 9. other . 57 Cr‘Eedits taken to meet the social science requirement: 1. economics 2. history (N 238 3. psychology 4. sociology 5. geography 6. political science 7. antropology 8. social science sequence 9. other C3P€300 Ufim no. va. mo. oo.a NM. vh.N oo.n QN.a mo.N and 0: Mflm80.mm Omm.mm “m82¢.mm mm.mm UOfl0.mm Om.mm um.mm BmHm.mm 200N.mm assuage» u Romasumagv mnoaud>uomno oaanb uo Honadz .m a mOHBmHB¢Hm\ Mmfl&0.mm amm.mm MHBZd.mm mm.mm UOHU.mm Om.mm Hm.mm BmHfl.mm 200N.mm mflfldeM4>\ mHPHBmHmOme 242 SS.ECON Socia1 Sciences—Economics Valid C m Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent .00 100 68.5 68.5 68.5 2.00 1 .7 .7 69.2 3.00 3 2.1 2.1 71.2 3.50 1 .7 7 71.9 4.00 3 2.1 2.1 74.0 4.50 1 .7 .7 74.7 6.00 4 2.7 2.7 77.4 8.00 5 3.4 3.4 80.8 8.50 1 .7 .7 81.5 9.00 1 .7 .7 82.2 10.00 3 2.1 2.1 84.2 11.00 2 1.4 1.4 85.6 12.00 21 14.4 14.4 100.0 TOTAL 146 100.0 100.0 .00 2.00 _ 1 3.00 _ 3 3.50 _ 1 4.00 _ 3 4.50 _ 1 6.00 _ 4 8.00 — 5 8.50 _ 1 9.00 _ 1 10.00 _ 3 11.00 _ 2 12-00 _ 21 I I ......... I.........I.........I.. ....... I.. ....... I 0 20 40 60 80 100 Mean 2.853 Median .000 Mode .000 Std Dev 4.629 Minimum .000 Maximum 12.000 Valid Cases 146 Missing Cases 0 243 SS.HIST Social Sciences-History Value Label SS.HIST Social Sciences—History ea std Dev Valid Cases .00 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 6.00 7.50 8.00 9.00 12.00 1.277 2.670 146 Cum 76.0 76.7 78.1 81.5 82.2 89.0 89.7 91.8 0 12.000 Valid Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent .00 111 76.0 76.0 1.00 1 .7 .7 2.00 2 1.4 1.4 3.00 5 3.4 3.4 3.50 1 .7 .7 4.00 10 6.8 6.8 4.50 1 .7 .7 5.00 3 2.1 2.1 6.00 3 2.1 2.1 7.50 l .7 .7 8.00 3 2.1 2.1 9.00 2 1.4 1.4 12.00 3 2.1 2.1 TOTAL 146 100.0 100.0 111 1 -2 -5 1 I... 10 1 _3 -3 1 -3 -2 -3 I I.........I.........I.........I ......... I. 0 120 160 Median .000 Mode Minimum .000 Maximum Missing Cases 244 SS.PY Socia1 Sciences-Psychology Valid um Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent .00 70 47.9 47.9 47.9 1.50 1 .7 .7 48.6 3.00 24 16.4 16.4 65.1 4.50 3 2.1 2.1 67.1 5.00 4 2.7 2.7 69.9 6.00 23 15.8 15.8 85.6 7.00 l .7 .7 86.3 7.50 3 2.1 2.1 88.4 8.00 1 .7 .7 89.0 9.00 11 7.5 7.5 96.6 10.00 1 .7 .7 97.3 11.00 1 .7 .7 97.9 12.00 3 2.1 2.1 100.0 TOTAL 146 100.0 100.0 SS.PY Social Sciences-Psychology .00 70 1.50 - 1 3-00 lI-I-I-I-I-I-II- 24 4.50 _ 3 5.00 — 4 5-00 IllllI-IIII-II-II 23 7.00 _ 1 7.50 _ 3 8.00 _ 1 9.00 III-III. 11 10.00 _ 1 11.00 _ 1 12.00 _ 3 I I.... ..... I.. ....... I.........I ......... I.........I 0 15 3O 45 60 75 Mean 3.003 Median 3.000 Mode .000 Std Dev 3.440 Minimum .000 Maximum 12.000 Valid Cases 146 Missing Cases 0 245 ss.so Social Sciences—Sociology Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent .00 65 44.5 44.5 44.5 1.00 8 5.5 5.5 50.0 2.00 5 3.4 3.4 53.4 3.00 27 18.5 18.5 71.9 4.00 l .7 .7 72.6 4.50 2 1.4 1.4 74.0 5.00 3 2.1 2.1 76.0 6.00 17 11.6 11.6 87.7 8.00 9 6.2 6.2 93.8 9.00 3 2.1 2.1 95.9 12.00 6 4.1 4.1 100.0 TOTAL 146 100.0 100.0 53.50 Socia1 Sciences-Sociology .00 65 1.00 — a 2.00 — 5 3-00 III-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 27 4.00 _ 1 4.50 _ 2 5.00 _ 3 6-00 III-Illllll- 17 8-00 III-Ill 9 9.00 — 3 12.00 _ 6 I I.........I.........I... ...... I ......... I.........I 0 15 30 45 60 75 Mean 2.740 Median 1.500 Mode .000 Std Dev 3.323 Minimum .000 Maximum 12.000 Valid Cases 146 Missing Cases 0 lb. 246 SS.GEOG Socia1 Sciences—Geography Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent .00 136 93.2 93.2 93.2 4.00 8 5.5 5 5 98.6 6.00 1 .7 .7 99.3 8.00 1 .7 .7 100.0 TOTAL 146 100.0 100.0 .00 136 4.00 _ 8 6.00 1 8.00 1 I I.........I....... .I.........I.........I ...... ...I 0 4O 80 120 160 200 SS.GEOG Socia1 Sciences—Geography Mean .315 Median .000 Mode .000 Std Dev 1.213 Minimum .000 Maximum 8.000 Valid Cases 146 Missing Cases 0 247 SS.PS Socia1 Sciences—Political Science Valid C m Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent .00 98 67.1 67.1 67.1 1.00 2 1.4 1.4 68.5 2.00 1 .7 .7 69.2 3.00 1 .7 .7 69.9 4.00 18 12.3 12.3 82.2 4.50 11 7.5 7.5 89.7 5.00 1 .7 .7 90.4 6.00 6 4.1 4.1 94.5 8.00 8 5.5 5.5 100.0 ‘ TOTAL 146 100.0 100.0 SS.PS Social Sciences-Political Science .00 98 1.00 - 2 2.00 - 1 3.00 _ 1 4-00 III-lll-l-|18 4.50 _ 11 5.00 _ 1 6.00 _ 6 8.00 — 8 I I ......... I.........I.........I ........ .I.........I 0 20 40 60 80 100 Mean 1.599 Median .000 Mode .000 Std Dev 2.499 Minimum .000 Maximum 8.000 Valid Cases 146 Missing Cases 0 248 SS.ANTHR Social Sciences-Anthropology Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent .00 144 98.6 98.6 98.6 3.00 1 .7 .7 99.3 4.50 1 .7 .7 100.0 TOTAL 146 100.0 100.0 .00 144 3.00 1 4.50 1 I I... ..... .I.........I. ...... ..I.........I.........I 0 40 80 120 160 200 Mean .051 Median .000 Mode .000 Std Dev .446 Minimum .000 Maximum 4.500 Valid Cases 146 Missing Cases 0 SS.SEQ Value Label 249 Social Science-Sequence Valid Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent .00 144 98.6 98.6 98.6 8.00 1 .7 .7 99.3 12.00 1 .7 .7 100.0 TOTAL 146 100.0 100.0 .00 144 8.00 1 12.00 1 I I.........I.........I.........I.........I.........I 120 160 200 Mean .137 Median .000 Mode .000 Std Dev 1.190 Minimum .000 Maximum 12.000 Valid Cases 146 Missing Cases 0 SS.OTHER Socia1 Science-other Value Label Valid Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent .00 145 99.3 99.3 99.3 4.50 1 .7 .7 100.0 TOTAL 146 100.0 100.0 .00 145 4.50 1 I.........I.........I.........I. ...... ..I ...... ...I 0 4O 80 120 160 200 Mean .031 Median .000 Mode .000 Std Dev .372 Minimum .000 Maximum 4.500 Valid Cases 146 Missing Cases 0 APPENDIX E CREDIT HOUR DISTRIBUTION IN NATURAL SCIENCE DISCIPLINES 250 DESCRIPTIVES IVARIABLES NS.BIO T0 NS.OTHER ISTATISTICS 1 5. Number of Valid Observations (Listuise) = Variable NS.BIO NS.GEO NS.CHEM NS.PHYS NS.HATH NS.ASTRO NS.PGEOG NS.SEO NS.0THER Mean 4.29 Std Dev 3.18 .94 1.91 2.43 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 Label Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural Natural 146.00 Science-Biology Science-Geology Science-Chemistry Science-Physics Science-Hath Science-Astronomy Science-Physical Geography Science-Sequence Science-Other 251 NS.BIO Natural Science-Biology Value Label NS.BIO Natural Science-Biology .00 2.00 3.00 3.50 4.00 5.00 6.00 8.00 8.50 9.00 10.00 12.00 Mean 4.295 Std Dev 3.176 Valid Cases 146 Valid Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent .00 41 28.1 28.1 28.1 2.00 1 .7 .7 28.8 3.00 4 2.7 2.7 31.5 3.50 1 .7 .7 32.2 4.00 18 12.3 12.3 44.5 5.00 39 26.7 26.7 71.2 6.00 4 2.7 2.7 74.0 8.00 29 19.9 19.9 93.8 8.50 1 .7 .7 94.5 9.00 4 2.7 2.7 97.3 10.00 3 2.1 2.1 99.3 12.00 1 .7 .7 100.0 TOTAL 146 100.0 100.0 41 -1 III-- 4 -1 III-IIIII-IIIIIIIII 18 39 III-II 4 29 -1 III-- 4 III. 3 II 1 I I ........ .I. ........ I.........I.........I.........I O 10 20 30 4O 50 Median 5.000 Mode .000 Minimum .000 Maximum 12.000 Missing Cases 0 252 NS.GEO Natural Science-Geology Value Label Mean Std Dev Valid Cases .00 4.50 5.00 6.00 7.00 .154 .935 146 Valid Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent .00 142 97.3 97.3 97.3 4.50 1 .7 .7 97.9 5.00 1 .7 .7 98.6 6.00 1 .7 .7 99.3 7.00 1 .7 .7 100.0 TOTAL 146 100.0 100.0 142 1 1 1 1 I I.........I.........I.........I. ........ I... ..... .I 0 4O 80 120 160 200 Median .000 Mode .000 Minimum .000 Maximum 7.000 Missing Cases 0 IL 253 NS.CHEM Natural Science-Chemistry Value Label Value Frequency Valid um Percent Percent Percent .00 106 72.6 72.6 72.6 1.00 1 .7 .7 73.3 2.00 1 .7 .7 74.0 3.00 3 2.1 2.1 76.0 4.00 31 21.2 21.2 97.3 5.00 1 .7 .7 97.9 6.00 2 1.4 1.4 99.3 9.00 1 .7 .7 100.0 TOTAL 146 100.0 100.0 NS.CHEM Natural Science-Chemistry .00 106 1.00 1 2.00 1 3.00 _ 3 4-00 III-I-II- 31 5.00 1 6.00 _ 2 9.00 1 I I.........I ....... ..I ..... ....I.... ..... I.........I 0 40 80 120 160 200 Mean 1.110 Median .000 Mode .000 Std Dev 1.905 Minimum .000 Maximum 9.000 Valid Cases 146 Missing Cases 0 254 NS.PHYS Natural Science-Physics V Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent .00 122 83.6 83.6 83.6 2.00 1 .7 .7 84.2 4.00 7 4.8 4.8 89.0 4.50 1 .7 .7 89.7 5.00 l .7 .7 90.4 6.00 2 1.4 1.4 91.8 7.00 2 1.4 1.4 93.2 8.00 9 6.2 6.2 99.3 10.00 1 .7 .7 100.0 TOTAL 146 100.0 100.0 NS.PHYS Natural Science-Physics .00 122 2.00 1 4.00 _ 7 4.50 1 5.00 1 6.00 _ 2 7.00 _ 2 8.00 _ 9 10.00 1 I I.........I ..... ....I.........I ......... I.........I 0 40 80 120 160 200 Mean 1.010 Median .000 Mode .000 Std Dev 2.433 Minimum .000 Maximum 10.000 Valid Cases 146 Missing Cases 0 255 NS.MATH Natural Science-Math Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent .00 143 97.9 97.9 97.9 6.00 3 2.1 2.1 100.0 TOTAL 146 100.0 100.0 .00 143 6.00 _ 3 I... ...... I... ..... .I.........I.........I.........I 0 40 80 120 160 200 Mean .123 Median .000 Mode .000 Std Dev .854 Minimum .000 Maximum 6.000 Valid Cases 146 Missing Cases 0 NS.ASTRO Natural Science-Astronomy Valid C m Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent .00 146 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL 146 100.0 100.0 .00 146 I I ......... I.........I... ...... I.........I.........I 0 40 80 120 160 200 Mean .000 Median .000 Mode .000 Std Dev .000 Minimum .000 Maximum .000 Valid Cases 146 Missing Cases 0 256 NS.PGEOG Natural Science-Physical Geography Valid Cum Frequency Percent Percent Percent Value Label Value .00 137 93.8 93.8 93.8 2.00 1 .7 .7 94.5 3.00 1 .7 .7 95.2 4.00 7 4.8 4.8 100.0 TOTAL 146 100.0 100.0 .00 137 2.00 l 3.00 l 4.00 — 7 I I.........I.........I.........I.........I.........I 120 160 200 NS.PGEOG Natural Science—Physical Geography Mean .226 Median .000 Mode .000 Std Dev .900 Minimum .000 Maximum 4.000 Valid Cases 146 Missing Cases 0 NS.0THER Natural Science—other Value Label .00 8.00 Mean .055 Std Dev .662 Valid Cases 146 Valid Cum Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent .00 145 99.3 99.3 99.3 8.00 1 .7 .7 100.0 TOTAL 146 100.0 100.0 145 1 I I ..... ....I.. ....... I.........I... ...... I.........I 0 40 80 120 160 200 Median .000 Mode .000 Minimum .000 Maximum 8.000 Missing Cases 0 N8.BBQ Value Label NS.SEQ Mean std Dev Valid Cases .00 2.00 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 12.00 4.959 4.065 146 Natural Science-Sequence Value .00 2.00 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 12.00 TOTAL Natural Science-Sequence 257 Frequency Percent Valid Cum Percent Percent 29.5 31.5 34.2 34.9 51.4 52.1 52.7 54.8 74.7 86.3 100.0 MORE 1.........IOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOO.I....OOOOOIOOOOOOOOOI I 0 10 Median Minimum Missing Cases 20 4.000 .000 30 Made Maximum 40 50 .000 12.000 APPENDIX F ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TEST DATA 2. What was science, 258 the mean number of credits earned in humanities, social and natural sc1ence by degree area of students, and were differences significant? HANOVA TOTEU TOTSS TOTNS BY MAJAREA (1,5) /WSFACTORS Content (3). NOTE 12167 The last subcommand is not a design specification--A full factorial model is generated for this problem. 146 O 0 5 cases accepted. cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values. cases rejected because of missing data. non-empty cells. 1 design will be processed. MORE * * ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 * * Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP M8 F Sig of F WITHIN CELLS 33408.45 141 236.94 CONSTANT 301193.17 1 301193.17 1271.18 .000 MAJAREA 25653.85 4 6413.46 27.07 .000 * * ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 * * Tests involving 'CONTENT' Within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP M8 P Big of F WITHIN CELLS 99127.78 282 351.52 - CONTENT 56689.00 2 28344.50 80.63 .000 MAJAREA BY CONTENT 84554.36 8 10569.29 30.07 .000 Variable By Variable Source Between Groups Within Groups Total Variable By Variable Source Between Groups within Groups Total (i) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the Mean 15.1923 30.3654 31.9744 46.4375 81.2742 259 TOTEU Total Humanities credits MAJAREA Major Area (5) Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean r F D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob. 4 36.6407 9.1602 2.2154 .0703 141 582.9980 4.1347 145 619.6387 MORE ---. ------- ONEIAY ---------- TOTSS Total Social Sciences credits MAJAREA Major Area (5) Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean D.F. Squares Squares 4 74383.0933 18595.7733 141 51598.8673 365.9494 145 125981.9606 4 ’Itl‘ 1 3 5 2 P P Ratio Prob. 50.8151 .0000 .050 level 260 Variable TOTNS Total Natural Science credits By Variable MAJAREA Major Area (5) Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean P F Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between Groups 4 35788.4746 8947.1186 15.6998 .0000 Within Groups , 141 80354.3679 569.8891 Total 145 116142.8425. (i) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level Mean Group 2 3 5 4 1 15.7097 Grp 2 15.9359 Grp 3 17.2093 Grp 5 23.3259 Grp 4 58.0385 Grp 1 * t * * 261 Variable TOTTOT By Variable MAJAREA Major Area (5) Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean F F Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between Groups 4 76961.5558 19240.3890 27.0679 .0000 Within Groups _ 141 100225.3620 710.8182 Total 145 177186.9178 (*) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level Mean Group 4 3 5 1 2 50.9423 Grp 4 50.9103 Grp 3 75.9375 Grp s * 100.9033 Grp 1 . t 9 110.5452 Grp 2 . t . 262 3. What was the mean number of credits earned in humanities, social science, and natural science by gender of students, and were differences significant? MANOVA TOTHU TOTSS TOTNS BY GENDER (1,2) /WSFACTORS Content (3). NOTE 12167 The last subcommand is not a design specification--A full factorial model is generated for this problem. 146 cases accepted. 0 cases rejected because of out—of—range factor values. 0 cases rejected because of missing data. 2 non-empty cells. 1 design will be processed. MORE 9 * ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 * * Tests of Between—Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation SS DP Ms F Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 58266.70 144 404.63 CONSTANT 304452.63 l 304452.63 752.42 .000 GENDER 795.61 1 795.61 1.97 .163 * 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 i i Tests involving 'CONTENT' within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS. 1 using UNIQUE sums of squares 88 DF MS F Source of Variation Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 181714.74 288 630.95 CONTENT 62273.44 2 31136.72 49.35 .000 GENDER BY CONTENT 1967.40 2 983.70 1.56 .212 263 4. What was the mean number of credits earned in humanities, social science, and natural science by transfer/nontransfer status of students, and were differences significant? MANOVA TOTEU TOTSS TOTNS BY TRANTRAN (1,3) /WSYACTORB CONTENT (3). NOTE 12167 The last subcommand is not a design specification—-A full factorial model is generated for this problem. 146 cases accepted. 0 cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values. 0 cases rejected because of missing data. 3 non—empty cells. 1 design will be processed. MORE * 8 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 i 8 Tests of Between—Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation P MS F Sig of F WITHIN CELLS 58372.36 143 408.20 CONSTANT 109581.10 1 109581.10 268.45 .000 TRANTRAN 689.94 2 344.97 .85 .432 i 8 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 8 * Tests involving 'CONTENT' within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEA8.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP MS F Sig of F WITHIN CELLS 181397.80 286 634.26 CONTENT 28972.35 2 14486.17 22.84 .000 TRANTRAN BY CONTENT 2284.34 4 571.08 .90 .464 264 5. What was the mean number of credits earned in humanities, social science, and natural science by traditional/nontraditiona1 age status of students, and were differences significant? MANOVA TOTHU TOTSS TOTNS BY age (1,2) /WSFACTORS Content (3). NOTE 12167 The last subcommand is not a design specification-—A full factorial model is generated for this problem. 146 cases accepted. 0 cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values. 0 cases rejected because of missing data. .2 non-empty cells. 1 design will be processed. MORE * * ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 * * Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP MS F Sig of F WITHIN CELLS 58861.83 144 408.76 CONSTANT 280277.69 1 280277.69 685.67 .000 AGE . 200.48 1 200.48 .49 .485 * * ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 * * Tests involving 'CONTENT' Within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP MS F Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 183629.45 288 637.60 CONTENT 55366.08 2 27683.04 43.42 .000 AGE BY CONTENT 52.69 2 26.34 .04 .960 265 6. What was the mean number of credits earned in humanities, social science, and natural science by students based on the country in which secondary education was received, and were differences sig— nificant? Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares 88 MB Source of Variation F Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 59061.63 144 410.15 CONSTANT 253932.75 1 253932.75 619.12 .000 HSEDUCAT .68 1 .68 .00 .968 8 * ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 8 t Tests involving 'CONTENT' within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation SS DF MS P Sig of F WITHIN CELLS 183642.07 288 637.65 CONTENT 50907.54 2 25453.77 39.92 .000 HSEDUCAT BY CONTENT 40.07 2 20.03 .03 .969 266 7. What was the mean number of credits earned by degree area of students when the humanities, social science, and natural soi- ence requirements were met, and were differences Significant? 146 cases accepted. 0 cases rejected because of out-of—range factor values. 0 cases rejected because of missing data. 5 non-empty cells. 1 design will be processed. Cell Means and Standard Deviations Variable .. CRHUMET Credit hours earned when BU requirement FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N MAJAREA Life Sci 137.923 51.010 26 MAJAREA Social 8 139.210 52.215 31 MAJAREA Business 148.667 52.639 39 MAJAREA Math./Te 173.308 35.833 26 MAJAREA Criminal 141.938 41.717 24 For entire sample 148.027 48.909 146 Variable .. CRSSMET Credit Hours earned when 88 requirement FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N MAJAREA Life Sci 153.192 53.240 26 MAJAREA Social 8 69.274 39.093 31 MAJAREA Business 162.662 49.792 39 MAJAREA Math./Te 132.231 60.024 26 MAJAREA Criminal 72.125 39.649 24 For entire sample 120.845 62.991 146 Variable .. CRNSMET Credit hours earned when NS requirement FACTOR cons Mean std. Dev. s MAJAREA Life Sci 91.346 58.900 26 MAJAREA Social 8 151.597 44.791 31 HAJAREA Bus1ness 161.649 54.437 39 MAJAREA Math./Te 156.846 47.090 26 MAJAREA . Criminal 138.292 46.003 24 For ent1re sample 142.300 55.975 146 * * ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 * * Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP MS P Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 558649.99 141 3962.06 CONSTANT 7785095.15 1 7785095.2 1964.91 .000 MAJAREA 134181.90 4 33545.47 8.47 .000 267 * * ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 * * Tests involving 'CONTENT' within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP _MS P Sig of r WITHIN CELLS 466405.28 282 1653.92 CONTENT 69563.84 2 34781.92 21.03 .000 HAJAREA BY CONTENT 217261.07 8 27157.63 16.42 .000 268 What was the mean number of credits earned by transfer/nontrans- fer status of students when the humanities, social science, and natural sc1ence requ1rements were met, and were differences sig- nificant? cases accepted. 0 cases rejected because of 0 cases rejected because of 2 non-empty cells. 1 design will be processed. Cell Means and Standard Deviations Variable .. CRMUMET Credit FACTOR CODE TRTR 1 TRTR 2 For entire sample * * ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN Cell Means and Standard Deviations Variable .. CRSSMET Credit FACTOR CODE TRTR 1 TRTR 2 For entire sample Variable .. CRNSMET Credit FACTOR CODE TRTR 1 TRTR 2 For entire sample * 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. out-of-range factor values. missing data. hours earned when BU requirement Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares 'Source of Variation SS WITHIN CELLS 565399.69 CONSTANT 7544316.15 TRTR 127432.20 Mean Std. Dev. N 124.441 37.394 59 164.023 49.493 87 148.027 48.909 146 MORE 1 4 . (CONT.) Hours earned when 88 requirement Mean Std. Dev. N 103.000 53.692 59 132.946 66.175 87 120.845 62.991 146 hours earned when NS requirement Mean Std. Dev. N 121.593 49.851 59 156.343 55.794 87 142.300 55.975 146 1 e-e or as r Sig of r 144 3926.39 . 1 7544316.1 1921.44 .000 1 127432.20 32.46 .000 269 i * ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests involving 'CONTENT' within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEA8.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DF MS F Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 682034.00 288 2368.17 CONTENT 54284.24 2 27142.12 11.46 .000 TRTR BY CONTENT 1632.35 2 816.18 .34 .709 6424 BYTES OF WORRSPACE NEEDED FOR MANOVA EXECUTION. 270 9. What was the mean number of credits earned by students based on the countrinn which the secondary education was received when the humanities, social science, and natural science requirements were met, and were differences significant? 146 cases accepted. 0 cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values. 0 cases rejected because of missing data. 2 non-empty cells. 1 design will be processed. Cell Means and Standard Deviations Variable .. CRHUMET Credit hours earned when BU requirement FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N HSEDUCAT U.S. 142.228 47.160 103 HSEDUCAT Non-U.S. 161.919 50.764 43 For entire sample 148.027 48.909 146 Cell Means and Standard Deviations (CONT.) Variable .. CRSSMET Credit Hours earned when 88 requirement FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N HSEDUCAT U.S. 113.985 58.298 103 HSEDUCAT Non-U.S. 137.274 71.084 43 For entire sample 120.845 62.991 146 Variable .. CRNSMET Credit hours earned when NS requirement FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N HSEDUCAT U.S. 139.335 50.633 103 HSEDUCAT Non-U.S. ' 149.402 67.212 43 For entire sample 142.300 55.975 146 * * ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 * * Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP MS F Sig of F WITHIN CELLS 664377.45 144 4613.73 CONSTANT 7205506.84 1 7205506.8 1561.75 .000 HSEDUCAT 28454.44 1 28454.44 6.17 .014 271 0 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 . Tests involving 'CONTENT' within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DF MS F Sig of F WITHIN CELLS 680831.35 288 2364.00 CONTENT 44886.94 2 22443.47 9.49 .000 HSEDUCAT BY CONTENT 2835.00 2 1417.50 .60 .550 272 10. What was the mean number of credits earned by gender of students when the humanities, social science, and natural science require- ments were met, and were differences significant? 146 cases accepted. 0 cases rejected because of out-of—range factor values. 0 cases rejected because of missing data. 2 non—empty cells. 1 design will be processed. Cell Means and Standard Deviations Variable .. CRBUMET Credit hours earned when BU requirement FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. GENDER Male 152.217 45.755 83 GENDER Female 142.503 51.454 53 For entire sample 148.027 48.909 146 MORE Cell Means and Standard Deviations (CONT.) Variable .. CRSSMET Credit Hours earned when 88 requirement FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N GENDER Male 121.293 66.123 83 GENDER. Female 120.254 59.130 63 For ent1re sample 120.845 62.991 146 Variable .. CRNSMET Credit hours earned when NS requirement FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N GENDER Male 148.257 54.897 83 GENDER. Female 134.452 56.848 63 For ent1re sample 142.300 55.975 146 * * ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 * * Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DF MS F Sig of F ’WITHIN CELLS 685635.45 144 4761.36 CONSTANT ' 8007403.39 1 8007403.4 1681.75 .000 GENDER 7196.44 1 7196.44 1.51 .221 Tests involving 'CONTENT' within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DF MS F Sig of F WITHIN CELLS 680623.27 288 2363.28 CONTENT 55711.75 2 27855.88 11.79 .000 GENDER BY CONTENT 3043.08 2 1521.54 .64 .526 273 11. What was the mean number of credits earned by age of students when the humanities, social science, and natural science requirements were met, and were differences significant? 146 cases accepted. 0 cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values. 0 cases rejected because of missing data. 2 non-empty cells. 1 design will be processed. Cell Means and Standard Deviations Variable .. CRBUMET ‘ Credit hours earned when EU requirement FACTOR ' CODE Mean Std. Dev. N AGE . . 25+ 161.300 57.806 50 AGE . 25- 141.115 42.267 96 For ent1re sample 148.027 48.909 146 - Cell Means and Standard Deviations (CONT.) Variable .. CRSSMET Credit Hours earned when 88 requirement FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N 72.582 50 AGE 25+ 119.606 AGE 25- 121.490 57.773 96 120.845 62.991 146 For entire sample Variable .. CRNSMET Credit hours earned when NS requirement FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N 65.299 50 GE 25+ 146.146 AGE ' 25- 140.297 50.705 95 142.300 55.975 146 For entire sample 274 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DF MS F Sig of F WITHIN CELLS ‘ 686439.90 144 4766.94 CONSTANT 7548734.80 1 7548734.8 1583.56 .000 AGE . 6391.99 1 6391.99 1.34 .249 MORE 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests involving 'CONTENT' within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DF MS F Sig of F WITHIN CELLS 675421.26 288 2345.21 CONTENT 66536.90 2 33268.45 14.19 .000 AGE BY CONTENT 8245.09 2 4122.55 1.76 .174 12. How important was the advice of LSSU facu1ty advisors or other faculty or staff members to students in selecting courses to meet requirements in the humanities, natural sciences? social sciences, and A MANOVA FACADVHU FACADVSS FACADVNS BY MAJAREA (1,5) /WSFACTORS content (3) mums /DESIGN. 103 cases accepted. 0 cases rejected because of out-of—range factor values. 1 cases rejected because of missing data. 5 non-empty cells. 1 design will be processed. Cell Means and Standard Deviations Variable .. FACADVBU FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N MAJAREA Life sci 2.211 1.132 19 MAJAREA Social 8 2.000 1.243 23 MAJAREA Business 1.759 1.057 29 MAJAREA Math./Te 1.588 1.121 17 MAJAREA Criminal 1.867 1.125 15 For entire sample 1.883 1.140 103 MORE 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Cell Means and Standard Deviations (CONT.) Variable .. FACADVSS FACTOR ' CODE Mean Std. Dev. N MAJAREA Life Sci 2.263 1.195 19 MAJAREA SOCial 8 2.826 1.586 23 MAJAREA Business 2.103 1.205 29 MAJAREA Math./Te 2.412 1.372 17 MAJAREA Criminal 2.467 1.187 15 For entire sample 2.398 1.324 103 Variable .. FACADVNS FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N MAJAREA Life Sci 3.000 1.528 19 MAJAREA Social 8 2.348 1.265 23 MAJAREA Business 2.345 1.261 29 MAJAREA Math./Te 2.588 1.502 17 .MAJAREA Criminal 2.333 1.175 15 For’entire sample 2.505 1.342 103 MORE 276 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Cell Means and Standard Deviations (CONT.) Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 Dr MS 2 Big of F WITHIN CELLS 264.08 98 2.69 CONSTANT 1514.42 1 1514.42 561.99 .000 MAJAREA 7.68 4 1.92 .71 .585 MORE 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests involving 'CONTENT' Within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP MS F Sig of F WITHIN CELLS 212.98 196 1.09 CONTENT ' 22.75 2 11.38 10.47 .000 MAJAREA BY CONTENT 10.28 8 1.28 1.18 .312 277 13. How important was the advice of students or former students to students in selecting courses to meet requirements in the humani- ties, soc1a1 sciences, and natural sciences? MANOVA STUADVHU STUADVSS STUADVNS BY MAJAREA (1,5) /WSFACTORS content (3) /OMEANS /DESIGN. 103 cases accepted. 0 cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values. 1 cases rejected because of missing data. 5 non-empty cells. 1 design will be processed. Cell Means and Standard Deviations Variable .. STUADVBU FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N MAJAREA Life Sci 2.895 1.286 19 MAJAREA Social 8 2.783 1.622 23 MAJAREA Business 3.059 1.412 29 MAJAREA Math./TB 2.324 1.425 17 MAJAREA Criminal 3.333 1.447 15 For entire sample 2°971 1°431 103 MORE Cell Means and Standard Deviations (CONT.) Variable .. STUADVSS FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N MAJAREA Life SCi 3.421 1.071 19 MAJAREA Soc1al 8 3.174 1.337 23 MAJAREA Business 3.207 1.373 29 MAJAREA Math./Te 2.706 1.263 17 MAJAREA Criminal 3.600 1.056 15 For ent1re sample 3.214 1 258 103 Variable .. STUADVNS FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N MAJAREA Life Sci 2.789 1.437 19 MAJAREA Social 8 3.174 1.193 23 MAJAREA Business 3.034 1.401 29 MAJAREA Mathz/Te 2.755 1.522 17 MAJAREA Criminal 3.333 .900 15 For entire sample 3.019 1.313 103 278 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Cell Means and Standard Deviations (CONT.) — Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP M8 F Sig of F WITHIN CELLS 360.36 98 3.68 CONSTANT 2767.13 1 2767.13 752.53 .000 MAJAREA 10.55 4 2.64 .72 .582 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests involving 'CONTENT' Within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DF MS F Sig of F WITHIN CELLS 170.66 196 .87 CONTENT ' 3.27 2 1.63 1.88 .156 MAJAREA BY CONTENT 4.61 8 .58 .66 .724 7672 BYTES OF WORXSPACE NEEDED FOR MANOVA EXECUTION. 279 14. How important were pubiications of the university in assisting students in se1ecting courses to meet requirements in the humanities, socia1 sciences, and natura1 sciences? Hanova PRINTED PRINTSB PRINTNS BY HAJARBA (1,5) /wsracrons Content (3) /OMEANS xnsszcx. 103 cases accepted. 0 cases rejected because of out-of—range factor values. 1 cases rejected because of missing data. 5 non-empty cells. 1 design will be processed. Cell Means and Standard Deviations Variable .. PRINTHU FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N HAJAREA Life SCi 3.000 1.414 19 HAJAREA Social 8 2.913 1.443 23 HAJAREA Business 2.828 1.466 29 HAJAREA Hath./Te 2.412 1.417 17 NAJAREA Criminal 2.467 1.302 15 For entire sample ‘ 2.757 1.411 103 Cell Means and Standard Deviations (CONT.) Variable .. PRINTSS FACTOR CODE Mean Std. DeV. N MAJAREA Life SCi 3.368 1.257 19 MAJAREA Social 8 3.261 1.096 23 HAJAREA Business 3.000 1.282 29 MAJAREA Nath./Te 2.647 1.412 17 NAJAREA . Criminal 3.000 1.363 15 For entire sample 3.068 1.270 103 Variable PRINTNS 'FACTOR CODE Mean Dev. N HAJAREA Life Sci 3.632 1.461 19 MAJAREA Social 8 3.087 .900 23 MAJAREA Business 3.207 1.177 29 NAJAREA Nath./Te 2.176 1.237 17 HAJAREA Criminal 2.733 1.387 15 For entire sample 3.019 1.283 103 280 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Cell Means and Standard Deviations (CONT.) Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 Dr NS F Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 358.95 98 3.66 CONSTANT 2489.26 1 2489.26 679.61 .000 HAJAREA ' 26.89 4 6.72 1.84 .128 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests involving 'CONTENT' Within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP MS I Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 144.01 196 .73 CONTENT 5.75 2 2.88 3.92 .022 MAJAREA BY CONTENT 5.57 8 .70 .95 .479 281 Information Sources Research Questions 12, 13, and 14 a1] deait with information sources that might be used in course se1ection. A summated scale was con- structed, using responses for a11 three questions. Mean responses for the summated scaie were tested for differences based on disci- p]inary major groups. 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares SS MB Source of Variation P Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 1194.32 98 12.19 CONSTANT 19997.21 1 19997.21 1640.88 .000 HAJAREA 66.41 4 16.60 1.36 .253 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests involving 'CONTENT' Within—Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for EELS. 1 using UNIQUE sums of squares DP MB Source of Variation 88 P Sig of r WITHIN CELLS 561.26 196 2.86 CONTENT 68.11 2 34.06 11.89 .000 HAJAREA BY CONTENT 12.46 8 1.56 .54 .822 282 103 cases accepted. 0 cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values. 43 cases rejected because of missing data. 5 non-empty cells. 1 design will be processed. Cell Means and Standard Deviations Variable .. PSPEUSUB Kean Std. Dev. FACTOR CODE NAJAREA Life SCi 8.105 2.401 NAJAREA Social 8 7.696 3.066 NAJAREA Business 7.655 2.511 HAJAREA Math./Te 6.824 2.378 HAJAREA Criminal 7.667 2.469 For entire sample 7.612 2.579 Variable .. rsvsssus FACTOR CODE Nean Std. DeV. NAJAREA Life 861 9.053 1.985 HAJAREA SOCial 8 9.261 2.848 NAJAREA Business 8.310 2.392 MAJAREA Nath./Te 7.765 2.306 NAJAREA Criminal 9.067 1.870 For entire sample ,8.680 2.373 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN e e Cell Means and Standard Deviations (CONT.) Variable .. PSPNSSUB FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. UMAJAREA Life sci , 9.421 . HIJAREA Social 8 8.609 2 3:: ”133331 Business 8.586 2 228 I::1uuur “aiht/T° 7.529 2.267 .MAJAREA Criminal 8 {Q9 2 2‘ For entire sample 535“ 2’38: 19 23 29 17 15 103 19 23 29 17 15 103 19 29 17 15 103 283 15. How important was the reputation of the c1assroom instructor to students in se1ecting courses to meet requirements in the humani- ties, socia] sciences, and natural sciences? Manova REPUTHU nsporass REPUTANS BY MAJAREA (1,5) /wsracrons Content (3) /OMEAN8 /DESIGN. 103 cases accepted. 0 cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values. 1 cases rejected because of missing data. 5 non-empty cells. 1 design will be processed. Cell Means and Standard Deviations Variable .. REPUTEU FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N HAJAREA Life Sci 3.895 1.410 19 MAJAREA Social 8 3.826 .984 23 MAJAREA Business 4.000 1.165 29 HAJAREA Math./Te 3.000 1.541 17 MAJAREA Criminal 4.000 1.134 15 For entire sample 3.777 1.267 103 Variable .. REPUTASS FACTOR CODE Mean Std. DeV. N NAJAREA Life SCi 3.316 1.376 19 MAJAREA Social 8 3.348 1.191 23 HAJAREA Business 3.414 1.402 29 HAJAREA Math./Te 2.647 1.367 17 MAJAREA Criminal 3.933 .799 15 For entire sample 3.330 1.301 103 Variable .. REPUTANS FACTOR CODE Mean Dev. N HAJAREA Life SCi 2.632 1.499 19 MAJAREA Social 8 2.957 1.492 23 MAJAREA Business 2.724 1.601 29 HAJAREA Nath./Te 2.529 1.546 17 MAJAREA Criminal 3.867 1.356 15 For entire sample 2.893 1.546 103 284 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Cell Means and Standard Deviations (CONT.) Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 MS F Sig of r WITHIN CELLS 303.82 98 3.10 CONSTANT 3265.48 1 3265.48 1053.32 .000 MAJAREA 35.52 4 8.88 2.86 .027 Tests involving 'CONTENT' Within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MESS. 1 usingH UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 P Sig of r WITHIN CELLS 231.59 196 1.18 CONTENT . 31.44 2 15.72 13.31 .000 HAJAREA BY CONTENT 9.54 8 1.19 1.01 .430 285 16. How important was the content of the course or subject matter to students in se1ecting courses to meet requirements in the humanities, soc1a1 sciences, and natura1 sciences? rasnzs (Majarea) /DESIGN. 103 cases accepted. 0 cases rejected because of out-of—range factor values. 1 cases rejected because of missing data. 5 non-empty cells. 1 design will be processed. 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 179 9 Combined Observed Means for MAJAREA Variable .. CONTENHU NAJAREA Life Sci WGT. 2.15789 UNWGT. 2.15789 Social 8 WGT. 2.39130 UNWGT. 2.39130 Business WGT. 2.37931 UNWGT. 2.37931 Math./Te WGT. 1.88235 UNWGT. 1.88235 Criminal WGT. 2.46667 UNWGT. 2.46667 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Variable .. CONTENSS HAJAREA Life Sci war. 3.05263 unwcr. 3.05263 Social 8 war. 3.47826 unwcr. 3.47826 Business “WGT. 2.72414 UNWGT. 2.72414 Math./Te WGT. 3.00000 UNWGT. 3.00000 Criminal WGT. 3.26667 UNWGT. 3.26667 286 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Variable .. CONTENNS MAJAREA Life Sci WGT. 3.15789 UNWGT. 3.15789 Social 8 WGT. 2.86957 UNWGT. 2.86957 Business WGT. 2.58621 UNWGT. 2.58621 Math./Te WGT. 2.58824 UNWGT. 2.58824 Criminal WGT. 2.40000 UNWGT. 2.40000 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 P Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 279.01 98 2.8 CONSTANT 2124.64 1 2124. 64 746.26 .000 MAJAREA 7.45 4 1.86 .65 .625 AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS. 1 using UNIQUE sums of squares P MS Source of Variation 88 D P Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 264.62 196 1.35 CONTENT 35.28 2 17.64 13.06 .000 HAJAREA BY CONTENT 11.08 8 1.38 1.03 .418 287 Course-Related Factors The responses to Research Questions 15 and 16, re1ated to reputation * of the instructor and course content, respectively, were combined to obtain a summated scaie, which was then subjected to ANOVA. The sum— mated scaie represents information related to the particular course and section (instructor), which affects se1ection of the course to meet the distributiona1 requirement. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP MS P Sig of r WITHIN CELLS 631.57 98 6.44 CONSTANT 10658.13 1 10658.13 1653.80 .000 NAJAREA 56.22 4 14.05 2.18 .077 Tests involving 'CONTENT' within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 or MS I Sig of r WITHIN CELLS 522.44 196 2.67 CONTENT 29.39 2 14.69 5.51 .005 NAJAREA BY CONTENT 13.64 8 1.70 .64 .744 288 103 cases accepted. 0 cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values. 43 cases rejected because of missing data. 5 non-empty cells. ' 1 design will be processed. Cell Means and Standard Deviations Variable .. RCHUSUB FACTOR CODE Mean Std. DeV. NAJAREA Life SCi 6.053 1.957 HAJAREA SOCial 8 6.217 1.204 MAJAREA Business 6.379 1.879 NAJAREA Math./Te 4.882 1.536 HAJAREA Criminal 6.467 1.995 For entire sample 6.049 1.779 Variable RCSSSUB FACTOR CODE Mean Std. DeV. .NAJAREA Life SCi 6.368 2.033 .HAJAREA Social 8 6.826 1.875 HAJAREA Business 6.138 2.048 HAJAREA Math./Te 5.647 2.234 HAJAREA Criminal 7.200 1.373 For entire sample 6.408 1.982 Variable RCNSSUB FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. HAJAREA Life SCi 5.789 2.371 HAJAREA Social 8 5.826 2.081 MAJAREA Business 5.310 2.222 NAJAREA Natht/Te 5.118 2.522 MAJAREA ‘ Criminal 6.267 1.870 For entire sample 5.621 2.215 19 23 29 15 103 19 23 29 17 15 103 19 29 17 103 17. 289 How important was the day of the week or hour of the day the course was schedu1ed to students in se1ecting courses to meet requirements in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences? Manova PREFERHU PREFERSS PREFERNS BY HAJAREA (1,5) [WSFACTORS Content (3) [OMEANS TABLES (Majarea) /DESIGN. 103 cases accepted. 0 cases rejected because of out-of—range factor values. 1 cases rejected because of missing data. 5 non-empty cells. 1 design will be processed. MORE 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Combined Observed Means for MAJAREA Variable .. PREFERHU MAJAREA Life Sci war. 4.10526 UNWGT. 4.10526 Social 8 WGT. 3.30435 UNWGT. 3.30435 Business war. 3.24138 UNWGT. 3.24138 Math./Te war. 3.17647 UNWGT. 3.17647 Criminal WGT. 3.00000 ’ UNWGT. 3.00000 8 * ANALYSIS or VARIANCE —- DESIGN 6 Variable .. PREPERSS MAJAREA Life Sci war. 3.73684 uswcr. 3.73684 Social 8 war. 3.00000 unwcr. 3.00000 Business NGT. 3.31034 UNWGT. 3.31034 Math./Te war. 2.70588 UNWGT. 2.70588 Criminal WGT. 3.00000 UNWGT. 3.00000 290 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Variable .. PREPERNS - NAJAREA Life Sci WGT. 3.68421 UNWGT. 3.68421 Social 8 WGT. 2.78261 UNWGT. 2.78261 Business WGT. 3.24138 UNWGT. 3.24138 Math./Te wow. 2.52941 UNWGT. 2.52941 Criminal WGT. 3.20000 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP MS I Sig of E WITHIN CELLS 445.95 98 4.55 CONSTANT 3001.30 1 3001.30 659.56 .000 HAJAREA 34.62 4 8.66 1.90 .116 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests involving 'CONTENT' Within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP MS P Sig of r WITHIN CELLS 155.88 196 .80 CONTENT 4.15 2 2.07 2.61 .076 HAJAREA BY CONTENT 5.42 8 .68 .85 .559 291 18. How important were schedu1ing prob1ems beyond the student's control, such as fu11 sections or schedu1e confiicts, in se1ecting courses to meet requirements in the humanities, - socia1 sciences, and natural sciences? Manova SCHEDHU SCHEDSS SCHEDNS by NAJAREA (1,5) /WSFACTORS Content (3) /OMEANS TABLES (Majarea) /DESIGN. 103 cases accepted. 0 cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values. 1 cases rejected because of missing data. 5 non-empty cells. 1 design will be processed. 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN Combined Observed Means for MAJAREA Variable .. SCHEDHU NAJAREA ' Life 861 WGT. 3.10526 UNWGT. 3.10526 Social 8 WGT. 1.78261 UNWGT. 1.78261 Business WGT. 2.10345 UNWGT. 2.10345 Math./Te war. 2.00000 UNWGT. 2.00000 Criminal WGT. 2.60000 UNWGT. 2.60000 9 9 ANALYSIS, OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 9 Variable .. SCHEDSS NAJAREA Life Sci war. 2.84211 UNWGT. 2.84211 Social S WGT. 2.00000 UNWGT. 2.00000 Business NGT. 2.17241 UNWGT. 2.17241 Math./Te war. 2.35294 UNWGT. 2.35294 Criminal WGT. 2.80000 2.80000 UNWGT. 292 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Variable .. SCHEDNS HAJAREA Life Sci WGT. 2.78947 UNWGT. 2.78947 Social 8 WGT. 2.26087 UNWGT. 2.26087 Business WGT. 2.10345 UNWGT. 2.10345 Math./Te WGT. 2.11765 UNWGT. 2.11765 criminal WGT. 2.80000 UNWGT. 2.80000 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 MS 2 Sig of r WITHIN CELLS 273.37 98 2.79 CONSTANT 1671.08 1 1671.08 599.07 .000 HAJAREA 38.62 4 9.65 3.46 .011 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests involving 'CONTENT' within—Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares S Source of Variation 8 Ms E Sig of r WITHIN CELLS 170.02 196 .87 CONTENT .74 2 .37 .43 .652 HAJAREA BY CONTENT 4.60 8 .57 .66 .724 293 Schedu1ing Factors Responses to Research Questions 17 and 18 were combined to form a summated sca1e expressing the inf1uence of schedu1ing prob1ems of the student's own making, or beyond the student's contr01, on course se1ection to meet distribution requirements. 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP MS I Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 901.93 98 9.20 CONSTANT 9151.40 ‘ 1 9151.40 994.35 .000 HAJAREA 123.10 4 30.78 3.34 .013 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests involving 'CONTENT' within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DE MS P Sig of r WITHIN CELLS 335.02 196 1.71 CONTENT , 1.62 2 .81 .47 .623 NAJAREA BY CONTENT 8.74 8 1.09 .64 .744 294 103 cases accepted. 0 cases rejected because of out-of—range factor values. 43 cases rejected because of missing data. 5 non-empty cells. 1 design will be processed. Cell Means and Standard Deviations Variable .. PSBUSUB FACTOR CODE Mean Std. Dev. N HAJAREA Life Sci 7.211 1.903 19 NAJAREA Social 8 5.087 1.649 23 MAJAREA Business 5.345 1.895 29 NAJAREA Nath./Te 5.176 2.270 17 NAJAREA Criminal 5.600 2.293 15 For entire sample 5.641 2.081 103 Variable .. PSSSSUB NAJAREA Life Sci 6.579 2.293 19 HAJAREA Social 8 5.000 1.954 23 MAJAREA Business 5.483 1.939 29 NAJAREA Nath./Te 5.059 2.221 17 MAJAREA Criminal 5.800 1.656 15 Por entire sample 5.553 2.061 103 Variable .. PSNSSUB MAJAREA Life SCi 6.474 2.144 19 NAJAREA SOCial 8 5.043 2.205 23 MAJAREA Business 5.345 2.272 29 HAJAREA Nath./Te 4.647 2.029 17 NAJAREA . Criminal 6.000 1.964 15 For entire sample 5.466 2.200 103 295 ---------- o N S w A Y - - - - - - - - - - Variable PSHUSUB By Variable MAJAREA Major Area (5) Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean P. r Source D.P. Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between Groups 4 63.7008 15.9252 4.0308 .0045 within Groups 99 391.1357 3.9509 Total 103 454.8365 Mean Group, 4 2 3 5 1 5.0000 Grp 4 5.0870 Grp 2 5.3448 Grp 3 5.6000 Grp 5 7.2105 Grp 1 e e e (9) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level ---------- o N E w A Y - - - - - - - - - - Variable FSSSSUB By Variable MAJAREA Major Area (5) Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean P P Source D.E. Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between Groups 4 33.8604 8.4651 2.0836 .0885 Within Groups 100 406.2730 4.0627 Total 104 440.1333 No two groups are significantly different at the .050 level Variable By Variable Sum of Mean E I Source D.P. Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between Groups 4 39.5036 9.8759 2.1312 .0826 within Groups 98 454.1274 4.6340 Total 102 493.6311 No two groups are significantly different at the .050 level ---------- o s E w A Y - - - - - - - - - - Variable PSTOT By Variable MAJAREA Major Area (5) Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean E P Source D.P. Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between Groups 4 41.0346 10.2586 3.3440 .0130 Within Groups- 98 300.6439 3.0678 Total 102 341.6785 Mean Group 4 2 3 5 1 4.9608 Grp 4 ' 5.0435 Grp 2 5.3908 Grp 3 5.8000 Grp 5 6.7544 Grp 1 . o (t) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level 296 ---------- o s S w A Y - - - - - - PSNSSUB MAJAREA Major Area (5) Analysis of Variance 297 19. How beneficia1 to their genera1 deve10pment, and to understand- ing their majors, did students by degree area find courses in the humanities, socia1 sciences, and natura1 sciences? Manova BENEFHU BENEFSS BENEFNS by MAJAREA (1,5) /WSFACTORS Content (3) [OMEANS TABLES (Majarea) /DESIGN. 102 cases accepted. 0 cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values. 2 cases rejected because of missing data. 5 non-empty cells. 1 design will be processed. 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN Combined Observed Means for MAJAREA Variable .. BENEFHU NAJAREA Life Sci Social 8 Business Math./Te Criminal WGT. UNWGT. WGT. UNWGT. WGT. UNWGT. WGT. UNWGT. WGT. UNWGT. 3.26316 3.26316 2.91304 2.91304 2.65517 2.65517 2.56250 2.56250 2.53333 2.53333 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN Variable .. BENEPSS NAJAREA Life Sci Social 8 Business Math./Te Criminal WGT. UNWGT. WGT. UNWGT. WGT. UNWGT. WGT. UNWGT. WGT. UNWGT. 3.57895 3.57895 3.39130 3.39130 2.93103 2.93103 2.93750 2.93750 3.53333 3.53333 it it 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- D Variable .. BENEFNS MAJAREA Life Sci WGT. UNWGT. Social 8 WGT- UNWGT. Business WGT. UNWGT. Math . /Te wc'r . UNWGT. Criminal WGT. UNWGT. 9 9 ANALYSIS OF 298 ESIGN 3.78947 3.78947 3.00000 3.00000 2.96552 2.96552 2.68750 2.68750 2.80000 2.80000 VARIANCE -- DESIGN Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. it 1 it 1 Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation SS WITHIN CELLS 274.88 CONSTANT 2661.51 MAJAREA 22.80 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN or MS P Sig of r 97 2.83 1 2661.51 939.20 .000 4 5.70 2.01 .099 1 e e Tests involving 'CONTENT' within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation SS WITHIN CELLS 161.46 CONTENT . 11.53 MAJAREA BY CONTENT 6.06 DP MS I Sig of P 194 .83 8 .76 .91 .509 Manova NAJBENHU NAJBENSS MAJBENNS by NAJAREA (1,5) /WSFACTORS Content (3) [OMEANS TABLES (Majarea) /DESI 102 0 cases accepted. non-empty cells. design will be proces GN. sed. cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values. cases rejected because of missing data. 299 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN Combined Observed Means for MAJAREA Variable .. Variable .. Variable .. NAJBENHU HAJAREA Life SCi WGT. UNWGT. Social 8 WGT. UNWGT. Business WGT. UNWGT. Math./Te WGT. UNWGT. Criminal WGT. UNWGT. 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE NAJBENSS NAJAREA Life Sci WGT. UNWGT. Social 8 IGT. UNWGT. Business WGT. UNWGT. Math./Te WGT. UNWGT. Criminal WGT. UNWGT. 9 9 ANALYSIS OF 2.15789 2.15789 2.65217 2.65217 1.55172 1.55172 1.56250 ‘1.56250 2.26667 2.26667 -- DESIGN 3.15789“ 3.15789 3.69565 3.69565 2.24138 2.24138 1.93750 1.93750 3.53333 3.53333 VARIANCE -- DESIGN NAJBENNS NAJAREA Life Sci WGT. UNWGT. Social 8 WGT. UNWGT. Business WGT. UNWGT. Math./Te WGT. UNWGT. criminal WGT. UNWGT. 3.57895 3.57895 2.30435 2.30435 1.82759 1.82759 2.06250 2.06250 2.40000 2.40000 1 i t t 300 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP MS P Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 235.39 97 2.43 CONSTANT 1750.12 1 1750.12 721.19 .000 NAJAREA 77.53 4 19.38 7.99 .000 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests involving 'CONTENT' within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP MS P Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 223.95 194 1.15 CONTENT 36.95 2 18.47 16.00 .000 NAJAREA BY CONTENT 29.77 8 3.72 3.22 .002 301 ---------- o N E w A Y - - - - - - - - - - Variable BENEFHU By Variable MAJAREA Source Between Groups Within Groups Total No two groups are significantly Variable BENEPSS By Variable MAJAREA Source Between Groups Within Groups Total No two groups are significantly Major Area (5) Analysis of Variance Sum of 0.2. Squares 4 8.2217 99 156.2398 103 164.4615 different at Major Area (5) Analysis of Variance Sum of 0.9. Squares 4 9.7082 99 136.2052 103 145.9135 different at Mean F F Squares Ratio Prob. 2.0554 1.3024 .2744 1.5782 the .050 level MORE y .......... Mean P P Squares Ratio Prob. 2.4271 1.7641 .1421 1.3758 the .050 level Variable By Variable Source Between Groups within Groups Total No two groups are significantly Variable By Variable Source Between Groups within Groups Total 302 ---------- ONEWAY---------- BENEFNS NAJAREA Major Area (5) Analysis of Variance Sum of D.E. Squares 4 14.3515 98 150.4058 102 164.7573 Mean F F Squares Ratio Prob. 3.5879 2.3378 .0606 1.5348 different at the .050 level -- ------- ossway--- ------- TOTBEN MAJAREA Major Area (5) Analysis of Variance Sum of D.F. Squares 4 7.5984 97 91.6260 101 99.2244 No two groups are significantly different at Mean P P Squares Ratio Prob. 1.8996 2.0110 .0989 .9446 the .050 level 303 ---------- o N s w A 2 - - - - - - - - - - Variable MAJBENHU By Variable MAJAREA Major Area (5) Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean 7 P Source D.r. Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between Groups 4 21.6505 5.4126 4.5277 .0021 within Groups 99 118.3495 1.1954 Total 103 140.0000 Mean Group 4 3 1 5 2 1.5000 Grp 4 1.5517 Grp 3' 2.1579 Grp 1 2.2667 Grp 5 2.6522 Grp 2 e e (9) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level ---------- o N E w A 1 - - - - - - - - - - Variable MAJBENSS By Variable MAJAREA Major Area (5) Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean P F Source D.P. Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between Groups 4 52.6192 13.1548 6.8465 .0001 Within Groups 99 190.2173 1.9214 Total 103 242.8365 Mean Group 4 3 1 5 2 1.8889 Grp 4 2.2414 Grp 3 3.1579 Grp 1 . 3.5333 Grp 5 . . 3.6957 Grp 2 a a (e) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level 304 ---------- o N a w A Y - - - - - - - - - - Variable MAJBENNS By Variable MAJAREA Major Area (5) Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean F I Source n.r. Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between Groups 4 38.7415 9.6854 6.1940 .0002 Within Groups 98 153.2391 1.5637 Total 102 191.9806 Mean Group 3 4 2 5 1 1.8276 Grp 3 2.0000 Grp 4 2.3043 Grp 2 2.4000 Grp 5 3.5789 Grp 1 9 9 9 (*) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level Variable TOTMAJ By Variable MAJAREA Major Area (5) Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean 2 P Source D.P. Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between Groups 4 25.8426 6.4606 7.9869 .0000 Within Groups 97 78.4636 .8089 Total 101 104.3061 .Mean Group 4 3 5 2 1 1.8542 Grp 4 1.8736 Grp 3 2.7333 Grp 5 . 2.8841 Grp 2 a . 2.9649 Grp 1 . . (t) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level 305 20. How beneficia1 to their genera1 deve10pment, and to understand— ing their majors, did students by gender find courses in the humanities, socia1 sciences, and natura1 sciences? MANOVA BENEFHU BENEFBB BENEFNS by gender (1,2) /WSFACTORS Content (3) /OMEAN8. 102 cases accepted. 0 cases rejected because of out-of—range factor values. 44 cases rejected because of missing data. 2 non-empty cells. 1 design willmbe_processed. 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests involving 'CONTENT' Within-Subject Effect. Source of Variation 88 Dr MS r Sig of r WITHIN CELLS 297.63 100 2.98 CONSTANT 2748.47 1 2748.47 923.45 .000 GENDER .04 1 .04 .01 .905 AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP MS E Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 167.05 200 .84 CONTENT 10.79 2 5.39 6.46 .002 GENDER BY CONTENT .47 2 .24 .28 .753 MANOVA MAJBENHU NAJBENSS MAJBENNS BY Gender (1,2) /WSFACTORS content (3). 9 9 ANALYSIS' OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP MS P Sig of P 'WITHIN CELLS 310.38 100 3.10 CONSTANT 1780.74 1 1780.74 573.74 .000 GENDER 2.54 l 2.54 .82 .368 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests involving 'CONTENT' Within-Subject Effect. .AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation SS DF- MS F Sig of P 'WITHIN CELLS 251.93 200 1n26 CONTENT 39.39 2 19.70 15.64 .000 GENDER BY CONTENT 1.79 2 .89 .71 .493 306 21. How beneficia1 to their genera1 deve10pment, and to understand- ing their majors, did students by transfer/nontransfer status, find courses in the humanities, socia1 sciences, and natura1 sciences? NANOVA NAJBENHU NAJBENSS MAJBENNS BY transfer (1,3) /WSFACTORS content (3). 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DE MS E Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 305.99 99 3.09 CONSTANT 114.58 1 114.58 37.07 .000 TRANSFER 6.93 2 3.47 1.12 .330 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests involving 'CONTENT' Within-subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP MS P Sig of E WITHIN CELLS 251.59 198 1.27 CONTENT 2.27 2 1.14 .89 .410 TRANSFER BY CONTENT 2.13 4 .53 .42 .795 ----—---—~ 307 NANOVA BENEFHU BENEFSS BENEFNS by trtr (1,2) /WSFACTORS Content (3) /ONEANS. 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP MS P Sig of P WITHIN CELLS ' 297.13 100 2.97 CONSTANT 2766.23 1 2766.23 930.99 .000 TRTR .54 1 .54 .18 .669 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests involving 'CONTENT' Within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DE MS E Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 161.41 200 .81 CONTENT 11.88 2 5.94 7.36 .001 TRTR BY CONTENT 6.11 2 3.06 3.79 .024 308 22. Row beneficia1 to their genera1 deve10pment, and to understand- ing their majors, did students by age find courses in the humani- ties, soc1a1 sciences, and natura1 sciences? MANOVA BENEFHU BENEFSS BENEFNS BY AGE (1,2) /WSFACTORS CONTENT (3) /OMEANS. * 9 ANALYSIS or VARIANCE —- DESIGN 1 a . Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP MS P Sig of E WITHIN CELLS 271. 07 100 2 .71 CONSTANT 2616.60 1 2616.60 965.28 .000 AGE 26.60 1 26.60 9.81 .002 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests involving 'CONTENT' Within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares MS Source of Variation 88 DP P Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 156.60 200 .78 CONTENT 3.67 2 1.83 2.34 .099 AGE BY CONTENT 10.92 2 5.46 6.98 .001 HANOVA NAJBENHU NAJBENSS MAJBENNS BY age (1,2) /WSFACTORS content (3) . 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DE MS P Sig of F - WITHIN CELLS 305 . 64 100 3. 06 CONSTANT 1633.95 1 1633.95 534.60 .000 AGE 7.28 1 7.28 2.38 .126 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests involving 'CONTENT' Within-Subject Effect. .AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP MS I Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 253.22 200 1.27 CONTENT 32.26 2 16.13 12.74 .000 AGE BY CONTENT .50 2 .25 .20 .822 309 Hypothesis 44 Nontraditionai students wi11 rate courses in the humanities as more beneficia1 to their genera1 deve10pment than other students. 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Cell Means and Standard Deviations Variable .. BENEFEU FACTOR CODE Mean Std. DeV. N AGE 25+ 3.625 1.157 32 AGE 25- 2.414 1.123 70 For entire sample 2.794 1.261 102 Variable .. BENEFSS FACTOR . CODE Mean Std. Dev. N AGE ‘ 25+ 3.469 1.295 32 For entire sample 3.245 1.181 102 Variable .. BENEFNS FACTOR CODE Mean Std. DeV. N AGE 25+ 3.312 1.355 32 AGE 25- 2.943 1.226 70 For entire sample 3.059 1.273 102 MORE 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Cell Means and Standard Deviations (CONT.) Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP Ms E Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 271.07 100 2.71 CONSTANT 2616.60 1 2616.60 965.28 .000 AGE_ 26.60 1 26.60 9.81 .002 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests involving 'CONTENT' Within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DE MS P Sig of E WITHIN CELLS 156.60 200 .78 CONTENT 3.67 2 1.83 2.34 .099 AGE BY CONTENT 10.92 2 5.46 6.98 .001 310 23. Row beneficia1 to their genera1 deve10pment, and to understand- ing their majors, did students by the country in which they received their secondary education find courses in the humani- ties, socia1 sciences, and natura1 sciences? NANOVA BENEFHU BENEFSS BENEFNS by hseducat (1,2) /WSFACTORS Content (3) /OMEANS. 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP MS P Sig of E WITHIN CELLS 297.43 100 2.97 CONSTANT 2400.40 1 2400.40 807.04 .000 HSEDUCAT .24 1 .24 .08 .776 9 9 ANALYSIS 'OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests involving 'CONTENT' Within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP MS F Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 161.60 200 .81 CONTENT 4.11 2 2.06 2.55 .081 HSEDUCAT BY CONTENT 5.92 2 2.96 3.66 .027 311 MANOVA MAJBENHU MAJBENSS MAJBENNS BY HSEDUCAT (1,2) /WSFACTORS content (3) /0MEANS. ‘ 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP Ms E Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 306.85 100 3.07 CONSTANT 1452.10 1 1452.10 473.22 .000 HSEDUCAT 6.06 1 6.06 1.98 .163 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests involving 'CONTENT' Within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DE Ms E Sig of F WITHIN CELLS 251.00 200 1.26 CONTENT 25.46 2 12.73 10.14 .000 HSEDUCAT BY CONTENT 2.71 2 1.36 1.08 .341 312 24. Did students by.degree area think credit hours required in the humanities, SOCia1 sciences, and natura1 sciences shou1d be increased, decreased, or remain the same? Manova CHANGEHU CHANGESS CHANGENB by MAJAREA (1,5) /W8FACTORS Content (3) /OMEANB TABLES (Majarea) /DESIGN. 102 cases accepted. cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values. cases rejected because of missing data. non—empty cells. VINO P design will be processed. Combined Observed Means for MAJAREA Variable .. CHANGEHU MAJAREA Life Sci WGT. 2.15789 UNWGT. 2.15789 Socia1 S WGT. 2.43478 UNWGT. 2.43478 Business WGT. 2.24138 UNWGT. 2.24138 Math./Te WGT. 2.25000 UNWGT. 2.25000 Criminal WGT. 2.40000 UNWGT. 2.40000 Variable .. CHANGESS MAJAREA Life Sci WGT. 3.26316 UNWGT. 3.26316 Social 8 WGT. 3.00000 UNWGT. 3.00000 Business WGT. 2.62069 UNWGT. 2.62069 Math./Te WGT. 2.37500 UNWGT. 2.37500 Criminal WGT. 3.00000 UNWGT. 3.00000 Variable .. CHANGENS NAJAREA Life Sci WGT. 2.84211 UNWGT. 2.84211 Social 8 WGT. 2.91304 UNWGT. 2.91304 Business WGT. 2.62069 UNWGT. 2.62069 Math./Te WGT. 2.62500 UNWGT. 2.62500 Criminal WGT. . 2.66667 UNWGT. 2.66667 313 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares SS Source of Variation P Sig of E WITHIN CELLS 154.69 97 1.59 CONSTANT 1993.10 1 1993.10 1249.78 .000 NAJAREA 6.42 4 1.61 1.01 .408 AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS. 1 usingH8 UNIQUE sums of squares S DF Source of Variation 8 P Sig of r WITHIN CELLS 143.92 194 .74 CONTENT 16.45 2 8.22 11.08 .000 NAJAREA BY CONTENT 5.48 8 .69 .92 .498 314 25. Did students by gender think credit hours required in the humanities, socia1 sciences, and natura1 sciences shou1d be increased, decreased, or remain the same? 102 cases accepted. 0 cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values. 44 cases rejected because of missing data. 2 non-empty cells. 1 design will be processed. MORE 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP Ms E Sig of F WITHIN CELLS 159.63 100 1.60 CONSTANT 2038.08 1 2038.08 1276.74 .000 GENDER 1.48 1 1.48 .93 .337 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests involving 'CONTENT' Within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DE MS P Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 146.72 200 .73 CONTENT 18.75 2 9.37 12.78 .000 GENDER BY CONTENT 2.68 2 1.34 1.83 .163 315 26. Did students by age think credit hours required in the humani- ties, socia1 sciences, and natura1 sciences shou1d be increased, decreased, or remain the same? 102 cases accepted. cases rejected because of out-of—range factor values. 44 cases rejected because of missing data. non-empty cells. 0 N design will be processed. p 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares _ SS Ms E 81g of E Source of Variation WITHIN CELLS 160.72 100 1.61 CONSTANT 1834.67 1 1834.67 1141.51 .000 AGE .39 1 .39 .24 .623 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests involving 'CONTENT' Within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS. 1 usingM UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation SS P Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 148.93 200 .74 CONTENT 15.37 2 7.69 10.32 .000 .47 2 .24 .32 .729 AGE BY CONTENT 316 27. Did students by transfer/nontransfer status think credit hours required in the humanities, socia1 sciences, and natura1 sci- ences shou1d be increased, decreased, or remain the same? 102 O U 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 cases accepted. cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values. cases rejected because of missing data. non-empty'cells. design will be processed. ii Tests of Between—Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares BS MS E Sig of P Source of Variation WITHIN CELLS 157.24 99 1.59 CONSTANT 138.40 1 138.40 87.14 .000 TRANSFER 3.88 2 1.94 1.22 .300 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests involving 'CONTENT' Within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS. 1 usingM UNIQUE sums of squares 8 D? Source of Variation P Sig of E WITHIN CELLS 148.12 198 .75 CONTENT TRANSFER BY CONTENT 1.28 4 .32 1.99 2 1.00 1.33 .266 .43 .788 317 28. Did students by the country in which they received their second— ary_education think credit hours required in the humanities, SOCia1 SCiences, and natura1 sciences shou1d be increased, decreased, or remain the same? 102 cases accepted. 0 cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values. 44 cases rejected because of missing data. 2 non-empty cells. 1 design will be processed. a . ANALYSIS or VARIANCE —- DESIGN 1 . . Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares DF MS Source of Variation Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 154.27 100 1.54 CONSTANT 1697.56 1 1697.56 1100.38 .000 HSEDUCAT 6.84 1 6.84 4.44 .038 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests involving 'CONTENT' Within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of Significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation DP Ms E Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 149.09 200 .75 CONTENT 13.32 2 6.66 8.93 .000 HSEDUCAT BY CONTENT .31 2 .16 .21 .810 318 Student Eva1uati0n of Genera1 Education A summated sca1e was created by combining the responses to Research Questions 19 and 24. The maximum mean va1ue for each distributiona1 area was 15. The minimum va1ue was 3. The summated sca1e represents the perceived va1ue p1aced on the distributiona1 course in terms of benefit to genera1 deve10pment, benefit to understanding of the major, and student eva1uation of whether credit requirements shou1d be changed and in what direction. manova / BMCHUSUB BMCSSSUB BNCNSSUB by MAJAREA.(1,5) /WSFACTORS content (3) /OMEANS. 9 9 ANALYSIS or VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. Tests of Significance for T1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 DP MS E Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 1365.44 97 14.08 CONSTANT 19062.91 1 19062.91 1354.22 .000 NAJAREA 237.02 4 59.26 4.21 .003 9 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE -- DESIGN 1 9 9 Tests involving 'CONTENT' Within-Subject Effect. AVERAGED Tests of significance for MEAS.1 using UNIQUE sums of squares Source of Variation 88 BE Ms E Sig of P WITHIN CELLS 946.62 194 4.88 CONTENT 178.39 2 89.20 18.28 .000 HAJAREA BY CONTENT 68.47 8 8.56 1.75 .088 319 - - - - ~ - - - - - o N s w A 2 -------- - - Variable BMCHUSUB By Variable MAJAREA Major Area (5) Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean P E Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between Groups 4 50.9499 12.7375 1.7793 .1390 Within Groups 99 708.7040 7.1586 Total , 103 759.6538 No two groups are significantly different at the .050 level Variable BNCSSSUB By Variable MAJAREA Major Area (5) Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean E I Source D.P. Squares Squares Ratio Prob. Between Groups 4 154.7972 38.6993 4.9443 .0011 Within Groups 98 767.0475 7.8270 Total 102 921.8447 No two groups are significantly different at the ..050 level Variable By Variable Source Between Groups Within Groups Total 320 ---------- o N s w A Y - - - - - - - - - - BNCNSSUB HAJAREA D.F. 4 98 102 Major Area (5) Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean E F Squares Squares Ratio Prob. 110.1464 27.5366 3.1772 .0168 849.3682 8.6670 959.5146 (9) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level Mean 7.2941 7.4138 7.8667 8.2174 10.2105 Variable By Variable Source Between Groups Within Groups Total 146811 7.0000 7.2184 8.3778 8.7681 9.2632 Group 4 3 5 2 1 Grp 4 Grp 3 Grp 5 Grp 2 Grp 1 a - - - ------- O N E W A Y - --------- BMCTOT MAJAREA Major Area (5) Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean F P D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob. 4 79.0067 19.7517 4.2094 .0035 97 455.1458 4.6922 101 534.1525 Group 4 3 5 2 1 Grp 4 Grp 3 Grp 5 Grp 2 Grp 1 e e (a) Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .050 level. 321 Hypothesis 5: Students comp1eting their humanities requirements in their junior or senior years wi11 rate courses in the humanities as more beneficia1 to their genera1 deve10pment than other students. T-TEST /GROUPS HUNSTAT (1,2) /VARIABLES BENEFHU NAJBENHU CHANGEHU. Independent samples of EUMSTAT Group 1: HUMSTAT EQ 1.00 t—test for: BENEFHU Number of Cases Mean Group 1 11 2.1818 Group 2 93 2.8387 Group Standard Deviation .982 1.279 Pooled Variance Estimate F 2-Tail t Value Prob. Value Freedom 1.70 .361 —l.64 102 Degrees of 2-Tail Prob. .103 2: HUNSTAT EQ 2.00 Standard Error .296 .133 Separate Variance Estimate t 7 Degrees of 2-Tail Value Freedom Prob. -2.03 14.36 .062 APPENDIX 0 DISTRIBUTION OF CREDIT HOURS EARNED UPON COMPLETION OF GENERAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS oooovv ooo.aa HMO! ON 322 wH asa«n«2 one: a momma unwmmfiz ova ooo.amN mam. mmmd30¥m Goo.m' omN.wVH fluflfimz hNo.mvH momma ufiau> asafixaz >¢Q Hum dam: #QOEOHMHPUOH DH 3083 UOQHMG MHSOE HMUflHU BWSDEO honosvouh adumoumwm NH N v o HOIII+ODIOH0.ll+0OOOHOOOO+IOOOHOOO0+.IIOH0.00+.OOOH th NhN th NVN hNN NAN had NmH £533: unsoo uaoaoHM=Uou on non: uoqumm muaon ufluouo amzpmmo o mmmmo mcflmmflz wwa mwmmo vflam> ooo.mHm EDEflXMS ooo.mH EZEflCfiE Hmm.Nw >wQ U#m 000.0hH 0602 oom.mNH GMHOOS mvm.ONH cam: ucmfimuflsvmu mm cmns vwcumm musom uflcouu BMmemo 323 Nocwsvmum Ewumoumflm mm ON mH OH m 0 H....+....H....+....H....+....H....+....H....+....H I in m MON O th O I Sm H I mMN m I HNN n | MON 0 mmH OH Fwd HN mwd OH HMH #H MHH m mm OH hb OH mm ma H¢ mH MN m ucflomofiz ucsoo unwamufiswwu mm co£3 Uwcumm muse: uflcmuo BHEmmmo 324 oom.NOn ooo.nm mm ON Esafixwz wUOS ma 0 WOMMO OCflWMHE w¢H mmeU UHHGNV OOO.wN EdfiflCflS mnm.mm omN.HmH CMMOOS OOM.N¢H ucmamuflsvmu mz :ma3 vmauam muso: uflumno mocmskum Emumoumfim OH m O HIIOI+OOOOHO000+.-ooHocoo+oouUHanou+ooooHouuo+nnooH Hon wwm hem O G) ufiomgz pcwamufisku mz :053 00cmmw mason uwvmuo >wQ vum cams BWZmzmo BMEmZMO APPENDIX H DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENT RESPONSES TO FACTORS OR PERSONS AFFECTING COURSE SELECTION 325 «v mmmmu mcwmmflz woa mmmmo Uwam> ooo.m EDEflXmS OOO.H EDEHGHE mmH.H >mo vum OOO.H GUOS OOO.H CMflUGS mnm.H 5mm: 00 mv mm ON NH O HOOOOOOCOCHOOOOOOOOOHOOOOO...OHOOOOOOOOOHOOOO...OOH H m I %.Hm> OH I “GURU NH I NEOM o.ooa o.ooa Ova £4808 wszmH: . m Nv . o.ooH m.~ . m m >Hm> H.5m w.a . OH v umwuu m.hm m.ma ma m maom o.m> H.- mm m maupwa m.~m m.~m mm H 0:02 unmoumm unmoumm unwoumm hocmsvmum 05Hm> azo vflam> Hmnmq msam> Dm>Qmo uum ooo.v moo: ooo.m cmfluwz Hmm.~ cam: o¢ mm em ma m o H.........H.........H.........H.........H.........H H ma >um> mm ummuo OH 050% ma mauuflq o N @COZ o.ooa o.ooa o¢a ameos qummHz m.m~ av . o.ooH v.vfl m.oH ma m >um> o.mm >.dm m.- mm v umwuu m.mm m.mH w.HH 5H m msom m.nm m.ma m.m ma m mauufiq o.mm o.m~ w.nH mm H mcoz “EGOHQA “COME—”0m UCGOHNA \nOGQDUth wDHm> H023 w§Hm> ago ufiam> DEDwQ Gum OOO.H 0602 ooo.m Guavmz ovb.N cwwz O¢ Nm vN OH O O HOD......OHOOO0OtOOIHODOODIOOOHOOOOOOIOIHI....OOOOH H NH I hum; ON #mmho om mfiom ma wduuflq N Hm mcoz 3 0.00H 0.00H Ova A¢BOB UszMHZ w.mN mv . o.ooH m.HH m.m NH m mug m.mm O.mN w.hH 0N v ummuw m.mw N.mH h.nH Om m 050m N.¢v v.va m.OH ma N mauufifl m.mN 0.0N N.HN an H maoz usmoumm #cmouwm pcmoumm hocmsvmum 65Hm> Hwnmq $31.5 ESQ Uflam> DmBZHmm 328 m¢ wmmmo OGflmmflz ¢OH mwmmu Uflam> ooo.m fiDEflxmz ooo.H fifififlfiflz th.H >00 Ufim ooo.v $602 ooo.v EMHUwE wwh.m :mwz 0v Nm vN wH w o H.OOO0‘O.IH....0....HI.II..O..H.COO'COOQHOIOCICOOUH H mm >um> hm umwuw man 050% HH l 0:02 0.00H 0.00H ovH Q4809 UZHWMHZ w.wN Nv . 0.00H w.¢n h.¢N mm m hh0> ¢.mo m.mn n.mm hm w #mwuw w.mN v.¢H n.0H ma m Ofiom ¢.mH m.v V.m m N GHHHMA w.OH $.0H m.b HH H 0COZ unmouwm unmoumm usmouwm >ocmdeum 05Hm> Honda 05Hm> Ego Uflam> DmBDAWm 329 ooo.m Enamez coo.H mac: om ow on Nu mmmmo mchmHs HOH mmmmo UHHm> HOOOOOOCOOHO0.0....OHOO0.0.0.CHOOOOOOOCOHCOUOOOOOOH OOO.H ESEHGHZ bmn.H >wD 69m OOO.N £MHUmS omN.N cams ON OH O H m IIIIIIIIII mocmpuomaH ummuo NH lllllllllllll H mH IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII m HN|N NV | ¢OGMU.HOQOH..N OZ 0.00H 0.00H UZHmmHS m.mN 0.00H b.m N.O m.Hm m.HH N.w O.mb m.mH O.MH m.Hw N.ON v.vH m.H¢ m.Hv m.mN unmoumm unmonmm unmoumm ago cHHm> meH Adeoe mv . m m mocmuHomEH ummuo NH w mH m Hm m me H mocmpuomaH oz mocmsvoum 05Hm> Hmnma msHm> szmazoo 330 Nv mmmmo OGwaHz #OH mmmmo UHHm> OOO.m ESEmeS OOO.H EDEHGHS mov.H >wo cum OOO.¢ @602 OOO.v GMHUmS mvm.m cam: ov Nn wN OH O o H.........H.........H.........H.........H.........H H ¢N mocmuuomaH ummuu «m ¢ ON m m IIIIIIII N 0N mocmuuomEH oz 0.00H 0.00H owH H Hmnmq 09Hm> ago 3 Hm> Dfififlhflfifi 331 N¢ mummo ochmHz ¢0H mmmmo OHHm> OOO.m Efifiwxmz OOO.H EUEHGHS mmN.H >mQ U#m OOO.H $002 OOO.N GMHUGS OON.N CO0: ow Nn vN 0H O O HUOOOOOOOOH.0.......HOC...OOOOHOOOCOOOOOH..I......H H w llllll mocmguomaH ummuw NH IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII w o.ooH o.ooH oHH Hesos qummH: m.m~ NH . o.OOH m.m >.N ¢ m mocmuuomfiH pmmuw N.mm m.mH w.HH NH H m.m> N.oN v.vH HN m m.mm N.HN H.mH «N N m.mn m.wm H.>~ oe H mocmuuomaH oz unmoumm unmonmm unmoumm mocmnwmum msHm> Hanna dem> ago nHHm> Dmammum 332 Ne mmmmu mchmHz OOO.m EDEHXME OOO.H EDEHEHZ OOO.M $602 OOO.M cmHUmS OM vN OH NH O O H.........H.........H.........H.........H.........H H m IIIIIIIIIIIIII MN OM mH MN 0.00H 0.00H OvH H4809 GZHMMHS 0.0N Nv . 0.00H h.w N.w m m M.Hm H.NN m.mH MN e N.ao w.mN m.ON OM M v.O¢ M.wH O.MH mH N H.NN H.NN w.mH MN H “€0.0me HCmUme ago vHHm> unwoumm hoconkuh wDHm> vOH mwmmo OHHM> ¢0N.H >mo cum mmh.N :mw: mHnmsHm> >um> v M N «HoHuwcmn HHm um uoz wHQMSHm> >Hm> mHoHumcmn HHm um uoz Hmnmfl GDHM> Dmhmzmm 333 NH mmmmo mchmHz HOH mwmmu OHHm> ooo.m esstmz ooo.H asEHcHz omH.H >mo Hum ooo.H muoz ooo.N :mHuwz ooo.N :mmz ow NH Hm HN NH o H.........H.........H.........H.........H.........H H N III HMHoHumcmn >H0> MHlv NH m NH N Hm mHoHumcmn HHm um uoz o.ooH o.o0H mHH H4909 wszmHz m.mN NH . o.o0H m.H H.H N m HmHoHumcon Num> H.NN m.NH m.m NH H w.mm H.NH o.NH NH m H.Nm H.NH o.NH NH N o.mH o.mH m.Hn Hm H NHoHumcmn HHN um uoz unwoumm usmouom usmoumm hocwsvmum msHm> ESQ GHHM> Hwnmq 03Hm> DEZWMhdz 334 NH mommo OGmeHz OOO.m EDEmez OOO.H ESEHGHS OOO.M @602 OOO.M CMHfiwz om OH OM ON OH O H000...OBOHOIIt...IOHOOIIOCCIOHII.....DOHIOOOCIOOOH H HI ml vv OH MM 0.00H 0.00H OvH A4808 UZHmmHS m.wN NH . 0.00H O.H h. H m O.mm 5.5 m.m O H M.Hm M.Nv H.OM vv M O.mv M.bH M.NH OH N b.HM h.HM O.NN MM H unmohmm #:moumm unmoumm hocmswwum 05Hm> ESQ UHHm> HOH mmmmu UHHm> omo.H >mo cum mmN.N cam: mwuocH NHHmHucmumasm v ummcmnucd :Hwawm N wosvmu NHHmHucmumndm mmuocH NHHmHucmamnsm umwcmnocs CHmawm mosumu NHHmHucmumndm Hmnmq mDHm> Dmmwz¢mo 335 HH mmmmo mszmHz OOH mmwmo UHHm> ooo.m EDEHXME OOO.H ESEHCHS OMM.H >wQ fivm OOO.H $002 ooo.N GMHUOS mHv.N COGS OH NM ON OH O o HI........H..'O...‘IH....‘C...H.....ICOOHCCIOOOCOIH H hthwxw NN umwuw OH mfiom MN OHHHHH NM mcoz 0.00H 0.00H OOH H4808 UZHmmHS H.NN HO . o.OOH h.O m.v h m >H0> M.Mm o.HN H.mH NN O #meU ¢.Nh N.MH o.HH OH M mfiom H.hm m.HN m.mH MN N wHflflHH N.mM N.mM M.mN bM H GCOZ unmoumm pcwonmm usmouwm Hocmswmnm msHm> Hwnmq wsHm> 850 OHHM> mm>0404h 336 HH mwmmo OchmHE mOH mmwmo UHHM> OOO.m ESEmeS OOO.H EDEHOHS mON.H >wo bum OOO.H 0602 OOO.H CMHUmz HOH.M cam: om OH OM ON OH O H...'0...OHIOOII'I.CHOOO'OOOOOHIOO...OUOHIICOOOOOOH H HH IIIIIIIIIII >Hm> MH ummuo HN meow wIGHUuHH OH wcoz 0.00H 0.00H OHH H4808 wszmHz H.NN HH . 0.00H m.OH m.h HH m >Hm> m.mw o.HH m.mN MH H umwuw 0.0H m.NN H.OH HN M meow b.mN O.h m.m O N mHuuHH H.NH H.NH O.MH OH H wnoz HGGOHmm ucwoumm pcmoumm Hocmsvwhh msHm> HwQMH msHm> ESQ oHHm> mm>Q¢D8m 337 HH wwmmu mchsz mOH mmmmo UHHM> OOO.m ESEmeS OOO.H EDEHCHZ th.H >mo cum OOO.H mvoz OOO.M CMHUOS bmo.M cows OH NM HN OH O O HOCOOIOOOOHO'.OOOOCCHOOIOOOOOOHOOOOOOIIIHOOIOOOOIIH H MH >H¢> HM ummuw ON wfiom mH mHquH OH mqoz 0.00H 0.00H OHH H€808 wszmHz H.ON HH . 0.00H H.NH m.w MH m >H0> O.hw m.mN N.HN HM H uwmuw H.Om >.ON N.mH ON M wfiom H.HM M.HH M.OH mH N wHuuHH H.hH H.5H M.NH OH H maoz usmoumm #cwoumm unmouwm Honwsvmum dem> Hman dem> 850 UHHM> mm8szm 338 HH wmmmo mchmHz mOH mwmwo UHHm> OO0.0 EDEHxMZ OOO.H SDEHCHS mOM.H >mQ Gum OOO.H $602 ooo.M cwHUmS OOM.M cow: OH NM HN OH O O H.000...OOH...O...OOHOOIOCOOOOHOOOIOI.OOHOIOCOIOOOH H HN Huw> HM umwhw ON wfiom mlmfipflflfl OH mcoz 0.00H 0.00H OHH HOBOB UZHOOHS H.ON HH . 0.00H 0.0N H.HH HN m >Hm> 0.00 m.mN N.HN HM H “ammo m.om b.ON N.mH ON M 050m O.MN 0.0 N.O m N vapHH N.mH N.mH O.HH OH H wcoz unwoumm unmoumm unmoumm Hocwsvmum msHm> Hmnmq msHm> ESQ OHHO> mm<8mem 339 HH mmmmu OCHmmHE OOH mmmmo UHHm> OOO.m EDEHXOE OOO.H ESEHGHZ MMM.H >00 6pm OOO.H $602 OOO.M £6HU$S OHO.M cam: OH NM HN OH O O HOOOOOIOOIHOOOOOO..IHOOIIOOO'OHOOII.IDIIHCOOOCIOIOH H NH I OUCMHHOQEH “mwhw OM H ON M O Illlllllllll- N MN wocmuuomfiH oz 0.00H 0.00H OHH H4808 UZHOOHS H.ON HH . 0.00H H.HH N.O NH O $OcmuHOQEH HO$H0 0.00 M.HM O.HN OM H M.Hm O.MN H.5H ON M m.OM 0.0 N.O m N O.HN O.HN O.mH MN H wocmuuomfiH oz unmoumm unmoumm unmoumm Hocmsvmuh msHm> Hman wde> :50 33> mmzm8zoo 340 HH mmmmo mchmHz OOH OO0.0 ESBHXMZ OOO.H OOO.H $002 OOO.H OH NM HN OH mmmmo OHHM> aschHz NOH.H >mo Hum :chmz NOH.N cam: O O HOOOOOOOOCHOOOOO...CH..0O...COHOCOCOCOCOHOOCOCCOOOH H HN | $UCMHHOQOHH #Mmhw NM | H. HN | m mlN ON | GOHMUHOQEH OZ 0.00H 0.00H OHH UZHmmHS H.ON HH 0.00H 0.0N H.HH HN 0.00 0.0M O.HN NM 0.0H 0.0N H.HH HN 0.0N O.H H.M O O.HN O.HN O.hH ON unmoumm Humoumm unwoumm mocmskum aso OHHM> H<808 O wounuuomfiH uwmuu H M N H mocmuuomfiH oz msHm> Hmnmn msHm> mmfimmmmm 341 HH mwmmo OchmHz OOH mwmmu OHHNS OO0.0 EDEmeS OOO.H ESEHEHE OON.H >m0 Gum OOO.H $002 OOO.N COHUOE HhM.N cums OH NM HN OH O o HOIOODOOOOHO..I.OOO.H.O..IIOOIHIOIOOOIIIHOOOOIIOIOH H O I mocmuuomfiH “ammo H MN M MN N OM mocmuuomfiH oz 0.00H 0.00H OHH H¢808 UZHOOHE H.ON HH . O . OOH H. . O H . H O O mocmauomfiH ummuw M.HO N.OH O.HH OH H H.Ob O.HN 0.0H MN M N.OO O.HN 0.0H MN N M.HM M.HM N.HN OM H wocmuHomEH oz unmoumm unwoumm unwoumm Hocwswmum wsHm> HmeH OSHm> EDD UHHO> memmUm 342 NH mwmmu mchmHz HOH wwmmo UHHw> OO0.0 ESEHXO2 OOO.H ESEHCH2 OOH.H >$Q 0um OOO.M $002 OOO.M SOH0w2 HNN.M CO$2 OH NM HN OH O O H.........H.........H.........H.........H.........H H OH mHnwde> xhw> HM H HM M OH N 0.00H 0.00H OHH H<808 UZHMMH2 0.0N NH . 0.00H H.HH M.OH OH O $HQODHO> NH$> 0.00 O.mN N.HN HM H 0.00 0.0N N.HN HM M 0.0N H.OH O.HH OH N 0.0H 0.0H O.h HH H MHUHM$C$Q HHO um #02 unwouwm uswouwm unwonwm hocwsvmum wsHm> Hman 05Hm> ESQ 0HH0> mmmmzmm 343 NH mwmwo mcmeHz HOH mwmwo OHHM> ooo.m asamez ooo.H 5552 mmmH >8 3m 25H 282 ooo.m :NHOmz OOO.N cam: OH NM HN OH O O H.........H.........H.........H.........H.........H H OH HOHOHchmn mum> ON H O I O OH N Hm 303980. in no uoz 0.00H 0.00H OHH 2&808 UZHOOH2 0.0N NH . 0.00H M.OH O.MH OH O HmHOHchwn >H0> O.HO 0.0N 0.0H ON H 0.00 8.0 N.O m M H.bH M.OH M.NH OH N 0.0N 0.0N N.HN HM H mHoHHmcwn HHm um uoz unwoumm unwoumm pcwoumm Hocmswwum wus> Hman wsHm> ado 0HHO> mmzmmb42 344 MH mwmmo mchmHz MOH mwmmo OHHM> OO0.0 EDSHXO2 OOO.H EDEHQH2 hMm. >$Q 0am OOO.M $002 OOO.M COH0$2 OHO.N CM$2 OO OH OM HN NH O HIOIOIOOIIHOCOUIOIOOHII.O...[CHOOOOOOOOOHOIOCOOOOCH H N Ill O$H02H HHHMHpcmumnsm ON H MO O$Ocm£ocs chfimm OH I N 0.00H 0.00H OHH H<808 UZHOOH2 O.mN MH . 0.00H m.H H.H N O mwhocH NHHmHucmuwan H.OO H.OH h.MH ON H O . 2. O .8 N .Om mm m Hmmcmaocs :Hmamm N.bN 0.0H O.HH OH N N.HH N.HH N.O NH H $050$H HHHwHucmuwndm unmouwm uswonwm unwouwm Hocwdvmum msHm> HOQMH wsHm> .56 33> mmmwz<20 345 MH mmmmo mchmH2 MOH mmmmu UHHO> OO0.0 EfifiHNM2 OOO.H EdEHGH2 NHM.H >$D 0pm OOO.H $002 OOO.N £0H0$2 OOO.N GM$2 OH NM HN OH O o H.000...O.H0.0....O.HOOOOOOOOOHOO...OOOOHOCOOOOCOOH H 0.00H 0.00H OHH H4808 UszmHz 0.0N MH . 0.00H N.OH O.b HH O HH$> M.OO O.NH 0.0 MH H ummuw b.O> N.ON O.NH ON M $aom O.HO H.OH b.MH ON N $HuuHH O.NM O.NM O.NN MM H $coz un$ou$m uc$ou$m unmoumm Hocmsvmnm $3Hm> Hmnmq $9Hm> 3:0 OHHO> mz>0¢0 OO0.0 ESEme2 OOO.H EDEHCH2 MHM.H >$O 0pm OOO.H $002 OOO.M COH0$2 OHO.M cam: OH NM HN OH O O HOOODOOOIOHI.I..O.IIHOOOIOIOCOHIOODIOOOOHO.I....ODH H NH|>H$> MM HO$H0 MN $Eom OH $HuuHH ON $coz 0.00H 0.00H OHH H<808 wszmHS 0.0N MH . 0.00H N.HH N.O NH O >H$> M.OO O.NM O.NN MM H HM$H0 M.OO M.NN 0.0H MN M $Eom O.HM O.HH M.OH OH N $HupHH H.OH H.OH >.MH ON H $coz uz$ou$m UG$OH$H HG$OH$H NOQ$SU$HH $=Hm> H$qu $SHO> 350 0HHm> mz>Q 300 0HH0> mmmmu 0HHO> >$O 0pm cmmz HH$> Hmmuw $Eom $HuuHH $coz H$QOH $DH0> m282Hmm 348 OM MH mwwmo mchmHz OO0.0 EDEHxO2 OOO.H ESEHGH2 OOO.H $002 OOO.M cmH0$2 OM HN OH NH O O HCICOCOOOOHOOCOOOOOOH...ICOCO.H..O..'OOOHICI.I....H H HN HN HH OH 0.00H 0.00H OHH H4808 UZHmmH2 0.0N MH . 0.00H H.ON H.HH HN O O.mO M.MN H.OH HN H M.OO 0.0H 0.0 HH M 0.0H 0.0H O.HH OH N H.ON H.ON 0.0N OM H unmou$m usmoumm pcmouom Oocwswwum wsHm> 8:0 0HHO> MOH wmwwo OHHm> OHO.H >$o 0pm MOO.N CO$2 OH$> umwno meow $HuuHH ocoz >H$> umwuw $Eom $HuuHH $coz Hman dem> mz¢8Dmmm OO0.0 OOO.H OM 349 0.00H H.OO 0.00 O.MH H.ON unmoumm unmoumm unmoumm Oocmsvmum OHHO> 300 HN H.OOOOOOOOHOOOOO....H...O...COH....OOOOOHOOOOOOOCOH H NH | OUCMHHOQOHH HMOHU UZHOOH2 O.NH H.ON M.MN O.HH H.ON Ezfimez $0o2 OH MH mmmmo mchmHz MOH OOO.H OOO.M NH m$wmo UHHO> NOH.H ONO.N EOEHCHS GMHOOS >mo cum GO$2 O O mH|N H¢808 O mocmuuomEH HO$H0 H M N H mocmuuomEH oz mus> Hman msHm> m2228200 350 MH mmwwo mchmHz MOH mwmmo OHHO> OO0.0 EDEmez OOO.H EDEHcHz NOH.H >mo cum OOO.H $002 OOO.M SNH0$2 OOO.M GM$2 OM HN OH NH O O H.000...O.HOQOOI.IOOHOO...IIIOHOII....IIHOOIIOOIOOH H HN mocmuuomfiH HO$H0 ON H OH M O lllllllllllll- N ON $0GM¢HOQEH oz 0.00H 0.00H OHH H<808 wszmH2 0.0N MH . 0.00H H.ON H.HH HN O mocmuuomfiH ummuu 0.00 N.ON 0.0H ON H O.HO H.OH O.MH OH M O.MM 0.0 O.H O N N.ON N.ON 0.0H ON H $0GMHHOQEH oz uc$OH$m unwoumm unmoumm Oocmdwmnm wsHm> HwamH $5Hm> a5 HHHN> mzmmmmmm 351 MH m$mm0 mcmeHz MOH m$mm0 OHHw> OO0.0 EDEmez OOO.H EDEHOHZ OON.H >$O OHO OOO.H 0002 OOO.N GOHO$2 OOM.N cmmz OH NM HN OH O O H.........H.........H.........H.........H.........H H H llllll $ocmuuomfiH uwwnw HN H HN M ON N OM wocmuuomfiH oz 0.00H 0.00H OHH H¢808 OszmH2 0.0N MH . . 0.00H O.M O.N H O $ocmuuomfiH ummnu H.OO H.ON H.HH HN H 0.00 H.ON H.HH HN M M.OO H.OH O.MH ON N 0.0M 0.0M M.ON OM H $OQOHHOQEH oz ucmouwm unmouwm uc$ou$m Oocwsvmum mDHm> H$QMH $5Hm> ado OHHM> Ozommum 352 MH mwwwu mchsz MOH mmmwo OHHm> OO0.0 ESEHXO2 OOO.H EDEHGH2 HON.H >$0 0pm OOO.M $002 OOO.M COH0$2 OHO.M cw$2 OH NM HN OH O O H.OOIOIOOOHIODOOOOOOHOIOOOIO..HIOOOOI'OOHOOOQOIOCCH H MH $Hnm5Hm> OH$> ON H HM M MH N OH wHoHH$c$n HHm um uoz 0.00H 0.00H OHH H¢808 UZHOOH2 0.0N MH . 0.00H O.NH 0.0 MH O $HQOSHO> >H$> H.OO N.ON N.OH ON H N.OO H.OM N.HN HM M H.OM O.NH 0.0 MH N O.NH O.NH H.NH NH H «HoHuwcmn HHm um uoz unmouwm unwouwm pcwoumm Ooc$5U$Hm 05Hm> Hman msHm> ESQ 0HHO> mzmmzmm MH m$mm0 ochmH2 MOH m$mm0 OHHO> OO0.0 ESEHXO2 OOO.H ESEHGH2 NOM.H >$Q 0Hm OOO.H $002 OOO.N GMH0$2 OOM.N GO$2 OH NM HN OH O O H.OOOOOOIOHOIOII..OCHCOOOUOCOOHOUOIOCOOCHOOUOOOCOCH H NH | HMHoHumcmn Oum> HH IIIIIIIIIIIIII—H OH M ON N 3 OM MHOHuwch HHw um uoz O 0.00H 0.00H OHH H¢808 OszOHz 0.0N MH . 0.00H O.HH N.O NH O HOHOHHmcmn Ou$> M.OO 0.0H 0.0 HH H 0.00 0.0H O.HH OH M N.HO N.ON 0.0H ON N 0.0M 0.0M M.ON OM H mHoHumcwn HHw um uoz pc$oH$m usmoumm uc$oH$m mocwsvwnm msHm> Hman $5Hm> 8:0 OHHm> Ozzmmh<2 354 MH mmwwo mchmHz OO0.0 ESEHxO2 OOO.H ESEHCH2 OOO.M $002 OOO.M COH0$2 OO OH I OM HN NH O H.OIOIIOOQHOOIOOOOIOHOOICOCCIOHI...OOIOOHODOOIOOOIH H O Illllll O IIIIIIIII HO OH IIIIIIIIIIIII OH llllllllllllllll 0.00H 0.00H OHH H4808 02HOOH2 0.0N MH . 0.00H 0.0 O.H O O N.MO 0.0 N.O O H O.HO H.NO 0.0M HO M O.NM 0.0H O.HH OH N 0.0H 0.0H O.HH OH H ucmonmm uswouwm unmoumm Oocmdvmum ESQ 0HHO> msHm> MOH m$mOU 0HHO> OOO.H >$Q 0um OMO.N CO$2 O$HOCH OHHwHucmumnsm H 0$mcmnocs cHwfiwm N . mosku OHHmHucmquSO M$HOCH OHHMHpcmumnsm 0$OCMSOCD CHOE$m $050$H OHHmHucmumnsm Hmnmq $5Hm> w2202420 APPENDIX 1 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENT SAMPLE 355 GENDER Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Male 1 83 56.8 56.8 56.8 Female 2 63 43.2 43.2 100.0 TOTAL 146 100.0 100.0 Male 83 Female 63 I I.........I.........I ..... ....I ..... ....I.........I O 20 40 60 80 100 Mean 1.432 Median 1.000 Mode 1.000 Std Dev .497 Minimum 1.000 Maximum 2.000 Valid Cases 146 Missing Cases 0 HSEDUCAT Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent U.S. 1 103 70.5 70.5 70.5 Non-U.S. 2 43 29.5 29.5 100.0 TOTAL 146 100.0 100.0 U.S. 103 Non-U.S. _ 43 I I ........ .I.........I ......... I.........I.........I O 40 80 120 160 200 Mean 1.295 Median 1.000 Mode 1.000 Std Dev .457 Minimum 1.000 Maximum 2.000 Valid Cases 146 Missing Cases 0 356 AGE Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 25+ 1 50 34.2 34.2 34.2 25- 2 96 65.8 65.8 100.0 TOTAL 146 100.0 100.0 25+ 50 25- 96 I I.. ...... .I.........I. ........ I.........I ......... 0 20 40 60 80 100 Mean , 1.658 Median 2.000 Mode 2.000 Std Dev .476 Minimum 1.000 Maximum 2.000 Valid Cases 146 Missing Cases 0 TRANTRAN Transfer status Valid cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 1 59 40.4 40.4 40.4 2 6 4.1 4.1 44.5 3 81 55.5 55.5 100.0 TOTAL 146 100.0 100.0 1 59 2 IIII 5 3 81 I I.........I.........I.........I.........I.........I 20 40 60 80 100 MORE TRANTRAN Transfer status Mean 2.151 Median 3.000 Mode 3.000 Std Dev .971 Minimum 1.000 Maximum 3.000 Valid Cases 146 Missing Cases 0 APPENDIX J APPROVAL BY THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS 357 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH EAST LANSING ° MICHIGAN 0 «mu-1046 AND DEAN OF TIIF. GRADUATE SCHOOL August 14, 1991 Bruce Harger - Department of Business/Economics Lake Superior State University Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783 RE: COURSE SELECTION IN GENERAL EDUCATION , IRB#91-258 Dear Mr. Harger: The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review. The proposed research protocol has been reviewed by another committee member. The rights and welfare of human subjects appear to be protected and you have approval to conduct the research. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval one month prior to May 29, 1992. Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notifed promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to my attention. If I can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let me know. University Committee on Resear nvolving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) DEN/den cc: Dr. Marvin Grandstaff MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 358 Lake Superior State University Department of Biology and Chemistry April 9, 1991 Prof. Bruce Harger, Head Business & Economics Dept. Lake Superior State University Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783 Dear Bruce: Based upon your memo of April 8 in which you described your study of general education requirements, I approve the research as Chair of the Institutional Review Board under the expedited review process. If the project is followed as described, it will satisfy the exemption conditions of CFR Part 46, Sect. 46.101, paragraph (b). Good luck in your research. Sincerely, Patrick w. Brown, Ph.D. Chairperson LSSU Institutional Review Board kp cc: IRB Members Saul! Sainte Marie, Michigan 49783 (906) 635-2267 "-"Mw 1.. "l! LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES American Council on Education. (l990, September l0). Facts in brief: Most colleges require general education core. Higher Education and National Affairs. Armour, R. A., & Fuhrmann, B. S. (Eds ). (l989). Integrating liberal learning and professional education. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass. Association of American Colleges. (l985). Integrity in the college curriculum: A report to the academic community. Washington, DC: Author. Association of American Colleges. (l988). A new vitality in general education. Washington, DC: Author. Bloom, A. (l987). The closing of the American mind. New York: Simon & Schuster. Bok, D. (l986). Higher learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Boyer, C. M., & Ahlgren, A. (l987). Assessing undergraduates’ patterns of credit distribution. Journal of Higher Education, §§(4), 430—442. Boyer, E. L. (l987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper & Row. Boyer, E. L. (l990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Lawrenceville, NJ: Princeton University Press. Brown, P. A. (Ed.). (l985). General education evaluations. Forum for Liberal Education, 1(5). Butts, R. F. (l982). The revival of civic learning requires a prescribed curriculum. Liberal Education, §§(4), 377—40l. Campbell, J., & Flynn, T. (l990). Can colleges go back to a core curriculum? Planning for Higher Education, 12(l), 9-l6. 360 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (l985). Change trendlines: The liberal arts perspective. Change, 11(4), 3l-33. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (l985). Change trendlines: General education--new support growing on campuses. Change, 11(6), 27-30. Cheney, L. V. (1989). 50 hours-~A core curriculum for college students. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Humanities. Conner, R. F. (Ed.). (l98l). Methodological advances in evaluation research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Council to Review Undergraduate Education. (l987). Report of the Council to Review Undergraduate Education. Unpublished draft report. East Lansing: Michigan State University. Etheridge, A. L., & Flynn, P. M. (l987). Defining and developing a general education curriculum: A process for moving the faculty. North Central Association Quarterly, §l(4), 476-480. Ferris State University. (l990). Outcomes and principles of gen- eral education. Unpublished report of the General Education Task Force. Big Rapids, MI: Office of the Dean of Arts and Sciences, Ferris State University. Fitz—Gibbon, C. T., & Morris, L. L. (l978). How to design a program evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Florida State Postsecondary Education Planning Commission. (l989). An assessment of the general education curriculum in state universities and community colleges: Report and recommenda- tions of the Postsecondary Education Planning Commission (Report No. 4). Tallahassee: Author. Gaff, J. G. (l983). General education today: A critical analysis of controversies, practices, and reforms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Girxaux, H. A., Penna, A. N., & Pinar, W. F. (Eds.). (l98l). Curriculum and instruction. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing. (hardon, R. L. (l980). Interviewing: Strategy, techniques, and tactics. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Gown Ii. B. (l989). The true purpose of education. Phi Delta Kappan, 19(7), 545-546. 361 Green, T. F. (1982). Evaluating liberal learning: Doubts and explorations. Liberal Education, 11(2), l27—l38. Griffith, C. R. (l947). The changing structure of higher educa- tion. Proceedings of the Institute for Administrative Officers of Higher Education, 11, 3-l9. Hall, L. S. (l983). Liberal education: Neither liberal nor an education. Change, 11(4), 9-ll. Hannah, J. A. (l980). A memoir. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Hansen, D. W. (l982). New directions in general education. Journal of General Education, 11(4), 249-262. Hartwig, F., & Dearing, B. E. (l979). Exploratory data analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hindern, M. (I984). Bridges: A modest proposal to connect the disciplines. Liberal Education, 1Q(l), l3-l6. Hinni, J., & Eison, J. (l990). Helping freshman parents see the value of general education courses. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, 1(2), 89-99. Hirsch, E. 0., Jr. (l988). Cultural literacy. New York: Vintage Books. Johnson County Community College. (1989). Creating an alternative general education core curriculum. Overland Park, KS: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 307 006) Keller, P. (l982). Getting at the core: Curricular reform at Harvard. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kemmis, S., & Stake, R. (l988). Evaluating curriculum. Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press. Levine, A. (1990). Curriculi-curricula. Change, 11(2), 46—5l. Mark, M. M., & Romano, J. J. (l982). The freshman seminar program: Experimental evaluation of an introduction to the liberal arts. Evaluation Review, 1(6), 80l-8l0. Martin, W. B. (l982). Qualities of a college of character. Educa- tional Record, 11(4), 32-38. Mears, J. A. (l986). Evolutionary process: An organizing prin- ciple for general education. The Journal of General Education, 11(4), 313-325. 362 Michigan Department of Education. (l969). State plan for higher education in Michigan. Lansing: Author. Miller, G. E. (l988). The meaning of general eduCation: The emergence of a curriculum paradigm. New York: Teachers College Press. Mohrman, K. (l983, Fall). Liberal learning is a sound human capital investment. Educational Record, pp. 56—6l. Mooney, C. J. (l99l, May 8). Professors feel conflict between roles in teaching and research, say students are badly prepared. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. l5-l7. Morris, C., Leone, H., & Mannchen, M. (l987). Curricular patterns for students who have experienced the general education reforms at Miami-Dade Community College (Research Report No. 87-l3). Miami: Office of Institutional Research, Miami—Dade Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 305 l26) Nelson, C. (l990, September). Harvard’s hollow "core." 1hg Atlantic Monthly, PP. 70-80. O’Banion, T., & Shaw, R. G. (l982). Obstacles to general educa- tion. New Directions for Community Colleges, 19(4), 59-72. Payne, S. L. (l980). The art of asking questions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Petry, J. R. (l987). The revival of general education programs in American colleges and universities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Studies Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 288 439) Putnam, B. H., & Stevens, E. I. (l99l, July 24). Management as a liberal art. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. 8l-82. Raines, M. R., Grandstaff, M. E., & Hekhuis, L. F. (l989). Thinking together about the new century in Michigan higher education. East Lansing: College of Education, Michigan State University. Reardon, R. C. (l990). The demand side of general education: A review of the literature (Technical Report No. ll). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 323 86l) Sederburg, W. (l989). Results of the l989 Michigan public higher education faculty survey. Lansing, MI: Author. 363 Smith, J. Z. (l983). Why the college major? Questioning the great unexplained aspect of undergraduate education. Change, 11(5), l2-l5. Sprinthall, R. C. (l987). Basic statistical analysis (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Stark, J. S., & Lowther, M. A. (l989). Exploring common ground in liberal and professional education. New Directions for Teach- ingnand Learning, 19, 7-20. Suskie, L. M. (l983). Student patterns in completingngeneral education requirements. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 239 572) Sworder, S. (l986). Determination of student willingness to take afternoon classes and class time preference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 269 047) Weaver, F. S. (l982). Introductory statistics and general educa- tion. Journal of General Education, 11(4), 287-294. Wee, D. L. (l987). Getting out of the way of general education. North Central Association Quarterly, §l(4), 454-460. Woditsch, G. A., Schlesinger, M. A., & Giardina, R. C. (l987). The skillful baccalaureate. Change, 11(6), 48-57. “71111111MAINE