ABSTRACT THE LIVING-LEARNING CONCEPT IN A UNIVERSITY SETTING AS IT AFFECTS STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTION AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE BY Roy Howard McFall The general purpose of this study was to analyze and interpret how successful the living—learning concept has been in attaining its original objectives. More specifically, this study seeks to answer the question: Does the living-learning environment stimulate more student— faculty interaction? This is done by looking at student and faculty populations from two different environments: Living-learning and tradi- tional main building atmospheres. A secondary purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of a living-learning environment on student performance. While Michigan State University supplied the model and population for study, other institutions were contacted and their programs were reviewed. Two hypotheses are stated to test the primary and secondary pur— poses of the study. The hypothesis of no difference in amount of student-faculty interaction for living-learning and main building environ- ments is stated, tested, and rejected. A second hypothesis that there is no difference in student performance for living-learning and main Roy Howard McFall building is formulated as a secondary purpose of the study. This hypothesis could not be rejected. Findings I. Data from returned questionnaires and personal interviews indicate that more informal interaction takes place in the living-learning environment. A. Students from living-learning environment listed 2.6 more informal contacts than main building students. B. Faculty members from living-learning environments listed 26.5 more informal contacts than main building faculty. II. Analysis of data on the secondary hypothesis that there is no difference in performance for students from the living— learning and main building environment yielded the following: A. The null hypothesis could not be rejected. Conclusion The living-learning concept has been successful in accomplishing its prime objective of making it possible for more student-faculty con- tact. This study indicates that more student faculty interaction takes place in the living-learning complexes. No difference in effect upon student performance for the dif- ferent environments studied could be demonstrated. Possibly a finer tool for measurement could demonstrate difference, or possibly it is not valid to expect differences of a non-objective type to be measured using an objective test as a criterion. Performance on basic skills Roy Howard McFall tests of the cognitive type is easily measured. The non-cognitive realm of education is not so easy to measure. This study points out a need for research in the area of non-cognitive learning as it is affected by environment. THE LIVING-LEARNING CONCEPT IN A UNIVERSITY SETTING AS IT AFFECTS STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTION AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE By Roy Howard McFall A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1970 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. II. III. IV. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF PROBLEM . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delineation of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion of Methods Used . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review of Literature from Sources Outside Michigan State University . . . . . . . . . . . . Review of Literature from Michigan State university . sumary C O O C O O O O O I O O C O O O O O O 0 DESIGN OF THE STUDY AND METHODS USED . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of Hypotheses Tested . . . . . . . . . Methods Used for Collection of Data for Tests of Null Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Test of Hypothesis One . . . . . . . . . . . . Test of Hypothesis Two . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Presentation and Analysis of Data Relating to Hypothesis One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Presentation and Analysis of Data Relating to Hypothesis Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Page iv p...‘ CDO©J>H 10 10 l4 18 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 3O 31 31 31 53 S7 Chapter Page V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCII O O O I O I C O O I O C O I O O O O O O 59 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Findings and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6O Implications O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O I 61 Recommendations for Further Research . . . . . . . . . . 63 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 APPENDIX A O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O I O O O 68 APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 iii Table 10. 11. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Page Population Breakdown of Students Receiving and Returning Questionnaires by Sex and Class Standing . . . 32 Environmental Distribution of Students Returning Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Distribution by Sex of Faculty in TWO Teaching Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Numbers of Students and Faculty with Experience in Both Living—learning and Main Building Environments . . . 33 Summary of Data on Item 3 of Questionnaire: Have You Ever Talked With a Faculty Member Outside of Class? . . . 34 Summation and Ranking of All Student Responses on Item 4 of Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Summation and Ranking of Faculty Responses on Item 4 of Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Analysis of Student Responses to Item Number 4 for Two Different Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Analysis of Faculty Responses to Item Number 4 - for Two Different Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Summary of Five Mbst Beneficial Informal Interactions Listed by Students from Both Environments . . . . . . . . 40 Summary of Five Most Beneficial Informal Interactions Listed by Students From Living-Learning -- Main Building Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Summary of Five Most Beneficial Informal Interactions Listed by Faculty Members From Both Environments . . . . 41 Summary of Five Mbst Beneficial Interactions Listed by Faculty From Living-Learning -- Main Building Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 iv Table 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Summary of Students Responses Indicating Least Beneficial Informal Interactions . . . . . . . . . Summary of Student Responses Indicating Least Beneficial Interaction for Separate Environments . Summary of Faculty Responses Indicating Least Beneficial Informal Interaction . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Faculty Responses Indicating Least Beneficial Interaction for Two Separate Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Do You Feel That The Living-Learning Environment Stimulates Enriched Student Faculty Interaction? . Total Number and Per Capita Data on Informal Interactions for Students From Living-Learning -- Main Building Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Number and Per Capita Data on Informal Student- Faculty Contacts From Faculty Respondents . . . . . Analysis of Variance of CQT-T Scores for Students From Each Learning Environment . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance of Performance Criterion Measure for Two Learning Environments . . . . . . . . . . . Page 42 43 44 45 51 51 52 55 56 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF PROBLEM I. Introduction A student spends most of his time outside the periods of formal instruction. The learning that occurs during the periods of informal teaching and conversing is important, because formal classroom or laboratory instruction is often reinforced or weakened by this social- ization process. A college student has a desire to learn that does not automatically shut off when he leaves a formal instructional period. A student who is fired-up from a stimulating lecture or discussion, may want to pursue a point after class in a professor's office or over coffee. More often than not however, (and especially in large undergraduate lecture classes), the professor cannot meet with the students for a variety of legitimate reasons. After several weeks of all lecture and no informal contact with the professor, the student begins to feel that his professor does not care about him. As a result of being neglected by the professor outside of the classroom, the student sometimes becomes apathetic and loses his desire to learn for the sake of learning. He then begins to study only for the grade in a course. In a university with 10,000 or more students, it is not uncommon to hear a student say that he has 1 2 only talked with one or two professors informally in two full years of college.1 In the last fifty years, certain changes in higher education have drawn the professor away from the students and weakened the ties between them: increases in specialization;2 increases in demand for services to the community;3 and increases in the complexity of educational in— stitutions.4 Clark Kerr,5 the ex-president of the University of California, has commented that the revolt of undergraduate students that used to be against the faculty in loco parentis is now against the faculty in absentia. McKlachie6 writes that "a curriculum in which instructors' contacts with students are distant or transitory is doomed to failure no matter what the logic of its arrangement". Four classes at Yale University7 filled out a questionnaire during the spring of their senior year concerning the elements of their 1Wilson, Logan. "Is the Student the Forgotten Man?" The College and the Student. Dennis and Kauffman (eds.) American Council on Educa- tion. (Washington, D.C. 1966). p. 61. 2Lewis, Lionel S. "Publish or Perish", The Journal of Higher Education. 38:85—89. (Feb. 1967). 3Burkhardt, Frederick H., "The Changing Role of the Professor", The College and the Student, American Council on Education. (Washington, D.C. 1966). p. 206-210. 4Laser, Marvin. "Toward a Sense of Community", The Journal of Higher Education, 38:61-69. (Feb. 1967). 5Kerr, Clark. "The Uses of the University", Harvard University Press. (Cambridge. 1963). p. 103. 6McKlachie, Wilbert J. "Effective Teaching. The Relevance of the Curriculum", The College and the Student, American Council on Education. (Washington, D.C. 1966). p. 191. 7Mayhew, Lewis B. "Institutional Factors and the Learning En- vironment", The College and the Student, American Council on Education. (Washington, D.C. 1966). p. 224. 3 experience at Yale that contributed most to enjoyment of each class. When asked about improvements that should be made at Yale, each class wanted more personal contact with faculty, more personal direction in courses and studies, fewer lectures and more discussions. Gwynn8 hypothesizes that the 1964-1965 campus revolts seemed to be directed against the tendency of most colleges to be oriented to- wards their own system's elements (faculty, administration, traditions, physical plant, and curricula), rather than their students. Under- neath the current student activism and academic apathy is an expanding vacuum, the result of fifty years of weak teaching that insults and hurts students by not paying enough attention to them. In a recent survey9 concerning student-faculty relations, re— spondents reported that it is extremely important for faculty to main- tain contact with students outside of class, and that their growth in college was strongly influenced by such contact. Students now are not satisfied with arbitrary answers. They want logical answers, and they want to know the reasoning process the pro— fessor used to arrive at an answer. In a survey (Brooklyn College 1950) it was found that "in courses where value judgments and matters of con- victions are most likely to arise, the student body . . . wishes Olympian objectivity".10 8Gwynn, Frederick L., "And Sadly Teach", The College and the Student, Council on Education. (Washington, D.C. 1966). p. 196-201. 91bid. 10Riley, John W., Ryan, Bruce F., and Lifskitz, Marcia, "The Student Looks at His Teacher", Rutgers University Press, (New Brunswick, NOJO 1950). p. 73-74. II. Delineation of the Problem Problems of student-faculty relationships have been of widespread concern in schools across the nation. Attempts have been made to bring about closer contacts between student and faculty. Michigan State University has made one such attempt that is described as the Living- Learning concept. This study deals with student-faculty interaction as it is found in the living-learning environments at Michigan State. ‘ The end of the spring term 1969 marked the completion of eight years of the "living-learning" endeavor at Michigan State University. In the fall of 1961 Michigan State opened the first of its "living- learning" residence halls.11 By the 1964-65 academic year the campus had six of these units in operation. The year 1969 finds the living- learning residence halls grouped into the "south campus, west campus, and east campus complexes". The south campus includes Case - Wilson — Wonders, and Holden Halls; the west (Brody group) is made of six halls: Armstrong - Bailey - Bryan - Butterfield - Emmons — Rather; the east complex contains: Akers - Fee - Holmes - Hubbard - and McDonel Halls. This gives a total of fifteen living-learning resi— dence halls. The complete program provides for the housing of men and women in adjoining residence halls with common dining, social, and study facilities, and the inclusion of classroom and academic offices as an integral part of the building structure. This provides classes 11Blackman, Edward B., "The Living-Learning Program at Michigan State", University College Quarterly, Michigan State University Press. (January 1965). 5 and professors in the halls and adds an important academic dimension to the residence hall program.12 The aim of this program (living-learning) is an environment quite different from that in traditional dormitories. An environment in which traumatic impact on students of the multiversity would be reduced and their chances of survival increased all in an atmosphere conducive to desired educational outcomes. Augustine and Benson13 indicate that in their discussions with faculty and administration representatives (who were instrumental in the organization and development of the living-learning program), the original objectives of the program ranged from "the practical on one hand to the philosophical on the other". It is the philosophical objec— tives, or the desired educational outcomes that are in the domain of this present study. Brownell and King14 use a Chaucerian line to define the nature of a school: "The school is a company of sundry folk". Here they are emphasizing the pluralism of knowledge, the phiIOSOphic difference, the richness and diversity of the school faculty and student body, but with "the necessary dialogue, debate, and tension among them essential to their well being". Given the communities of discourse, companies of sundry folk, the teacher as a veteran discourser, the 12Augustine, Roger D., Benson, A. G., "A Survey of the Living- Learning Program at Michigan State", unpublished report. (June 3, 1963). 13Ibid., p. 4. ll“Brownell, John A., King, A. R., "The Curriculum and the Dis— ciplines of Knowledge". A Theory of Curriculum Practice. John Wiley and Sons Inc., (New York, London, Sydney. 1966). p. 123. 6 student as one being inducted and developed in each community of intel- lectual discourse, the curriculum as a planned and unplanned series of encounters evolves. This study is aimed at analyzing some of the effects of these interactions (encounters) between students and faculty. Ques- tions are asked and hypotheses are tested to get at some possible impli- cations of living-learning. III. Statement of the Problem Does the living-learning concept foster increased interaction between students and faculty? What takes place during the "out of class" encounters between students and faculty? Does student-faculty interaction affect student performance? IV. Discussion of the Methods Used One study15 relating to modifying student time schedules was done in the Case Hall living-learning experiment. It reported that students performed better under the modified time schedule permitted by the dormitory environment. Was this difference in performance due to the effect of time or the effect of enriched student—faculty inter- action? If differences in performance exist could this be due to such things as higher intelligence, better scientific background, or better reading skills? To approach answers to the questions indicated above, the following method was used: The term end exam scores for Natural Science students 15Bradley, Robert L., "Scheduling and Student Performance", University Collgge Quarterly, Michigan State University Press. (January 1966) o p. 28-30. 7 were selected as indicators of student performance. This was done for the following reasons: The author is familiar with the Natural Science courses, having taught them in both "main building" and dorm environments. The author has served on term end exam committees charged with developing the exams. The reliability of the term end exams for Natural Science is higher than for the other University College courses. The data from these term end exams will serve as indicators of student performance. The question asked about whether increased interaction takes place in the living—learning concept has been intuitively answered in brief studies made in this area. In this study, data were collected from both students and faculty on this question as well as the question: What takes place during out of class student-faculty encounters? Studies have been done dealing with the practical objectives of the living-learning program.16 These studies talk about space inven- tories, student credit hour production, section size, etc., dealing with logistics or practical problems of housing, eating, etc. This study omits the practical in favor of looking at philosophical objec- tives. With increasing student unrest being evident on campuses across the nation, more basic information is needed to aid the ongoing develop- ment of relevant curricula. Can improved relationships between faculty-students-administrators establish environments that enhance curricular improvement? This study, though not directly, talks to this 6Saupe, Joe L., Living-Learning at Michigan State University, Agguantitative Overview for Fall 1966, Office of Institutional Research, (June 1967). 8 question. Sherman Hawkins17 writing in The Rochester University Review pleads to "make it real". The absolution we seek the university cannot give: the kingdom of ideas is not the kingdom of God. It offers us something less than the souls' elected peace: A community of action and thought, a sharing in the life of the mind, the strange impersonal intimacy of those who are wholly absorbed in doing something that matters supremely to them. The diver posed on his springboard holds the auditorium hushed; in a studio, dancers sweep across the floor in exuberant accord; the Russian poet hurls his great heart and voice into a room where nationality has ceased to matter, even to exist. In the classroom minutely, patiently, the teacher and his class dissect a fern, an electron, a century, a poem. In these moments we forget ourselves, our isolation; for that time we are one. We achieve or are given — not identity but identification, the total community in which we can be whole. The university, like that larger kingdom to which I have steadily been comparing it, is not an institution but a happening, and it is happening all around us every day -- if we have eyes to see. My plea to you is the plea of every preacher: believe in this, hope for it, love it. This myth is true -- now make it real. By acting as models for students to observe in a more natural setting, we can make the university seem more real. Does the living— 1earning concept help make it real? Many statements about the success of the living—learning concept have been made -- these have been opinions based upon personal obser— vations. No real attempt has been made to collect hard data on this until the present study. Has the living-learning concept evolved over the eight years since its inception? If so, what trends can be identified? These are two more questions that this study seeks to answer. V. Concluding Statement In conclusion, the following chapter organization has been arranged to look at the phenomena of student-faculty interaction. Chapter Two 17Hawkins, Sherman, "The University - A Myth", Rochester Review, The University of Rochester, (Fall 1967). p. 6. 9 reviews the related literature in the area of living-learning. Chapter Three describes the design and methods of the study. Chapter Four presents the data and analyzes it. Chapter Five discusses, summarizes, draws conclusions and makes suggestions for possible implementation in new areas as well as suggestions for further research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE I. Introduction Over half the population of the United States is now under twenty- five years of age. The percentage of high school graduates going on to college is still on the rise. Student unrest, or dissatisfaction can be related to increase in numbers and the "impersonality" of their college experience. Education cannot be thought of in the conventional sense of what happens in the classrooms alone, but it must be thought of also in the broader sense of continuous interaction of individuals and cultural norms. The "bull session" in the grill, the informal "walk around the complex" must be viewed as potentially educative in nature. A classic attempt to enrich contact between students and faculty is reported in The American College edited by Nevitt Sanford1 relating to "Patterns of Residential Education: A Case Study of Harvard". He follows the development of enriched dormitories to the experimental Harvard House System. 1Sanford, Nevitt (ed.), The American College: Patterns of Residential Education, A Case Study of Harvard. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 1967. Chap. 22. 10 ll Butz2 states that "the relation between students and faculty members must be dynamic, open and intimate. Only in this way can the inexperienced student be properly stimulated to use his own mind. This type of dynamic, open and intimate interaction occurs in the living- learning environment". Yamamoto,3 although not talking directly to the question of how enriched student-faculty interaction affects student performance, makes an important observation: ”Whether teachers desire to or not, they are bound to serve as models for the young -- who will be guided not so much by what they say, but what they are". Students in the living—learning residences have more opportunity to see what a teacher is. Martin4 speaking to the problem of size -- ”large size", iden- tifies three characteristics of cluster colleges which he says appear to be the most promising solution: 1. Academic innovations: Encouragement of independent study, student formed seminars, tutorial community government and close student-faculty working relations were listed as characteristic of cluster colleges. 2. Personalized education: Residential arrangement in which facilities and programs combine to keep the student in a climate of learning 2Butz, Otto (ed.), To Make a Difference, Harper and Row, New York, Evanston, and London. 1967. 3Yamamoto, Kaoru (ed.). The College Student and His Culture: An Analysis, Houghton-Mifflin Co. (Boston, 1968). 4Martin, warren Bryan. "The Problem of Size", Journal of Higher Education, (March, 1967). p. 38. 12 enhances a personalized feeling on the part of the student. The precedent for closeness in the learning experience was set by the Great Teacher, who was often with his disciples, breaking bread, sitting on a hillside, teaching in informal settings -- and warning of the hazard of putting new wine into old wineskins. 3. Autonomy with the sponsoring institution: If the college is to be innovative, it must have the freedom to be different. Every cluster college insists that it be given the right to pour new wine into new wineskins. To make education personal is to take on a concern for the whole person. To know the student as a whole person necessitates a high level of interaction with that student. Can this goal be achieved? The literature in the area supports the idea that this goal can be approached more closely than in the traditional classroom (apartied) environment. In his book, Changing Values in College, Jacob,5 among others, has argued that colleges and universities have little effect on the students' values. If these values change little, it is because there is nothing distinctive about the values of most colleges. Where there is institutional distinctiveness and values are emphasized, students are affected. Wilson6 speaks of the advent of living-learning -- learning inno- vation as a return to the "Anglo—Saxon ideal of a collegiate community 5Jacob, Philip E. Changinngalues in College: An Exploratory Study in the Impact of College Teaching, Harper and Brothers, (New York, 1958). 6Wilson, John D. The Idea of Living-Learning: Innovations in the Academic Use of Residential Facilities, an unpublished position paper from Assistant Provosts Office, (Michigan State University, Dec. 1968). 13 living and studying together in one seamless web of existence". He reports that the Anglo-Saxon model, taken in its purest form, is not readily discovered in any of modern British universities, and is found in the ancient universities only in severely modified form. He states that "If the 'Anglo-Saxon' model has not survived wholly intact in modern Britain, it is not surprising to learn that it has no greater staying power on this side of the Atlantic". "In this country it is clear that most colleges and universities have looked upon residential facilities as 'necessary' inconveniences, or instruments for the partial control of the students' social lives and not as essential components in the building of.a community centered upon a comprehensive idea of undergraduate education" as stated by Taylor.7 A generalization by Feldman and Newcomb8 lends support to the smaller units of the living-learning concept: Though faculty members are often individually influential, particularly in respect to career decisions, college faculties do not appear to be responsible for campus wide impact except in settings where the influence of student peers and of faculty complement and reinforce one another. The living-learning concept at Michigan State University sets the environment for enriched student faculty interaction. Does this enriched interaction take place? What effect does this interaction have on student performance? These questions form the central purpose of this study. 7Taylor, William. "Student Culture and Residence", Universities Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Sept. 1965). p. 331-44. 8Feldman, Kenneth A., Newcomb, Theodore M. The Impacts of Colleges Upon Their Students, a report to the Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching. (Jan. 1968). 14 II. Review of Literature from Sources Outside Michigan State University The following summary statements were in response to letters sent to various mentioned campuses inquiring about their residence hall pro- grams. Questions cogent to this study pertain to staffing patterns in residence halls: 1. Do the staff members assigned to the halls have any rela- tionship to the teaching programs of the university? 2. Do faculty or teaching assistants have offices in the halls? 3. Are any courses taught in the hall designed for a pre- selected residence hall constituency? Of 14 schools responding to the above listed questions, 10 answered the first question with a definite "no", 2 responded that there was some relationship to the teaching programs, and 2 indicated "yes", that some faculty were assigned to the residence hall. The response to question 2 was: 11 have no faculty offices in the hall, 3 do have graduate assistant offices in the hall, and 1 had both graduate student and faculty offices in the hall. Nine schools responded that they offered no courses in the residence halls. Three had some classes scheduled in the hall restricted to hall residents. Two had some classes in halls not restricted. Appendix A contains con- densed letters from the responding institutions. Innovative approaches to involve the residence hall program in the intellectual life of the campus have been tried at several colleges and universities. Bringing a series of intellectual and cultural dis- cussion demonstrations, forums and etc., have been tried at Stanford and 15 Florida.9 At several other colleges, including Colorado and Washington University,10 a key element is the appointment of a number of Faculty Fellows to the respective residences "to improve and expand academic counseling and to encourage the development of cultural and intellectual activities and programs". Stephens College11 undertook a three year program in 1960 under a grant from the Fund for the Advancement of Learning. Team teaching and general education, as well as the idea of the residence hall is a place of learning was included in this program. One hundred (female) students were selected out of a group of 270 volunteers and housed in a specifically designated hall. All students took the same five courses from a teaching team who worked exclusively with the project and who maintained their offices in the residence hall. This program is probably the nearest to the Michigan State effort, but it lacked the co-educational element. Data are lacking on definite objective evaluation of the programs offered at other schools. Stephens' initial report was one of "success and extension to a second hall and a second group of girls". Colorado's report of the Farrand Hall experiment indicates that the program was suspended because of "difficulty of persuading enough appropriate faculty members to participate". 9Ferber, Daniel A., Academic Influences in Student Housing: Theory and Practice. Journal of College Student Personnel, Vol. IV, No. 1, October, 1962. p. 2-10. 10Bruber, Harold E., The Farrand Hall Egperiment, University of Colorado Behavior Research Laboratory Report. No. 17. June 1961. 11 Anon., Stephens College Bulletin. November 1960. 16 An exciting approach to undergraduate education is in the planning stages at Northwestern University.12 A report of this discusses student unrest and makes the charge that part of this unrest is due to the fact (supported by evidence from student questionnaires) that on the campus of Northwestern, as well as most other campuses, "We are doing much less than we should to create an environment of extra curricular intellectual stimulation and personal happiness". Three basic assertions about under- graduate life and about extra curricular education are made in this report. They are as follows: 1. Undergraduate life ought to be characterized by a worthy and appropriate cultivation of pleasure -- a pursuit of enjoyment that is planned and governed by the students themselves. 2. Undergraduate life ought to be characterized by the informal pursuit of knowledge, an extension of education into extra curricular life that is planned and executed by the students alone and by the students and the faculty in collaboration (interaction?). 3. Undergraduate life ought to be characterized by a wholesome tension between diversity and unity, between the individual and the corporate, between the private and the public, in which each side of the antithesis is respected. 12Faculty Planning Committee, A Community of Scholars; New Approaches to Undergraduate Education at Northwestern. Northwestern University Press, Sept. 1968. 17 Professor Richard Leopoldl3 of the Committee on the Student Community at Northwestern reflects on the second assertion above and states beautifully: Student life outside the classroom should not be a refuge from intellectual discipline, but an exciting supplement to it. The complete separation of work and play, classroom and dormitory life, curricular and extra curricular interest, is alien to the spirit of a true university. In such a university, work and play are part of a continuum. A summation paragraph of the report is pertinent as a recommenda— tion for residence hall usage: There are literally dozens of ways in which residences could serve the intellectual purposes of the university. They could help achieve some of the precise curricular innovations. Members of the interdisciplinary collegium and the monodisciplinary pre- graduate scholars could be housed together -- to their own benefit and to the benefit of others for whom their sense of intellectual purpose might be exemplary. New courses or new opportunities for independent study could be first developed experimentally within the residences. Our proposals for the follow-up studies of ways to improve a particular course could sometimes be realized in the living units. In time undergraduate residences could be given considerable educational initiative, and many educational goals we have hitherto considered as the objective of the fixed curricu- lum alone might fall within the sc0pe of extra curricular education. Herbert Thelen14 has something to say about a major function of education in his book Education and the Human Quest: Let me close these specualtions by reminding ourselves that a major function of education is to induct youth into the com- munity and its way of life. The way to induction is through gradually increasing participation in the school and larger com- munity, beginning with adolescence or earlier, and with respect to more and more facets and functions of society. While some attempt at integrating the residence halls into the total educational endeavor has been made at other schools, Michigan 13Leopold, Richard. Mimeographed report of Northwestern Univer- sity, Committee on the Student Community at Northwestern University, (Dec. 1968). 1['Thelen, Herbert A. Education and the Human Quest, Harper and Row Publishers, (New York, Evanston, and London, 1960). 18 State University must be thought of as the innovator in this area. The following section reviews the literature on the living-learning concept at Michigan State University. III. Review of Literature from Michigan State University One of the original objectives listed by Benson and Augustine15 (1963) for the living—learning program at Michigan State University was having residence halls become a more important part of the total educa- tional program. Following this objective, and consistent with it was the increase of contact and communication between student and faculty. Capitalizing on the increased Opportunity to blend and integrate ex- perience outside of class with classroom experiences was listed as another objective. Evaluation of these two objectives is a major part of this study. An assumption that an opportunity for increased student-faculty contact leads to increased interaction finds support in a study done by Bradley16 on scheduling and student performance. Hodgkinson17 states that the individual (student and/or teacher) and his society (school) are constantly in a reciprocal relationship with each other. The closer the contact, the better the communication and the higher the opportunity for the reciprocal relationship to occur. Hodgkinson also indicated 15Augustine, Roger D., Benson, August M. A Survey of the Living: Learning_Prgg;am at Michigan State University, unpublished report, Office of Evaluation Services. (June 3, 1963. Michigan State University). 16Bradley, Robert L. "Scheduling and Student Performance", University College Quarterly, (Jan. 1966, Michigan State University Press.) 17Hodgkinson, Harold L. Education, Interaction, and Social Change, Prentice Hall, (1967, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.) 19 that similarities exist between formal education and other institutions of our social system. He feels that this supports a need for study of the occurrence interaction in these situations. The Case Hall living-learning program was launched in 1962 to alleviate some problems then besetting our university community. The establishment of this operation came about from a proposal made by John Hannah18 in a talk to an assembly of the faculty and administration on March 27, 1961. The initial idea of living-learning is perhaps best explained in President Hannah's own words: It is proposed to improve the environment for learning by making greater academic use of the resident halls, and of the time students spend in them, thus eliminating as best we can physical inconvenience as an impediment to learning and capi- talizing upon our great advantage as a resident university. Classes held in residence halls would reduce the need for student movement about the rapidly growing campus, and, more important, would increase faculty-student contact. It was also hoped that students would establish identity with smaller units of a university become so formidably large. Having faculty teach in resident halls and "participate" in their co-curricular programs would, it was hoped, develop a more cul- tural atmosphere in the halls. The aim in short, was an environment quite different from that found in traditional "dormitories", an environ- ment in which traumatic impact on students of the "multiversity" would be reduced and their chances of survival increased. All of this could be done in an atmosphere conducive to desired educational outcomes. The first living-learning program was in Case Hall. A year later began the program in Wilson Hall, followed the next year by that in 18Hannah, John A. Presidential Address given to Faculty and Administration of Michigan State University. East Lansing, Michigan, Mar. 27, 1961.) 20 Wonders Hall. Because Case-Wilson—Wonders was judged a success, the Brody group was added, partly to gain needed classrooms, partly to improve the Brody atmosphere. Here, too, the hoped for results have begun to be realized. In the Spring quarter, 1967, for example, Brody emerged from the "academic basement" for the first time in years.19 Living-learning has thus been intuitively judged a success on South campus (Case-Wilson-Wonders) and in the Brody Complex. What were the reasons? The following was stated in a report of the Committee on Improving Undergraduate Education:20 An objective consideration of the experience of the past six years indicate that the university's 'living-learning' experi- ment has been relatively successful. The report goes on to say that certainly these large residence halls have not been (and should not hope to be) transformed into 24 hour classrooms and lecture halls in which intellectual activities alone predominate. They are, after all, residence halls and in them reside young men and women who must eat and sleep and exercise as well as read and think. But, after this is acknowledged, it is fair to say that the "decentralization" of the University's academic and co-curricular pro- grams, made possible by the establishment of the living-learning units, has definitely encouraged student attendence at cultural events and facilitated the informal exchange (interaction)* between students and faculty outside of class. The Committee on Improving Undergraduate 19 . Summary of grade list M.S.U., 1967, Office of the Registrar, (Michigan State University, July 1967.) 20Committee on Undergraduate Education. Improving Undergraduate Education, (Michigan State University Press, 1967.) p. 49. * Parenthesis are mine. 21 Education closes this section with the statement that "the essential purpose of the University can only be served by the continuing develOp- ment and extension of the living-learning idea". In June 1969, a report on residence halls was completed by the Provost's Ad Hoc Committee on Residence Halls.21 Two semantic dif- ficulties were encountered: "Residence Hall" is taken to mean "dormi- tory" by some members of this university community, "residential college" by others, and "dormitory with specialyprograms" by still others. The Ad Hoc Committee also discovered that, over a time, living- learning has covered four different types of residence hall and teaching interactions. Only a small part of the committee's report dealt with student-faculty contact (interaction). From responses to a question- naire given to residence hall Students, an almost classic expression comes forth: "In no instance did a student express a desire to have lggg contact with his teachers". Of course, he might not have baldly stated it in these terms even if it was the case, concluded the analysis. Another question asked by the committee dealt with "improvements in academic environment". The student was asked to pick from a list of six improvements two that he thought would be most desirable. Closer contact with the faculty was desired far above the other improvements listed. A statement listed by the committee on Residence Halls says that campus living is seen by the student as a threat to his identity. It fails to provide him with the scope to develop a rich life style, 21The Provost's Ad Hoc Committee on the Residence Halls. The Residence Hall Study, (Michigan State University Press, June 1969.) 22 identifiable to him as his own, but modeled to some extent upon what he finds in other people, or "models" who are available to him. It fails to make available to him sufficient people who could by their own life style encourage him to develop his. It fails to provide two necessary bridges: one between the academic aspects of his experience and the living aspects; the other between the teaching function and that of advising, as they both affect him. It goes without saying that the academic community is one with a large turnover of population. There is a deep rooted, urgent need to cultivate close contacts. For this reason, it has also been said that "free inquiry best flourishes among minds that have more than a passing acquaintanceship with one another". Further support for enriched opportunity for student-faculty interaction is found in a 1968 report from the Committee on Residence Halls CUE* Report Implementation.22 As a major recommendation the authors state that: To improve academic climate more "natural" faculty involvement with students outside the classroom should be strived for. This committee listed a special endorsement of the section on page 47 of the CUE Report on the roles of participants in the university com- munity that warrants total inclusion? It is not enough then, that all members of the university be courteous to one another. That is important, especially in a large and very busy community such as ours. But beyond this there must be the broadest possible understanding of what academic life is. It is not sufficient, for example, that the 22Committee on Residence Halls. Report of Residence Hall Programs Office on Implementation of CUE Report, Residence Halls Programs Office, mimeographed report, Dean of Students, (Michigan State University, May 6, 1968). * Committee on Undergraduate Education. 23 faculty and the academic administrators know what academic freedom is and give every encouragement to its responsible exercise. Every administrator in a position of authority must be equally aware of and sensitive to this tradition and all other traditions of higher learning. Without full and informed participation in the real life of the community, the Climate which should reinforce the main purposes of the University will only confuse those pur- poses. The main idea expressed is a constant search for a more active partici- pation and stimulus to students, faculty, and administrators in creating an academic climate and attitudinal change that makes residence hall living a truly worthwhile learning experience. Although the literature on the subject of living-learning has increased over the period 1961 -- 1969, it is still somewhat limited. There is evidence that colleges other than Michigan State University have tried innovative approaches to involve the residence hall program in the intellectual life of the campus. Despite the limited experience to date, the general trend is in the direction of involving the resi- dence hall as an integral part of the academic, intellectual scene. This has been graphically expressed in the report "College Students Live Here -- A Study of College Housing".23 BlackmanZA reports observations of "animated discussions" between faculty members and students after classes in grills, hallways, and lounges in the Case-Wilson-Wonders complex. He states that "little of this activity lends itself to quantification or evaluation; but closer relationships between students and faculty members are plainly evident". 23Riker, Harold C., Lopez, Frank G. College Students Live Here, Educational Facilities Laboratories Inc., (New York, 1961). 2['Blaclcman, Edward B., "The Living-Learning Program at Michigan State", University College Quarterly; M.S.U. Press. Jan. 1965. 24 Olsen,25 writing on "Dormitory Environment and Student Attitudes", states that over eight out of ten students felt that contact between students and instructors is essential in every course. Students living in traditional halls were least concerned about such contact. IV. Summary This chapter along with Chapter 1 provides a background of inter— pretation, definitions, and limitations for this study. The relevant literature has been discussed in Chapter 2. These two chapters lead to the formulation of hypotheses to be found in Chapter 3. The methods used and the design of the study are to be found in Chapter 3. 25Olsen, LeRoy A., "Dormitory Environment and Student Attitudes", Report from Office of Evaluation Services. Michigan State University. June 15, 1962. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY AND METHODS USED I. Introduction This study examines the phenomena of student—faculty interaction. Two different environments, livingrlearniggyand traditional main building are compared. Students and faculty involved in courses in Natural Science under conditions present in the two aforementioned environments serve as the population for this study. A longitudinal design was selected to look at trends that may have occurred during the period since the establishment of the living-learning concept. Assumptions have been made about the relative success of living— learning halls. These assumptions have little supportive evidence. Does enriched student-faculty interaction take place in the living— learning environment? What takes place during student-faculty encounters outside the classroom? If increased student-faculty interaction takes place in the living-learning environment is there some effect on student achievement that is measurable? How do students view the living-learning environment? How do faculty view this program? These questions serve to identify the areas that this study seeks at least partially to answer. 25 26 II. Population Students from two different campus environments were sampled. These students had completed courses in Natural Science in either a living-learning complex where they resided or in the main building where they traveled to class from traditional residences. Both male and female freshman students were included using a "block-sampling technique". Results on the common departmental final examination for the sample were identified for the students from both environments. Faculty of the Natural Science department who had taught in both the main building and the living-learning complexes were interviewed or asked to complete questionnaires (see appendix B). A sample of faculty who had only main building experience was selected and interviewed in the same manner. Background information was collected and tabulated for both the student and faculty segments of the p0pulation used in this study. III. Statement of Hypotheses Tested in this Study Scientific experimentation is concerned with the empirical testing of hypotheses. In order to place the burden of showing any significant differences between two environments directly upon the evidence obtained from them, the following null hypotheses were stated: (1) There is no difference in the amount of student-faculty interaction that takes place in living-learning and main building environments. 27 (2) There is no difference in performance on Natural Science departmental examinations for students from the living- learning environment and in the main building environment. IV. Methods Used for Collection of Data for Tests of Null Hypotheses A. Test of Hypothesis number one Questionnaires and personal interviews (appendix B) were employed to collect data relevant to hypothesis number one. Questions dealing with the amount of student-faculty interaction that takes place in the two environments connected with this study were asked of six sub-groups. A content analysis was done on the responses collected from faculty with teaching experience in the living-learning halls and compared to faculty with teaching experience only in the main building. Faculty with experi— ence in both living—learning and main building were also sampled and their responses compared to the previously mentioned groups. A comparable questionnaire and personal interview technique was employed on a student sample composed of three sub-groups. Students having taken Natural Science in their living—learning residence, students having their Natural Science experience in the main building, and students having taken courses of Natural Science in both environments. The same type of content analysis was run on the student sub-groups as employed on the faculty sub-groups. Data from these responses and analyses are tabled in Chapter IV. Information concerning the question of "what takes place during out of class student-faculty encounters" was also garnered from the personal interviews and the open ended portion of the questionnaires. 28 B. Test of Hypothesis number two. Data on term end final examination scores from students of the two aforementioned environments were obtained from "alpha master com- puter printouts" supplied by the Office of Evaluation Services. Stu- dents were identified for environment by section number classification (each complex as well as the main building uses a descriptive section number that identifies the location of the course). Random block sampling1 of each environment group was done and the scores earned on the department final examination recorded. A sampling was done for each term from 1961—1969. Statistical analysis of this data was made employing a sum of squares tool for analysis of variance. A concern for a multiple variable effect was considered and an interaction model was selected to test their significance. Factorial analysis to investigate the possibility of an interaction phenomena was done using Edwards2 mixed model. Assigning the variables the following symbols: A, student—faculty interaction (Al Living-learning — A main 2 building); B, sex (B1 male - B2 female); C, CQT scores (Cl scores above median - C2 scores below median); D, science background (D1 good science background - D poor science background); E, time (E1 fall - E winter - 2 2 E3 spring), yields the following model that is used for the analysis to establish whether there was any effect due to individual variables or any effect due to interaction occurring between the variables. 1Hays, William L. Statistics for Psychologists, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, (New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Toronto, London. 1963). 2Edwards, Allen L., Experimental Design in Psychological Research, (New York, Rinehart and Co. 1950). 1 E2 E3 E1 E2 E3E 1 E2 E3 1 2 3 E1 E2 E3 E1 E2 E3 E1 E2 E3 E1 E2 E3 A2 BI’//I/I’,,zz///”"\~\\--~e\~\\\\‘BZ CI////////\\\\\\\\\CZ c:////\\\\\c2 /\ /\ /\ /\ D1 D2 ‘ D1 D2 D1 D2 D1 D2 Comparing horizontally in the model within group variation could be in- vestigated, comparing vertically in the model between group variation could be investigated. 30 V. Summary Two hypotheses were formulated to test the effects of the living- learning environment on student-faculty interaction and student perfor- mance. These two hypotheses were stated to test the success of living- learning in relation to the original objectives of bringing about more student-faculty contact and improving the intellectual atmosphere in the residence halls. The data collected for the tests of the two null hypotheses as well as the analysis of these data are presented in chapter four. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA I. Introduction Two different techniques were employed to collect data relevant to the two hypotheses tested in this study. Questionnaires and personal interviews supplied data relating to the question: Is there a differ- ence in the amount of student-faculty interaction under different en- vironments? To test the second null hypothesis, a sample of student performance on Natural Science term end examinations was made for the two different environments (living-learning complex - main building). II. Presentation and Analysis of data relating to the hypothesis that there is no difference in the amount of student-faculty interaction that takes place in living-learning and main building environments The questionnaire was distributed to 650 students, 588 were com— pleted and returned, or approximately 90%. Faculty response was slightly lower. The faculty returned 55 out of 65 questionnaires or approximately 84%. A. A summation of data for the student pOpulation receiving and returning questionnaires is given in TABLE 1. An analysis of the data in this table reveals a disparity in the per— centage of questionnaires returned by upper classmen. This difference could be due to a number of factors: apathy, 31 32 time, etc. It was not felt that the difference noted in returns detracted from the major objectives of the present study. However, these differences could lead to further study of differential attitudes between the various class standings. TABLE 1 POPULATION BREAKDOWN OF STUDENTS RECEIVING AND RETURNING QUESTIONNAIRES BY SEX AND GLASS STANDING Sex Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Returned Z Z Z Z Male 200 93 4O 27 97Z 97% 76Z 82Z Female 125 53 36 14 Total 325 146 76 41 Grand Total (N) 588 B. TABLE 2 presents information relating to the type of environ- ment experienced by student questionnaire returners. TABLE 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS RETURNING QUESTIONNAIRES Environment Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Living-learning 225 98 35 23 Main building 100 48 41 18 Totals 325 146 76 41 33 C. The data on faculty distribution in the two environmental situations included in this study are shown in TABLE 3. TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION BY SEX OF FACULTY IN TWO TEACHING ENVIRONMENTS Male Female Living-learning 30 6 Main building 15 4 Totals 45 10 D. In TABLE 4, an indication of the number of students and faculty who had experienced both environments of living— learning and main building classes is presented. (It is interesting to note that 15 male faculty members indicated that they had no "dorm" teaching experience, and 8 of these said they "had no intention of moving to one of the complexes ever".) TABLE 4 NUMBERS OF STUDENTS AND FACULTY WITH EXPERIENCE IN BOTH LIVING-LEARNING AND MAIN BUILDING ENVIRONMENTS Students Faculty Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Male 30 6O 52 18 22 Female 6 60 41 29 5 n--——— -— —————— — —_—_ Totals 36 120 93 47 27 34 E. Data relating to item three on the questionnaire is summarized in TABLE 5. Item number three on the questionnaire supplied information that all of the faculty members had talked to students outside of class. Nine male students; six freshman, two SOphomore, and one junior indicated that they had never talked to a faculty member outside of class. Eight freshmen, two SOphomores, two juniors, and one senior female student responded that they had no contact outside of class with a faculty member. Of the twenty-two students who responded that they had never talked to a faculty member out of class, twenty-one had not been part of the living-learning environ— ment . TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF DATA ON ITEM 3 OF QUESTIONNAIRE: HAVE YOU EVER TALKED WITH A FACULTY MEMBER OUTSIDE OF CLASS? . . . . . . . . . . . "NO" ANSWERS Sex Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Male 6 2 l 0 Female 8 2 2 1 Total 14 4 3 1 Grand Total 22 F. TABLE 6 summarizes responses for the total student population to item 4 on the questionnaire. The faculty responses to this same item are indicated in TABLE 7. In order to collect this data on the amount of student-faculty interaction that 35 takes place in both the main building and living—learning situations, a series of items was develOped dealing with the types of out-of-class contacts. Item number 4 of the questionnaire listed 11 types of interactions and asked students and faculty to list the approximate number of times that they had participated in the specific contact. TAB LE 6 SUMMATION AND RANKING OF ALL STUDENT RESPONSES ON ITEM 4 OF QUESTIONNAIRE Items Males Females Totals Rank 1. Talked after class, in hall, etc. 260 153 413 l 2. Talked in professor's office 247 142 389 2 3. Talked over coffee 196 53 249 4 4. Casual meeting 93 42 135 5 5. Talked over a meal 41 8 49 7 6. Talked over the phone 203 71 274 3 7. Talked in dorm lounge 70 36 106 6 8. Talked in dorm room 32 9 41 8 9. Talked in faculty member's home 21 ll 32 9 10. Talked over a beer 5 0 5 ll 11. Fill in if not mentioned above 7 9 15 10 36 TABLE 7 SUMMATION AND RANKING OF FACULTY RESPONSES ON ITEM 4 OF QUESTIONNAIRE Items Males Females Total Rank 1. Talked after class in hall, etc. 45 10 55 l 2. Talked in professor's office 45 10 55 1 (2) 3. Talked over coffee 37 6 43 5 4. Casual meeting 44 8 52 4 5. Talked over a meal 26 2 28 6 6. Talked over the phone 45 10 55 l (3) 7. Talked in dorm lounge 21 5 26 7 8. Talked in dorm room 18 1 l9 8 9. Talked in faculty member's home 12 3 15 9 10. Talked over a beer 3 0 3 10 11. Fill in if not mentioned above 1 0 l 11 Comparing the data in TABLES 6 and 7, we find agreement in the first three ranks: MOSt contact occurred in the hall on the way to a professor's office. the professor's office was second most numerous, versations over the phone was third in rank. after class Contact in while con- Faculty members ranked conversations over the phone as number four, while students ranked talking over coffee as number four. meetings ranked five for students and four for faculty. Casual Further analysis of the items under question four of the questionnaire was made to bring out the effects of different 37 environments. Results are found as TABLES 8 and 9. The differences in ranking for the two environments that become apparent are most clearly seen in TABLE 8. Students in living-learning marked items 1, 2, 3, 6, and 4; while students with main building experiences marked items 2, 6, 1, 3, and 4 as the top ranks of interaction contacts. Faculty rankings were in agreement for the first two ranks (items 1 - 2), faculty from the main building ranked item six (talking over the phone) as number 3, while living-learning faculty marked item 4 (casual meeting) as more common. In items marked in lesser order of occurrence, faculty from the living-learning environment did not vary significantly from faculty in the main building. Item number 5 on the questionnaire asked the respondee to in- dicate which informal interaction (selected from those listed under item 4) was the most beneficial and asked (Why?) as a free response portion. TABLE 10 summarizes the five most numerous responses listed by students from both environments. TABLE 11 presents the data for five most beneficial informal interactions from students experiencing the two different environments. Respondents in both the main building environment and living-learning ranked conversations after class as the most beneficial. Students from the living-learning situation ranked having coffee with a faculty member more beneficial than contact in his office. Conversation with a faculty 38 Ame a m AOHV H m m>osm emGOHucma soc CH cH HHHm ..HH HHHV H m HHHV m.o N pump a um>o emmea .oH HoHv m s Ame m ON mac: m.umpama suHsumH cH uomeH .m Awe m 0H Ame a Hm soon shoe cH eomes .w Ase sH mm Hoe mH ma mwcaoH snow aH emmea .a Ame an NNH Ase Hm mmH scone was uo>o wamea .s Ame m NH Ame a an Hmus m um>o emmee .m Ame wH om Ame om em wcHumma Hmammo .q HqV MH we AmV ms HON mmHHou um>o ummea .m HHV mo smH Ame mm mmm «UHHHo m.uommmmoum :H emmee .N HmV mm mOH HHV me «on mmmHo Hosea emHHme .H xcmm N wawwawap xcmm N wcwaumoa mamuH cfimz IwcH>HA mHzmzzomH>zm HzmmMmmHQ 038 mom I q MMMZDZ ZMHH OH m mamA