MMJHWWMM .fiwmfififiwm1%\fiun1utfi1 1 . .... . . . .... . . .. 1-11 . $1.1m? 1111...... 1, 1 1.1.1.111”... . .. . .. .. . . . 1.1. 11-1.1-1...11... l 1 I .1 11 11. 1 .1 (mm! $11.. 1.11.1...“ . 11,1 1 1’1? ll 1. .1 k1 . 111.12.”! 11.1 1 . . . b.1151. @151% .1 . . 1 . .llllufin 1 1 1 II. .t‘ r". 1‘11 1 n I 1. 1. .1 .1 1111mm... 1 . ”1.111db11. .. 1 . 1.11.1» 1n. 1. 1 H: .1. 1. .1 .1MM11W11MMMthwmm1n’Wb3w.nu5umflll ‘11. .1“me Lifrwh. .mmhvn . NW3.“ 1.... fl v.51. I 1 r .I . 1 I . . .. , . . 1 11ll ”NUMN1l11m - 1.1.1.1..1m...1m11111. .1 . . 1 . .. .. . .. H . . . . . . .. . . 1.111.111.1111... .1 .1 1 1...: NHAWWM .u .u . . 1. 1 . 111 . . 1 . 1 1 . . . . 1 1 1 1.. 1 .11. . .lllrl 1... ....11.. 3.. 1.115.“? . . 1 11. .4 1. 11 .1 1 u. 1. .1 51 .31.! 1 muvxmhllr 110.1 1 . . . .v . 1h 1. Lln .11. 1. “1.11. .l i .1 mflwgflwdfiz .. WHumantmhfi nuwfiuu bl. 1 . 1 . 1 .1. . 1 ....1. . 111111..\11111.u+1.rh1 . Hub 1.1.11.1 . ,1 q Vmfllviyflrllvl (“I .111 11.- .1 .. . . . . . .. , . . . 111g} WWWWWL... $111,111.. 1W1.l1111111u111ml1 .1 1.. 1.. .. . 1 . .1511: 1 11.1 m... 1. $111.11“: 11111 . 1 1,1114%... 111...... .1. .. .1 . 1 1 .. 1 , . mama?!» gfilwnfl nufllhrboll 11.4 1.. ,nwll1v1111.1 1 lfilflvl 1....11. it “.1111... . . . . .1hmuWW1fiMRm1flv-fi 111.1111 1 1.1.1.111.“ .11 1 11.1 . .1. 1 1 . . 111 1 . ....l\1111a111 1 111111. .11 1%.ngmluflanfimw .11? 1. . . 1 1 . 111.1111 1 11 . . . 1n Lluabl 1 1 11811 £11 . 1 . . . ulnwmmllfllwl tqnnrldnwwwll. .11111.1.11fl11.hn.: 1.1311 Thin"? l l . 11.11%anqu 1*. 11 . . . 1 . 1 , lhmvwnh1mmhfiflhmmfi . 11W ., wwmvilfhhbllmgfiwwwaflbnhluhfiwflma 11....WL181W111Un1wH. .1 . 1 AM“ u§u1..+.lu....11 film“??? “itempgmhwn up”. glummr 411.1113"? mnvmnfifi . 11.1... 1m": 1141.111. . hulls... .. iv 19.111191 .1, 1..) r1 1 I... 1... t l. .llu1 1 L. . L till n l .hn1111me11M fialyug . 1 1.11 . an... 1.. “plan! 11$“le tumult . .l 1 11.1 tw1w111m1nhlrwu... lulflfimmmumummnwmwl WWW”. ”1&1...”ng 1W1. 11. .l 1118051511. 11.1 . 1 . .. . 1 lhlngflfiml 11.11.”. 1 11 . 1 1 l .. 11?. $198111 .1111mm1111mnn. .11111.%1..11..11m.~1 1.11M...” 111.111.111.1rmml1w11711.1...11111 up"! 1.1.1 1&5? .. l1h111 £111.11... .. . .111. . . 1.1.11" 1.. 1.9111 11.... LMV . 1.141.111.1111. 1.111. . . . .. 1v“. 11.1. 11m n? “a". 1 . 1 . 1 plan”... 1 clkqllvuuhi 131. 11...”.11111. .11.". k11lwflu1nak1uiww+gflammlmflfl1 1lrn1..ou‘.l”1n11.1ua.f, "1111.11.11“. .1. 1.»n.m.hu11.. “1.43.11.31.31. . .1. 1mm? u.. .111! 1 1 1 oafhmumuaql .1 1 .1111 .Mukflbflmw kxvnu..1411.v.1111.rmmmJrgwfidflmqumuhmfififiwflrbmWWh. Dub mus «l1 HEIHnAl .. , . .lf...1ma....w..m 1.51 l. . .. . . . . .afihemubflmmlil [.1 1HLT 1....1. 1.11.1.1.JH1111..11..1l..w11 1m111u11€$11wn .lu...11 Hllhfilewrhns . lwvhlmmfimwlfifi 111M91Mnubm1.l1hulll 11.11.”. kg $131111 1 lgkrnflumfiWfiMWlflflh .1flll11MuflnlleN.Mlk$.Wmqukll.K1w 1.11 1 ll 1 l . .8 1.119111 . llllvl lawll l . lls. . 1 . .1 1 1.. .1 . 1 I 1.. l 1 . 1314.131... 1.1..«11 .hf. 11 21.9an 1. Hill .1 MN. 11111.11u41w1.1uv,1111ml %1%914 . . 1hrdlgnhMmlbl 11.1.. 11.11... 1...»..11111... .111»... 111.11.“? 1 .11 loll 1'1.) ‘1 ’1 l l ? llwwdww. 1 1 b. .1 . l1 1R1§AHm 1 1 1. 1 . . 11.1111un1l1n1l 111.511 .1? Wu 11hr 11.1.31“. . . ll .. 1.1; JD. 11......1L1114111ll11hu 1“". .lul .1151??? 3. 11.1 [1 ht. llheldwvtl. 11.1.1 lvwlnwbmrlLWnnMW fialWflhulh. . . Whaflwnldmxmfidfiaqll .1 Ill 1 .1 . .1. Javi.d.11mdunu1d. rm . miuh. . 1111.31.11?» w .1. $1.111 . Raw? 11h. $141.11.. 511 111 :1 1 $11.11.. 11.11... finiiflthnwmllfl klnufln. 11mlA1uWW1hflumh1uunbmn1m .1. . 1:111 -11 . 1 1.1%. 11111111111111.11M1r1 a1 1 @112... l. .. 1.5.1 1151111111111u11811111 .3131}... 111 1.11%ng -1 $.11... mvbwvmkuflaénnflmmmdfidln H 1 Wflfi. .11u5111..l111bhunr.n.1mu1111111un1|. 1... 111111. 1.1M”: 1111 «u! 1 .1111. .1 1.. . 1d 1. .. 1o... 1 . 1.. 111.1111. 1h» 1. Ll... (11.1. .1 1.. 5111.111. 1 1 . . . - ,Ww. 11mg 11.1. 111191.11. 3.111.111 141141.111. 11,111.11 l1llm11fw111fil§ulhfl1ll 11.11.11.11111113 111% 1.1.51! 1.? yfiflflxlnfi 1 . g1. .WW~ 1n. nlln 1 IIVl 1kg; 1. 11Whn1l1611 1.1» . 11111133” .1. L11 1 .11. l 11 1.... 1..l111..l1 1 1 .1. 1 lillkflh. «11.11111 1.... .. 1111...... 1111.11.11.11... 111.1%... 1%...ufl1111111m11mg1111111114 1.111.111.1111l1m1. Ewan? , .111111111. 13. .1 .. 11 H .5111 ".11. 1 .. LY?1.1M111n.1lL guul1.llucllfluklni 1N gel 1 gfillitgmwgnfi 1”. 111.1% 1.1%.; .1: 11.6%. wfiunlémflflmuhwfibtfidmm. .1N1111111111l1w111l11111; .1. M11. 111.111.11.111 1&1“? .1 .11 M. .1 1 wuflflmflllduu 1 bl. [131111. . .111. l l .llMI. . 1 . L 111.? . l 1. Eng . J"... (”filth LAEWJUNLVGAWNLl 11.11.1141“ .h. fimfilnmrfir: lwuummumvhfi1l1flnll1uk (:Wl Nunnfluh l 1 111 1108”.) .. l l 11 .l 1 gig}? ”Amy... annurblul111. l .. .1111 111 111M111 1. . fifillni £1.11? Lfiflw infamy. 1R1..1§%W5W1h1l111.l n1 «rlutllu .1mn111 . 1.1”. ho . 1. .ll Qluul11fun. 11.11% . . L11. 1lM1.WunuNflvJHfllllrtlu€11nl§l . L111 .1 .hMNkl . .1 21%». 1,. .1". .911 .mnfiawhhfihuu . .-1111.n.n11u1m1..§1wmm.111n1111 11%L1nwnm h. 1111“ l . aw. 1 . . 11w .1 «11?..1111mmh5n1111. .1 1.11% .1 l1h . kg 1.- 1%-... 411.1%.“ .1111Mfl11n114111 mm. .1 g Rummy ..1.mn1?wuu1111.m1.w.111 Mufilgmmwnwfill .111. 11...... .1111. 1 1Nunn1u1111hM11mn1 Le lk»)RMh.9l.wl.lvhl1hnhu-lllh 1» lyall. l.l ‘11.-. 11.5! I .....I1H1l.u~.u.r1l.l1.l.1l . .1 1. .1. 11m. 3.. 1LM1111MW~1U 1 1..” .11. .1.1 .1 11L1941rh1r£rlL.n1l l 1 , 11 I? 1.le .. 1H 1. 119.111.111.11 .11...." 1%....“ 1 .l..n1 ”r. .nfllfl l»...lll,l . - .. 111.111.111.1mn1um1 1..-- , .11.?111111111511111 1. . . .1 1.1 l .1... "~11 .nfifihfillgl 1 . 1 . lull1u .nlllnuhuulltlllihmquldllhwhflu? ollmulflflhknuhu.wuw.filt1ulm11lna W4 .. 1 . 1u1ll1111n1lb1111110¢4l .I. 13.1 -1. .1 1 . Hflhfi!fi%t¢fiufifimfl%.xfl 1.... 13.1.1.1- .1 1.1. .. . . ...&.l”1l.du.lluldl1nwbnflc.mnul «$111-11 . 111 1.1111. 1- 1.1M « n .111 .n». 1.1 . .. 1.1«fl11uu1111flwu 1 3a.». 2 . 111.111.... .1 1111 . W 1th 1 1 1 huml I . .11 .. a: mqhuuvlllub .flnfllWh. 1. 1...? . . . . 1... 111.1111 111 .1111? 11m”. 1. 1l 1 1 I1 .1. 1 111.1. gull1 1 11.1ll1dull11 1 luv... . 1 1.1 I ll 1 111.1u 1 Unmuhlwwmgrgm.m«m1flflhgm1flm1%.ufi 11%.. l. 1 him—.1 11. fl. .1 11.111 1 .1. fix 111 .11.... g . .11 1.1 . 11.1.3111. 11".)“: . 1......Nmnnanll1ufl10url1111 11 rillkmmlviu- «“1 1 .1 1 . .1 1 .hu11L. 1 . 11 . . .. 1 .. (villa)! l 111. 1 1 In". 1 1 .l .11.? fl 111 1 111 .l 1.611 111111“ 111l1l11l11l..llu.mw. 1 .1. l 1.. 11.1111 . 111.. 1.111 [UlIHWLfinJfi an . 14 111 ..|..1111111111..l 11.11. 11111 M11111: 1» . . .11 1.111%. "111 1 11.1.1 11 111.1% 1. 1.1. .. - . 1 1 1 1m; . . . .1 Lima“... . 111.111.1111.. . hum? 1%. 111141.111 1l.UUdmmnthl£M1111.u.1vanfim . l . 11111 . gang“)? .1111111n1111 . .14....n14.n1111.1mmu1. . . . 1 .ficwhlilllh1Lnu‘fll1llll1: 11.1N1mJ111W011 11. Q? "U 111 10Hdfifl1hhfilll¢1lam111llndd rwulnhwr. .1“! . . 1.. . l . nMnlll. 1.4.1111»... 111:1 I. ~Mub1l.lv1wfl1ln.l..m.fl1fllq 11M luHhIhWHVfiHJHU. .r .1111 1 111118. 1.11%. GullHlul aflhufifih .11."..11nuu gimunulllHJu. . .unl1111111n1l .l....~h.(lllll1119l1 . ..11.. I; 1’ I. .l Auafllylvkl’lll. 1 1 v1 1.. 1.1..1..-1. . 1 z. . ...lluN1l.l1Nh1.m.ufl.WkM%mhr 1 1 . 1 1. . 1... «11.n11Mu1wth1unll111uu1Vm11. 1mmuml1llv111d11tl~nl1lfi 1 1. .«vlnnflufi1hnlduflaw1umwflflflwmumwwg1w 1. .. 111m.1111 11:111.“ . 1..l1.111lll«h11uunflru 11.1.11“. . 11% 1.1111311111131111-er . Pfillrallx “$le 1 . 1 11.. lufinWTthLull. . . 111.11 .thmnmmuflnflll. gfiuufl 11. . 1 . . .. . 1 .. q .....1.1..1..11.11. . . 11.1.\.. , I 31315“; 3 III/ll IIII/IIIIIII/ I/IIIIIIII L r *5, j (A); —I 007 5228 ,4 I‘ L? This is to certify that the dissertation entitled AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELIGIOUS CLIMATE AT THE FOUR LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES RELATED TO THE WESLEYAN CHURCH presented by RICHARD DOYLE ALLEN has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PH.D. degree in ADMINISTRATION 8 CURRICULUM ,—— ———.~ ”—1. / / I T ~- /‘ T ,/ ,,~ -’— 5512 / g _ ( ,(4-:—’~./ K _ Major professor Date 2-23-81} MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LIBRARIES remove this checkout from .—:-__ XOUY‘ record. FINES W‘ITI be charged if book is returned after the date stamped beIow. “7 U {7; 1 7 {EU a L’ ‘49: L AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELIGIOUS CLIMATE AT THE FOUR LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES RELATED TO THE WESLEYAN CHURCH BY Richard Doyle Allen A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Higher Education and Administration 1984 ABSTRACT AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELIGIOUS CLIMATE AT THE FOUR LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES RELATED TO THE WESLEYAN CHURCH BY Richard Doyle Allen The purpose of this study was to investigate the perception of the religious climate of full-time students and faculty at the four liberal arts colleges related to The Wesleyan Church. "A Survey of College Environments," an instrument developed by Gough to measure the variable of religious climate, was revised and utilized for this research. A descriptive survey research experimental design was used to test the null hypotheses. It was hypothesized that the dependent variable of religious climate would vary with the independent variables: college, class, residence, and persistence. The population for this study consisted of the 2,638 full-time students and 222 full-time faculty of the participating colleges. Surveys were sent to 640 students and 100 faculty randomly selected from rosters provided by the colleges. A total of 520 students and 89 faculty returned usable surveys for a response rate of 82.3 percent. The hypothesized relationships were tested using the Richard Doyle Allen ONEWAY: Analysis of Variance Program in the SPSS series. The statistical convention of power analysis was utilized to predetermine the number of subjects needed to obtain a given level of power (i.e. beta) in performing the analysis on the data. The level of significance, then, was set at .05 and the power was set at .80 for each hypothesis. The sample size needed to perform the power analysis was calculated from power function charts and was drawn from the pool of usable surveys using the SPSS command: * SAMPLE. The findings of the data analysis revealed that there was no significant difference in the religious climate among the four Wesleyan colleges. No significant differences were found in the perception of the religious climate among lower division students, upper division students, and faculty. There was no significant difference in the perception of the religious climate among resident students and non-resident students at Central Wesleyan College, Houghton College, and Marion College. There was a significant difference in the perception of the religious climate among resident students and non-resident students at Bartlesville Wesleyan College. Finally, there was a significant difference in the per- ception of the religious climate among freshmen persisters and freshmen leavers. DEDICATION To Sarah, my wife, for her unending patience, encourage- ment, support, and love. Karissa, my daughter, for sacrificing long talks, luncheon dates, and weekend camping trips with Dad. And Doyle, my son, eager to make up for fish not caught, squirrels not shot, and long drives "straight down the middle." ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his appreciation to many people who contributed so generously and unselfishly to assist in this research. I express my gratitude to: Dr. Max Raines, Chairman of my doctoral committee, major advisor, and friend whose encouragement, guidance, patience, and inspiration contributed greatly to my entire program and life. Dr. Fred Graham, Dr. Walter Johnson, and Dr. Lou Anna Simon, members of my doctoral committee, for their genuine interest in my project, valuable counsel, and encouragement. College officials, faculty, and students from the schools participating in the study for their exceptional cooperation and support. Bartlesville Wesleyan College, my employer, for not only encouraging me to pursue and complete this program, but for supporting this effort with financial assistance and flexibility of schedule. Dolores Campbell, my secretary, and Susan Howard, college work study student, for their endless hours of tabulating data, typing, and cheerful support of this project. College officials at the University of Tulsa for giving me unlimited access to the Library and Computer Center. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. 2. BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM . Introduction. . . . . . . Purpose . . . . . . . . . Significance of the Study General Procedures. Limitations and Delimitations . Definition of Terms Organization of the Study REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE Introduction. . . . . . . The Colonial Period: The Period of Religious Disestablishment: 1770-1819 . . . . . . . The Expansion Period: The Consolidation Period: The Polarization Period: 1907-1983 0 1636-1769 1820-1861. 1862-1906. The Church—Related College Today. The Future of Church-Related Colleges Research on College and University Environments. . . . . . iv Page . vii . l l . 5 . 7 . 12 13 15 l7 l8 . 18 20 22 . 24 . 27 . 32 . 34 . 39 . 45 Chapter Page Collective Perception or Image Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Characteristics of Students Approach. . . . 50 Characteristics of the Enrivonment Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Behavior in Environment Approach. . . . . . 53 Research on Church-Related College Climates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Profile of the Educational Institutions of The Wesleyan Church. . . . . . . . . . . 62 Bartlesville Wesleyan College . . . . . . . 65 Central Wesleyan College. . . . . . . . . . 67 Houghton College. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Marion College. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 3. DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Population and Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Validity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Operational Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 4. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Analysis of the Sample Respondents. . . . . . 86 Analysis of the Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . 109 Summary of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Chapter Page Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Recommendations for Further Research. . . . . 117 APPENDICES A. Power Function Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 B. Gough's "A Survey of College Environments". . . 124 C. Components of Religious Climate and Student Service Items . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 D. Final Instrument of "A Survey of College Environments" . . . . . . . . . . . 127 E. Cover Memos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 vi Table l. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF TABLES Power Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary Data and Analysis of Sample Groups Analysis of Religious Climate Mean Scores. Summary Data for the Relationship Between Religious Climate and College. . . . . . Analysis of Variance for Relationship Between Religious Climate and College. . Summary Data for Relationship Between Religious Climate and Class. . . . . . . Analysis of Variance for Relationship Between Religious Climate and Class. . . Summary Data for Relationship Between Religious Climate and Lower Division Students and Faculty . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance for Relationship Between Religious Climate and Lower Division Students and Faculty. . . . . Summary Data for Relationship Between Religious Climate and Upper Division Students and Faculty . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance for Relationship Between Religious Climate and Upper Division Students and Faculty. . . . . . Summary Data for Relationship Between Religious Climate and Residence. . . Analysis of VAriance for Relationship Between Religious Climate and Residence. Summary Data for the Relationship Between Religious Climate and Persistence. . . . vii Page 73 87 88 89 89 90 91 94 95 98 99 102 103 106 Table 15. Analysis of Variance for Relationship Between Religious Climate and Persistence. . . . . viii CHAPTER ONE BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM Introduction Considerable attention has been given to the college climate as a strategic factor in the teaching-learning process. However, much of the early research on college climates paid little attention to the total milieu in which learning occurs. Instead, it focused on the more convent- ional, morphological characteristics including such taxo- nomic features as faculty degrees, teaching loads, salary, schedules, tenure, library acquisitions, buildings and grounds, scholarship and loan funds, endowment assets, amount and sources of gift income, and others. Astin (1962), for example, sampled 335 accredited, four-year, degree granting colleges and universities in an attempt to identify the institutional characteristics which could account for differences in student development. As a result of numerous investigations similar to Astin's, college administrators have instituted several environmental changes related to areas such as extra— curricular activities, teaching objectives, academic standards, faculty-student relationships, housing regula- tions, and the architectural design and construction of residence halls and classroom buildings. But as Baird 1 2 (1974) pointed out, while most people View these kinds of resources as sure signs of quality, there is little hard evidence that they have a strong effect on students' learning or satisfaction. Brown (1968) and Sprague (1969) argued that much more information is needed concerning the influence of these demographic environmental characteristics on students. More recently, research on college climates has become concerned with the environment as a whole, holding that behavior is influenced by the interaction between the student and the social-cultural characteristics of the total college climate that impinge (press) upon him. Pace and Stern (1958) described this press as "the characteristic demands or features as perceived by those who live in the particular environment." (p. 271) They went on to say that the press of a college environment represents what must be faced and dealt with by the student. They further stated: A college environment may be viewed as a system of pressures, practices, and policies intended to influence the development of students toward the attainment of important goals of higher education. (p. 277). Sanford (1962) described this overall college culture as: the values, beliefs and ways in the realms of religion, politics, economics, arts and social relations. It is to be expected that each student, if he remains in the college for his allotted time, will assimilate this culture in some degree. (p. 58) Stern (1966) suggested that because the objectives of higher education include growth in such things as attitudes and 3 values, personal and social development, citizenship, responsibility, and appreciation: A college community must be viewed as more than class— rooms, professors, libraries or laboratories. It is also a network of interpersonal relationships, of social and public events, or student government and publications, of religious activities, of housing and eating, of counseling, and of curricular choices. (PP- 2-3) Baird (1974) also suggested that "college environments are many things--students, classes, professors, tests, sports, facilities, and extracurricular activities, among other things." (p. 207) This newer perspective created a fresh awareness of the importance of the composite campus climate in determining the extent to which institutional objectives are achieved and what kind of impact is made upon the stu- dents by the college. Several attempts have been made to describe this climate quantitatively. The most notable include those by Pace and Stern (1958), Holland (1959), Thistlewaite (1960), Astin (1961), Pace (1963), and Pervin (1967). It is clear from the data derived from the instruments employed by these individuals in numerous studies on a large group of insti- tutions that college climates do indeed differ to a very high degree with respect to the environmental characteristics measured. Yonge (1965) noted that these studies: have provided an inestimable contribution to the literature dealing with the student in higher edu- cation. Their pioneering studies are truly a break— through . . . shifting the research emphasis from a descriptive to a dynamic model. (p. 261) Some of these research instruments have been used for similar studies on church—related college campuses. 4 Hassenger and Weiss (1966) reported their research at Catholic colleges using Pace and Stern's "College Character— istics Index? (CCI), Astin's "Environmental Assessment Technique" (EAT), and Pace‘s "College and University Environment Scales " (CUES). Chickering (1968) reported the results of his use of CUES at small church colleges from a study under the sponsorship of the Project on Student Development at Small Colleges. Boyer and Michael (1968) reported their findings with CUES at seven small, religious— ly oriented colleges. Pace (1972) administered his instru- ment,CUES, to an average of one hundred students at each of eighty church-related colleges. Stob (1975) employed CUES in a study of three church-related colleges in western Michigan. However, these instruments, though appropriate for use in all types of colleges, tend to be too global and have little value for particular types of colleges such as engineering schools, small liberal arts colleges, and church-related colleges. Vanzant (1968) argued that the religious uniqueness of the church-related college, which he claimed as a distinctive feature of their composite campus climate, is not measured by these instruments. As Hassenger and Weiss (1966) observed: Although the CCI and CUES include individual items about religious practices and values, the "blindness" of the current instruments to religious influences as evidenced by the lack of scales referring to the moral and spiritual impact of the college on the student, leaves an important area of human life--and one of special concern for the value-oriented school-- unexamined. (p. 441) 5 Vanzant (1968), Stob (1975), and Gough (1981) made attempts to fill this gap. Each created an instrument designed to measure the religious aspects of church-related colleges. Vanzant found significant differences on two of the six subscales of his instrument, "Religious Environment Scales," among six selected groups at Evangel College in Springfield, Missouri. Stob developed the "Religious Scales" as a supplement to Pace's (1963, 1969) "College and University Environmental Scales" and found religious climate to be significantly different in three small church-related colleges in western Michigan. Gough developed "A Survey of College Environments" to assess the religious climate in 301 Protestant, church-related colleges across the United States finding support for Cuninggim's (1978) theoretical continuum of denominational types of church—relatedness. However, the results of their studies must be regarded, at best, as tentative. In each case the study focused on an isolated institution, or a single component of the religious climate, or but one group of students (e.g. freshmen only), or faculty (e.g. deans of students only). With the exception of Gough's (1981) "A Survey of College Environments," the instruments lacked the statistical strength to make them useful at other institutions. Purpose Educational leaders of church-related colleges argue that the religious climate of their campuses is the 6 outstanding feature that distinguishes them from other institutions, contributes significantly to the strength and diversity of higher education, and is the indispensible competitive asset that will be the key to their survival. If officials at church-related colleges are to capitalize on this "distinctiveness," they must be able to articulate and demonstrate those "unique" characteristics in more accurate, clear, and tangible ways. Research is needed to develop a more comprehensive understanding of those components of the religious climate that are claimed to be distinctive by leaders of church—related colleges and which impact students. Using Gough's (1981) "A Survey of College Environ- ments,‘ it was the purpose of this research to investigate differences in the religious climate among the four liberal arts colleges affiliated with The Wesleyan Church. In addition, selected groups were tested within each college for differences in their perception of the religious climate. Finally, the degree to which freshmen persisters and freshmen leavers differ in their perception of the religious climate was investigated as a possible explanation for attrition among freshmen students. The following problems were investigated: (1) To what degree are the four liberal arts colleges of The Wesleyan Church similar or different in religious climate as measured by the responses of students and faculty on an instrument measuring this variable (i.e., Gough's "A Survey of College Climates")? (2) Is there a difference in the perception of 7 the religious climate between lower division students and upper division students? (3) Is there a difference in the perception of the religious climate between lower division students and faculty? (4) Is there a difference in the perception of the religious climate between upper division students and faculty? (5) Is there a difference in the perception of the religious climate between resident students and non-resident students? (6) Is there a difference in the perception of the religious climate between freshmen "persisters" and freshmen "leavers?" Significance of the Study Underlying this study is the conviction that church- related colleges share with other institutions of higher learning the need for continued research and self assessment. As the twentieth century draws to a close, our nation's colleges and uniVersities find themselves at a very critical juncture in their history with some observers expressing grave concern over their survival. Doll (1980) believes that the nation's institutions of higher education: no longer fit our technocratic society in their academic role and, already in a precarious position, will eventually vanish, replaced totally by corporate- controlled education. (p. 336) For many institutions, survival is the main current impera- tive with much of the discourse in higher education today couched in terms of survival. The particular focus of this study is church-related colleges. Since 1636, church-related colleges have played a 8 major role in the development of higher education in the United States, contributing significantly to its strength and diversity. This remains true today though they obviously play a smaller role than they formerly did in the total scene of American higher education (DuBois, 1970). But now, like all colleges and universities, the church-related college is in a state of financial, academic and societal vulnerability, self-doubt, and uncertainty. Church-related colleges are under siege. Diminishing financial support from sponsoring denominations, increasing government regu- lations, an unpredictable economy, imitation of secular schools, spiraling tuition costs, federal and state aid cuts, population shifts, fierce competition for students, and even grave internal difficulties are causing wide- spread anxiety for the leaders of the nation's church- related colleges. In the face of these threatening challenges, church-related college students, faculty, administrators, board members and support constituencies are asking, "What makes the church-related college distinctive among other independent and public institutions of higher education?" "What is there about the church—related college that makes it worth maintaining?" Or, as Scharr (1982) asked, "Are they (church-related colleges) like streetcars and homemade ice cream, 19th century institutions whose time has come and gone?" (p. 1) This is no less a problem for the Wesleyan colleges as they too face a precarious and unpredictable future. Barnes (1983) asked: A declining college-age population, decreasing federal and state financial support, and an uncertain economic environment have combined to place the future of Wesleyan Colleges in jeopardy. Will our Wesleyan Colleges survive? (p. 11) Barnes went on to say that in spite of the unprecedented challenges the Wesleyan colleges face as they strive to maintain and improve the quality and quantity of their pro- grams and services to the Church, they must not sway from their historic spiritual mission: The future strength and vitality of the denomination is related to the current strength and vitality of Wesleyan colleges. The Church needs the colleges and the colleges need the Church! (p. 11) In an interview with Solheim (1980), Upton shared a different opinion: It is clear that the church does not need its colleges for its own sake, it is our society which needs them-- and desparately so. But if the church is to maintain a missionary stance in relation to the society of which it is a part, it can do so in no more appropriate way than by sponsoring quality educational enterprises. (p. 29) Economic experts have stated that a distinctive edu- cational environment may be the indispensible competitive asset for private institutions as they face the age of un- certainty and retrenchment ahead (Anderson, 1978). As McGrath (1971) stated: It is no exaggeration to say that the ability and willingness of Christian Colleges to establish and sustain a unique set of purposes will in large measure determine their chances for survival . . . Prospective patrons of these colleges, both students and bene- factors, will, I believe, expect them in the future to declare forthrightly and clearly what their mission is and what they are attempting to do to carry it out. (p. 432) 10 McGrath added that if church-related colleges can match their secular counterparts in other respects (e.g. academic programs, student services, etc.), their religious distinct- iveness will attract rather than repel students. Stern (1966) suggested that: The problem with respect to (all) colleges is essent— ially one of finding better ways of characterizing their differences, those differences in particular that relate to what the college does to students. (pp. 2-3) Educational leaders, interested in preserving church- related colleges have agreed that the religious uniqueness of these schools may be the key to their survival. If the administrators of church-related colleges are to operation- alize their "distinctiveness," they need to be able to define and articulate these components of the religious climate more effectively. Because of the present paucity of empirical data about church-related colleges, it is antici- pated that the information gained from this study will contribute to a better understanding of those character- istics which are claimed as unique by the nation's religiously-affiliated institutions. This study will also provide information of considerable importance for institutional self—evaluation for the participating colleges. The knowledge gained will be useful to persons in decision—making positions including board members, administrators, faculty, institutional planners, student recruiters, and student affairs personnel. Denominational leaders who exercise a substantial degree of control over the policies of their colleges may also find 11 this information valuable in evaluating the relationship of these colleges to their denomination, and for providing financial and denominational support. It is time for church- related colleges to rethink their strategy. The results of this study might cause these decision-makers to seriously re- examine the mission of their colleges and programs in charting a more enlightened, successful course for the denomination, the colleges, and the students who may spend four or more years on their campuses. The results of this study may have significance for college-bound youth (and their parents) as they compare and contrast selected church-related campuses in their search for the kind of climate that is compatible with their own unique personality traits, values, learning styles, and expectations. Finally, it is anticipated that the information gained from this study will contribute to a better understanding of the goals, objectives, and purposes of the institutions affiliated with The Wesleyan Church. The Wesleyan denomi- nation, college board members, administrators, and faculty members should be able to learn something useful about the environment of their colleges from studying the reSponses to the "Survey of College Environments." Students'and faculty perceptions of the religious climate at these institutions should have a clear relationship to the explicit goals and objectives of these colleges. Any discrepancy between the implicit environment and the explicit goals and objectives 12 in these colleges would suggest that consideration be given to changing certain aspects of the environment in order to make the total impact of the environment more consistent and effective. General Procedures Gough's (1981) "A Survey of College Environments" was sent to a sample of full-time students and faculty randomly selected from each of the four liberal arts colleges affiliated with The Wesleyan Church in the Spring Semester, 1983. The degree to which the four colleges are similar or different on the variable of religious climate was studied. Differences in the perception of the religious climate between lower division students and upper division students; students and faculty; and, resident students and non- resident students were analyzed. Freshman subjects were also analyzed to compare and contrast the perceptions of the religious climate of freshmen "persisters" and "leavers." The data collected by "A Survey of College Environ- ments" was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner & Bent, 1975) ONEWAY: Analysis of Variance program. Feldt and Mahmoud's (1958) convention of "power analysis" was used to determine the sample size, alpha, power, and effect size for each hypothesis. 13 Limitations and Delimitations This study was designed to investigate the perceptions of the religious climate of full-time students and faculty at four liberal arts colleges related to The Wesleyan Church. Gough's (1981) "A Survey of College Environments" was used to measure the variable of religious climate. Because full-time students and faculty have had greater opportunity to adjust to their campus environment and have had greater exposure to the various dimensions of the campus climate than their part-time counterparts, they are in the best position to evaluate the various aspects of the religious climate of their campus. The sample consisted of full-time lower division students (freshmen and sophomores), full-time upper division students (juniors and seniors), and full—time faculty from each of the four Wesleyan colleges: Bartlesville Wesleyan College, Central Wesleyan College, Houghton College, and Marion College. The sample size represented 20 percent of the full-time students and 40 percent of the full-time faculty on these four campuses. The study is based on the premise that while each church-related college has a unique religious climate or environment, these schools exhibit religiosity compatible with the doctrines of their sponsoring denomination. The four colleges under study are very similar to one another in terms of their relationship to the denomination which sponsors them. Each of these institutions seeks first to l4 reflect the practices of its parent denomination (The wesleyan Church) and secondly to promote academic excell- ence. By Cuninggim's (1978) definition, these colleges are "embodying colleges." Not all church—related colleges will View their relationship with their parent denomination in the same manner. It is further assumed that the judgment of the college students and faculty, acting as reporters, describe accurately the religious climate of the campus on which they participate. The following deliminations are recognized in the study. First, the study is limited to the four liberal arts colleges affiliated with The Wesleyan Church. While these institutions are tied doctrinally and organizationally to a particular denomination, they maintain a strong identifi- cation with conservative, evangelical Christianity, typical of many other denominationally affiliated colleges across the United States. Therefore, the results of this study may have relevance to other schools and churches with similar ideological commitments and college/church organizational ties. Second, the instrument used to collect the data is limited to five aspects that may be considered unique features of the religious climate: faculty characteristics, curriculum, the development of student life, denominational affiliation, and campus activities. It does not include all factors which may exist as part of the total religious 15 climate of the campus (e.g. the religious influence of a student's minister). Neither does the instrument dis- tinguish doctrinal, theological, or organizational features which may characterize a particular campus or denomination and which might be valuable for schools to research. Third, the instrument is used to collect data depicting the respondents' "perceptions" of religious climate on their respective campuses. It was administered on the premise that those who participate the most in the environment are in the best position to describe both their perceptions of the characteristics of the environment and the demands made upon them by the press of the environment. However, the perceptual process does involve the use of human senses. How an individual perceives information, then, is compli— cated by the objects or events being perceived, the environ- ment in which perception occurs, and the person doing the perceiving (Reitz, 1977). Definition of Terms Church-Related College. A college claiming an organ- ized affiliation with a Protestant, religious denomination through such means as charter requirement, selection of board members or other officers, financial contributions, and theological or religious belief. DistinctiVeness. A characteristic or unique variable possessed by the college (i.e. religious climate at church- related colleges). 16 Religious Climate. The measurable components of a church-related college that promote the exploration and integration of religion and academic learning on campus. Components of religious climate include the curriculum, faculty characteristics, the development of student life, denominational relationship, and campus activities. Persister. Those students of the entering freshman class of 1982 who continue to enroll in the Fall Semester, 1983. Leaver. Those students of the entering freshman class of 1982 who do not re-enroll in the Fall Semester, 1983. Faculty. Faculty and administrators employed full- time by the institutions under study. Lower Division Students. Full-time freshman and sophomore students. Upper Division Students. Full-time junior and senior students. Denomination. An organized religious body proclaiming a specific set of doctrines. Resident Students. Full-time students living in residence balls on campus. Non-Resident Students. Full—time students not living in residence halls on campus. 17 Organization of the Study Chapter One contains an introduction to the study. A brief statement is made regarding the problem, the signifi- cance of the study, and the limitations and delimitations of the study. Chapter Two contains a review of the literature pertinent to the study. This chapter consists of an exami- nation of the historical and contemporary roles of the church—related college in American higher education; a discussion on the future of church-related colleges; a review of relevant research on college and university enrironments; a summary of empirical research specifically dealing with the characteristics of religious climate on church-realted college campuses; and a brief description of the four church-related colleges participating in the study. Chapter Three presents the methodological procedures used in the identification of subjects, instrumentation, collection of data and statistical treatment of the data. Chapter Four presents an analysis of the data. Chapter Five contains the summary and conclusions of the study. CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE This study was designed to investigate student and faculty perceptions of the religious climate at the four, four-year, liberal arts colleges affiliated with The Wesleyan Church. This chapter presents a review of selected literature relevant to the study of religious climates. The particular focus is on Protestant, church-related colleges. The purposes of this chapter are: (l) to review the historical and contemporary role of the church-related college in the total scene of American higher education; (2) to examine the future of church-related colleges; (3) to review selected literature related to the study of college climates; (4) to summarize the empirical research specifi- cally dealing with the characteristics of religious climate on church-related college campuses; and, (5) to present brief profiles of the four colleges participating in the study. Introduction An examination of church history reveals the long, vital, and determining role Protestant churches have played in higher education. Primarily through missionary endeavors, Protestant churches have been the main agencies 18 19 for the founding of institutions of higher education in all parts of the world. The Protestant church has, in short, been such a major international force in the progress of higher education that the history of higher education is inextricable from the history of church activity. The history of Protestant church involvement in higher education in the United States is older than the country it- self. Since the founding of this nation's first college, Harvard, in 1636, for the purpose of assuring the Puritan colony an educated ministry, churches and colleges have been partners in American higher education. Protestant churches and church laity have founded more than one thousand colleges and universities (Averill, 1966). DuBois (1970) claims that the church-related college has been a vital and viable institution throughout the development of the country. Orr (1971) asserts that evangelical Christianity was the major force in the development of higher education in this country. Wicke (1964) notes that education in colonial America was the child of religion. It is not the purpose of this study to recount fully the history of higher education in the United States and the close interrelationship between the Protestant church and educational endeavor. This has been well documented by Limbert (1929), Tewksbury (1932), Shedd (1938), Cuninggim (1947), Wicke (1964), Rudolph (1962), Pattillo and MacKenzie (1966), Underwood (1969), Orr (1971), and others. But it is necessary and useful to present a brief overview 20 of the general historical influences from which the modern church-related colleges grew. The Colonial Period: 1636-1769 Educational institutions in colonial America were founded mainly by religious groups. Patterned after the great English universities of Oxford and Cambridge (particularly Emmanuel College of Cambridge University), nine colleges were chartered during this period. In chronological order these schools were: Harvard, 1636, Congregational Church; William and Mary, 1693, Anglican Church; Yale, 1701, Congregational Church, Princeton, 1746, Presbyterian Church; Columbia (Kings College), 1754, Anglican Church; Pennsylvania, 1755, Anglican Church; Brown, 1764, Baptist Church; Rutgers, 1767, Dutch Reformed Church; and Dartmouth, 1769, Congregational Church (Tewksbury, 1932). All but the University of Pennsylvania were connected by constitution with a sponsoring church. The University of Pennsylvania, which was actually founded by the Anglican Church, was not eager to alienate the Quakers of Philadelphia. So that college was "officially non— sectarian." Nevertheless, the piety and religious zeal motivating these colleges were strong and genuine. They were founded out of a desire to train young men for the ministry, to preserve and transmit the religious culture and traditions of society, and to meet the spiritual needs of the new land. The well-known statement of the purpose for the founding of 21 Harvard College reflects the motivation of these colonial institutions: After God had carried us safe to New England, and we had builded our houses, provided necessaries for our livelihood, rear'd convenient places for Gods worship, and settled the Civill Government: One of the next things we longed for, and looked after was to advance Learning, and perpetuate it to Posterity, dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to the Churches, when our present ministers shall lie in the Dust (New England's First Fruits, 3, p. 1). Strictly speaking, these colleges were not simply churchfrelated, although they were certainly controlled and governed by church members. They were, in a substantial sense, church-state colleges each receiving support from public sources and shaped mainly by their utility for the community that founded them (McCoy, 1972). In short, between 1636, when Harvard was established, and 1785, when the University of Georgia received the first state charter, the churches maintained a monopoly on college-founding in the United States. These early colleges followed a fairly uniform curriculum including Greek, Latin, literature, philosophy, religion, mathematics, and a little science. While the primary purpose was to train young men for the ministry, the curriculum was intended for people in all fields. These schools were open to the rich and poor alike (though re— stricted to white males only). Vesey (1905) pointed out that college life during the Colonial period was quite regimented and paternalistic describing the campus climate as "a controlled environment for the production of the 22 the morally and religiously upright" (p. 35). The campus climate was rigidly enforced by the clergymen who staffed and administered these early institutions. While Pattillo and MacKenzie (1966) believed that the colonial period was the most stable period in the history of American higher education, this period was not, however, a nonsectarian golden age. Denominational squabbles were common. For example, William and Mary was founded so that young men would not have to go north to a Puritan college. The College of New Jersey was founded so that the young enthusiasts of the Great Awakening would not have to go north or south to a non—Presbyterian institution (Smylie, 1978). The Period of Religious Disestablishment: 1770-1819 In the years between 1770 and 1819, twenty—eight additional colleges were founded, eighteen were church- related and nine were state schools (Tewksbury, 1932). By the end of this period, institutions such as Harvard, Columbia, and Pennsylvania were rapidly altering their religious stance, being influenced by deism, the philoso- phies, the French Revolution, and the growing secularism and pluralism of the young nation. Even Yale University, the most staunchly Puritan of the New England colleges, was severely battered by the ideological earthquakes of the time. As Sloan (1971) observed, Americans began to supple- ment the older classical and Biblical learning with more 23 practical courses and learning experiences. College edu- cation was becoming more preprofessional in nature with students moving to apprentice in theology, law, and medicine. Until 1785, the churches maintained a monopology on college-founding in the United States. However, in 1785, the University of Georgia received the first state charter with eight more state colleges founded by 1819. Bean (1958) made an interesting observation about these new state universities: The early "state universities" differed very little from the many private denominational institutions that were also founded on the pattern of the colonial colleges. The early American college curriculum with its core in the classics of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew Literature, had been designed for the training of ministers and gentlemen in an aristocratic society. The early state universities simply imitated this "literary" and "classical" college pattern, which remained almost static until after the middle of the nineteenth century (pp. 57—58). The religious influence in these early state institu- tions is evidenced further by the fact that many of these colleges and universities had ministers as presidents. Students were required to attend chapel and take courses in religion. Their founders believed that true piety and sound learning were inseparable. Even in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the provision for guaranteeing that a section of every township was to be set aside for the public schools, was justified in this famous passage: Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. (Henderson, 1960, p. 85) The "Dartmouth College" case, a Supreme Court decision of 1819, was the pivotal event marking this period. This 24 decision maintained the liberty of the private college against legislative encroachment, thus providing secure legal encouragement for the tremendous growth of private colleges on the frontier. This gave immediate impetus to the founding of 516 additional church-related colleges in sixteen of the thirty-four states (Wicke, 1964). The ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America in 1789 and the subsequent passage of the First Amendment in 1791 were also significant events signalling the beginning of institutional debates over the nature and extent of religious liberty that effect higher education yet today. The Expansion Period: 1820-1861 A time of astonishing denominational college prolifi— eration characterized the years from 1820 to 1861. As the churches moved westward and southward, countless numbers of church-related colleges were organized. Often calling themselves "colleges,' many of them were often little more than secondary schools undoubtedly founded and maintained, at least in part, "as a reaction against the fluidity of society and the rapid rate of change, as part of a vain struggle to maintain the old standards and old ways" (Jencks and Riesman, 1968, p. 7). Very few actually sur— vived into the twentieth century. Tewksbury (1932) charted the founding of 516 colleges and universities by churches during this period and reported that about 80 percent of the 25 colleges founded before 1860 were defunct by 1929. While there are no accurate records, Jencks and Riesman (1968) estimated that probably as many as a thousand church—related colleges opened their doors during this period (p. 321). However, it may well be that in the entire history of higher education there has never been a comparable period of collegiate expansion of such magnitude or significance in so short a time. Smylie (1978) labeled this the period of "freedom's ferment," a time of a bewildering proliferation of denominations, societies, and institutions of higher learning. By the time of the Civil War and the Land-Grant Act of 1862, 80 percent of all colleges in the United States had been founded by church leadership. Brauer's (1958) comment on this period is worth noting. The Christian churches "did not play a unique role in American higher education . . . they were American higher education" (p. 235). Our religious predecessors were attempting to send the nation to school. So pervasive was the common purpose of the church— related colleges organized during this period that it deserves to be called the "era of the Christian College" (Naylor, 1973, p. 261). During this period, the major aims and purposes of these colleges were to prepare young men for the ministry, prepare leaders for civic affairs, sharpen the intellect through mental discipline, save souls, self-discipline, and to inculcate culture through emphasis on the classics 26 (Patton, 1940, p. 33). In spite of several problems during this period including denominational confrontation, competition and bickering over the control of state institutions, and a lowering of academic standards in several institutions (Snavely, 1955, p. 1), this was not a period of great retrogression in American education. These weaknesses should not be allowed to obscure the achievements. Denominations continued to spread and refine their structural patterns and, at the same time, explore ways and means to express the unity of evangelical Protestantism. A wave of residential college building began. Denominations participated in the establishment of state universities. The curriculum, though varied, strengthened its commitment to the classical studies while suggesting the philosophy of broader course offerings for students. Hofstadter and Metzger made this observation about these "old—fashioned" colleges: Men of considerable intellectual distinction came in reasonable numbers from its Ehe "old—fashioned" college] halls. It tried seriously to cultivate both the minds and the characters of its students. Its classical curriculum exposed them to great writers, great ideas, and fine expression. It encouraged articulate writing and thinking, and indicated that these abilities were to be put to work in civic as well as private affairs. It introduced its students to the problems of philosophy and theology. By inculcating serious application to mental, if not always intel— lectual work, it does seem to have bred in its students a capacity for persistence and effort that modern education frequently fails to produce. (p. 227) Morrison and Commager (1950) also praised these early "hill— top" schools: 27 For an integrated education, one that cultivates manliness and makes gentlemen as well as scholars, one that disciplines the social affections and trains young men to faith in God, consideration for his fellow men, and respect for learning, America has never had the equal of her little hill-top colleges. (p. 514) The Consolidation Period: 1862—1906 The period from 1862—1906 was one of consolidation and change in church-related higher education. Patton (1940), Snavely (1955), Pattillo and MacKenzie (1966), Smylie (1978), and others identified many changes during this period that have had both a direct and indirect impact on the church- related college. The landmark events which set this period apart are the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890, the industri— alization and urbanization of American life, and the in— creasing influence of the German universities. These events did not mark the demise of the church-related college. For as the nation developed, and with it organized education, the church-related college continued to grow steadily. The Morrill Act of 1862 commonly known as the "Land- Grant Act," provided large gifts of federal land and money to the various states to endow colleges of agriculture and mechanical arts. This event marked the first serious entry of the federal government into the field of higher education giving impetus to public higher education. Emphasizing the "practical" branches of education, it also marked a radical break with the traditional pattern of liberal eduation established in the first half of the century. 28 Scrambling to stay in business, many of the church- related colleges began to play down their specifically denominational and religious character. Snavely (1955) indicated that several church-related colleges, in order to compete for this new source of funding, broke away com— pletely from their supporting denominations transferring themselves to public control. Others made a radical break from their liberal arts tradition moving toward the techno- logical and agricultural concept in an attempt to attract students by emphasizing academic excellence and the oppor- tunities to acquire marketable skills in an increasingly professionalized society. Wiebe (1968) has shown that the industrialization and urbanization of American life brought on a quest for the organization and the bureaucratization of life. Denomi- nations, reflecting these changes in the larger society, experienced considerable growth in bureaucratic structure by entering into closer cooperation at every level of religious life and faith. There was a genuine ecumenical spirit in which denominations organized themselves and joined forces with other groups to form societies (e.g. The American College and Education Society, 1874), Senates (e.g. University Senate, 1892), and boards (e.g. Presby- terian Board of Aid for Colleges and Academies, 1883) in an attempt to assist those in the field of education to exercise greater control, set standards, and accredit schools. But as Limbert (1929) found, these agencies 29 offered spotty financial support for the educational institutions. Nevertheless, as a result of these efforts, the church-related college was actually strengthened as denominations shaped and defined a better understanding of their church-related schools and explored ways of greater cooperation. Until the last quarter of the nineteenth century, American colleges had been undergraduate colleges. Only in a few instances were small, modest graduate or professional programs developed. These colleges were patterned on the British collegiate heritage of the residential college and the traditional of a broad, humane, liberal arts curriculum. However, in 1876, patterned after the great German uni- versities of Heidelberg, Gattingen, Leipzig, and Berlin, Johns Hopkins University was founded, formally importing and introducing the German idea of education which re- flected scientific, technical, specialized and graduate notions of scholarship. From the very beginning the teaching of undergraduates was a distinctly secondary function marking the beginning of a dramatic, revolutionary change in American higher education (Pattillo and MacKenzie, 1966). The introduction of the German University idea engendered a more objective, scholarly rigor and a critical spirit of inquiry which represented both cultural and edu- cational innovations. But this graduate school approach created a philosophical concept incompatible with the notions of a liberal arts education. Consequently, church- related colleges, being primarily liberal arts institutions, 30 began to lose their sense of purpose which ultimately resulted in school closings, enrollment declines, internal identity crises, and the severing of official ties with their parent denomination (Gough, 1981). This period also witnessed the rise of higher education for women and blacks, a development in which Protestant church-related colleges played the major role. Inspired by the need for instructors for children below the college level (a need created by the early stages of the Industrial Revolution) and funded primarily by Protestant philan— thropists, the establishment of women's colleges started with the founding of Georgia Female College in 1830. Several others were started shortly after the Civil War (Woody, 1929). Providing higher education for women was not based on altruistic desires to provide an education for women, but to help train women as helpmates to train the minds and manners of children (Douglas, 1977). Churches also played a major role in the education of blacks. Before the Civil War, education for blacks was practically non-existent. There are some spotty accounts of a few colleges (Princeton, Berea, Oberlin, and Antioch) that experimented with integrated education (Bullock, 1967). But it was not until shortly after the Civil War that higher education for blacks received a major boost under both government and church influences (Bond, 1966). In 1865, "A Bureau for Refief of Freedmen and Refugees" was organized under General 0. 0. Howard as a government commission, and 31 in cooperation with various denominational agencies, established numerous black colleges. White denominational agencies including the American Missionary Association, the Methodist Freedman's Aid Society, the Presbyterian Board of Missions for Freedmen, Home Baptist Mission Society, the American Church Institute of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and others also founded schools for blacks (Smylie, 1978). Black denominations like the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, and several Black Baptist Associations also got in on the act sponsoring and supporting the schooling of blacks. These associations and denominations were further aided by philanthropists and foundations. Black education was given a major boost by the second Morrill Act of 1890 which provided for the establishment and maintaining of separate land-grant colleges for blacks. However, it was the church—related institutions that first gave to blacks what choice they had to pursue higher edu- cation and to become responsible citizens of their nation. While many black colleges continue to suffer from a lack of financial resources and a history of proliferation and poverty, they have provided for the training of minds to many blacks who would have received no such education. Benjaman E. Mays (1960), preacher, former president of Morehouse College, and former president of the United Negro College Fund, claimed that church-related colleges for 32 blacks allowed our nation's blacks: their freedom to experiment, to explore, to inquire unrestricted, to develop a leadership of spiritual power, to overcome the dangers that permeate a secular society, and to become critics of inter-racial, inter- cultural, inter—faith, and international living. (p. 211) The Polarization Period: l907-Present Following a history of enormous expansion, the growth of church-related colleges slowed down considerably during this period. The only marked growth is among some of the newer, more conservative, fundamentalist, evangelical denominations which have spawned approximately 250 Bible colleges and institutions since WOrld War II (Pattillo and MacKenzie, 1966). The twentieth century has seen a monu- mental increase in the total number of college and uni- versity students in the United States. In 1965, the 1,951,000 students in all private colleges constituted 32.9 percent of the total college enrollment. By 1977, the number of students had increased to 2,438,794, but the percentage had dropped to 21.6 percent. (Grant and Lind, 1979, p. 84). And although church-related colleges have increased in enrollment during this period, their percentage of the total enrollment in the whole of American higher edu- cation declined. By 1950, public institutions began to out- strip private institutions in enrollments (Wood, 1966). This period, too, is marked by massive federal involve- ment in higher education including the Servicemen's Re- adjustment Act of 1944 ("G.I. Bill"), the National Defense 33 Act of 1958, the Higher Education Act of 1965, and the Education Amendments Acts of 1972. This period is also characterized by divisions in theology and religious practice among Protestants (Pace, 1972) and by intense competition between church-related colleges and tax-supported colleges for both students and funds. Consequently, church-related colleges found it increasingly difficult to survive under such circumstances. Early in this period, public-supported institutions were on the defensive. Now, church—related colleges have been placed in the position of justifying their existence in this age of uncertainty. Wicke (1964) concluded his historical look at the church-related college by emphasizing that the churches deserve gratitude for their many generous contributions to American higher education. These include: 1. Founding of higher education in the New World upon a basis which has proved itself fruitful and which has led to extraordinary flexibility of American higher education. 2. Spreading of educational opportunity to every corner of the nation. 3. Efforts to relate intelligence to higher religious aspiration and to the urgent demand for social reform in a nation of travail. 4. Building of many institutions of exceptional power which, while no longer bearing any legal relation— ship with a church, still seek to maintain a religious orientation to their work. 5. Development and maintenance today of a substantial group of colleges acknowledging affiliation with the church and supported by the churches. 34 6. Development of a spirit of individual and group support for independent higher education which has become a pattern for American giving to all types of educational institutions. Countless contri- butions from church sources--large and small-—were made by men and women who had not themselves enjoyed the benefits of even a secondary education. 7. A steady stream of young men and women educated in church-related colleges and universities, who by their lives have enriched the nation and the world. Wicke also noted that while many weaknesses loom large in history marring the record of the church-related colleges, it parallels closely that of every area of Ameri- can life. It is a record of human beings trying—-often failing--but at times victorious. Moseley (1980) supported this View adding that while church-related colleges exhibit a rich abundance of uniqueness as creative, yet struggling institituions, they must, nevertheless, be viewed within the entire category of sectarian schools. "They must be examined within the entire context of the diverse, if not chaotic system of American higher education" (p. 177). The Church—Related College Today These, then, are some of the key historical influences to which one must be sensitive in an examination of the current status and future role of the nation's church- related colleges. To place the church-related college in proper perspective, it is necessary to View it within the entire context of higher education in the United States. Recent social, economic, and political changes have created a crisis-ridden situation for all colleges and universities. 35 The church-related college has not escaped the impact of these forces. Consequently, a number of church—related institutions are closing their doors, changing drastically the nature of their programs, or their church affiliation. Others are doing everything possible to re-evaluate, re- trench, and reaffirm their mission in the struggle to remain part of the total educational scene. Snavely (1955) argued that church—related colleges have been the chief agencies responsible for the rapid rise of the United States to its prominence as a world power (p. 1). While this represents a rather strong position, the church- related college has played a viable role in the development of this country. Although today's church—related colleges play a smaller role than they formerly did in the total scene of American higher education, several (Pattillo and MacKenzie, 1966; Vanzant, 1968; Bruning, 1975; Stob, 1975; Cuninggim, 1978; Marty, 1978; Parsonage, 1978; Smylie, 1978; Solberg and Strommen, 1980; Gough, 1981; and others) affirm that they have been and will continue to be an integral segment of the total scene of higher education contributing to its strength, diversity, cultural Pluralism, and individual freedom. Currently, however, the church- related college is going through a major identity crisis. All across the nation there is a growing concern about the viability of the church—related college. In The Responsible Crisis, McCoy (1972) suggested that the principle problem confronting today's church—related 36 colleges is the result of their attempt to accept the contemporary, prevailing viewpoint of the academic pro- fession about what, how, and when a college should teach. They have sought to emulate the more prestigious, public institutions. According to Jencks and Riesman (1968), in so doing, "they have not only failed to gain the whole world, but are in the process of losing their own souls" (p. 322). The trend toward public higher educaiton, the rapid development of technology, specialization, and research have created widespread anxiety for church-related colleges. According to McCoy (1970), they are caught between their sectarian history and the demands of their secular present. They are, in fact, experiencing a life and death struggle (p. 48). Sproul (1977) identified several external and internal realities that are compounding the problem including limited financial support from denominations, increasing government regulations, imitation of secular schools and spiraling tuition costs. However, Trueblood (Foster, 1980) maintains that the financial problem plaguing the church— related college is not the most serious problem. He claims that loss of meaning and identity are the major problems facing today's institutions. These schools have simply lost their goal. Pattillo and MacKenzie (1965) suggested another view- point: The number of Christian scholars is simply too small to adequately staff burgeoning church-college facilities, 37 thereby making it increasingly difficult to maintain a faculty climate friendly to the church-college mission (p. 10). The church-related college is not without its harsh critics. Cox (1965) argues that the very idea of a Christian college has little meaning: Not one of the so-called Christian Colleges that now dot our midwest is able to give a very plausible theological basis for retaining the equivocal phrase Christian college in the catalog. Granted that there may be excellent traditional, public relation, or sentimental reasons for calling a college Christian, there are no theological reasons. The fact that it was founded by ministers, that it has a certain number of Christians on the faculty or in the student body, that chapel is required (or not required), or that it gets part of its bills paid by a denomination-—none of these factors provides any grounds for labeling an insti- tution with a word that the Bible applies only to the followers of Christ, and then sparingly. The idea of developing "Christian universities" in America was bankrupt even before it began. (p. 221) The evolutionary processes set in motion centuries ago have culminated in the confused, ambiguous scene one finds in church-related higher education today. Several institu- tions founded by denominations have long since severed their religious ties in order to function as private, or public colleges and universities. Others speak vaguely of their religious "affiliation" or "orientation." Others have simply closed their doors. As Jencks and Riesman (1968) shrewdly observed, the very practice of appointing commissions every few years with the purpose of "defining a unique mission for the church—related colleges is a tribute to the triumph of academic over clerical value." (p. 327). The church-related institution now finds itself an "endangered service" not only struggling to defend its 38 position in the present, chaotic system of American higher education but, at the same time, attempting to define its unique role for tomorrow. Lowery (1954) spoke of the tremendous difficulty of "trying to be true to their relig- ious purpose and at the same time be genuine places of higher learning and free inquiry." (p. 218). Evangelicals have the duty to ask why they should continue to support a school that is neither Christian nor offering any edu- cational distinctiveness. Consequently, many ask what makes the church-related college distinctive? What is there about the church-related college worth keeping? Has it outlived its usefulness? Can it remain academically credible while continuing its association with a church? Can the church- related college continue to play a vital and viable role in American higher education? Is the church-related college now an antiquated relic? Does the church-related college have a special mission or is it now, as Tonsor (1970) suggested, an "educational anachronism?" (p. 3). Kennison (1969) suggested that the church-related college faces a two-fold question: "Is its (church- related college) day passed and gone with nothing remaining of its mission that is not better served by other means?" or "Is there a thread of Christian higher education--a color or pattern perhaps—-worthy of retention for inclusion in the tapestry which is contemporary higher education?" (p. 2). Stob (1975) noted that within the last two decades, higher education has become so dominately secular or public, 39 that many have forgotten or are unaware of the strength of their Protestant antecedents. O'Grady (1969) contends that the real and vital impact which church-related colleges make in the total development of American higher education is but eclipsed by the phenomenal growth of publicly—funded higher education. Secular counterparts currently outbid, out— dazzle, and outspend church—related higher education on every hand. The foregoing discussion clearly indicates that the church-related college is facing the issue of survival. The church-related college is in genuine and vigorous ferment with a wide divergence of articulate, persuasive, and sincere voices, both in the church-related community and in the educational world, offering a spectrum of solutions to solve the dilemma. Unless the church-related college can re-establish a clear sense of identity and direction, it may, in fact, be but another American institution whose time has come and gone. The Future of Church—Related Colleges There is a wide spectrum of explanations for the current dilemma and uncertain future facing church-related colleges. These include such issues as limited financial support from sponsoring denominations (Sproul, 1977); increasing governmental intervention and regulation (McFarlane, 1969); imitation of public—supported, secular counterparts (McGrath, 1971); soaring tuition costs (Pauley, 1975); academic credibility (Pattillo and MacKenzie, 1965); 40 social purpose (Messerli, 1978); college/church relation— ships (Marty, 1978), decreasing enrollments (Podolsky and Smith, 1978); role, purpose, and function (Kennison, 1969); theological differences, Tetlow, 1979); philosophical issues (Ward, 1974); values (Coughlin, 1979); and others. However, the emerging concern in the literature for the future of the church-related college is the issue of identity. McCoy (1972) suggested that the principle problem for the church-related college is not survival, or quality, or finance, or any other problem, but rather a crisis of identity, a "dilemma occassioned by the tension between sectarian past and the public present" (p. 144). McCoy made two supporting observations: . . . on the one hand there is a wide spread tendency to repudiate the sectarian past, often without trying to salvage what may be worth retaining. . . . on the other hand, there is a furious effort to catch up with the rapidly changing order, as if relevance to society were alone sufficient. One can almost hear the pathetic cry from churchmen, "please stop the world . . . we want to get on." (p. 144) Jencks and Reisman (1968) affirm this "identity crisis" notion observing that, with but few exceptions, church- related colleges tend to blindly accept the point of view of the academic profession about what, how, and when to teach, "While a generalized piety and respect for the traditional Protestant mores persists in many colleges" (p. 322). Bloom (1965) also referred to this identity crisis problem warning that church—related colleges need to be alert to the dangers posed to private education by the vast 41 and sometimes engulfing expansion of public higher edu— cation. He argued that it would be "catastrophic if any- thing were to occur which would . . . (destroy) the unique contribution that our private and church-related schools (colleges) can make" (p. 7). Vanzant (1968), Stob (1975), and Gough (1981) suggested that a more precise understanding of the mission and a clear sense of self-identity of the church—related college is needed before they can begin to face the issues of survival. Wicke (1964) asserted that the future of our church-related college is bright if they can keep a clear View of their missions and achieve success in interpreting these goals to their constituency. Matthews (1970, p. 4) was convinced that the church-related colleges with a future are those which have a "distinctiveness" about them. For him, to be unique is to be strong. Church-related colleges must not succumb to trememdous pressures to conform to their secular counterparts which have no centrality of mission. The church-related colleges should offer, instead, a kind of community and quality of curriculum which will satisfy the deepest emotional and spiritual needs of the genuine scholar. Several have attempted to develop answers to this issue of distinctiveness by describing features considered to be unique to the church-related college. Bruning (1975) developed a composite listing of those characteristics identified in a United Presbyterian bulletin (1961), by 42 Pattillo and MacKenzie (1965), Averill (1966), and Sr. Mary Griffin (1970) into eleven "distinctive" categories: 1. 2. 10. ll. Commitment and service to the human good. A style of both living and learning marked by moral seriousness. Freedom for the continual pursuit of the relation- ship of faith to the various fields of knowledge. Intellectual leadership for the church in the world. An identity and unity derived from a distinctive world View; that is, a professional institutional commitment to value the world through Christian perspectives. An approach to the end View of education not by prodding the student to an accumulation of facts, but rather by aiding him in the creation of synoptic vision. Curriculum defined primarily by the liberal arts and sciences. Being small and residential. Diversity and uniqueness in the realm of values and commitment. Commitment to a distinctive institutional sub- culture within a larger society——namely, the organized Christian community. Commitment to a Christian View of man and society, and its concern to translate that commitment into curriculum and community life style. Averill (1966) observed: Remarkedly and gratifyingly it is precisely these things that are now being called for by many educators outside our Protestant colleges and universities and being called for with increasing urgency. (p. 3) But as Bruning (1975) noted, while many are attempting to deal with this identity crisis, striving to articulate a set of distinctives for the church—related colleges, certain 43 key questions need to be asked: Do the notions above in fagt_distinguish the church- related college from all other colleges and univer51t1es? If so, how might they be made more poignant, pervasive? If not, which notions d9 distinguish, which do not? It appears that there is, as yet, no definite answer to these questions. But as the Governor of Minnesota, Albert Quie, warned in an address to The National Congress on church-related colleges in 1980: One thing I can guarantee you . . . if you becomemmore and more like the public institutions there is no reason for your existence. There is only one reason for church-realted colleges to exist and that is for the distinction that they were Founded in the first place. (p. 11) Through the years, the mission of the church—related college has been fleshed out through a liberal arts curriculum within the context of a religious environment. Trotter (1974) felt that the church-related colleges should preserve their tradition of the liberal arts curriculum for academic, political, and practical reasons as well as for religious reasons. Church-related colleges are in the best position to be leaders in addressing the "peculiar issues Christ's gospel raises in our time." (p. 875). Kantzer (1983), however, predicted that the church-related colleges that "take seriously vocational preparation, professional and preprofessional, will survive the eighties. Those that don't, won't." (p. 16). In its report to the Board of Higher Education and Ministry of The United Methodist Church in 1976, the 44 National Commission on United Methodist Higher Education emphasized that: Diversity is the central distinguishing characteristic of American higher education and is a direct conse- quence of the pluralism that characterizes American society. Cultural pluralism and independent higher education are to a great degree symbiotic. A viable independent section of higher education is one of several common bases on which both meet. It can link the concerns of different ethnic, regional, and religious groups with particular collegiate prOgrams and institutions reflective of respective group needs and values. (p. 53). The report went on to say that the most important civic goal for the church-realted college is its desire to maintain a significant part of the total scene of American higher edu- cation. A strong independent section of higher education is one of the few remaining sectors of the American society not controlled by government. Church-related and other inde— pendent colleges are in the best position to serve the needs of particular ethnic, regional, and religious groups. The nation's church-related colleges make a major contribution to the overall quality of higher education because they possess greater ability to develop a distinctive purpose, to relate to specific constituencies, encourage educational excellence, and protect against potential state and federal infringement on academic freedom. The report concluded: An independent academic estate is critical for the enhancement of America's diverse cultures and the preservation of personal and group freedom. (p. 56) While the position of church-sponsored higher edu- cation today is mixed, the future is as uncertain as the present situation in higher eduction is ambiguous. Stob 45 (1975) noted that some observers of the American higher educational scene are hard and strident critics of church— related education and see nothing but a dismal future if church—related education should attempt to continue. The Pattillo and MacKenzie study (1966) concluded that though the obstacles are many and great they can be overcome. Wicke (1964) was much more optimistic claiming: The future of the church—related college depends upon its ability to keep a clear View of its mission; upon its ability to find the church support needed to supplement other sources of income; and, upon its success in interpreting its goals to students, faculty, constituency, and the general public. (p. 102). If anything is certain at all, it is change. Many church-related colleges will close their doors; others will move away from their Christian tradition; others will become publicly supported; and others will continue to play an important leavening role in American education and American life. As Kantzer (1983) concluded, it is only the private, church—related college that can fully meet the challenges of higher education today, but only if they have the solid support of their sponsoring churches and of the people who see their value and are willing to pay for it. (p. 16) Research on College and University Environments College climates have been studied and analyzed in a variety of ways over the years including educational approaches, case histories, alumni studies, student attain— ment studies, sociological approaches and psychological 46 approaches. In reference to these approaches, Stern (1966) observed: Conventional criteria for evaluating colleges and universities emphasize the morphological character- istics of these organizations, in much the same sense that the taxonomic schemes of the naturalist are based on the classification of readily observable parts and pieces of organisms . . . The bases for classification have relied heavily on statistical appraisals of easily enumerated characteristics of plant and personnel including, among other things: faculty degrees, teaching load, salary, schedules, tenure, library acquisitions, buildings and grounds, scholarship and loan funds, endowment assets, amount and sources of current income, etc. (p. 1) More recent thought and research has created a new awareness of the importance of the total college climate with respect to what it is the college is attempting to accomplish and how well it is achieveing its objectives. Stern (1966) also suggested that the main concern with respect to colleges is essentially finding better ways of characterizing their differences, those differences in particular that relate to what the college does to students. Because it is now known that the total college climate, both physical and social, makes a significant impact on the participants in that environment, efforts have been made to develop ways to describe and measure this climate quantitatively. Pace (1967) identified four basic approaches to the quantitative measurement of college climates: the collective perception of image approach, characteristics of the student body approach, characteristics of the environ- ment approach, and people behavior in the environment 47 approach. Collective Perception or Image Approach The collective perception or image approach is a pro- cedure of asking what people perceive as characteristic of the climate. The theoretical construct for this approach is the needs-press personality theory of H. A. Murray (1938). According to Murray, behavior is the result of forces within an individual which interact with pressures within the environment relevant to the satisfaction or frustration of a need. In other words, "need" is defined as the significant determinants of behavior within the individual and "press" as the significant determinants of behavior in the environ- ment. Stern's (1956) Activities Index (AI) focused on the needs aspect of this theory. The Activities Index consisted of three hundred statements (thirty personality needs scales of ten items each) which corresponded to the thirty needs discerned by Murray. The subjects simply indicated whether they "liked" or "disliked" each of the three hundred activities. The scale purports to give a measure of personality that can be used to predict student success in a variety of academic programs. The College Characteristics Index (CCI) developed by Pace and Stern (1958) was designed to measure the environ- mental press with corresponding scales to the Activities Index. It consisted of three hundred "true" or "false" statements organized into thirty, ten-item press scales, one 48 for each need scale on the Activities Index. Students act as reporters indicating what they perceive as true or not true about the college. What they feel is true constitutes the "functionally effective environment" exerting a press or directive influence on student behavior (Pace, 1966, 1962). Pace and Stern found significant differences in the educational and psycholgoical character or press of the various colleges and universities in numerous studies using the CCI. Thistlewaite (1960), McFee (1961), Nunnally, Thistlewaite and Wolfe (1963), Mitchell (1968), and others have also utilized the CCI to study various aspects of the college climate. Perhaps the most significant finding of these studies was to find that students' perception of the college climate impacted their motivation and career choice. Perhaps the most widely used instrument in the collective perception or image approach has been the College and University Environment Scales (CUES) deveIOped by Pace (1963). The three hundred items of the CCI were reduced to one hundred fifty items and reorganized into five scales of thirty items each. The five scales or dimensions were labeled: Practicality (i.e. the extent to which the campus atmosphere emphasizes the concrete and realistic rather than the abstract and speculative), Community (i.e. the extent to which the environment is cohesive and supportive), Awareness (i.e. the degree of concern for self-understanding and identity), Propriety (i.e. decorum, politeness, 49 consideration, thoughtfulness, and caution), and Scholarship (i.e. interest in scholarship, in academic achievement, and competition for it). The CUES purports to define the intellectual-social-cultural climate of a college through the perceptions and judgments of its students. Group concensus on the characteristics of the college describes the prevailing campus atmosphere or functionally effective environment. It is interesting to note that Pace based the CUES on the educational construct rather than a psycho- logical one believing that the college environment could be studied directly without reference to personality needs allowing for better comparisons among institutions. CUES is scored by the "66 plus" method. That is, the total number of items in a scale answered in the key direction by sixty-six percent or more of the students constitutes an institution's score for that scale. A score is reported for each of the five scales. The level of sixty-six percent, or a ratio of two to one, was set as a level of consensus that must be reached or exceeded to warrant calling an item characteristic of a campus. While this method has been the focus of considerable criticism, CUES has been, nevertheless, one of the most widely used instruments in the study of college climates. Pace (1966) compiled an extensive report of many of the pertinent findings which includes evidence of the reliability and validity of CUES, and the findings of several studies using these scales. 50 Characteristics of Students Approach In the characteristics of students approach, an attempt is made to define the college climate in terms of the kinds of people living in the environment. In other words, the character of a social environment depends upon and reflects the nature of its members. Astin and Holland (1961) collaborated to develop the Environmental Assessment Technique (EAT). Their instrument is based upon Linton's (1945) notion that environmental forces are transmitted through other people. Therefore, knowing the character— istics of the people in a given group enables one to define and describe the characteristics of the climate. In the EAT, the environment is the product of eight variables: size of the study body, average intelligence, and six "personal orientations" comprised of the percentage of baccalaureate degrees awarded to students in six major categories of study; Realistic, Scientific, Social, Con— ventional, Enterprising, and Artistic. Holland's (1959) theory of vocational choice asserts that people in different occupations tend to have distinctly different personalities. Information about a student's aptitude, personality, interests, and values can be associated with and predictive of his choice of field of study or occu— pation. Because the EAT is based upon this construct, both students, and subsequently, colleges can be classified along the same six categories. In a validation study of the EAT, Astin (1963) noted that student intelligence accounted for a 51 larger proportion of variance than any other EAT variable. In other studies using the characteristics of students approach, McConnell and Heist (1959) utilized scores on the Omnibus Personality Inventory and the Allport-Vernon- Lindsey Study of Values. They concluded that student characteristics do produce a distinctive climate in their respective college communities. In a separate study, Heist (1960) concluded that the impact of different peer cultures and varying social environments in conducive academic climates is open to considerable investigation. And Trow (1960) identified four basic, broad patterns of student orientations toward college which give content and meaning to the informal relationships of students, one of which will be the dominant orientation of the student. These four patterns of orientation are useful for not only deScribing the subcultures that exist within the college environment, but characterize or describe its members and define patterns of behavior. Characteristics of the Environment Approach The Characteristics of the Environment Approach looks at the institutional characteristics which might account for differences in student development and achievement. Perhaps the most elaborate study of this type was conducted by Astin (1962). He sampled 335 accredited, four-year, degree- granting colleges and universities accounting for approxi- mately seventy percent of the undergraduate students 52 enrolled in these kinds of institutions. As a result of his study, thirty-three institutional characteristics were identified and divided into five categories: Institutional Type Characteristics mwthH Private (versus Public) Control Degree of Religious Control Degree Level Offered Liberal Arts Emphasis Teacher Training Emphasis Technological Emphasis Financial Characteristics 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Tuition Endowment Operating Budget Capital Income Scholarship Funds Research Funds Student Characteristics 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Percentage of Males in the Student Body Percentage of Foreign Students in the Student Body Percentagewoff Graduate Students in the Student Body Percentage of Merit Scholars in the Student Body Total Enrollment Aptitude Level of the Student Body (Mean NMSQU score of the entering students) Realistic Orientation Intellectual Orientation Social Orientation Conventional Orientation Enterprising Orientation Artistic Orientation Homogeneity of the Environment (i.e. the differ- ence between the highest and lowest personal orientations at the college) Faculty_Characteristics 26. 27. Percentage of Faculty Holding Doctoral Degrees Faculty-Student Ratio Miscellaneous Characteristics 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. Library Size (number of books Relative Library Size (number of books per student) Growth Rate ROTC Variety of Curriculum Ph.D. Output 53 Using Astin's instrument, colleges can be compared according to the pattern of their factor scores. While this may be informative, perhaps the only practical use to a researcher would be sorting colleges and universities into categories for research. As Pace (1962) observed, even with this information, a person knows very little that is important about a college. Pace (1961) noted in an earlier study: Some of our familiar ways of classifying colleges according to structure or form of control obscure and often conflict with these differences in the edu- cational and psychological character of the colleges. (p. 22) Behavior in Environment Approach The fourth approach is concerned with how people behave in the environment. Astin (1965) designed a thirty—five item instrument which asked students to describe a course taken in a previous year which was most closely related to their major area of interest. The questions elicited information about the instructor's teaching methods and behavior, the student's behavior with regard to the course, interaction among students, interaction between the student and instructor, and factors related to the classroom environment. Astin found differences in the classroom environments reflective of different fields of study. He felt these differences supported the notion that college climates are affected by the proportion of faculty and students participating in various fields of study. 54 Pervin's (1967) Transactional Analysis of Personality and Environment (TAPE) instrument represents yet another approach to the study of college climates. Pervin argued that human behavior is best understood in terms of trans- actions (interactions) between a person and his environment. He felt that it is important to understand student perform- amce and satisfaction in View of these transactions. Believing that the previous instruments (CCI, CUES, AI, and EAT) were not adequate for measuring student-college inter- actions, Pervin developed TAPE in which students were asked to rate six concepts: College, Self, Students, Faculty, Administration, and Ideal College. His instrument consisted of fifty-two, bi-polar adjective scales (e.g. conservative— liberal) based upon the semantic differential technique designed by Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957). A factor analysis of the data produced the following scale factors descriptive of a college climate: 1. Impulsivity — Inhibition 2. Humane Idealism - Narcissism 3. Warm — Cold 4. Introversion — Extroversion 5. Goal—directed Activity 6. Liberal Idealism — Conservative Pragmatism 7. Scholarship 8. Optimism — Alienation 9. Conventionality 10. Creativity 55 ll. Sensitivity 12. Tradition l3. Cosmopolitan - Provincial Research on Church-Related College Climates The College Characteristics Index (CCI), the Environ- mental Assessment Technique (EAT), and the College and University Environment Scales (CUES) have been used for research on church—related colleges and universities. Hassenger and Weiss (1966) reported their research at Catholic colleges using Pace and Stern's (1958) College Characteristics Index, Astin's (1961) Environmental Assessment Technique, and Pace's (1963) College and Uni- versity Environment Scales. Chickering (1968) reported the results of his use of CUES at several small church-related colleges from a study under the sponsorship of the Project on Student Development at Small Colleges. Boyer and Michael (1968) reported their findings with CUES at seven small church-related colleges. Pace (1972) administered his own instrument (CUES) to an average of one hundred students at each of eighty church-related colleges. Hopper (1972) used CUES to study the changes and relationships that occurred within a freshman class at Southwest Baptist College. Stob (1975) employed CUES in a study of three small church-related colleges in western Michigan. However, these instruments, though appropriate for general use in all types of colleges, tend to be too global having limited 56 value for particular types of colleges like engineering schools, small independent colleges, and church—related colleges. As Hassenger and Weiss (1966) observed: Although the CCI and CUES include individual items about religious practices and values, the "blindness" of the current instruments to religious influences as evidenced by the lack of scales referring to the moral and spiritual impact of the college on the student, leaves an important area of human life--and one of special concern for the value-oriented school—- unexamined. (p. 441) Vanzant (1968) made the first attempt at filling this "gap" with the development of the "Religious Environment Scales" (RES). He, too, argued that the religious unique— ness of the church-related college, which he claimed as a distinctive feature of the composite campus climate, was not measured by any of the current instrumentation. The RES was constructed following the theoretical format of the College and University Environment Scales (CUES) developed by Pace (1963). The RES was designed to assess the per- ceptions of the religious climate at church-related colleges along six dimensions: Christian Faculty, Chapel, Denomi- national Relationship, Moral and Social Regulations, Religion Courses, and Students' Personal Religious Life. Vanzant used this instrument to investigate the religious climate of Evangel College in Springfield, Missouri. The instrument was administered to several groups: faculty- administration, freshmen, sophomores, juniors, seniors, and non-A/G students (i.e., those students not members of the sponsoring denomination, The Assemblies of God). As with the CUES, the "66 plus" method of scoring was utilized. An 57 item is "correct" when sixty—six percent or more of the respondents answer in agreement with the keyed answer. The group score is the number of items out of a possible fifteen on each scale for which this concensus occurs. Differences among the six groups and among the students were tested by an analysis of variance procedure. Vanzant found that Evangel College rated high on the Christian Faculty and Religion Courses scales; medium high on the Regulations scale; and low on Personal Religious Life, Denominational Relationship, and Chapel scales. How- ever, Vanzant found significant difference among the six selected groups on only two of the six scales: Chapel and Denominational Relationship. He also found significant differences among students on the individual scales when grouped on selected variables (e.g. sex, academic ability, and spiritual influence of the home church). One of the major findings of Vanzant's study is that the perceptions of the religious climate as measured by the RES may be influenced more by tjunxa variables than the religious press of the environment itself. In other words, what students report about the religious climate may be influenced by their sex, academic ability, spiritual influence of their parents, pastor, home church, attitudes, personality, and other characteristics which the respondent brought to the church-related campus. Vanzant's instrument, however, was developed on the characteristics and practices of one church-related 58 institution, Evangel College, in Springfield, Missouri. Therefore, many of the items on the questionnaire and the six sub-scales may not be relevant to the much larger segment of church-related colleges and denominations across the United States. As Vanzant observed: The results from the administration of this research instrument at one institution must be regarded as tentative. If the RES is to be useful to other denominational colleges a replication of this study or a similar study administering the RES to other church- controlled colleges is necessary. Comparisons or institutional profiles on individual scales and of groups within institutions would be valuable. It is possible that data collected through the administration of the RES to other institutions would permit refine- ment of the instrument and items within the scales. (p. 120) To the knowledge of this researcher, no such refinement of the RES has occurred to date. It is doubtful whether the study has any implications much beyond the bounds of the particular college which was examined. As a means of comparing and contrasting the perceptions and expectations of second-semester freshmen in regard to several aspects of the campus environment at three small church-related, liberal arts colleges in western Michigan, Stob (1975) employed Pace's (1963, 1969) CUES. In addition to the five scales of the CUES (Practicality, Community, Awareness, Propriety, and Scholarship), Stob developed a "Religious Scale" to be used as a supplement to CUES. These scales were administered to a "nominally denominational" college, a "moderately denominational" college and a "strongly denominational college. Stob found that the religious factor was very important at both the moderately 59 and strongly denominational schools. In other words, it appeared that students were attending these schools, at least in part, because of the school's religious orient— ation, and expected to find an open and active religious climate on campus. This religious dimension did not seem to be nearly as important in the nominally denominational school. Stob concluded religion‘ was only as important on campus as the college's denominational sponsor affirmed it to be. (p. 87) However, Stob's study focused on second—semester freshmen only. He correctly observed that further research should be conducted to compare and contrast perceptions of the religious climate among various groups within the institution (e.g. freshmen, sophomores, juniors, seniors, faculty, administrators, board members, constituents, etc.) Stob's instrument is also statistically weak. He concluded: Additional studies should be done in the development of the Religious Scale. Even though the Religious Scale went through several revisions as it was being developed, it lacks stringent testing and validity. Improvements could be made on the Religious Scale to make it a more valuable instrument. (p. 90) To the knowledge of this researcher, no further work has been done on Stob's "Religious Scale." Using Cuninggim's (1978) continuum of denominational types as the theoretical framework for her research, Gough (1981) investigated the religious climate at 301 regionally accredited, church-related colleges in the United States. Cuninggim's model describes three categories of church 60 relatedness based on the religious style of each sponsoring denomination. These denominational types were consonant, proclaiming, and embodying colleges. A "consonant college" is an institution that is independent in operation yet committed to the tradition of its church-relatedness. It is seen as an ally with its sponsoring denomination. A "proclaiming college" is an institution that is an acknow- ledged partner with its parent. denomination. It strives to provide a strong academic influence for students in addition to being a witness for the church. An "embodying college" is an institution that seeks first to reflect the practice of the church and secondly to promote academic excellence. Because of the theoretical and statistical weaknesses associated with earlier instruments used to assess religious climate, Gough found it necessary to construct yet another instrument to collectively assess five major characteristics of the religious climate (curriculum, faculty character- istics, campus activities, denominational relationship, and the development of student life) to differentiate among Cuninggim's three denominational types: consonant colleges, proclaiming colleges, and embodying colleges. The chief student life officer (i.e. Dean of Students) at each college completed Gough's "Survey of College Environments" instru- ment. The validity and reliability of this instrument were checked in a pilot study and were well within the acceptable ranges for such an instrument. Gough found that clear differences in the perceptions of the religious climate did exist among church-related 61 colleges according to their denominational affiliation. Significant differences were identified between consonant and proclaiming colleges types; proclaiming and embodying college types; and consonant and embodying college types. In other words, religious climate did vary according to denominational affiliation suggesting support for Cuninggim's continuum of denominational types. While Gough concluded that her study provides but "a modest contribution in the quest for knowledge" about church-related colleges (p. 126), perhaps the greatest contribution was the development of an instrument grounded in theory and evolving from a comprehensive review of the literature, statistically valid and reliable, and practical for use in a broad spectrum of church—related colleges. Gough's "A Survey of College Environments" appears to warrant confidence in its ability to assess the religious climate in all types of church-related colleges. However, data for Gough's study were gathered from deans of students only. Realizing this limitation, Gough recommended that her scale be refined and administered to a broader spectrum of administrators, faculty, and students (p. 127). 62 Profile of the Educational Institutions of The Wesleyan Church The Wesleyan Church is the product of a merger between the Pilgrim Holiness Church and The Wesleyan Methodist Church of America on June 26, 1968. This merger also included the consolidation of these church's respective educational institutions and currently include: Bartles- ville Wesleyan College, a four-year, liberal arts and professional college in Bartlesville, Oklahoma; Bethany Bible College, a four—year Bible and Christian Ministries school in Sussex, New Brunswick, Canada; Central Wesleyan College, a four-year, liberal arts and professional college in Central, South Carolina; Houghton College, a four-year liberal arts and professional school in Houghton, New York; Marion College, a four-year, liberal arts and professional college in Marion, Indiana; and United Wesleyan College, a four-year and five-year, Bible and Christian Ministries school in Allentown, Pennsylvania. These educational institutions are owned and controlled by The Wesleyan Church in harmony with the following principles: (1) All schools, in fulfilling the mission of The Wesleyan Church, shall seek to produce Christian workers and committed laymen for the church of Jesus Christ. The Church recognizes that more than one type of educational institution will be needed. Some institutions will devote themselves primarily to the preparation of full-time Christian workers for the Church. Some colleges, recognizing the God-given mandate to explore and bringwunder dominion the whole range of knowledge for the glory of God and the Good of mankind (Gen. 1:26-28; 9:1—7; Matt. 6:10; I Cor 3:21b-23; II Cor. 10:5; I Tim. 4:4-5), will Offer a 63 Christian liberal arts program. Some Christian young people will use such a curriculum as training for full- time, church-related vocations or as the foundation for graduate training for such vocations; some to prepare for other vocations in which they have been called to serve Christ, His church, and His world. (2) The Church and all its schools shall work in the closest harmony. In its legislative assemblies, the Church defines its faith. In its classrooms, the Church studies, expounds, and defends its faith. In the congregation, the church worships its Lord and proclaims its faith. To safeguard the doctrinal purity of the Church, it shall be required that all schools maintain and promote the doctrinal position of the Church as set forth in its Articles of Religion, Membership Commitments, and Elementary Principles. Any person employed on the administrative staff or faculty of an educational institution of The Wesleyan Church must affirm his adherence to the doctrine of entire sanctification and other doctrines of The Wesleyan Church as set forth in the Articles of Religion. (3) In establishing its educational institutions, and in guiding their life and work, The Wesleyan Church seeks to provide the highest possible quality of Christian education for its own young people and for other young people who wish to study under its auspices without regard to race or national origin. (The Discipline, 1980, p. 217-218) The basic requirement for each college is to . . . maintain a curriculum which satisfies the educational requirements for ordination as an elder by The Wesleyan Church" (The Discipline, 1980, p. 157). Each educational institution is to serve a particular district assigned by the denomination. Two of the colleges, Bethany Bible College and United Wesleyan College, devote themselves primarily to the preparation of full-time Christian workers for the church. The others, "recognizing the God-given mandate to explore and bring under dominion the whole range of knowledge for the glory of God and the good of mankind," have expanded 64 their programs to a liberal arts/professional program (The Discipline, 1980, p. 217). Ultimate authority over these educational institutions rests with the General Conference of The Wesleyan Church. This authority is delegated to the General Board of Admini— stration which approves the college charters and subsequent revisions thereto, elects trustees for each institution, and adopts and revises the Standards for Educational Institutions "as the General Board of Administration shall deem to be wise" (The Discipline, 1980, p. 218). The General Secretary of Education and the Ministry is elected by the General Conference to serve as the coordinator of the denomination‘s educational institutions under the direction of the General Board of Administration and the Commission on Educational Institutions. According to Cuninggim's (1978) framework of denomi— national types, the colleges of The Wesleyan Church fall under the category of "embodying colleges." Embodying colleges offer their allegiance first to the doctrines of their parent denomination (in this case, The Wesleyan Church) and second to educational pursuits. Thus, they are the mirror reflection of the church. The church sets the pace on campus and defines the accompanying practices. In other words, embodying colleges are "enthusiastically religious" creating the greatest press in terms of religious climate. As Dr. Paul R. Mills (1984), President of Bartlesville Wesleyan College emphasized, "Scholarship is 65 second to spiritual development on this campus." The four, four-year, liberal arts and professional colleges of The Wesleyan Church were selected for this study: Bartlesville Wesleyan College, Central Wesleyan College, Houghton College, and Marion College. Bartlesville Wesleyan College Bartlesville Wesleyan College was founded in 1968 shortly after the merger of the Pilgrim Holiness Church and The Wesleyan Methodist Church of America in that same year. Its predecessor, Central Pilgrim College, was established by the Pilgrim Holiness Church in 1959 by merging several colleges: Colorado Springs Bible College, founded in 1910 in Colorado Springs, Colorado; Pilgrim Bible College, founded in 1917 in Pasedena, California; and Holiness Evangelistic Institute (later named Western Pilgrim College), founded in 1923 in El Monte, California. Following the church merger of 1968, Central Pilgrim College was renamed Bartlesville Wesleyan College. In 1972, The Wesleyan Church merged Miltonvale Wesleyan College of Miltonvale, Kansas (founded in 1909), with Bartlesville Wesleyan College "in order to better serve the western area of The Wesleyan Church" (Bartlesville Wesleyan College Catalog, 1982-84, p. 12). At the time of this merger, Bartlesville was operating as a liberal arts junior college. With the merger, the decision was made to create a four—year liberal arts college. That same year, the Oklahoma State Regents 66 of Higher Education accredited Bartlesville Wesleyan College as a four-year degree-granting institution. The college was fully accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools in 1978. This accreditation was renewed in 1983. The mission of Bartlesville Wesleyan College is "to be a community of scholars and learners which utilizes Christian principles and available resources of knowledge in preparation for effective service" (Bartlesville Wesleyan College Catalog, 1982—84, p. 14). The College's General Catalog further states: The college recognizes the need for the college experience to provide a thorough and sound education within a Christian philosophy of life. Thus it is the purpose of Bartlesville Wesleyan College to offer experiences in Biblical studies, general studies, business, education, the arts, the sciences, and pre- professional and professional training in the light of Christian principles. (p. 14) Bartlesville Wesleyan College offers baccalaureate degrees in the following areas: Accounting, Behavioral Science, Biology, Business, Business Education, Christian Education, Church Music, Computer Science, Elementary Education, History-Political Science, Missions,.Music Edu— cation, Music Performance, Physical Education, Religion, Science Education, and Social Science Education. In the 1982-83 academic year, the college had thirty- two full-time and thirty-four part-time faculty with an enrollment of 599 FTE students. The annual operating budget was $3,783,961 (Brannon, 1983). 67 Central Wesleyan College Central Wesleyan College (formerly Wesleyan Methodist College), incorporated under the laws of South Carolina, opened on October 15, 1906, out of a belief in the need for developing Christian character while providing thorough, intellectual training. The college was established and maintained for several years by the denominational Missionary Society of the former Wesleyan Methodist Church of America. In January 1909, the school was chartered as a college. In 1928, the college was reduced to a junior college, but was reorganized as a senior college in 1959. Central Wesleyan College was fully accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools in 1973. This accreditation was renewed in 1978 (Central Wesleyan College General Catalog, 1982-83, pp. 4-6, 12). Central Wesleyan College grants baccalaureate degrees in the following areas: English, Music Education, Church Music, English Education, Religion, Biology, Chemistry, Medical Technology, Mathematics, Biology Education, Chemistry Education, Mathematics Education, Accounting, Business Administration, Elementary Education, History, Physical Education, Psychology, Social Studies, Special Education, Business Education, Early Childhood and Middle School. In the 1982—83 academic year, Central Wesleyan College had 21 full-time and l7-part-time faculty with an enrollment of 381 FTE students. The budget for 1982-83 was $2,359,665 68 (Brannon, 1983). Houghton College In 1883, the Lockport Conference of the Wesleyan Methodist Church of America founded Houghton Wesleyan Methodist Seminary (now known as Houghton College) with the declared purpose of providing an education which is ". . . high in standards, low in expense, and fundamental in belief" (Houghton College Catalog, 1982-83, p. 1). It began with an elementary and academy department adding a department for the training of ministers in 1888. The first college—level courses were offered in 1889. A provisional charter as a four-year liberal arts college was granted to Houghton College in 1923 by the Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York. The college received its permanent charter in 1927. In 1935, Houghton College was fully accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. The college continues to serve The Wesleyan Church as an evangelical, liberal arts, coeducational college emphasizing "academic excellence, social equality, and the historic Christian faith" (Houghton College Catalog, 1982-83, p. l). Houghton's General Catalog further states: Houghton College believes that faith and academic excellence are compatible and that both contribute to the fullest development of the whole person. With this educational philosophy, Houghton seeks to give faculty and students the opportunity for scholarly pursuits as one expression of Christian commitment. The College community also gives verbal and practical expression to the social concerns implicit in the Gospel. (p. l) 69 Essentially a liberal arts college, Houghton offers preparation for immediate participation in Business Admini- stration, Elementary Education, Secondary Education, Music Education, Church Music and the Ministry. Each of the divisions of the college also offer specialized prepar- ations for graduate study as well as pre-professional training in medicine, law, engineering, education, and the ministry. In 1982—83, Houghton College consisted of 75 full—time and 20 part-time faculty with an enrollment of 1,206 FTE students. The operating budget for 1982—83 was $8,306,125 (Brannon, 1983). Marion College Marion College, a Christian, liberal arts, co- educational institution was founded in 1920 by the Wesleyan Methodist Church of America. The Church also operated Fairmount Bible School in Fairmount, Indiana, which became the Religious Department when Marion College was founded. Marion College purposes to: search for truth by study in liberal arts and in professional education within the framework of Christian faith and philosophy so that the person is developed for service to God and man in the church and in society (Marion College Catalog, 1981-83, p. 3). The college's General Catalog_further states: We desire to relate every facet of life and scholarship to a Christian worldview under the worship of Jesus Christ so that faith might illuminate learning, and expand faith. Rather than limiting our quest for truth or stifling our creativity, such a commitment actually sets us free to explore, learn, invent, 70 analyze, criticize, and think within loving obedience in the God in whom we live and move and have our being. (p. 6) Marion College is fully accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. Marion College offers liberal arts majors in the following areas and disciplines: Accounting, Art, Biology, (including Medical Technology option), Biblical Literature, Business, Chemistry, Christian Education, Christian Ministries, Church Music, Communication-Journalism, Criminal Justice Education, Economics, English, General Science, History, Mathematics, Music, Nursing, Political Science, Psychology, Religion/Philosophy, Social Studies, Sociology, Social Work, and Spanish. The college also offers teaching majors in the following areas and disciplines: Art, Elementary Education, English, Science, Mathematics, Music, Physical Education, and Social Studies. In 1979, the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools approved the Master of Arts degree with a major in Ministerial Education. The program began in September of that same year. In the 1982—83 academic year, Marion had 63 full—time and 30 part—time faculty with a student enrollment of 992 FTE students. The operating budget was $5,472,058 (Brannon, 1983). CHAPTER THREE DESIGN OF THE STUDY This study was designed to investigate the perception of the religious climate of full-time students and faculty at the four liberal arts colleges related to The Wesleyan Church using an instrument which measures the variable of religious climate. The degree to which these four colleges are similar or different in religious climate as measured by the responses of faculty and students was also studied. This chapter contains a discussion of the design and methodological procedures used in conducting this study. Specifically, it contains a description of the number, kind, and bases of selection of the study samples; a description of the instrument used for measuring the variable of religious climate; a restatement of the conceptual hypo— theses into operational terms; information on data collection; and the methods used to analyze the data. Population and Sample The population for this study consisted of the full- time students and faculty of the four liberal arts colleges affiliated with The Wesleyan Church: Bartlesville Wesleyan College (Bartlesville, Oklahoma), Central Wesleyan College (Central, South Carolina), Houghton College (Houghton, 71 72 New York), and Marion College (Marion, Indiana). The population consisted of 2,638 full-time students and 222 full-time faculty and administrators. A stratified random sample was selected from this population using rosters provided by officials from each college. The statistical convention of power analysis (Feldt and Mahmoud,(l958) was utilized to estimate the number of subjects (N) needed to obtain a given level of power (i.e. beta) in performing an analysis of variance on the data. Because statistical certainty (i.e. alpha) is directly dependent upon the size of N, predetermining alpha, beta, effect size, and sample size through power analysis eliminates the tendency to reject scientifically significant results as not significant (i.e. Type I errors) and to tout scientifically insignificant results as significant (i.e. Type II errors). While power analysis places more responsi- bility on the researcher, it enables the researcher to determine if the findings have statistical as well as practical significance. As Cohen and Hyman (1979) noted, the present, popular convention of investing alpha with such singular importance "may be one of the most impressive examples of mass ignorance in the history of science." (p. 14). Feldt and Mahoud's power function charts (see Appendix A) were used to predetermine alpha (6‘), beta (fl ), effect size (0), and sample size (N) for each hypothesis (see Table 1). To insure that an adequate sample size (N) would be 73 Table 1 Power Analysis Hypothesis k alpha beta Effect size Sample Size (N) l 4 .05 .80 .20 66 2 2 .05 .80 .35 35 3 2 .05 .80 .40 24 4 2 .05 .80 .40 24 5 2 .05 .80 .35 35 6 4 .05 .80 .35 35 74 obtained for data analysis, surveys were sent to twenty- five full-time campus resident freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors; fifteen full—time non-resident freshmen, sophomores, juniors and seniors, and twenty—five full-time faculty randomly selected from the official 1983 spring semester rosters. The sample, then consisted of 640 full-time students and 100 full-time faculty. The appropri- ate sample size (N) necessary to conduct a power analysis on each hypothesis was drawn from this sample pool using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) command, *SAMPLE, for each hypothesis. If an adequate sample size was not obtained in the data collection, the effect size ( 0 ) was adjusted to maintain the alpha level at .05 and the beta level at .80 for each hypothesis. Instrumentation "A Survey of College Environments," developed by Ruth Ruud Gough (1981) was utilized to measure the variable of religious climate at the four colleges. Gough developed this scale for her study of the religious climate of 301 Protestant church-related colleges in the United States. Using Cuninggim's (1978) continuum of denominational types as her theoretical base, Gough found significant differences in the religious climate among the church-related colleges according to their denominational affiliation. This scale is sophisticated enough to distinguish the often subtle differences in religious climate in church-related colleges. 75 Gough's instrument measures five components of the campus environment: the curriculum, faculty characteristics, campus activities, denominational relationship, and the development of student life. While there are many other dimensions to the environment, it is Gough's contention that through the combination of these five characteristics the religious distinctiveness of a church-related college can be observed. A copy of Gough's original instrument is located in Appendix B. Gough's religious scale consists of twenty—five state- ments about the religious environment. Respondents are asked to rate how characteristic each statement is at their school on a Likert-type format. Response choices and their accompanying responses are as follows: Not Characteristic 1 point Slightly Characteristic 2 points Moderately Characteristic 3 points Very Characteristic 4 points Absolutely Characteristic 5 points A score for religious climate is derived by summing the points. The higher the score, the more the college displays religiosity in its environment according to the constructs of that environment and the collective perception of the respondents. Ten additional student-service items are included in the instrument as a means of providing balance to the survey. These items attempt to disguise the overtly 76 religious intent of the instrument making it more applicable to a wider range of colleges and respondents. These student-service items are not scored as a measure of religious climate. As an additional safeguard, the instru- ment is labeled "A Survey of College Environments" to secure desired data on the variable of religious climate in an unbiased manner and to increase the objectivity of the respondents. The items comprising the five dimensions of the religious climate and the ten student-service items are found in Appendix C. Validity Construct validity is claimed by Gough as the method of validity for "A Survey of College Environments." Construct validity is claimed when an instrument fits into an organ— ized body of knowledge. Gough (1981) noted: From a scientific perspective, construct validity is a major advancement in the measurement field because it joins psychometric principles and theoretical concepts. (p. 88) Gough examined the construct validity of her instrument in three ways. First, she conducted a thorough investi— gation of the literature pertaining to church-related colleges to define the components of religious climate from a theoretical foundation. The instrument was thus built upon knowledge of those properties (i.e. constructs). In addition, when an item analysis was conducted on the pilot instrument, three items were eliminated from the final form of the instrument because they did not systematically 77 differentiate religious climate at the church—related colleges. In other words, they did not measure what they purported to measure. Finally, Gough performed another check on construct validity by comparing the religious climate mean scores of the four types of institutions surveyed: public institu- tions, consonant colleges, proclaiming colleges, and embodying colleges. She found that the lowest measures belonged to the public institutions while the means for the church—related colleges were prOgressively higher for each of the denominational types of colleges. The group mean scores were: public colleges, 33.20; consonant colleges, 57.11; proclaiming colleges, 78.87; and embodying colleges, 101.57. Gough concluded that these data represent not only a validation of her religious climate measurement tool, but also a confirmation for the theory behind her instrument. Reliability In general, the concept of reliability refers to how accurate, on the average, the estimate of the true score is in a population of objects to be measured (Hull and Nie, 1981). In other words, reliability refers to the consist— ency with which a test measures, or the extent to which a test agrees with itself. To investigate the reliability of "A Survey of College Environments," Gough employed "Cronbach's alpha coefficient" using the SPSS Reliability program. An alpha coefficient of .956 was obtained for the 78 final form of her instrument. However, the data in Gough's study were gathered from deans of students only. In order to use the instrument for this study, it was necessary to recalculate the reliability coefficient for data collected from students and faculty. Furthermore, Gough recommended changes in items twenty-two and twenty-seven on her instrument. Specifically, she recommended the phrase "considerable pressure" in item twenty-two be changed to "a tendency." Item twenty—seven should be changed to read, "Financial contributions to the college are received from our church sponsors." After these changes were made, the revised instrument was used to collect data from a sample of full-time students and faculty at Bartlesville Wesleyan College. Cronbach's alpha coefficient of reliability was computed from this data using the SPSS Reliability Program. An alpha coefficient was computed at .894. Nunnally (1967) stated that a reliability of .80 is adequate for basic research. Houston and Solomon (1978) reported that reliability co- efficients of over .600 are considered to be very good to high for self-descriptive instruments of this type. (p. 6). Thus, the reliability of the revised instrument was found to be quite satisfactory for this study. A copy of the revised instrument is located in Appendix D. 79 Operational Hypotheses This study was designed to study the following related problems: To what degree are the four liberal arts colleges of The Wesleyan Church similar or different in religious climate as measured by the responses of students and faculty on an instrument measuring this variable (i.e. religious climate)? Is there a difference in the perception of the religi— ous climate between lower division and upper division students? Is there a difference in the perception of the religious climate between lower division students and faculty? Is there a difference in the perception of the religious climate between upper division students and faculty? Is there a difference in the perception of the religious climate between resident students and non- resident students? Is there a difference in the perception of the religious climate between freshmen "persisters" and freshmen "leavers." Operationally, the following null hypotheses were tested to resolve the questions related to this study: 80 No significant difference exists in the mean scores of Bartlesville Wesleyan College, Central Wesleyan College, Houghton College, and Marion College on the variable of religious climate. No significant difference exists in the mean scores of lower division students and upper division students on the variable of religious climate. No significant difference exists in the mean scores of lower division students and faculty on the variable of religious climate. No significant difference exists in the mean scores of upper division students and faculty on the variable of religious climate. No significant difference exists in the mean scores of resident students and non—resident students on the variable of religious climate. No significant difference exists in the mean scores of freshmen "persisters" and freshmen "leavers" on the variable of religious climate. Data Collection Data for this study were collected in the spring semester, 1983. The sample was randomly selected from a roster of full—time students and faculty provided by each 81 college. Full-time students and faculty were asked to be reporters about their respective colleges. They have lived in its environment, seen its features, participated in its activities, and sensed its attitudes. In short, they are in the best position to share perceptions of the religious climate on their campus. A letter-questionnaire was sent by mail to each student asking each to complete the enclosed survey. Two follow-up letters-questionnaires were sent to encourage participation in the study. The completed questionnaires were returned in sealed envelopes to a neutral box number in the student mail center on each campus. Each college collected, boxed, and returned the completed surveys by United Parcel Service to the researcher for analysis. Copies of the cover letters are located in Appendix E. Freshmen participants were identified by name in the data collection for purpose of a follow-up. In the fall semester, 1983, a follow—up telephone call was made to each college to determine which freshmen participants did and did not return to school. Once these were identified, all the distinguishing labels were removed from the surveys. Anonymity was guaranteed in all cases. Data Analysis This study utilized the survey research method of scientific inquiry. Sometimes referred to as "analytic survey research" (Best, 1977) and "descriptive survey 82 research, (Fox, 1969) the survey research method has proven to be particularly powerful in the investigation of many of the important problems of contemporary American education (Herriott, 1960). In contrast to the "survey method" which is highly criticized by most educational researchers (Trow, 1967 and Sieber, 1968, and others), the survey research method carefully selects samples to make quantitative generalizations. In this sense, survey research is similar to traditional experimentive research in that it is designed to explore questions of cause and effect (Tiedeman, 1960). Survey research is concerned with accurate assessments of the incidence, distribution, and relationships of phenomena in the field. Its objective is to determine the nature of prevailing conditions, practices, and attitudes and to accurately describe activities, objects, processes, and persons. It is the goal of the researcher to predict and identify relationships among and between variables (Van Dalen, 1979). Kerlinger (1964) held that a survey is an organized attempt to analyze, interpret, and report the present status of a source, instituiton, group, or area. Its purpose is to classify, generalize,, and interpret data for the guidance of practice in the immediate future. According to Fox (1969); A descriptive survey (survey research method) is intended to describe a specific set of phenomena by and of themselves. The rationale for the purely descriptive survey is the fact that the information provided is in itself the answer to the research question posed. 83 The dependent variable for each question in this study was religious climate. It was theorized that religious climate would vary with each of the independent variables in each of the hypothesized groups, that is, between lower division students and upper division students; lower division students and faculty; upper division students and faculty; resident students and non—resident students; freshmen "persisters" and freshmen "leavers;" and among the four colleges participating in the study (Bartlesville Wesleyan College, Central Wesleyan College, Houghton College, and Marion College). Each hypothesis was tested using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) ONEWAY: Analysis of Variance Procedure (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner and Bent, 1975). The data were analyzed on the Honeywell 6600/B3 computer at the University of Tulsa in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Feldt and Mahmoud's (1958) technique of power analysis was used to set the criterion for rejection (i.e. alpha) at .05 in all cases. This is consistent with the beta (.80), sample size (n), and effect Size (0) established for each hypothesis using the same convention (see Table 1). CHAPTER FOUR ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The results of the data analysis are presented in this chapter. The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceptions of the religious climate of full—time students and faculty at the four liberal arts colleges affiliated with The Wesleyan Church. Gough's (1981) "A Survey of College Environments" provided the means for obtaining the data according to the design and methodology described in Chapter Three. Six null hypotheses were tested in this study: H l: 0 H03: No significant difference exists in the mean scores of Bartlesville Wesleyan College, Central Wesleyan College, Houghton College, and Marion College on the variable of religious climate. No significant difference exists in the mean scores of lower division students and upper division students on the variable of religious Climate. No significant difference exists in the mean scores of lower division students and faculty on the variable of religious climate. 84 85 H04: No significant difference exists in the mean scores of upper division students and faculty on the variable of religious climate. H05: No significant difference exists in the mean scores of resident students and non-resident students on the variable of religious climate. 06: No significant difference exists in the mean scores of freshmen persisters and freshmen leavers on the variable of religious climate. With the dependent variable being religious climate in each problem, hypothesized relationships were tested using the ONEWAY: Analysis of Variance PrOgram in the SPSS series (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, and Bent, 1975). Calculations were performed on the University of Tulsa's Honeywell 6600/B3 computer in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The sample size (N), alpha (level of significance), beta (power), and effect size (0) were determined for each hypothesis using the convention of "power analysis" (Feldt and Mahmoud, 1958). If the F ratio equaled or exceeded the .05 level of significance, statistical significance was assumed for each relationship under investigation. The data collected in this study are presented in the following manner: (1) analysis of the sample respondents; (2) presentation of data for each hypothesis; and (3) summary. 86 Analysis of the Sample Respondents The sample for this research consisted of 80 full- time lower division students, 80 full—time upper division students, and 25 full-time faculty members randomly selected from rosters provided by each of the four colleges partici- pating in the study. The total sample, then, consisted of 640 full-time students and 100 full-time faculty members. This represented approximately 20 percent of the full-time students and 40 percent of the full-time faculty in these four institutions. As the figures in Table 2 explain, 235 lower division students, 291 upper division students, and 90 faculty opted to participate in this study by returning the completed survey for an 83.2 percent response rate. On the returned surveys, 231 lower division students, 289 upper division students, and 89 faculty responses were usable for a usable response rate of 82.3 percent. This response rate was adequate for conducting a power analysis on each hypothesis. The data analyses for this study were conducted using the religious climate scores of the 609 usable responses. Religious climate scores ranged from a mean of 89.02 to 93.15 for the four participating colleges (see Table 3). 87 m.mm mom m.mm mam ova qao swam: m.ms mm m.mm we om whamosnm soamfi>ao umsoq momqqoo onmaz o.om em 0.6m em mm muasomm m.mm so m.mm so om muamwsum coama>ao swam: o.os om o.os mm om mpcmwsum nonma>ao Hmzoq momqqoo zoemopom 0.0m om 0.0m om mm mpasomm m.Hm mo m.Hm mo om mucmosum nonma>ao “was: m.mm be m.mm be om mpcmosum coama>ao nmzoq momqqoo zmwmqmmz namezmo o.om am 0.6m am mm muasomm m.mm as o.ooH om om muqmosum coamn>ao swans m.am mo m.mm we om mucmwsum coama>ao umzoq momqqoo zmwQOms mqu>mmqsmmm w z w z z mmauo\momqnoo mwm>mom mummms mezmozommmm mqmzam mmsouo mHmEmm mo mflmhamsa paw mama hHmEEDm N OHQMB 88 Table 3 Analysis of Religious Climate Mean Score Ranges CLASS BWC CWC HC MC TOTAL Lower Division Students 93.29 90.05 93.04 90.24 92.38 Upper Division Students 91.33 85.60 91.83 84.38 88.21 Faculty 92.46 91.65 94.54 92.52 92.90 Total 92.87 89.02 93.15 89.43 91.16 Analysis of the Data To answer the research problems in this study, the following null hypotheses were tested: H01: No significant difference exists in the mean scores of Bartlesville Wesleyan College, Central Wesleyan College, Houghton College, and Marion College on the variable of religious climate Summary data for this hypothesis and the analysis of variance results for the overall relationship between religious climate and college are displated in Tables 4 and 5. A one-way analysis of variance with 263 degrees of freedom was performed on the data. An F ratio of 2.293 resulted from this procedure. The computed F was not significant at or beyond the .05 level. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected. A significant difference in the religious climate among the four liberal arts colleges of The Wesleyan Church could not be demonstrated by the 89 Table 4 Summary Data for the Relationship Between Religious Climate and College COLLEGE MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION Bartlesville Wesleyan College 92.87 9.87 Central Wesleyan College 89.02 13.00 Houghton College 93.15 11.92 Marion College 89.43 12.13 Table 5 Analysis of Variance for Relationship Between Religious Climate and College Source df s.s m.s. F F prob. Between Groups 3 952.0998 317.3666 2.293 .0785 Within Groups 260 35987.2397 138.4125 Total 263 36939.3395 90 analysis. H02: No significant difference exists in the mean scores of lower division students and upper division students on the variable of religious climate. Summary data for this hypothesis and the analysis of variance results for the overall relationship between religious climate and class are displayed in Tables 6 and 7. Table 6 Summary Data for Relationship Between Religious Climate and Class COLLEGE CLASS MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION BWC Lower Division 93.40 10.58 Upper Division 90.91 11.49 CWC Lower Division 90.49 12.05 Upper Division 90.97 13.90 HC Lower Division 93.40 14.06 Upper Division 90.11 11.50 MC Lower Division 89.14 10.15 Upper Division 87.09 13.41 All Lower Division 92.03 12.67 Colleges Upper Division 89.23 12.90 A one-way analysis of variance with 69 degrees of freedom was performed on the data for Bartlesville Wesleyan College. An F ratio of .886 resulted from this procedure. The computed F was not significant at or beyond the .05 91 Table 7 Analysis of Variance for Relationship Between Religious Climate and Class Bartlesville Wesleyan College SOURCE df s.s. m.s. F .F prob. Between Groups 1 108.1286 108.1286 .886 .3498 Within Groups 68 8297.1427 122.0168 Total 69 8405.2713 Central Wesleyan College SOURCE df s.s m.s F F prob. Between Groups 1 4.1286 4.1286 .024 .8764 Within Groups 68 11511.7139 169.2899 Total 69 11515.8425 Houghton College SOURCE df s.s. m.s. F F prob. Between Groups 1 188.9285 188.9285 1.146 .2882 Within Groups 68 11211.9419 164.8815 Total 69 11400.8704 92 Table 7 (cont'd.) Marion College Source df s.s. m.s. F F prob. Between Groups 1 74.0512 74.0512 .524 .4717 Within Groups 68 9615.9279 141.3975 Total 69 9689.0791 All Colleges Source df s.s. m.s. F F prob. Between Groups 1 , 391.5016 391.5016 2.394 .1234 Within Groups 198 32379.3682 163.5322 Total 199 32770.8698 level. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected. A significant difference in the perception of the religious climate among lower division students and upper division students at Bartlesville Wesleyan could not be demonstrated by the analysis. A one-way analysis of variance with 69 degrees of freedom was performed on the data for Houghton College. An F ratio of 1.146 resulted from this procedure. The computed F was not significant at or beyond the .05 level. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected. A significant difference in the perception of the religious climate among lower 93 division and upper division students at Houghton College could not be demonstrated by the analysis. A one—way analysis of variance with 69 degrees of freedom was performed on the data for Marion College. An F ratio of .524 resulted from this procedure. The computed F was not significant at or beyond the .05 level. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected. A significant difference in the perception of the religious climate among lower division and upper division students at Marion College could not be demonstrated by the analysis. A one-way analysis of variance with 199 degrees of freedom was performed on the data for the four colleges collectively. An F ratio of 2.394 resulted from this procedure. The computed F was not significant at or beyond the .05 level. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected. A significant difference in the perception of the religious climate among lower division and upper division students in the four liberal arts colleges of The Wesleyan Church could not be demonstrated by the analysis. H03: No significant difference exists in the mean scores of lower division students and faculty on the variable of religious climate. Summary data for this hypothesis and the analysis of variance results for the overall relationship between religious climate and faculty are displayed in Tables 8 and 9. 94 Table 8 Summary Data for Relationship Between Religious Climate and Lower Division Students and Faculty College Class Mean Standard Deviation BWC Lower Division 95.29 9.32 Faculty 92.46 8.93 CWC Lower Division 90.45 13.31 Faculty 91.65 12.07 HC Lower Division 94.42 13.35 Faculty 94.54 7.71 MC Lower Division 92.29 12.12 Faculty 92.52 8.16 All Lower Division 93.26 12.02 Colleges Faculty 92.85 9.17 95 Table 9 Analysis of Variance for Relationship Between Religious Climate and Lower Division Students and Faculty Bartlesville Wesleyan College SOURCE df s.s. m.s. 4. F F prob. Between Groups 1 96.3333 96.3333 1.156 .2880 Within Groups 46 3834.9167 83.3678 Total 47 3931.2500 Central Wesleyan College SOURCE df s.s. m.s. F F prob. Between Groups 1 14.4035 14.4035 .089 .7668 Within Groups 38 ' 6133.5000 161.4079 Total 39 6147.9035 Houghton College SOURCE df s.s. m.s. F F prob. Between Groups 1 .1875 .1875 .002 .9685 Within Groups 46 5467.7918 118.8650 Total 47 5467.9793 96 Table 9 (cont'd.) Marion College SOURCE df s.s- m.s. F . F prob. Between Groups 1 .5952 .5952 .006 .9408 Within Groups 40 4269.5237 106.7381 Total 41 4270.1191 All Colleges SOURCE df .s.s. 7 m.s. F. F prob. Between Groups 1 7.2967 7.2967 .064 .8008 Within Groups 176 20118.1558 114.3077 Total 177 20125.4526 A one-way analysis of variance with 47 degrees of freedom was performed on the data for Bartlesville Wesleyan College. An F ratio of 1.156 resulted from this procedure. The computed F was not significant at or beyond the .05 level. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected. A significant difference in the perception of the religious climate among lower division students and faculty at Bartlesville Wesleyan College could not be demonstrated by the analysis. A one-way analysis of variance with 39 degrees of 97 freedom was performed on the data for Central Wesleyan College. An F ratio of .089 resulted from this procedure. The computed F was not significant at or beyond the .05 level. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected. A significant difference in the perception of the religious climate among lower division students and faculty at Central Wesleyan College could not be demonstrated by the analysis. A one-way analysis of variance with 47 degrees of freedom was performed on the data for Houghton College. An F ratio of .002 resulted from this procedure. The computed F was not significant at or beyond the .05 level. Thus the null hypothesis was not rejected. A signifidant difference in the perception of the religious climate among lower division students and faculty at Houghton College could not be demonstrated by the analysis. A one-way analysis of variance with 41 degrees of freedom was performed on the data for Marion College. An F ratio of .006 resulted from this procedure. The computed F was not significant at or beyond the .05 level. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected. A significant difference in the perception of the religious climate among lower division students and faculty at Marion College could not be demonstrated by the analysis. A one-way analysis of variance with 177 degrees of freedom was performed on the data for the four colleges collectively. An F ratio of .064 resulted from this pro- cedure. The computed F was not significant at or beyond the 98 .05 level. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected. A significant difference in the perception of the religious climate among lower division students and faculty at the four liberal arts colleges of The Wesleyan Church could not be demonstrated by the analysis. H04: No significant difference exists in the mean scores of upper division students and faculty on the variable of religious climate. Summary data for this hypothesis and the analysis of variance results for the overall relationship between religious climate and upper division students and faculty are displayed in Tables 10 and 11. Table 10 Summary Data for Relationship Between Religious Climate and Upper Division Students and Faculty College Class Mean Standard Deviation BWC Upper Division 92.75 11.88 Faculty 92.46 8.93 CWC Upper Division 87.50 15.06 Faculty 91.65 12.07 HC Upper Division 92.92 11.05 Faculty 94.54 7.71 MC Upper Division 88.15 12.63 Faculty 92.52 8.16 All Upper Division 90.54 12.66 Colleges Faculty 92.85 9.17 99 Table 11 Analysis of Variance for Relationship Between Religious Climate and Upper Division Students and Faculty Bartlesville Wesleyan College SOURCE df s.s. m.s. F F prob. Between Groups 1 1.0251 1.0251 .009 .9237 Within Groups 46 5082.4583 110.4882 Total 47 5083.4834 Central Wesleyan College SOURCE df s.s. m.s. F F prob. Between Groups 1 172.2216 172.2216 .925 .3423 Within Groups 38 7075.5500 186.1987 Total 39 7247.7716 Houghton College SOURCE df s.s. m.s. F F prob. Between Groups 1 31.6875 31.6875 .349 .5573 Within Groups flé, 7171.7917 90.6911 Total 47 4203.4794 100 Table 11 (cont'd.) Marion College SOURCE df s.s. m.s. ' ‘ F ‘F prob. Between Groups 1 197.1631 197.1631 1.743 .1943 Within Groups 40. 4524.4761 113.1119 Total 41 4721.6392 All Colleges SOURCE df s.s. m.s. F F prob. Between Groups 1 238.4202 238.4202 1.951 .1643 Within Groups 176 21511.2134 122.2228 Total 177 21749.6336 A one-way analysis of variance with 47 degrees of freedom was performed on the data for Bartlesville Wesleyan College. An F ratio of .009 resulted from this procedure. The computed F was not significant at or beyond the .05 level. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected. A significant difference in the perception of the religious climate among upper division students and faculty at Bartlesville Wesleyan College could not be demonstrated by the analysis. A one—way analysis of variance with 39 degrees of 101 freedom was performed on the data for Houghton College. An F ratio of .349 resulted from this procedure. The computed F was not significant at or beyond the .05 level. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected. A significant difference in the perception of the religious climate among upper division students and faculty at Houghton College could not be demonstrated by the analysis. A one-way analysis of variance with 41 degrees of freedom was performed on the data for Marion College. An F ratio of 1.743 resulted from this procedure. The computed F was not significant at or beyond the .05 level. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected. A significant difference in the perception of the religious climate among upper division students and faculty at Marion College could not be demonstrated by the analysis. A one-way analysis of variance with 177 degrees of freedom was performed on the data for all four colleges collectively. An F ratio of 1.951 resulted from this procedure. The computed F was not significant at or beyond the .05 level. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected. A significant difference in the perception of the religious climate among upper division students and faculty in the four liberal arts colleges of The Wesleyan Church could not be demonstrated by the analysis. H05: No significant difference exists in the mean scores of resident students and non—resident students on the variable of religious climate. 102 Summary data for this hypothesis and the analysis of variance results for the overall relationship between religious climate and residence are displayed in Tables 12 and 13. A one-way analysis of variance with 71 degrees of freedom was performed on the data for Bartlesville Wesleyan College. An F ratio of 5.345 resulted from this procedure. The computed F was significant beyond the .05 level. Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected. A significant difference in the perception of the religious climate among resident students and non—resident students at Bartlesville Wesleyan College was demonstrated by the analysis. Table 12 Summary Data for Relationship Between Religious Climate and Residence College Residence Mean Standard Deviation BWC Resident 94.33 10.38 Non—Resident 88.31 11.70 CWC Resident 87.36 14.17 Non-Resident 91.56 15.22 HC Resident 94.26 14.21 Non-Resident 95.00 9.17 MC Resident 87.31 13.13 Non-Resident 90.50 14.49 All Resident 91.69 13.46 Colleges Non-Resident 91.72 12.53 103 Table 13 Analysis of Variance for Relationship Between Religious Climate and Residence Bartlesville Wesleyan College SOURCE df s.s. m.s. F F prob. Between Groups 1 654.0140 654.0140 5.345 .0237 Within Groups 60 8565.6387 122.3663 Total 71 9219.6527 Central Wesleyan College SOURCE df s.s. m.s. F F prob. Between Groups 1 220.5042 220.5042 1.020 .3176 Within Groups 48 10377.9204 216.2067 Total 49 10598.4246 Houghton College SOURCE df s.s. m.s. F F prob. Between Groups 1 9.1912 9.1912 .064 .8007 Within Groups 66 9438.6172 143.0094 Total 67 9447.8084 104 Table 13 (cont'd.) Marion College SOURCE df s.s. m.s.. F F prob. Between Groups 1 183.6745 183.6745 .961 .3303 Within Groups 70 1337§;6382 191.0948 Total 71 13560.3125 All Colleges SOURCE df s.s. m.s. F F prob. Between Groups 1 .0390 .0390 .000 .9879 Within Groups 198 33245.5537 167.9068 Total 199 33245.5928 A one-way analysis of variance with 49 degrees of freedom was performed on the data for Central Wesleyan College. An F ratio of 1.020 resulted from this procedure. The computed F was not significant at or beyond the .05 level. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected. A significant difference in the perception of the religious climate among resident students and non—resident students at Central Wesleyan College could not be demonstrated by the analysis. A one-way analysis of variance with 67 degrees of 105 freedom was performed on the data for Houghton College. An F ratio of .064 resulted from this procedure. The computed F was not significant at or beyond the .05 level. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected. A significant difference in the perception of the religious climate among resident students and non-resident students at Houghton College could not be demonstrated by the analysis. A one-way analysis of variance with 71 degrees of freedom was performed on the data for Marion College. An F ratio of .961 resulted from this procedure. The computed F was not significant at or beyond the .05 level. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected. A significant difference in the perception of the religious climate among resident students and non-resident students at Marion College could not be demonstrated by the analysis. A one-way analysis of variance with 199 degrees of freedom was performed on the data for the four colleges collectively. An F ratio of .000 resulted from this pro- cedure. The computed F was not significant at or beyond the .05 level. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected. A significant difference in the perception of the religious climate among resident students and non-resident students in the four liberal arts colleges of The Wesleyan Church could not be demonstrated by the analysis. H06: No significant difference exists in the mean scores of freshmen persisters and freshmen leavers on the variable of religious climate. 106 Summary data for this hypothesis and the analysis of variance results for the overall relationship between religious climate and persisters are displayed in Tables 14 and 15. Table 14 Summary Data for the Relationship Between Religious Climate and Persistence Group Mean Standard Deviation Persisters 93.78 11.75 Leavers 85.31 14.04 Table 15 Analysis of Variance for Relationship Between Religious Climate and Persistence SOURCE df S.S. m.s. F F prob. Between Groups 1 1147.5156 1147.5156 6.846 .0111 Within Groups 62 10392.3442 167.6185 Total 63 11539.8598 107 One hundred twenty-two full—time freshmen students returned usable surveys for this study. This represented a usable response rate of 76.3 percent in this group. As a result of the follow-up contact with each college in the Fall Semester, 1983, it was determined that thirty- two freshmen participants did not return to school in the fall semester. These students were designated as "leavers." This represented a 26.2 percent attrition rate from the original sample group. The remaining ninety students were "persisters." Thirty-two persisters were designated as randomly selected using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) command, *SAMPLE to run the one—way analysis of variance procedure for this hypothesis. A one-way analysis of variance with 63 degrees of freedom was performed on the data. An F ratio of 6.846 resulted from this procedure. The computed F was signifi- cant beyond the .05 level. Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected. A significant difference in the perception of the religious climate between freshmen persisters and freshmen leavers was demonstrated by the analysis. Summary Chapter Four presented the results of the data analysis for each of the six hypotheses tested in this study. Six hundred nine participants or 82.3 percent of the sample returned usable instruments for this research. This sample size (N) was adequate for a power analysis of each 108 hypothesis. A one—way analysis of variance was employed to analyze the data. The results of this analysis are reported in this cahpter. A summary of these findings, as well as conclusions and recommendations for further research are given in Chapter Five of this dissertation. CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter presents a summary of the study, conclu— sions derived from the data presented in Chapter Four, and recommendations for further research. Summary of the Study The purpose of this study was to investigate student and faculty perceptions of the religious climate at the four liberal arts colleges affiliated with The Wesleyan Church (Bartlesville Wesleyan College, Central Wesleyan College, Houghton College, and Marion College). Six specific problems were investigated: 1. To what degree are the four liberal arts colleges of The Wesleyan Church similar or different in religious climate as measured by the responses of students and faculty? 2. Is there a difference in the perception of the religious climate between lower division students and upper division students? 3. Is there a difference in the perception of the religious climate between lower division students and faculty? 4. Is there a difference in the perception of the 109 110 religious climate between upper division students and faculty? 5. Is there a difference in the perception of the religious climate between resident students and non-resident students? 6. Is there a difference in the perception of the religious climate between freshmen persisters and freshmen leavers? "A Survey of College Environments," an instrument developed by Ruth Ruud Gough (1981) to measure the variable of religious climate, was revised and utilized for this research. A descriptive survey research experimental design was used to analyze similarities or differences in the per- ception of religious climate. The dependent variable for each question in this study was religious climate. It was hypothesized that religious climate would vary with each of the independent variables (i.e. college; lower division students, upper division students, and faculty; resident students and non-resident students; and freshmen persisters and freshmen leavers). The population for this study consisted of the 2,638 full-time students and 222 full-time faculty and admini- strators of the four participating colleges. To insure that an adequate sample size (N) would be obtained for an analysis of the data, sUrveys were sent to 160 full—time students and 25 full-time faculty at each college. The total sample, then, consisted 100 faculty randomly selected college. Of the returned surveys, 289 upper division students, surveys. This represented an percent. The Mahmoud, subjects (N) needed to obtain beta) in data. statistical convention of power analysis 111 of 640 full—time students and from rosters provided by each 231 lower division students, and 89 faculty returned usable overall response rate of 82.3 (Feldt and 1958) was utilized to determine the number of a given level of power (i.e. performing an analyzis of variance procedure on the Feldt and Mahmoud's power function charts were used to predetermine alpha (OK), beta (3), effect size (0), and sample size (N) level (i.e. hypothesis. The sample size function charts were randomly for each hypothesis. (N) Consequently, an alpha level of significance) was set at .05 for each calculated from the power selected from the pool of usable surveys using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) command: *SAMPLE. The hypothesized relationships were tested using the ONEWAY: Analysis of Variance program in the SPSS series. Calculations were performed on the University of Tulsa's Honeywell 6600/B3 computer in Six null hypotheses were Tulsa, Oklahoma. tested in this study. The analysis of the data showed the following results: Hol: scores of Bartlesville Wesleyan College, Wesleyan College, Houghton College, No significant difference exists in the mean Central and Marion 112 College on the variable of religious climate. When the collected data were processed using the SPSS ONEWAY: Analysis of Variance procedure, the computed F was not significant at or beyond the .05 level. Thus, a significiant difference in the religious climate among the four liberal arts colleges affiliated with The Wesleyan Church could not be demonstrated by the analysis. H02: No significant difference exists in the mean scores of lower division students and upper division students on the variable of religious climate. Data for this hypothesis were collected and analyzed for each college individually and for all colleges collectively using the SPSS ONEWAY: Analysis of Variance procedure. In each case, the computed F was not significant at or beyond the .05 level. Thus, a significant difference in the perception of the religious climate among lower division students and upper division students could not be demon- strated by the analysis. H03: No significant difference exists in the mean scores of lower division students and faculty on the variable of religious climate. Data for this hypothesis were collected and analyzed for each college individually and for all colleges collectively using the SPSS ONEWAY: Analysis of Variance procedure. In each case, the computed F was not significant at or beyond the .05 level. Thus, a significant difference in the 113 perception of the religious climate among lower division students and faculty could not be demonstrated by the analysis. H 4: No significant difference exists in the mean 0 scores of upper division students and faculty on the variable of religious climate Data for this hypothesis were collected and analyzed for each college individually and for all colleges collectively using the SPSS ONEWAY: Analysis of Variance procedure. In each case, the computed F was not significant at or beyond the .05 level. Thus, a significant difference in the perception of the religious climate among upper division students and faculty could not be demonstrated by the analysis. H05: No significant difference exists in the mean scores of resident students and non—resident students on the variable of religious climate. Data for this hypothesis were collected and analyzed for each college individually and for all colleges collectively using the SPSS ONEWAY: Analysis of Variance procedure. In the cases of Central Wesleyan College, Houghton College, Marion College, and the four colleges collectively, the computed F was not significant at or beyond the .05 level. Thus, a significant difference in the perception of the religious climate among resident students and non—resident students could not be demonstrated by the analysis. However, in the case of Bartlesville Wesleyan College, 114 the computed F was significant beyond the .05 level. Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected. A significant difference in the perception of the religious climate among resident students and non-resident students at Bartlesville Wesleyan College was demonstrated by the analysis. H06: No significant difference exists in the mean scores of freshmen persisters and freshmen leavers on the variable of religious climate The collected data for this hypothesis were analyzed using the SPSS ONEWAY: Analysis of Variance procedure. The computed F was significant beyond the .05 level. Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected. A significant difference in the perception of the religious climate among freshmen persisters and freshmen leavers was demonstrated by the analysis. Conclusions Major conclusions to be drawn from this study can be summarized as follows: 1. There was no significant difference among the mean scores of the four liberal arts college of The Wesleyan Church in religious climate as measured by the responses of full-time students and faculty on Gough's "A Survey of College Environments." In addition, the mean scores for each school were high (Bartlesville Wesleyan College, 93.87; Central Wesleyan College, 89.02; Houghton College, 93.15; and Marion College, 89.43). These scores were within the ranges and consistent with the scores Gough found for 115 "embodying colleges" in her study. The data can be inter— preted as evidence that each of the four colleges display religiosity appropriate to and comparable with the tenets of its parent organization, The Wesleyan Church, and the goals and objectives stated by each college. The finding is consistent with Cuninggim's (1978) contention that embodying colleges of any one church are not likely to differ from one another. The church sets the pace, defines the practices, and maintains close control over all its colleges. It appears that the religious climate of these colleges is exactly what it is purported to be and what The Wesleyan Church intends it to be. If religious distinctiveness is an asset upon which to build future programs, then The Wesleyan Church should be proud of its close ties with its colleges and convey this "uniqueness" to support constitu- encies, potential students, and their parents. A careful student-centered marketing approach should attract students who could benefit from the type of religious environment these colleges provide. 2. There were no significant differences fOund in the perception of the religious climate among full-time lower division students, upper division students, and faculty. This study has shown that all three groups perceive the religious climate to be very high in each of the partici— pating colleges. It appears that students and faculty come expecting the religious climate to be very strong and perceive it to be so. Each college should be encouraged to 116 maintain these strong religious characteristics and to articulate this religious distinctive to their support constituencies. It is not necessary for them to be 7 apologetic for their religious climate or to "water down" their religiosity. On the contrary, there should be an increased emphasis on highlighting the religious character— istics of the college climate in all the promotional and recruiting efforts. 3. There was no significant difference in the per— ception of the religious climate among resident students and non-resident students at Central Wesleyan College, Houghton College, and Marion College. In spite of the fact that the non-resident students do not participate in the student life activities related to the residence halls, their perception of the religious climate is not affected significantly. Exposure to other dimensions of the religious climate (i.e. denominational relationship, campus activities, curriculum, and faculty) appears to have an effect or press comparable to that experienced by resident students. 4. There was a significant difference in the per— ception of the religious climate among resident students and non-resident students at Bartlesville Wesleyan College with the non-resident students' perception of the religious climate being lower than the resident students' perception. Either residence living is a marked strength in the overall impact that the religious climate has on students at Bartlesville Wesleyan College or the other dimensions of the 117 religious climate (i.e. denominational relationship, campus activities, curriculum, and faculty) are not impacting the non-resident students enough to make up the difference. Bartlesville Wesleyan College may want to investigate these components of the religious climate to determine if it is satisfied with the overall religious impact on the non- resident students. 5. There was a significant difference in the per- ception of the religious climate among freshmen persisters and freshmen leavers in the four colleges of The Wesleyan Church with the leavers having a lower perception of the religious climate than the persisters. The participating colleges would do well to determine if there is any relationship between the perception of the religious climate and attrition or retention of its students. Recommendations for Future Research The Wesleyan Church has declared that its colleges must possess a well-defined, distinct, and un- compromising spiritual and educational mission which is reflected in all academic and extracurricular programs. The spiritual mission demands that a spiritual climate permeate the campuses. (Barnes, 1983) The modest findings of this study provide a starting point for further research of this "spiritual climate" in the colleges affiliated with The Wesleyan Church. More research needs to be conducted at Bartlesville Wesleyan College to determine why the non-resident students have a different perception of the religious climate than 118 the resident students and if this difference should be of any concern to the college. Further research is needed to determine if there is a relationship between the perception of the religious climate and persistence at the colleges. Are "leavers" disappointed with the religious climate? Is the climate too religious? Were expectations of the religious climate too high or too low? Did the students' families develop expectations of the religious climate that were unrealistic? Further research is needed to determine which of the components of the religious climate (curriculum, faculty characteristics, campus activities, denominational relation- ship, and development of student life) make the greatest contribution to the religious climate. More research is needed to determine if there are other features of the college or denomination which contribute significantly to the composite religious climate (e.g. theological or doctrinal beliefs, religious practices or activities, denominational background of students, influence of student's family, educational level of student's minister, etc.). Further research is needed to determine the perception of the religious climate of the colleges' support constitu- encies (board members, members of sponsoring churches, parents, general public in the surrounding communities, etc.) and the impact these groups have on the religious climate. 119 More resarch could be conducted on the religious climate of other colleges with similar religious convictions and church/college relationships. A longitudinal study could be conducted to determine if there is a change in the perception of the religious climate as students progress through their degree programs. In other words, does the religious climate of a church—related college really do anything for its students? A long—term, longitudinal study could be conducted to determine if the colleges of The Wesleyan Church are in an evolutionary process changing from embodying to proclaiming to consonant and, perhaps, ultimately to a non—church— related status. Finally, a qualitative or field research approach would be appropriate to the study of religious climates. A study utilizing the techniques of participation, observation, interviews, and case studies would be beneficial in dis- covering other features of the religious climate that, though subtle, may impact students. APPENDICES APPENDIX A POWER FUNCTION CHARTS 120 A... a 5? ages so: no use 2: “a 3.3: .338 so .956 . 7 a Earn 9 mm. ow. mm. Om. m¢. O¢. mm. On. 0N. ON. 15.-o0 mo“. , . no...vo «0.1:! Oh. mm. Om. mm. 00. av. 9». mm. on. 0N. ON. 9. 0.. O. J H/H/ .1 / / // I] / .l/ 4 /. / /.. / om / /,,//// / z / 1/ Z ' / . /, .. / // a. .o / a / / .on 1 / z/mo... so // . /./. o. /// ///MM 1 1 ///0m 00. 02/, 714/ war—”l 121 .9 Oh. mm. 00. mm. .0 I a 4:: 335R :32 he «nah 2: .3. 325.” “3300 .0 350 On. mv. 04». no. do moi '1 0.... mm. «855 mm. on. mm. Ow. mm. 00. ON.. m»... 9. f 6.8 «or . ow. mm. on. mm. ON. 9. 0.. 0_ ON 122 v I a a? 336mm £62 Co 98H. 23 3a hswm 33300 “o 35 . a nu... arm 0. ON on 0¢ on 00 Oh Om 00 00. 905. mm. 00. mm. Om. -m¢.:O¢H 00. OM. 0N. ON..- 0.. (ll __O.uv0 m0“. - . .mO.nvu «0... I! mm 00. 00. On. nv- ov- mm. on. MN. ON.. m_. 0.. HLNUNJJHr/WVW //A// 7 / ///flo..vo / // /r_0.u yo flr/K / // / / / /7 // z x; / // / : / / / C / 1 / x :6. i. a... M 5?; 300mm 3a? “a «3.8 05 no.— uoBoA “c.3300 .0 .256 v an: 9h , ‘ I 6.3. 8. mm. on. mm. 3. an. 0». mm. cu. m... f 6.50 8.. . no.8 8.. ) om. on. on. 9.. o... 8. on. 8. cm. 9. 9. mo. .t O. ///7fl// / ]///1 ON //// / //z on no... so / / / / / 2. 123 / /1./_o.. 8 / / . om. / // x // / . / on. / / . // /: M... 00. /. ; o. . M 03/ h/ APPENDIX B GOUGH'S "A SURVEY OF COLLEGE ENVIRONMENTS" A SURVEY OF COLLEGE ENVIRONMENTS Name of Institution CIRCLE YOUR BEST ESTIflATE OF HOW CHARACTERISTIC THESE {TEES ARE 0? YOUR COLLEGE. PLEASE ANSWER ALL ITEMS. Response Hot Slightly Moderately Very Absolutely choices are: Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic Characteristic HOW CHARACTERISTIC AT YOUR COLLEGE? 1. Recreational facilities are widely used by students. Not Slightly Moderately Very Absolutely 2. Religion courses are a valuable part of the total college curriculum. Not Slightly Moderately Very. Absolutely 3. Faculty members help students integrate what they learn into a Christian perspective. Not Slightly Moderately Very Absolutely b. Students originally came to this college ' 7 because of its religious environment. Not Slightly Moderately Very Absolutely 5. Residence Halls programs promote the establishment of student friendships. Not Slightly Moderately Very Absolutely 6. The activities of our college chaplain ' facilitate the mission of this college. Not Slightly Moderately Very Absolutely 7. “Religious-Emphasis weeks“ are a meaningful part of campus life. - Not Slightly Moderately Very Absolutely 8. The area of religious studies is equal in strength to other academic departments here. Not Slightly Moderately Very Absolutely 9. Many of our students receive adequate financial aid packages. Not Slightly Moderately Very Absolutely 10. Teaching the religious beliefs of our sponsoring denomination is more important than pursuing pure academic freedom. Not Slightly Moderately Very Absolutely ll. Adequate emphasis to the distinctive doctrines of our sponsoring denomination is apparent in campus rules. Not Slightly Moderately Very Absolutely 12. A new student orientation program familiarizes students with college expectations. Not Slightly Moderately Very Absolutely 13. Community worship with the preaching of the Word has a prominent place in the life of this college. Not Slightly Moderately Very Absolutely 1n. ?aculty members give their support to chapel activities by regular attendance at these events. Not Slightly Moderately Very Absolutely 15. The teachings of the Bible are viewed as an important force on campus. Not Slightly Moderately Very Absolutely 16. Most of the entering freshmen Will remain at this college to earn a bachelor's degree. Not Slightly Moderately Very Absolutely 17. Religious concerns are important to most students here. Not Slightly Moderately Very Absolutely over 124 l8. 19. 20. 21 31. 32. 33- 3“. 35. There is a strong connection between Christ- ianity and many campus rules. Having teachers who share common religious beliefs increases the religious impact of this college on students. The health center at this college has trained medical personnel to treat students. Religious events have a pervasive effect on the entire college community. There is considerable pressure for one’s relig- ious experience to confons to the pattern of the majority at this college. This college provides accurate descriptive 125 materials to students before their admission. Denominational theology is adequately taught in the college curriculum. Faculty members help students see the practical application of Christian principles to their courses. The counseling center on campus provides a variety of services for students. Our sponsoring denomination contributes substantial financial support to this college. Students ”Bible-prayer' groups are popular on this campus. Both men and women students participate in this school's competitive sports program. Our college and its sponsoring church-body have wr tten covenants to affirm the religious nature of this institution. most instructors attempt to integrate religious faith and academic learning in nonreligious COUISUS. Career planning and placement staff assist students with vocational objectives. There is an atmosphere on campus in which one‘s spiritual dimension can flourish. Religious topics are frequently among subjects in students' Our sponsoring denomination participates in the decision-making process of this college. informal conversations . HON CHANACTERIZTIC AT YOUR COLLEGE? Not Hot Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Hot Not Not Hot Not Not Not Not would you like to receive the results of this survey? Yes Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly or No Moderately Moderately moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately moderately Moderately Moderately moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately moderately Very Very Very Very Very Very Very Very very Very ‘IQW Very Very Very v.“ Very Very Very Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely AbsoIUtely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely Thank you for completing this survey. Please return it as soon as possible in the stamped envelope. APPENDIX C COMPONENTS OF RELIGIOUS CLIMATE AND STUDENT SERVICE ITEMS 126 COMPONENTS OF RELIGIOUS CLIMATE AND STUDENT SERVICES ITEMS Denominational Relationship l£§m§: 6, 11, 27, 30, 35 Campus Activities Items: 7, 13, 21, 28 Development of Student Life 1 ems: 4, 17, 18, 22, 33, 34 Curriculum: 2, 8, 15, 24, 31 Faculty Characteristics Items: 3, 10, 14, 19, 25 Student Services Items: 1, 5, 9, 12, 16, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32 APPENDIX D FINAL INSTRUMENT OF "A SURVEY OF COLLEGE ENVIRONMENTS" 127 >Fmp3F0ma< >Fmp:_omn< SFmp:_0mn< x—mps—Omn< x—mpz—omn< mamp:_omn< x—mpz—Omn< shops—omn< z—mp:_0mn< >am> xaw> >am> >aw> >am> >am> Acm> >Lm> >am> apmumamvoz >_wumamuoz armpmamvoz Sprmawvoz Apmpmawvoz myopmamvoz xfimpmamuoz SFmpmamnoz >Fmpmamnoz s_o;ma_m s_o;m__m s_o;ma_m s_o;ma_m slogma_m s_o;ma_m s_ocmaam s_o;ma_m sao;m_am ooz ooz ooz ooz ooz ooz poz moz ooz wmmeLOu mso> Fq uHhmHmmHuam> .mZLHH 44< mm3mz< mm mo mm< m2mHH .mmmmxomq was meocmcwm mpmzcmvm w>rmoma mpcmnzpm ago mo ago: .maw; mpcpramamv owewomom mepo op spmcmapm cw _w:cm ma pcpramqmu mmwvspm mzoaowpma oak .mww_ msaEmo mo mama Fammcwcmwa m was =mxwm2 mwmmsasm ”mspwawam= .mmmF_ou mwzp mo cowmmwe mgu mumpwpwumm Cmeawgo mom—Foo one to mmwpw>vpum mge .ma_;mv:mwam pcmnspm Co “coagmw_nmpmm ecu moosoag mamamoaa mrpm: mocmvvmmm .pcmEcoav>cm msowmr_ma mp? mo mmzmuwn mmmFFOU wasp op mEoo armamewaa mpcmvspm .m>apomamama :mapmwagu m ops? camm_ xmzm pegs mpmammp:w mpcmvzpm new; mamnEmE xp—zomm .Es_:ovaa:o mam—Foo Home“ esp to pawn mama:_m> m mam mmmazoo cowmwrmm .mmwpw>apom _mcowummaoma new amazsmopcw m_~oo;om weep cw mpmaaowpamq mpcmvzpm cmEoz vcm cmE spom owpmaampomamcu owpmeawpomamcu s_o;ma_m ooz ucopsum moampflmom III III ucflczh. oMOEosmom amazmmum cowpzpwpmcH to mEmz mkzmzzomH>zm momLLOu mo >m>m2m < ”mam mmowo£u mmcoammm mmmzh uHhmHmmpu mgumHu 128 SFmpsfiomn< xpmpsfioma< armpzromn< xpmp2F0mn< SFmp:_0mn< >Fmp3P0mn< SFmp:_omn< xpmuz—omn< SFmp:_0mn< >_mp:_0mn< xpmpsromo< xpmuzromn< Squzroma< >om> >am> >am> xam> acm> >Lo> >aw> >am> ham> >am> >am> xao> >am> SFmpmamuoz x—mpmamuoz AFmpmamvoz Showmamooz Armpmamnoz >Fmpmamnoz armpmamnoz Armpmamuoz >Pmumamuoz z—mpmamuoz x—mpmawnoz SFmpmamuoz armpmamuoz 3295 3:35 3235 Schmwpm 3235 323 a 3:35, 3:35 3:25 323; 3:3; 3:35 3:3; ooz poz ooz poz #02 “oz ooz uoz poz moz poz poz ooz .mmm__ou wasp pm apwaohma asp mo campumq mg“ on anwcoo op mocmwawaxw msowmw_ma m_m:o so» mazmmmaa mpnmamnwmcou mw moms» .xuw::EEoo wmwFFOU mawpcm esp co powwow ummoqmwuws m m>wc mocm>m mzowmwpmm .mucmnspm pews“ op chcomama quwvme nmwmwrmzc mm; mow—Foo mass as ampcwo sppmm; 02H .mpcwvaum co ommPFOU was» we momma? mzowmw—ml mcp mommmaocw mowEPwn msomePma :oEEoo wamgm oz; mlmcommu mew>mz .mm_:a msaEmu Scme new xpwcmwpmwago cmmzuwn cowpomccoo mcoaum m mw moose .mam; mpcmuspm pmoe op pampaoqew mam mcamocoo msomeme .mmammv m_ao_m;omn m came om comp—co was“ mm close; Frag cessmmaw mcwampcm esp mo mmoz .msaEmo co moaom ucmpaoaew cm mm umzma> mam manam esp mo macacommp mge .mpcm>m mmmgp pm mocmvcmppm Lm_:mma Sn mmwpo>wpow Foamgo om paoaasm cams“ m>wm memnEmE Sppzomm .ommFFoo m_:p mo wmw_ mcp c_ momaq.pcmcweoaq m we: wPDEm ego goat mcwgommaa cows magmaoz Suwc32200 .mcowpmmomaxw mmmPPOU sow; mpcmuzpm mmeamEFWEmm Emamoaa cowpmpcmwao pcmnzpm 3m: < .mm_:a mqumo cw pcmamaam ma commonwEocmv azo mo mmcaapoon m>wpocwpmwu ecu om mammcasm mpmzuwv< .Eoummam owEmnmom moan mcwzmasa cmgu pcmmloasw woos m? :owpmcw50cmu Lao Co mCmWan maowmwrma mgu mcwcommh .mm .—m .om .m— .m— .m— .m— .m— .qr .m— .m— .—_ .o— 129 om >_mpmwvwgew p+ cosmos mmmm_a .>m>a:m mwcp mewmeQEoo com :0» xcmgk .ZLHH Iu mmzm mm SFmpz—Omn< >am> Sampmamuoz appcmWFm poz .mmm__oo was“ to mmmuoaa mcvxmsucowmwumc esp cw mommawompama commeWEocmn Lao .mm Shmpz_omn< >am> Spmpmamuoz arugmwrm poz .mpcmvzpm soFPmm mcoEm cowmmzomwu msomeFma cw pmmamch mFQmamwwmcoo mm mawck .qm SFmp:_0mp< >am> S_mumamuoz APPSmWPm poz .3oam vcm gmwazopm :mo cowmcmeru szpwavam m_mco scans cm msaEmo co mamgamospm cw ma clock .mm Samp:_0mn< >am> SFmpmamnoz zapcmwrm uoz .mm>wpumnno-_mcovpmuo> now: mpcmuzpm pmwmmm mmmpm acmEmUMFQ ocm mcwccm_a ammamo .mm xpmp:_0mn< >am> sampmamuoz >_p;ma_m uoz .mmmazou mzowmwpmaco: cw mcwcamwF owsmumom vcm guwmm mzomeFma mpmamwpcw op pQEmppm maopoaapmcw pmoz .Pm >_mm:_0mn< >am> xpmgmamnoz Sszvam poz .coapspwpch mvzu to canoe: mzowmw_ms mcp campcwme Ucm gmeEmpmm pogo mpcmemmamm. Comoros m>mg coapmcwEocwv mcvaomcoam mow vcm mom—Poo wasp pmcp macaw ma anon “couspm och .om SFmp3P0mn< >am> mepmawuoz xppcmwfim poz . .zpa::EEoo msaEmo Papop esp to mama m>wpvmoa m mm Emamoaq mmaoam mpmwmmFFOUmecw one .mm x_wp:~0mn< >am> SFmpmamuoz SFpgmwrm poz .msaEmo wasp co amrzaoa mam museum common use xvspm m_nwm_mpcmv:um .mm >_mp:POmn< >am> Spmpwamvoz xppngFm poz .mLOmcoam zuazco Lao anm vm>amoma mam mmm__oo mgp o» mcowpznrapcoo Fmaocmcwm .NN xfimp3F0ma< >am> SFmmemnoz x—pngFm poz .mpcmnzmm com mmoa>amm mpmscwvm mmUC>oaq msaEmo co ampcmo ass—mmczoo mck .mm Sprzyomn< >am> SFmpmamwoz x—pcmem poz .mmmasoo Lamsp op morawocwaa cmwpmwacu to caromUWFaam Fmowpumaa ecu mom mucouspm are; mamnEmE >u_:omm .mm x—mp:_0mn< >am> Armpmamuoz Sszmwrm poz .E:_:owaa:o mmmrroo mcp cw pgmsmp SFmpmscmum ma mcwapooe chowmeWEocmo .qm s_mo:a0mn< sa; samoelmuoz s_m;mwam ooz .coammaEum lawns mucosa mpcmvzpm on m_m_lmome m>wpawoomme wpmlzuom mmuw>oaa mom—Foo mwch .mm 130 To: (Student‘s Name) From: (Dean's Name) College has agreed to participate in a research project designed to investigate the campus environments of the four liberal arts colleges of The Wesleyan Church. Mr. Richard Allen, Director of Continuing Education at Bartlesville Wesleyan College, is conducting this study as part of his doctoral program at Michigan State University and with the approval of The Wesleyan Church. In order to obtain Vital data for this study, your help is requested. Since you have lived in this college environment, observed its characteristics, and participated in its activities, you are being asked to be a reporter about your college. In other words, what are the characteristics of its environment? Please complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it in the accompanying envelope by campus mail to Box as soon as possible. There are no right or wrong answers to this survey. Your best estimate of how characteristic each item is for your college is the only information sought. Your name has been randomly selected to participate in this project. Please be assured that you will not be identified in this study. Anonymity is guaranteed for each participant. Completion of the survey should require only 5 to 7 minutes of your time. I will be receiving the final results of this survey. You are welcome to review the report as soon as I receive it. Thank you for your time and information. Your contribution to this project and our college is greatly appreciated. 131 To: (Student's Name) From: (Dean's Name) Your assistance is urgently needed in order to obtain vital data for a research project designed to explore the diver- sity of campus environments at the four colleges related to The Wesleyan Church. If you have not already completed and returned the survey which was recently mailed to randomly selected individuals on our campus, please fill out the accompanying questionnaire and send it back in the enclosed envelope to Box . Thank you. There are no right or wrong answers to this survey. Your best estimate of how characteristic each item is for your college is the only information sought. Your name has been randomly selected to participate in this project. Please be assured that you will not be identified in this study. Anonymity is guaranteed for each participant. Completion of the survey should require only 5 to 7 minutes of your time. Again, thank you for your time and information. Your contri- bution to this project and our college is greatly appreciated. 132 To: (Student's Name) From: (Dean's Name) College has agreed to participate in a research project designed to investigate the campus environment of the four liberal arts colleges related to The Wesleyan Church. In order to obtain vital data for this study, your help is kindly requested. A "Survey of College Environments" was sent to you a few weeks ago. If you have not already completed and returned that questionnaire, please fill out the enclosed survey and send it back in the accompanying envelope to Box as soon as possible. This task should take only a few minutes of your time. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated. There are no right or wrong answers to this survey. Your best estimate of how characteristic each item is for your college is the only information being sought. Your name has been randomly selected to participate in this project. Please be assured that you will not be identified in this study. Anonymity is guaranteed for each participant. Completion of the survey should require only 5 to 7 minutes of your time. I will be receiving the final results of this survey. You are welcome to review the report as soon as I receive it. Again, thank you for your time and information. Your contribution to this project and our college is greatly appreciated. APPENDIX E COVER MEMOS BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A college-related church. The National Commission in United Methodist Higher Education. Nashville: Board of Higher Education and Ministry, 1976, §;, 56. Anderson, R.E. A financial and environmental analysis of strategic policy changes at small private colleges. Journal of Higher Education, 1978, 32, 31. Astin, A.W., & Holland, J.L. The environmental assessment technique: a way to measure college environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1961, Eg, 308-316. Astin, A. An empirical characterization of higher edu- cational institutions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1962, 53, 224-235. Astin, A. Further validation of the environmental assess- ment technique. Journal of Edugational Psychology, August, 1963, £3, 217—226. Astin, A. Classroom environments in different fields of study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1965, 26, 275-282. Averill, L.J. A strategy for the protestant college. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966. Averill, L.J. Agenda fpr the protestant college. Council of Protestant Colleges and Universities. Washington, D.C., 1966, 3. Baird, L.L. The practical utility of measures of college environments. Review of Educational Research, 1974, 33, 307-329. Barnes, J. Will wesleyan colleges survive? The_Wesleyan Advocate, September 19, 1983, 141, No. 16, 10-11. Bartlesville wesleyan college catalog: #1982-84. Bartles- ville Wesleyan College, 1982. Bean, W.E. What is the state university? In E. Walter (ed.), Religion and the State University. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1958, 57-58. 133 Al 134 Best, J.W. Research in education. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977. Bloom, A. Danger flag up for private colleges. American School and University, February 1965, i2! 71. Bond, H.M. The education of the negro in the american social order. New York: Octagon Books, 1966. Boyer, E.L., & Michael, W.B. Faculty and student assessments of the environments of several samll religiously- oriented colleges. California Journal of Eggcational Research, 1968, 19, 59—66. ‘— Brauer, J.C. The christian college in american education. The Christian Scholar, 1958, 31, 235. Brannon, R.R. Statistical report of the wesleyan church: 1983 edition. MariOn, Indiana: Wesleyan Publishing House, 1983. Brown, R.D. Manipulation of the environmental press in a college resident hall. Personnel and Guidance figurnal, 1968, 36, 555—560. Bruning, C.R. Relationships between church-related colleges and their constituencies. Division for Mission in North America, Department of Higher Education, Lutheran Church in America, New York, 1975. Bullock, H.A. A higtory of negro education in the south. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967. Central wesleyan college catalog: 1981-83. Central, South Carolina: Central Wesleyan College, 1981. Chickering, A.W. Student development and institutional inconsequence. (Detroit Convention Abstracts) Washington: American Personnal and Guidance Associ— ation, 1968. Church and college: a vital partnership affirmation. Sherman, Texas: The National Congress on Church- Related Colleges and Universities, 1980, 11. Cohen, S.A., & Hyman, J.S. How come so many hypotheses in educational research are supported? Journal of Egg- cational Research, 1979, 12-16. Coughlin, E.K. Church-related colleges urged to resist secularization, fight under regulation. The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 9, 1979, lg, 1. 135 Cox, H. The secular city. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1965, 221. Cuninggim, J. Categories of church—relatedness. In R. Parsonage (ed.), Church-Related Higher Education. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1978, 29942. Cuninggim, M. The college seeks religion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1947. D011, R.C. Speculations on the meaning of the trend toward corporate education. Phi Delta Kappan, 1980, g1, 333—337. Douglas, A. The feminization of american culture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1977. DuBois, E.E. The demise of the church-related college: a case study. Journal of Education, 1970, 153, 5-15. Feldt, L.S., & Mahmoud, M.W. Power function charts for specification of ample size in analysis of variance. Psychometrika, 1958, 23, 201. Foster, R.J. Elton Trueblood: a life of broad strokes and brilliant hues. Christianity Today, May 23, 1980, 24, 22. "— Fox, D.J. The research process in education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969, 423—428. Gough, R.R. An investigation of religious climate at protestant church-related colleges in the united states. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin—Madison, 1981. Grant, W.V., & Lind, C.G. Digest of education statistics, 1979. Washington, D.C.: Department of Healthi Education and Welfare, National Center for Education Statistics, 1979, 84. Griffin, Sr. Mary. Commentary: the contribution of the church-related college to the public good. Associ- ation of American Colleges, Washington, D.C., 1970. Hassenger, R., & Weiss, R. The catholic college climate. The School Review, 1966, 24, 419-455. Heist, P. Diversity in college student characteristics. Journal of Educational Sociology, February 1960, 2}, 279-291 Henderson, A.D. Policies and practices in higher education. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960, 85. 136 Herroit, R.E. Survey research method. In Harris (ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Research. New York: Macmillan, 1960, 1400—1410. Hofstadter R., & Metzger, W.P. The development of academic freedom in the united states. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955, 227. Holland, J.L. A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1959, g, 35-45. Hopper, R.F. A stugy of selected attitudinal and personal variables among freshmen in a church-reiated liberal arts college. Unpublished doctoraI'dissertatiEn, University of Southern Mississippi, 1972. Houghton college catalog: 1982-83. Houghton, New York: Houghton College, 1982. Houston, S.R., & Solomon, D. Research methodology mono- graph no. 4. Research and Statistical Methodology Department, University of Northern Colorado, June, 1978, 6. Hull, C.H., & Nie, N.H. SPSS Update 7-9. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981. Jencks, C., & Riesman, D. The academic revolution. New York: Doubleday and Co., 1968, 322. Kantzer, K.S. Can christian colleges survive the eighties? Christianity Today, September 16, 1983, 6-10. Kennison, A. Toward a maturity in christian higher edu- cation. Liberal Education, May, 1969, 5g, 2. Kerlinger, F.N. Foundation of_behavio£§l_research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964, 392—395. Limbert, P.M. Denominational policies in thepsuppprt and supervision of higher education. New York: Teachers College Press, 1929. Linton, R. The cultural background of personality. New York: Century, 1945. — Lowery, H.F. The christian college as a christian community. The Christian Scholar, g], Autumn, 1954, 218-227. McConnell, T.R., & Heist, P. Do students make the college? College and University, Summer, 1959, 34, 442-452. .ll 137 McCoy, C.S. The church—related college in american society. The Contribution of phe_§hurch-related Cellege to the Public Good. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges, 1970, 48. McCoy, C.S. The responsible crisis. Nashville: Board of Education, The United Methodist Church, 1972, 19. McFarlane, W. State support for ppivate higher education. Southern Regional Education Board, Atlanta, Georgia, 1969. McFee, A. The relation of students' needs to their per- ceptions of a college environment. gpurnal of Edu- cational Psychology, 1961, hg, 22—29. McGrath, E.J. What will the future demand of the christian college? Liberal Educatieh, 1971, El, 429-444. Marion college catalog: 1981. Marion, Indiana: Marion College, 1981. Marty, M.E. Future church-culture relations and their impact on church-related higher education--the student nexus. Liberal Edpeetion, 1978, Q4, 385. Matthews, W.R. What should a church college be for? or should it be at all? Liberal Education, December 1973, 59, 4. Mays, B. E. The negro priVate and church-related colleges. The Journal of Negro Education, 1960, 29, 211. Messerli, J.C. Church and state: the limited partners of church-related colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 1, 1978, ié' 40. Mills, P.R. Chapel address, Bartlesville Wesleyan College, January 11, 1984. Mitchell, J.V. The identification of student personality characteristics related to perceptions of the school environment. School Review, March, 1968, lg, 50-59. Morison, S.E., & Commager, H.S. The growth of the american republic. New York: Oxford UniVersity Press, 1950, 514. Moseley, J.D. The mission of the church—related college. Liberal Eduation, Summer, 1980, 177. Murray, H.A. Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press, 1938. 138 Naylor, N.A. The ante-bellum college movement: a reappraisal of tewksbury's founding of american collegeSIand universities. History of Education Quarterly, 1973, LE, 261-274. New england's first fruits, 3. Boston: Director of the Old South Leaflets Work, n.d., 1. Nie, N.H., Hull, C.H., Jenkins, J.G., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D.H. SPSS. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975. Nunnally, J.C. Thistlewait, D.C., & Wolfe, S. Factored scales for measuring characteristics of college environments. Edpeational and Psychological Measure— ment, Summer, 1963, 22, 239-248 Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1967, 172. O'Grady, J.P. Control of church-related institutions of higher learning. Journal of Higher Education, February, 1969, 49, 2. Orr, J. Evangelical awakenings in collegiate communities. UnpubliShed doctoral diSsertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1971. Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., & Tannebaum, P.H. The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957. Pace, C.R. Diversity of college environments. Journal of the NationalAssociatieh of Wemen Deans and Couheelope, October, 1961, 2h, 21-26. Pace, C.R. Evaluating the total climate or profile of a campus. In G.K. Smith (ed.), Current Issues in Highep Education. Washington: National Education Associ- ation, 1961. Pace, C.R. Implications of differences in campus atmosphere for evaluation and planning of college programs. In R.L. Sutherland (ed.), Personality Factors in the College Campus: Review of a Symposium. Austin: The Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, 1962. Pace, C.R. College and university environment scales: technical manual. Princeton: Educational Testing ServiCe, 1963. Pace, C.R. Comperison of CUES results from different groups of reporters. College Entral Examihatibn Board Report No. 1, Los Angeles: University of California, July, 1966 139 Pace, C.R. Analyses of‘a national sample'of college environments. U.S. Department of HeaIth Education and Welfare, 1967, 2. Pace, C.R. Education and evangelism. New York: McGraw- Book Company, 1972. Pace, C.R., & Stern, G.G. An approach to the measurement of psychological characteristics of college environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1958, 49, 269-277. Parsonage, R.R. Church-related higher education. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1978, 292. I Pattillo, M.M., & MacKenzie, D.M. Eight hundred colleges face the future. St. Louis: The Danforth Commission, 1956, 10. Pattillo, M.M., & MacKenzie, D.M. Church—sponsored higher education in the united states. Washington: American Council on Education, 1966. Patton, L.K. The purposes of church-related colleges. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1940. Pauley, G. College costs may double by the 1980's. The Grand Rapids Press, May 15, 1975. Pervin, L.A. A twenty-college study of student college interaction using TAPE (Transactional Analysis of Personality and Environment): Rationale, reliability and validity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1967, £8, 290-302. Podolsky, A., & Smith, C.R. Egueetion directory, colleges and universities 1977-78._—W5shington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics, 1978, XXIX. Reitz, H.J. Behavior EB organizations. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1977, 129. Rudolph, R. The american college_ehd university. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962. Sanford, N. Higher educatien as a_fie1d of etudy, In N. Sanford (ed.), The American College. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962, 58. Scharr, B. Small colleges struggle to survive in face of cuts, population shifts. The Wall Street Journal, March 5, 1982, l. Shedd, C.P. The church follows its students. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1938. 140 Sieber, S.D. Survey research in education: the care of the miscontrued technique. Phi Delta‘Kappen, 49, 1968, 273-276. Sloan, D. The Scottishpenlightenment'and the ameriCan college ideal. New York: TeaEhers College Press, 1971. Smylie, J.H. Roads to our present. In R. Parsonage (ed.), Church-Related Higher EducatiOn. Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Judson Press, 1978. Snavely, G.E. The church and the four:year college. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1955. Solberg, R.W., & Strommen, M.D. Howpehurch—related are church-related colleges? Philadelphia: Board—of Publication, Lutheran Church in America, 1980. Solheim, J.E. Church-colleges--an endangered species. A.D. 1980, 1980, 9, 29. Sprague, D.S. A comparative study of certain intellectual and non—intellectual factors of university fgeshmen based on place of residence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota, 1969. Sproul, R.C. You can't tell a school by its name. Christianity Today, November 4, 1977, 22, 18-21. Stern, G.G. Activities index, form 156. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse UniVersity. Psychological Research Center, 1956. Stern, G.G. Studies of college enviponments: cooperative research project no. 378. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse UniVersity, 1966, 1. Stob, W.K. A comparative study of campus environments ah three church-related colleges. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western MiChigan University, 1975. Strommen, M.P. A survey of images and expectetions of LCA colleges (Research Report to the Joint Committee of the Division for Mission in North America and the Council of LCA Churches). New York: Department of Education, Lutheran Church in America, 1976. Tetlow, J.A. Churches and colleges: recapturing the great tradition. America, December 29, 1979, 141, 423. Tewksbury, D. The founding of americah colleges and uni— versities before the ciVil war. New York: Teachers College, Bureau of Publications, 1932. 141 The discipline of the wesleyan church. Marion, Indiana: The Wesleyan Publishing House, 1980. Thistlewaite, D.L. College press and changes in study plans of talented students. ‘JOurnal'oprdpcational Psychology, 1960, hi, 222-234. Tiedman, D.V. Experimental method. In Harris (ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Research. New York: Macmillan, 1960, 486-490. Tonsor, S.J. The church-related college: special mission or educational anahronism: Liberal Educatieh, October, 1970, BB! 3. Trotter, F.T. One of our colleges is missing. Christian Century, September 25, 1974, 9;, 875—876. Trow, N. The campus viewed as culture. In H.T. Sprague (ed.), Research on College_§tudents. Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1960. Trow, M. Education and survey research. In Glock & Charles (eds.), The Uses of Survey Research. Russell Sage, 1967. Underwood, K. The church, phe universipy, and social pelicy: the danforth study of campus members. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, I969. United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. Official statement: the church and higher education, 1961. VanDalen, D.B. Understanding educational research: an introduction. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1979, 63. Vanzant, W.T. Religious environment scales: an experi- mental model for assessing the religious environment at church-controlled colleges. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968. Vesey, L.R. The emergence of the american universipy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1965, 35. Ward, L.R. Christian university? yes. America, January 26, 1974, 130, 49. Wicke, M.F. The church—related college. Washington: Center for Applied Research in Education, 1964. Wiebe, R.H. The search for order: 1877-1920. New York: Hill and Wang, 1968. 142 Wood, A.M. Opening enrollment in higher education, 1965. Office of Education Circular No. 796. Washington: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1966. Woody, T. A history of women's education in the united states. New York: Science Press, 1929. Yonge, G.D. Students: Review of Educational Researeh, 1965, 35, 253-263. "I1111111111111111115