I ., bV153[.} BEIURNING MATERIAL§: P1ace in book drop to LIBRARIES remove this Checkout from .IIIICIIIIL ‘your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the daf“ stamped below. _“m___“-e__T_m*___e “"T‘“” © 1981 ZOHAI R AHMED AL- KAZMI All Rights Reserved STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTAL INFLUENCE IN CHOICE OF COLLEGE AND ACADEMIC FIELD OF STUDY AT KING ABDULAZIZ UNIVERSITY IN SAUDI ARABIA By Zohair Ahmed Al-Kazmi A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partia] fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1981 ABSTRACT STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTAL INFLUENCE IN CHOICE OF COLLEGE AND ACADEMIC FIELD OF STUDY AT KING ABDULAZIZ UNIVERSITY IN SAUDI ARABIA By Zohair Ahmed Al-Kazmi Purpose This study was conducted to investigate how college students in Saudi Arabia perceive parental influence on their choice of col- lege and selection of major field, and how that parental influence-- if any--is reflected in the students' satisfaction with their colleges and their major fields. Saudi Arabian male and female freshman students at the three locations of King Abdulaziz University (Mecca, Jeddah, and Medina) were studied to determine the following: l. How they perceive parental influence on choice of college (the first subscale) and on major selection (the second subscale); and the relationship of this perceived parental influence with stu— dents' satisfaction with their college (the third subscale) and their major field (the fourth subscale). 2. Whether there are significant differences between students responses on the four subscales when students are grouped by their various ages, or by the different colleges in which they are enrolled. Zohair Ahmed Al-Kazmi 3. Whether there are significant differences in students' perceptions of parental influence on the four subscales, when the students are classified by differing levels of parents' education, social status (job), and income, on the four subscales. Design and Methodology The following procedures were used: l. A survey questionnaire was developed to be distributed to the survey sample. 2. The survey study used a sample of 432 subjects--225 male, 207 female--selected randomly to represent the total p0pulation of Saudi Arabian freshman students at King Abdulaziz University. 3. The responses of the survey sample to the research ques- tionnaire were analyzed as the data for this research. Nine null hypotheses were formulated as a guide for the data analysis. The strategy of multivariate frequency analysis (MANOVA) was used to test for differences. The level of significance for testing the hypotheses was set at 0.05 of Type I error. Findings Analysis of the data showed the following: l. Significant differences between male and female students appeared only on the first subscale, parental influence on college choice: female students perceived more parental influence than did males. No significant differences in parental influence were found between the two sexes on the other three subscales. Zohair Ahmed Al-Kazmi 2. No significant differences were found regarding any of the subscales when the survey sample responses were categorized by the various age groups of the students. 3. Significant differences were found among the students when responses were grouped by college (among the eight colleges of King Abdulaziz University). While students' perceptions in the Col- leges of Education (both at Medina and Mecca) indicated the greatest degree of parental influence on college choice and less satisfaction with their college and major choices, student perceptions in the College of Economics and Business Administration and the College of Engineering indicated the least parental influence on both college and major choice. The students in the College of Medicine, College of Sharia (Islamic Law), and College of Engineering were more satisfied with their colleges and their majors than the other groups. 4. When students were categorized by level of education of their mothers, no significant differences appeared between the groups on any of the four subscales. The same finding was made with fathers' education levels, with the exception of the third subscale, students' satisfaction with college, where a significant difference between students whose fathers had different levels of education was found. 5. The results of the study indicated that when the responses of the survey sample were categorized by the various levels of their parents' social status (job) and by the different levels of parents' income, there were no significant differences on any of the four sub- scales. This indicated that parents at all different levels of social status (job) or income had the same influence on the four subscales. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The researcher would like to express deep appreciation and sincere thanks to those who assisted in the completion of this study. Sincere gratitude is expressed to Dr. Walter F. Johnson, research academic advisor and doctoral committee chairman, for his assistance, support, and encouragement throughout the researcher's course work as well as in the development and preparation of this research. The researcher wishes to express his sincere appreciation to the members of his guidance committee, Dr. Richard Featherstone, Dr. David Heenan, Dr. Howard Hickey, Dr. Vandel Johnson, and Dr. Walter Scott, for their helpful advice, which was always available. The researcher also wishes to express great thanks to the following persons at King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia: Dr. Mahmoud M. Assadullah, Dean on the College of Education in Mecca; Dr. Mohamed Al-Ghamdi, who was Director of the Educational Research Center at the College of Education in Mecca during the time when the survey sample was taken and has since been appointed Dean of the Education College that will soon be established at the new campus location in the city of Taif; Dr. Mohamed E. Zafer, Dean of the College of Education in Medina; and the freshman students at King Abdulaziz University, where this study took place, and all the other ii persons at the University, for the assistance and cooperation that made this study possible. The researcher wishes to express a debt of gratitude and deep affection to his father, mother, and equally to Sheik Abdullah Khayat, all of whom have played a parental role throughout the writer's life; for his uncle, and father-in-law, Mr. Abdul Haleem Hamza; and toward all of his family for their continuous encouragement and sup- port. Special thanks and gratitude are expressed to the researcher's wife, Samiha, for all of the assistance, support, and patience she has offered to facilitate the development of the study. Finally, the writer will not forget to express his deepest affection for his lovely daughter, Sahar. God bless you all. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ......................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ......................... xiii Chapter I. THE PROBLEM ....................... —' Introduction ..................... Purpose of the Study ................. Survey Questionnaire ................. Importance of the Study ................ Statement of the Problem ............... Research Questions .................. Research Hypotheses .................. Limitations of the Study ............... Definition of Terms .................. Procedures and Organization of the Study ....... uooooomm-u-cowN-a II. SAUDI ARABIA: LOCATION, PEOPLE, AND EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM . 11 Introduction ..................... ll Saudi Arabia: Location and People ........... ll The Educational System in Saudi Arabia ........ 17 Background ..................... 17 King Abdulaziz University .............. l8 Education of Girls, Adults, and the Illiterate . . . 23 Additional Facts About the Saudi Arabian Educational System ................ 26 III. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .............. 27 Introduction ..................... 27 Studies Involving Decision Making and Its Relationship to College and Major Choice ...... 28 Studies of Factors Underlying College Choice as Perceived by Students and Parents .......... 30 Some Factors in the Influence of Parents on College and Academic Choices ................ 35 Summary ........................ 38 iv IV. PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY ................ , Research Questions .................. Research Hypotheses .................. Population of the Study ................ Survey Sample ..................... The Survey Instrument ................. Validity of the Instrument .............. Reliability ...................... Data Collection .................... Analysis of Data ................... Summary ........................ V. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA ............ Comparison of Results of the Objective Versus the Subjective Items .................. The Hypothesis Tests ................. Hypothesis l .................... Hypothesis 2 .................... Hypothesis 3 .................... Hypothesis 4 .................... Hypothesis 5 .................... Hypothesis 6 .................... Hypothesis 7 .................... Hypothesis 8 .................... Hypothesis 9 .................... Summary of Subjective Comments by Respondents ..... Summary of Findings .................. VI. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . The Problem ...................... Purpose of the Study ................. Hypotheses ..................... Methodology ...................... Population and Sample ................ Research Instrument ................. Collection and Treatment of Data .......... Findings ....................... Conclusions ...................... Recommendations .................... Page 40 123 129 129 T30 T31 13] T32 T32 T33 T34 T38 T40 APPENDICES ........................... A. QUESTIONNAIRE, COVER LETTER, LETTER CONFIRMING ACCURACY OF QUESTIONNAIRE TRANSLATION, AND CRITERIA USED BY PANEL OF JUDGES TO TRANSFER SUBJECTIVE RESPONSES TO OBJECTIVE RANK SACLE ................. B. SUMMARY STATISTICS ON EDUCATION PROVIDED IN SCHOOLS OF THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA ..................... C. FREQUENCIES OF THE SURVEY SAMPLE RESPONSES (RANGE 1-5) FOR EACH OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS, PARTS TWO AND THREE, REPRESENTED BY SEX AND BY WHOLE SAMPLE, ALONG WITH MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ....... BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................... vi Table 2.1 4.1 crimp->45 4s LIST OF TABLES Population Distribution Among Major Saudi Arabian Cities Distribution of the Survey Population Among the Three Locations of KAU .................... Allocation of the Survey Sample Among the Three Campuses Reliability of Subscales ................. Means and Standard Deviations of the Dependent Variables Univariate F-tests (df = 1430) .............. Means and Standard Deviations of Male and Female Students' Perceptions of the Four Subscales ............ Means and Standard Deviations of Male and Female Responses to Survey Items l0 and 12 in Parts Two and Three Frequencies and Percentages for the Distribution of Survey Sample Members' Ages Among the Five Age Groups . . Univariate F-test with 4,427 Degrees of Freedom ...... Means and Standard Deviations of the Responses of the Five Student Age Groups on Parental Influence on College Choice ..................... Means and Standard Deviations of Responses of the Five Student Age Groups on Parental Influence on Major Selection ........................ Means and Standard Deviations of Responses of the Five Student Age Groups on the Effect of Parental Influence on Students' Satisfaction With College ......... Means and Standard Deviations of Responses of the Five Student Age Groups on the Effect of Parental Influence on Students' Satisfaction With Major .......... vii Page l5 44 45 50 55 62 63 64 66 66 67 67 68 68 .10 .11 .12 .13 .14 .15 .16 .17 .18 .19 .20 .21 Distribution of College Subsamples Within the Total Survey Sample (Men and Women) .............. Univariate F-tests (With 7,424 Degrees of Freedom) of Student Responses From the Eight Colleges ........ The Different Possible Pairwise Comparisons Between Eight Colleges ..................... Parental Influence on College Choice: Means and Standard Deviations of the Responses From the Different Colleges of KAU ......................... Result of Pairwise Planned Comparison Between Colleges 1, 2, and 8 vs. College 4, and Between College 2 vs. College 3, on College Choice (First Subscale) ...... Results of Planned Comparison Between Colleges 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 as a Group and Colleges 4, 5, and 6 as a Group for Parental Influence on College Choice (First Subscale) .................... Planned Comparison Between the Three Different Campus Locations of KAU for the First Subscale, Parental Influence on College Choice ............... Means and Standard Deviations for Parental Influence on Major Selection by Colleges ............... Pairwise Planned Comparison Between Colleges l and 2 and College 4 Showing Significant Differences Between the Colleges Regarding Parental Influence on Major Selection (Second Subscale) ............... Planned Comparison Between Colleges l, 2, 3, 7, and 8 (Boys and Girls) and Colleges 4, 5, and 6 (Boys Only) Regarding Parental Influence on Major Selection ..... Planned Comparison of the Three Different Campus Locations of KAU Regarding Parental Influence on Major Selection (Second Subscale) ............... The Effect of Parental Influence on Student Satisfaction With College: Means and Standard Deviations of Students' Responses From the Different Colleges of KAU ...... viii Page 69 7O 71 73 75 76 77 78 80 81 82 83 .22 .23 .24 .25 .26 .27 .28 .29 .30 .31 .32 .33 Statistical Analysis of Pairwise Planned Comparisons Between Various Colleges That Showed Differences Significant at the 0.05 Level Regarding Parental Influence on Students' Satisfaction With Their Colleges . Summary of Statistical Analysis of a Planned Comparison Between the Different Campus Locations of KAU Regarding Students' Satisfaction With Their Colleges The Effect of Parental Influence on Students' Satisfac- tion With Major: Means and Standard Deviations ..... Summary of Statistical Analysis for the Pairwise Planned Comparisons, Significant at the 0.05 Level, for Students' Satisfaction With Their Majors ........ Summary of Planned Comparison Between the Three Different Campus Locations of KAU Regarding Students' Satisfaction With Their Majors .................... Frequencies and Frequency Percentages for the Distribu- tion of Fathers' Education Level (Fathers of the Survey Sample) ..................... Univariate F-tests (with 6,425 Degrees of Freedom) of the Four Subscales by Fathers' Level of Education . . . . Means and Standard Deviations: Fathers' Influence on Students' College Choice by Fathers' Level of Education . Means and Standard Deviations: Fathers' Influence on Students' Major Selection by Fathers' Level of Education ........................ Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers' Education Level and Its Effect on Students' Satisfaction With College ......................... Statistical Summary of the Pairwise Planned Comparisons, Significant at the 0.05 Level, of the Seven Groups of Fathers' Education Levels Regarding Students' Satis- faction With Their Colleges (Third Subscale) ...... Summary of Statistical Analysis for Planned Comparison Between Level l of Fathers' Education and Levels 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and Between Level l and Levels 2, 3, and 4, Regarding Students' Satisfaction With Colleges (Third Subscale) .................... ix Page 85 87 88 9O 91 93 94 95 95 97 98 .34 .35 .36 .37 .38 .39 .40 .41 .42 .43 .44 .45 .46 .47 Means and Standard Deviations of Fathers' Education Level and the Effect on Students' Satisfaction With Major Frequencies and Frequency Percentages of the Distribu- tion of Mothers' Education Level for the Survey Sample Students ..................... Univariate F-tests With 5,426 Degrees of Freedom of the Four Subscales by Mothers' Level of Education ...... Means and Standard Deviations for Influence on Students' College Choice by Mothers' Level of Education ...... Means and Standard Deviations for Influence on Students' Major Selection by Mothers' Level of Education Means and Standard Deviations for Effect on Students' Satisfaction With College by Mothers' Level of Education ........................ Means and Standard Deviations for Effect on Students' Satisfaction With Major by Mothers' Level of Education Frequencies and Frequency Percentages of Fathers' Job Categories Distributed Among the Different Job Categories Univariate F-tests (With 4,427 Degrees of Freedom) for the Fathers' Job and the Four Variables ......... Means and Standard Deviations for the Influence of Fathers' Social Status (Job) on College Choice as Perceived by the Survey Sample Means and Standard Deviations for the Influence of Fathers' Social Status (Job) on Major Selection as Perceived by the Survey Sample Means and Standard Deviations for the Effect of Fathers' Influence on Students' Satisfaction With College Means and Standard Deviations for the Effect of Fathers' Influence on Students' Satisfaction With Major Frequencies and Frequency Percentages of Mothers' Job Categories Distributed Among the Different Job Categories Page 101 101 102 103 103 104 104 106 106 107 107 108 .48 .49 .50 .51 .52 .53 .54 .55 .56 .57 .58 .59 .60 .61 Univariate F-tests (With 2,430 Degrees of Freedom) for Significance of Mothers' Job on the Four Subscales Means and Standard Deviations for the Influence of Mothers' Jobs on Students' College Choice ........ Means and Standard Deviations for the Influence of Mothers' Jobs on Students' Major Selection ....... Means and Standard Deviations for the Effect of Mothers' Job on Students' Satisfaction With College ....... Means and Standard Deviations for the Effect of Mothers' Job on Students' Satisfaction With Major ........ Distribution of the Monthly Incomes of the Fathers of the Survey Sample Among the Seven Income Categories . . . Univariate F-tests (With 6,425 Degrees of Freedom) of the Significance of Fathers' Income on the Four Subscales . . Means and Standard Deviations for the Effects of the Different Fathers' Income Levels on Students' College Choice ......................... Means and Standard Deviations for the Effects of the Different Fathers' Income Levels on Students' Major Satisfaction ...................... Means and Standard Deviations for the Effects of the Different Fathers' Income Levels on Students' Satis- faction With College .................. Means and Standard Deviations for the Effects of the Different Fathers' Income Levels on the Students' Satisfaction With Major ................. Distribution of Monthly Income of Mothers of the Survey Sample Among the Seven Income Categories ........ Univariate F-tests (With 4,426 Degrees of Freedom) of the Significance of Mothers' Income on the Four Subscales ........................ Means and Standard Deviations for the Effect of the Different Levels of Mothers' Income on the Students' College Choice ..................... xi Page 110 111 111 112 112 114 114 116 119 5.62 5.63 5.64 C.1 Means and Standard Deviations for the Effect of the Different Levels of Mothers' Income on the Students' Major Selection ..................... Means and Standard Deviations for the Effect of the Different Levels of Mothers' Income on Students' Satisfaction With College ................ Means and Standard Deviations for the Effect of Different Levels of Mothers' Income on Students' Satisfaction With Major ....................... Frequency Responses of the Survey Sample to the Ques- tionnaire Items (Range l—5), Parts Two and Three xii Page 120 120 121 173 Figure l. 2. LIST OF FIGURES Map of Saudi Arabia ......... Population Settlement in Saudi Arabia xiii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction The decision-making process that must take place when a young person chooses his college and his academic field is signifi- cant and time consuming because it will have a great effect on that individual's future. It is no easy task. The factors which the aspiring student must take into consideration are numerous. As Stordahl (1970) pointed out, "Choice of a college is fre- quently, if not always, influenced both directly and indirectly by parents, peers, teachers, and others. The advice-of-others scale is intended to measure the extent of this influence" (p. 212). General factors that contribute to the decision-making process include student motivation, high-school achievement, cultural and edu- cational background of parents and family, college location, career plans, and peer-group pressure. As Clay stated in his 1976 thesis, "The influence of parents on the college plans of their children . . . is a multidimensional phenomenon" (p. 7). In the abstract of his thesis, he added, "An extensive body of research literature has shown that parents play a major role in the educational decision making process" (p. 1). Other evidence shows that if the universities and colleges ignore the role of parents in recruiting, they are overlooking 1 the most influential persons in a student's college decision (Hooper, 1976). Purpose of the Study The specific purpose of this study was to discover how stu- dents perceive parental influence on their choice of college and of field of study. Saudi Arabian male and female freshman students at the three locations of King Abdulaziz University--Mecca, Jeddah, and Medina--have been surveyed by questionnaire for their perceptions of parental influence on academic decisions. This study, then, was conducted primarily to find out how freshman students, male and female, perceive the effect of their parents upon their choice of college as well as their selection of academic field of study (major). The following data were developed through tabulation of the students' responses giving their perceptions on these matters: 1. How freshman students perceive parental influence on choice of college and major, and the relationship of this perceived parental influence with student satisfaction with the decisions made. 2. Whether students of various ages and in different col- leges differ significantly in their perceptions of parental influence on choice of college and major, and how any such differences are related to their levels of satisfaction with the decisions made. 3. Whether students, when classified by differing levels of parental education, social status, and income, differ significantly in their perception of parental influence on choice of college and major, and how any such differences are related to their levels of satisfaction with the decisions made. . . 1 Survey Questionnaire The researcher developed a survey questionnaire for data collection in this study. The questionnaire was constructed in three parts with a total of 43 items. The first part contains 11 items covering general information on the students and their parents' backgrounds. The second and third parts of the questionnaire consist of 16 items each. The second part focuses primarily on the students' perceptions of" parental influence on college choice. The third part is concerned with students' perceptions of parental influ- ence on selection of academic field of study (major). The question- naire was first developed in English and then translated into Arabic for administration to the survey sample. Importance of the Study No study of this kind has been conducted before in the Saudi Arabian community, either with interviews of parents or with inter- views of students at the high-school or university level, for this specific purpose.2 'This research could therefore be considered as a 1For more detail about the process of questionnaire develop— ment, its validity and its reliability, see the Survey Instrument section in Chapter IV. 2During the summers of 1978, 1979, and 1980, most of which the researcher spent in Saudi Arabia, a thorough search was conducted at the King Abdulaziz University libraries in Mecca and Jeddah, as well as at other libraries, seeking to find any studies related to this area of concern. None was found except for the very limited studies, included in the Review of the Literature, which were somehow starting point for study of the broad topic of academic decision making. With this work started, it is hoped that there will be a series of follow-up studies, by this researcher or others, which can cover most or all of the factors behind students' selection of col- leges and of academic majors. This study, as well as those to follow, should be very beneficial for parents, high—school graduates, and academic staff members such as high-school counselors and university admissions officers and counselors. Statement of the Problem Behind students' decisions--first to continue on to higher education, then to select a college and an academic major--are various factors, as mentioned earlier in this chapter. One of these factors is the role of parents. Parental attitudes toward their children's choice of college and major are, in turn, affected by several fac- tors, such as parents' socioeconomic level, education, and cultural and religious attitudes. Therefore, parental influence on students' academic decisions deserves attention and scientifically valid study. In short, Bertsch (1966) pointed out, "The effect of parental atti- tudes on their youngsters' choice of a college has not been fully studied" (p. 6). The main issue this study investigated was the influence of parents upon their children--as perceived by the children themselves-- on their choice of college and of major field of study. More related to this study. The lack of material on the subject was con- firmed by the people working at the Registrar's and Admissions Offices and in the Educational Research Center at the University. specifically, this study has tested and analyzed several research questions, using a combination of statistical and descriptive methods. Research Questions This study was undertaken to seek answers to the following research questions: 1. How do male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are freshman students at King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia per- ceive parental influence on their choice of college and their selec- tion of major; and how is any perceived parental influence related to the students' levels of satisfaction with college and major? 2. 00 male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are fresh- man students at King Abdulaziz University differ significantly by age and college in their perceptions of parental influence on choice of college and of major; and how are any differences reflected in their levels of satisfaction with college and major? 3. Are there significant differences among demographic clas- sifications in the students' perceptions of parental influence on choice of college and of major when male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are freshman students at King Abdulaziz University are classified by differing levels of parental education, social status, and income; and how are any differences reflected in students' levels of satisfaction with college and major? Research Hypotheses The following nine null hypotheses were tested at the 0.05 level of significance: 1. There is no significant difference between male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are freshman students at King Abdulaziz University in their perceptions of parental influence with regard to (a) choice of college, (b) selection of academic field of study (major), (c) satisfaction with college, and (d) satisfaction with major. 2. There is no significant difference among different age groups of male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are freshman students at King Abdulaziz University in their perceptions of parental influence on (a) college choice, (b) selection of major, (c) satis- faction with college, and (d) satisfaction with major. 3. There is no significant difference among different col- leges of male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are freshman students at King Abdulaziz University in their perceptions of parental influence on (a) college choice, (b) major selection, (c) satisfaction with college, and (d) satisfaction with major. 4. When male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are fresh- man students at King Abdulaziz University are grouped by differing levels of fathers' education, there is no significant difference in student perceptions of parental influence on (a) choice of college, (b) choice of major, (c) satisfaction with college, and (d) satisfac- tion with major. 5. When male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are freshman students at King Abdulaziz University are grouped by differ- ing levels of mothers' education, there is no significant difference in student perceptions of parental influence on (a) choice of college, (b) choice of major, (c) satisfaction with college, and (d) satisfac- tion with major. 6. When male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are freshman students at King Abdulaziz University are grouped by differ- ing levels of fathers' social status (as demonstrated by fathers' jobs), there is no significant difference in student perceptions of parental influence on (a) choice of college, (b) choice of major, (c) satisfaction with college, and (d) satisfaction with major. 7. When male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are freshman students at King Abdulaziz University are grouped by differ- ing levels of mothers' social status (as demonstrated by mothers' jobs), there is no significant difference in student perceptions of parental influence on (a) choice of college, (b) choice of major, (c) satisfaction with college, and (d) satisfaction with major. 8. When male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are freshman students at King Abdulaziz University are grouped by differ- ing levels of fathers' income, there is no significant difference in student perceptions of parental influence on (a) choice of college, (b) choice of major, (c) satisfaction with college, and (d) satisfac- tion with major. 9. When male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are freshman students at King Abdulaziz University are grouped by differ- ing levels of mothers' income, there is no significant difference in student perceptions of parental influence on (a) choice of college, (b) choice of major, (c) satisfaction with college, and (d) satisfac- tion with major. Limitations of the Study The following are recognized limitations of the study: 1. The research survey has been done only at King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia during the 1979-1980 academic year. 2. The study findings are limited to data gathered by means of sample responses to the researcher's questionnaire. 3. The students' perceptions, gathered through the research questionnaire, are the only data used in this study. Definition of Terms College and Academic Field of Study (Major): In this study the terms college and academic field of study refer to the different colleges at King Abdulaziz University and to the different majors these colleges have. KAU: An abbreviation for King Abdulaziz University, where this research was conducted. Parents: The student's father and mother; the student's father or mother only, when the other parent is not living. Perception: As defined in dictionaries, perception includes these two steps: first, awareness of external objects, conditions, and relationships as a result of sensory stimulation; and second, a continuous process of integration of present and past sensory impres- sions. Gibson (1969) described perception as "the process by which we obtain first-hand information about the world around us" (p. 3). Yelon and Weinstein (1977) noted that "perception is active, not passive. This active process increases the selectivity of perception, as we increase the ability to extract information from the environ- ment through our senses" (p. 35). Student: A person who attended King Abdulaziz University at one of its three locations as a freshman (first-level) student during the 1979-1980 academic year. Students' Perception: The responses of the sample in this study to the research questionnaire given to the sample. Parents' Social Status: Social status as defined for this study refers only to the occupation or career of the father and mother. It does not imply any hierarchy or superior/inferior level. Procedures and Organization of the Study This was a survey research study, attempting to uncover stu- dents' perceptions of parental influence on college choice and selec- tion of field of study at King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia. The population for the study was the Saudi Arabian freshman student body at the three different locations of King Abdulaziz University--Mecca, Jeddah, and Medina. The total population was 5,771 students. The researcher took 432 students as a final sample for this study. The sample was selected on a random basis and given the questionnaire developed to fulfill the purpose of the study. (In Chapter IV is given further information about the population, the selection of the sample, and the questionnaire.) Presented in the next two chapters is background on two topics related to this study. First, background on the society-- Saudi Arabian society--in which this study was conducted is presented 10 in Chapter II. Also in Chapter II is presented information on the Saudi Arabian educational system, with emphasis on King Abdulaziz University. Second, a review of related research and studies found in a wide variety of publications is presented in Chapter 111. Chapter IV contains a discussion of the methodology used for this research. First, the research questions and hypotheses are pre- sented. Then a description of the p0pulation and of the selection of the survey sample is given. As part of the description of the research procedures, this chapter includes an explanation of the process of developing the survey instrument (the questionnaire), its administra- tion, and the method of analyzing the data. An analysis of the student-response data accompanied by inter- pretation of the data analysis as a test of the research hypotheses is presented in Chapter V. Chapter VI, the last chapter, contains a summary of the find- ings that have evolved through analysis of the students' responses to the research questionnaire. In addition, this chapter includes recom- mendations for future study. CHAPTER II SAUDI ARABIA: LOCATION, PEOPLE, AND EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM Introduction Since this research was done with, and applies primarily to, the Saudi Arabian university student, it is worthwhile to provide some background information about the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This chapter presents a summary report on the geography of Saudi Arabia, its people and culture, and finally, the educational system in Saudi Arabia, including higher education. It includes a brief description of King Abdulaziz University, where this research was conducted. Saudi Arabia: Location and People Saudi Arabia is located in the southwest part of Asia known as the Arabian Peninsula, four-fifths of which is occupied by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Arabian peninsula has an area exceed- ing a million square miles of which Saudi Arabia possesses over 870,000 square miles. Saudi Arabia shares boundaries with Jordan, Iraq, and Kuwait to the north; the Arabian Gulf, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman to the east; Oman, the Democratic Southern Republic of Yemen, and the Northern Republic of Yemen to the south; and the Red Sea to the west (Figure 1). 11 .. .~ N/ 41719 ”Ii/of/ cum ~.\'\ I ~ Jul.‘OSallIM CUMyuh SAUDI ARABIA IDYADN. new». 1.7“, 1, J1“): T! ' (IS-$753. Whig 1"" I'fi ‘ ..\ 4' . . . - .v_ ‘ . ' a g . “mix; / "‘.":“'-"='..:;.: ENlEN / SOUTH YEMEN «9;. 1“ 4343?? [ETHIOPIA invenaimdm .191. .333 43‘me ,1. we.” ,1. 1:932: 148.416”... 2‘3 Figure l.--Map of Saudi Arabia. (From Hussein H. Bindagti, "The Geography of Saudi Arabia," in Saudi Arabia and Its Place in the World, ed. Dar Al-Shoroug. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: Ministry of Information, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 1979. 13 The population of Saudi Arabia is approximately seven million people: "The first comprehensive and accurate census carried out in Saudi Arabia in 1974 indicates that the total population of the Kingdom is 7,012,642 distributed in fourteen administrative districts" (Bindagti, 1979, p. 21). The official language in Saudi Arabia is Arabic. The religion is Islam. The constitution of Saudi Arabia is firmly rooted in Islamic religion, since it is based on the Holy Quran and the Sunna (Tradition of the Prophet). Thus, the people of Saudi Arabia-—like Muslims everywhere--consider Islam the way of life and practical legal system, laying down precise rules for behavior in private, social, economic, and political life. Saudi Arabia follows the Sharia--religious law--in running the country's affairs. "The people of Saudi Arabia form a relatively homogeneous group, sharing similar physical features, a common language, culture and values and a common religion, Islam" (Al-Badr, 1972, p. 23). Family structure is very solid and deeply respected in Saudi Arabia. Historically, the parents and grandparents have played a significant role in family decision making, including decisions made by all children in the family. "The dominant relationships in Saudi Arabian society are personal. Allegiance to Islam, loyalty to the family, and loyalty to the tribe are the strongest bonds felt by most Saudi Arabians" (Lipsky, 1959, p. 2). Saudi Arabian economic resources vary from mineral and indus- trial to agricultural production. But at the present time, the Saudi Arabian economy relies primarily on the income from its oil revenues. l4 Saudi Arabia is emerging as a country of significant wealth and economic power. . . . Economically it is the largest OPEC [The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries] producer 0; petroleum and the world's third largest after the USA and t e USSR. . . . Saudi Arabia relies on its oil revenues to diversify its economy, to raise the gross national product, and to build the infrastructure needed for development. . . . With the realization that oil is a non-renewable resource, the country has launched a massive program of accelerating the growth of the industrial and agricultural sectors and building a sup- porting infrastructure (Aburokba, 1979, p. 134). Saudi Arabia consists of five administrative provinces. The central province is known as Najd, and includes Riyadh City, the capital of Saudi Arabia, as well as Buraydah, another major city. The eastern province, known as Al-Ahsa, includes major cities like Dammam, Dhahran, and Al-Hufuf. The western province, known as Hijaz, contains such major cities as Mecca, Medina, and Jeddah. The southern province, known as Asir, contains the major city Abha. Finally, the northern province contains the major city Al-Jauf. This research was done at King Abdulaziz University in the western province of Saudi Arabia at the cities Mecca, Jeddah, and Medina, where campuses of King Abdulaziz University are located. In addition to what has been mentioned previously about the homogeneity of the population of Saudi Arabia, the people share the same religion (Islam), the same language (Arabic), and almost the same culture and values. Beyond this, it should be added that the population of Saudi Arabia is composed mainly of tribes; some of their people are settled and live in the cities, and others are unsettled nomads. Table 2.1 shows the population distribution among the major cities.) "Citizens of Saudi Arabia are classified into two categories: 15 fixed populations in urban and rural areas, and migrant Bedouins" (Bindogti, 1979, p. 22). The census distribution is shown in Figure 2. Table 2.1.--Popu1ation distribution among major Saudi Arabian cities. City Number of Citizens Riyadh 666,840 Jeddah 561,104 Mecca 366,801 Taif 204,857 Medina 198,186 Dammam 127,844 Hufuf 101,381 Tabuk 74,825 Buraydah 69,940 A1 Mobarraz 54,325 Khamis Mushayt 49,581 Khaybar 48,817 Najran 47,501 Hail 40,502 Jaizan 328,120 Abha 30,150 Source: Hussein H. Bindagti, "The Geography of Saudi Arabia," in Saudi Arabia and Its Place in the World, ed. Dar Al-Shoroug (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: Ministry of Information, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 1979). Illiteracy and a lack of educated or knowledgeable people are the major problems facing the society. The Saudi Arabian gov- ernment has worked hard to attack this problem, as will be shown in the following discussion of the educational system in Saudi Arabia, including higher education. 16 V®§§\ §j\ . ° ' h, '. i \ -.a-f}391§ ‘RNS. \\\‘ Sound - Umnm . N 8‘“ "at. k: f'EE=:FEE=EL- \\ Figure 2.--Population settlement in Saudi Arabia. (From Hussein H. Bindagti, "The Geography of Saudi Arabia," in Saudi Arabia and Its Place in the World, ed. Dar Al-Shoroug. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: *Ministry Of Information, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 1979.) 17 The Educational System in Saudi Arabia Background Before 1925, when Saudi Arabia was founded and unified by King Abdulaziz, the educational system in the Arabian Peninsula was run primarily as private schools and schools known as the Kuttab (elementary Quranic schools). Besides these schools, there were-- and, to some extent, still are--specia1ized and professional teach- ing and learning circles, studying mainly the Islamic religion and Arabic language, held by the Ulema (religious leaders or scholars) at the mosques or at their houses. In 1925 the Saudi Arabian government took the first step toward organization of formal education in the country by establish- ing the General Directorate of Education. It--the General Directorate of Education--operated under very difficult conditions, the least of which were the vast area of the country, with, at the time, a very poor transport- communications system, a lack of sufficient financial resources and a great shortage of indigenous teachers. . . . Nevertheless, some profound and significant educational developments took place in the period from 1925 till 1953, the year in which the General Directorate was replaced by the Ministry of Education (Hibshi, 1979, p. 118). From that time on, the Ministry of Education has taken the major responsibility for the educational process and planning, super- vision, coordination, and follow—up for all of the boys' educational levels from kindergarten through secondary school and even up to the college level. (The college of Islamic law, Sharia College, was established in 1949, prior to the establishment of the Ministry of Education.) Later on, in 1975, the Ministry of Higher Education was established to take responsibility for higher education in cooperation 18 and coordination with the Saudi Arabian universities. So the Ministry of Education now has educational responsibility for all levels below the college level for boys. The number of primary schools increased from 4 in 1925 to 2,065 in 1975 with an enrollment of 391,405 boys. 1936 witnessed the establishment of the first secondary school, in the modern sense. The number of intermediate and secondary schools for boys in 1975 became 508 with an enrollment of 103,323 pupils. The first institution of higher education was founded in 1949-19501and today there are six universities (Hibshi, 1979, p. 120). The six universities are the University of Riyadh (located in Riyadh and Abha, founded 1957); Islamic University (located in Medina, founded 1961); the University of Petroleum and Minerals (located in Dhahran, founded 1963); King Abdulaziz University (located in Jeddah, Mecca, and Medina; founded 1967), the university where this research has taken place (described later); Islamic University of Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud (located in Riyadh, founded 1974); and King Faisal University (located in Dammam, founded 1975). King Abdulaziz University2 Since this study took place at King Abdulaziz University, it is appropriate to provide background information about this insti- tution of higher education. 1The most recent official statistics are presented in Appendix B. 2Most of the information in this section is derived from several publications printed in Arabic and published on various dates by different offices at the university, including the Office of Admissions, the Registrar, and the Offices of Public Relations at the different campuses of KAU. 19 King Abdulaziz University (KAU) has campuses in three dif- ferent locations in the western province of Saudi Arabia: Mecca, Jeddah, and Medina. (For the location of these cities, see Figure 1.) The University was founded in 1967 as a private institution for higher education at one location, Jedda. Then, in 1971, by Royal Decree, it was combined with the two colleges in Mecca, the College of Education and the College of Sharia (Islamic Law), public colleges that were operated by the Ministry of Education. So in 1971, KAU had two dif- ferent campus locations (Jedda and Mecca) with several different col- leges and many majors, discussed below. The third campus of KAU, in Medina, was Opened in 1977 with the establishment of the College of Education to serve the needs of secondary-school graduates and the people in that community. In the following discussion of the colleges of KAU, they are represented in order of their original foundation, starting with the oldest at Mecca, followed by the Jeddah campus, and finally, the col- leges in Medina. 1. College of Sharia (Islamic Law): Located in Mecca, founded in 1949. Affiliated with King Abdulaziz University in 1971. The degrees that this college awards are: A. Bachelors (B.A.) with a minimum of 136 credit hours B. Masters (M.A.) in an average of three years after the B.A. C. Doctoral (Ph.D.) It includes six departments or majors: A. Sharia (Islamic Law) b. Arabic Language ,20 0 History U Dawa (Islamic Action) E. Qadha (Islamic Judicature) F. Hadharah (Islamic Civilization and Institution) The B.A. is offered in all majors, but the M.A. and the Ph.D. are offered only in majors A, B, C, and F. 2. College of Education: Located in Mecca, founded in 1950 as the College of Teacher Training. Renamed College of Education in 1962 and affiliated in 1971 with KAU. It offers the following degrees: A. Bachelors (B.A. and B.S.) with a minimum of 130 credit hours B. Special Diploma, with a minimum of 18 hours beyond B.A. or B.S. requirements C. Masters (M.A.) with a minimum of 45 credit hours after the B.A. or B.S. and minimum of 27 credit hours after the Special Diploma There are 11 departments in the College of Education: A. Education Major Curriculum and Teaching Methods B C. Geography 0 Chemistry E. Mathematics F. English G. Biology H. Physics I. Psychology 21 J. Physical Education K. Art Education A Bachelors degree is offered in all 11 majors. The Special Diploma is given in Education, Psychology, and Curriculum and Teach- ing Methods. A Masters degree is offered in three different majors: Administration and Educational Planning, Curriculum and Teaching Methods, and Psychology. 3. College of Economic and Business Administration: It is located in Jeddah and was founded in 1967. It offers a B.A. in these four departments: Accounting, Business Administration; Economics, and Public Administration. 4. College of Arts and Humanities: Located in Jeddah; founded in 1969. It offers a B.A. in the following six majors: English, Geography, History, Library Science, Sociology, and Communi- cation and Journalism. 5. College of Science: Located in Jeddah; founded in 1972. It offers a B.S. in these five majors: Biology, Chemistry, Geology, Mathematics, and Physics. The Department of Geology, in the College of Science, spon- sors the Institute of Oceanography. This college also sponsors the Institute of Meteorology. These two institutions have environmental research programs in their respective fields. 6. College of Engineering: Located in Jeddah; founded in 1975. It offers a B.S. degree in the following six majors: Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Industrial Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Mining Engineering. 22 7. College of Medicine: Located in Jeddah; founded in 1975. It offers the degree of Doctor of Medicine (M.D.). 8. College of Education: Located in Medina; founded in 1977. It offers a B.A. in Education with specializations in one of two major departments: science and literary. The students who choose the science department specialize, after finishing the first year of the Bachelors requirements, in one of the submajors in the department: Mathematics, Chemistry, Physics, or Biology. Following the same process, after their freshman year, the students in the literary department choose one of these submajors: Arabic Language, English Language, or Islamic Studies. Female students have the same opportunities for admission and study as do males at most of these colleges. But since education at the university level, as well as at all other levels, is not mixed, a special Women's Section takes responsibility for organizing all pro- grams for women. For the courses where there are no qualified women instructors, closed-circuit television is used on conjunction with a two-way telephone system that provides instant communication between male instructors and female students during the televised lectures. Changes in the KAU structure will take place as a result of a Royal Decree issued July 1, 1980, making the campus in Mecca an independent campus for a new university in Mecca called the Univer- sity of Umm Al-Qura (Akhbar Al-Mobtaas, 1980, p. 4). This will take effect from the beginning of the coming fiscal year, 1981-1982, 23 which usually begins by the seventh month of the Saudi Arabian Hijri calendar year.1 Education of Girls, Adults, and the Illiterate To complete this picture of the educational system, a brief discussion should be presented about the education of girls, adult education, and the literacy programs in Saudi Arabia. Before 1960, there was no official office or government organization for girls' education, except in some private elementary schools, which followed the curricula of the Ministry of Education, and in the Kuttab, which teach primary skills--reading and writing-- with some attention to Qurénic and Islamic studies. There are sev- eral reasons for the delay in development of girls' education in Saudi.Arabia. . . . There were those citizens who did not believe in the education of girls and considered it conducive to the degra- dation and immorality of woman and her revolt against the traditions of society. 0n the other hand, there were those who sought every possible means to educate their dau hters inside and outside the country (Hibshi, 1979, p. 1241 Most of the attitudes against girls' education stemmed mainly from ignorance and the lack of education, which was until the recent past the major problem facing Saudi Arabian Society. They thought-- within their very limited knowledge--that girls' education would not be compatible with the Islamic faith, which is not true: ‘The present Hijri year, 1401, started November 9, 1980. The 1981-1982 fiscal year corresponds to the 1401-1402 fiscal year on the Hijri calendar. 24 Islam does not consider sex as a bar to the acquisition of knowledge. It is stated in traditions that "the quest for learning is a duty incumbent upon every Moslem, male and female." Considerable numbers of Moslem women in the early centuries of Islam seized every opportunity and took part in every branch of the culture of that time (Hibshi, 1979, pp. 120-21). The lack of attention to girls' education continued until 1960, when the government established the General Presidency of the Schools of Girls under the supervision of the Grand Mufty, the leader of the Ulema (Islamic scholars), to take responsibility for women's education at all levels (Umm Al-Qura, 1959). Since then, the expan- sion and development of girls' education have progressed rapidly at all levels: primary, secondary, and university (both undergraduate and graduate education). The positive response of even those who had some doubt regard- ing the significance of education for women, coupled with the already encouraging attitude of the more enlightened and the government's determination that the schools for girls were established to stay--despite the opposition of the more con- servative elements of society--have resulted in increasing demands for education for women, probably greater than had been envisaged. . . . The impact of the expansion at the pri- mary level on subsequent educational levels is obvious and manifested in the growing number of intermediate and secon- dary schools. At the higher level, King Abdulaziz University, Riyadh University, and the Colleges of Education for women provide education for women as internal as well as external students (Hibshi, 1979, p. 124). As can be seen, most of the shortcomings and difficulties which the Saudi Arabian society has suffered were derived from the illiteracy problem and the lack of educated people--adu1ts, men and women, who never got a chance to receive a formal education during their early years. "Illiteracy was a major problem facing Saudi Arabia because of the Bedouin who wander in the desert" (Al-Badr, 25 1972, p. 24). So the government of Saudi Arabia felt the immediate necessity for establishment and development of adult education and anti-illiteracy programs. The Ministry of Education has taken the major responsibility of facing this problem by establishing centers for adult learners and anti-illiteracy programs. More recently, the General Presidency of the School of Girls, and the universities (representing higher education), both have participated in sharing responsibility for solving the illiteracy problem, especially among adults. "Literacy and adult-education schools increased from 1,020 with 2,810 classes and 63,428 participants in 1974-1975 to 1,295 schools with 2,354 classes and 67,080 participants in 1975-1976" (Ministry of Education, 1977, p. 12). Another author added: "The Ministry of Education has struc- tured adult-education programs ranging from basic anti-illiteracy to elementary, intermediate, and secondary school" (Al-Sagoff, 1967, p. 106). The latest statistics show that the total enrollment of adult learners in the 1979-1980 academic year was 91,280, attending 2,208 centers established by the Ministry of Education for adult education. These figures, compared with the preceding academic year (1978-1979), show an expansion of adult education, with 6.4% higher total enroll- ment and 10.8% more adult-education centers (Educational Documenta- tion Journal, 1980, p. 16). 26 Additional Facts About the Saudi Arabian Educational System The schools at all levels, from kindergarten through college and graduate school, are free for all Saudi Arabian citizens as well as for noncitizens with legal residency. Textbooks and other school materials are provided to students, at all levels below college, free of charge. Students at the colleges, graduate schools, and secon- dary vocational and technical schools receive monthly allowances to encourage them to pursue their education in their fields. The education of males takes place separately from education of females at all levels in the educational system in Saudi Arabia. The only coeducation is at the kindergarten level. CHAPTER III REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction Although research on how students choose a college is plenti— ful, literature related to parental influence on students' choice of college and of academic field of study is not extensive. Literature related directly to students' perceptions of parental and other influences on college and academic—major choices is even more limited. The literature reviewed in this chapter was obtained mainly through an ERIC research program and through extensive review of books, journals, and other publications. It should be noted that very few articles were found that dealt directly with student per- ceptions on this matter. This chapter is presented in three parts. The first part reviews studies related to decision making and its relationship to college selection. The second part reviews and surveys the litera- ture related to factors underlying college choice as perceived by students and parents. In the third part is presented a review of selected studies concerning some factors of parental influence on college and academic choices. 27 28 Studies Involving Decision Making and Its Relationship to College and Major Choice Ten studies by Festinger and his associates (1964) describe the decision-making process via examination of the following six steps in decision making: 1. Objective evaluation of the merits of the alternatives 2. Collection of information on alternatives 3 Evaluation of information in relation to self 4. Establishment of a preference order between alternatives 5. Continuation of information search until sufficient con- fidence is established 6. Making a decision when a person has reached the required level of confidence Festinger discovered that decision making caused dissonance and pressure in the decision maker. If the process of decision mak- ing is properly carried out, the dissonance will be reduced. If there is no commitment resulting from the process, dissonance will continue. The studies revealed a close relationship between each of the six steps (Bertsch, 1966). Another study of educational decisions was done by Hays (1961), who asked a sample of superior high school sophomores and their parents: 1. Who makes the educational decision? 2. What is the degree of agreement between parents and children in educational decisions? 29 In this study, Hays found that superior high-school students preferred to make their own educational decisions autonomously. But their fathers preferred to make the decisions instead of leaving them to their children. In relation to this decision-making issue, one.survey study has been done in Saudi Arabia. It was published in 1979, written in the Arabic language, under the supervision of the Ministry of Educa- tion in Saudi Arabia (Ministry of Education, 1979). The purpose of this study was to find out how senior students at high (secondary) schools wish, plan, and make decisions for their futures. A question- naire was distributed to a sample of senior high-school students. Out of the sample responses, 400 were used. Among the questionnaire items are two related to issues being reviewed in this part of this chapter. The two related items are: 1. An attempt to measure how many students out of the 400- student sample wished to continue on to a college education and how many did not. 2. In the selection of a college, as well as for general educational decisions, to whom do the students wish to refer? 0n the first question, the responses showed that 372 out of the 400 students (93%) wished to continue their educations and attend college. The rest (28, or 7%) did not. On the second question--to whom the students wish to refer in educational decision making--the highest percentage of the students responding, 109 students (29.3%), did not wish to refer to anybody. They wanted to make their decisions by themselves. Next followed 30 those who would consult friends--22%. The father was the choice selected third in frequency (19.9%). Then followed a brother (13.9%), the family (7.8%), the mother (7.3%), high-school teachers (4.8%), and high-school social counselors (4.6%). Other studies have tried to find out the person's mental effectiveness in the decision-making process. One such study, by Lanzetta (1963), compared the effect of different levels of anxiety on students' decision making. He found that highly anxious students needed less information and time than those students of low anxiety in decision making. Also, Lanzetta's study revealed that high aca- demic achievers needed more information and time than low achievers in decision making (Bertsch, 1966). Morell (1962) and Levy (1964) both examined the effects of some subjective factors--habits, values, feelings, etc.--in the decision-making process. Levy stressed the importance of the subjec- tive factors, especially feelings, in decision making. Morell found emotions, values, habits, and health all to have a strong effect on a person's ability to make proper decisions. Studies of Factors Underlying College Choice as Perceived by Students and Parents The limited resources in terms of previous studies related to students' perceptions on the selection of college and of academic major have already been noted. The limited amount of previous research posed difficulties to the researcher in the conduct of this study. From a review of the few studies that were found, the inves- tigator arrived at the following. 31 Stordahl (1970) studied the influence of four factors (Intellectual Emphasis, Practicality, Advice of Others, and Social Emphasis) on college choice, by administering a questionnaire to the fall semester 1966 freshman class at Northern Michigan University. He found that all students groups said that they had given substan- tial emphasis to intellectual considerations in choosing a college, and all felt that the advice of other persons had had little influence upon their decisions. In spite of this, he remarked: In general, students thought that the advice of others had had relatively little influence on their decision to attend NMU [Northern Michigan University]. As may be noted from Table 1, all student groups had the lowest or next-to-lowest mean score on this scale. In individual cases, of course, students perceived the advice of others as a major influence on their choice of a college. Also, although not investigated in this study, it seems likely that subtle influence of other persons, particularly parents, may have more impact on college choice than is readily recognized by students (p. 212). Another study, conducted by Holland (1958), examined how stu- dents explain their college choice. Subjects were grouped by college popularity, college productivity, and sex. The sample was a group of high-scholastic-aptitude students,1 so the outcomes of this study may or may not be generally applicable to high-school seniors of lesser ability. Holland's findings were several. He did not find much difference between the explanations of college choice reported by men and women: both said they selected their colleges because they believed the colleges were the best available or had good schools 1The writer described the scholastic ability of his sample: "Their average scholastic ability, estimated from the Scholastic Aptitude Test, places them in the top 5 percent of the high-school population." 32 or departments in which the students planned to study. But he also said: Along with these similarities there are a number of marked sex differences. Typically, men want to attend colleges which are "close to home, and have good physical facilities." Women are correspondingly less concerned about these factors. Instead, women more frequently want colleges of “academic standing, small size, religious affiliation, and coeducational status." All of these differences are statistically significant (p. 315). In another study of student perceptions of influences on their college decisions, Kerr (1962) found that seniors ranked par- ents first in aiding them with college plans (51%); school coun- selors were second (30%), teachers, third (7%), self, fourth (6%), and college representatives, fifth (5%). Friends were ranked sixth, and relatives were in seventh place. Another study was conducted by Morrison (1968). He looked for the factors that liberal-arts high-school seniors considered to be influential in their choice of college. He found that student freedom was the liberal-arts seniors' top-ranking factor (16% of the group's variance). Morrison said about this factor: The senior wants a college atmosphere in which he can begin to think for himself, find his identity, ascertain and develop his own value system, and experiment socially and sexually within a milieu rich in diversities of nationality, backgrounds, and behaviors (p. 268). Social mobility was the second factor in their college choices (7%). This means that seniors gave much consideration to colleges' reputations and public visibility, the caliber of the faculty, the number of Ph.D's on the faculty, and so on. The third factor that senior students named as an influence in their college choices was dependency (5%). This factor included parental involvement, courses, 33 and a faculty that would not be overly demanding (i.e., would be "easy"). The remaining two factors, personal observation and prac- ticality, received the same percentage (5%) as dependency. Personal observation allowed students to gain impressions of on-campus life, of availability of companionship, and of social interaction with students similar to themselves. Practicality reflected cost and con- venience of accessibility to the college. Also, practicality included lack of scholarly competition, low admission requirements, and accept- able student-faculty relationships. Part of a study by Berdie (1967) sought to measure the gap between students and their parents regarding the college environment by giving the College and University Environment Scales (CUES) to parents of a sample of entering freshmen. In that study, Berdie found that the mean scores of the parents on each of the five scales were comparable to those of their children entering college. He con- cluded that the study showed no generation gap in perceptions toward the college environment. But another study, by Seymour and Richardson (1972), investigated the nature of the relationship between the stu- dents' and parents' perceptions of a large midwestern university. In this study, the two writers used individual students from a large midwestern university and directly compared them to their own parents in relationship to the following major questions they posed: 1. What is the nature of the perceptions of the university held by students and their parents? 2. Is there a significant relationship between the perceptions of the university held by students and those held by their parents? 34 3. Are the differences, if any, related to community size? 4. Are the differences, if any, related to the length of time the student has been at the university? The College Characteristics Index (CCI) was used as an instrument to measure the perceptions of the university held by the students and their parents. The CCI yielded 30 environmental scales, of which 11 factors were associated with characteristics of the psy- chological environment. The psychological environment was broken down into an intellectual and a nonintellectual climate. This study found that parents rated the university above average on the majority of the intellectual factors and average or above on all of the non- intellectual factors. They saw the university providing students with wide opportunities for developing leadership potential and self- assurance in intellectual and nonintellectual areas of campus life. Parents perceived the university as stressing academic excellence in staff and facilities in the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities, as well as setting high standards of academic achievement for its students. In comparing these parental perceptions with the views of their offspring, the university students, a clear differ- ence was found. Whereas parents rated the intellectual area as above average, the students rated it below average. The same hap- pened with the scales in the nonintellectual area. So from this study, one may conclude that a generation gap does seem to exist between the perceptions of a university held by students and by their parents that is worthwhile to study for its reflection in the parents' involvement in students' selection of a college. 35 Hood (1968) offered the view that "information--and studies-- that help match students to colleges which they are likely to find compatible and where they are likely to be successful will be useful to both the individual and society" (p. 4). Finally, most of what has been discussed here about the fac- tors underlying college choice by students and parents can be summar- ized by reviewing a study on that matter by Bowers and Pugh (1973). They found that parents and students appeared to place somewhat dif- ferent levels of importance on different factors related to college choice. Whereas financial, geographical, and academic factors were more important to parents, they were of less concern to the students. But students placed greater importance on social and cultural factors and on informal advice. Some Factors in the Influence of Parents on College and Academic Choices It is necessary to explore and review some of the relevant literature on the particulars of parental influence on the higher- education plans of their offspring. One can observe a number of cases which indicate that the pendulum swings from decisions made in a haphazard manner to choices made under the strong influence and pressure of parents or friends. Parents can be more effective in the college admission- recruiting program when a program that uses the parents' backgrounds and abilities is implemented (Hooper, 1976). The relationship between the college student's choice of major and the occupation of the father and mother is complex. Kelly 36 (1976) attempted to determine whether a relationship existed between family backgrounds and the student's tendency to specialize in dif- ferent subjects. Collier (1938) and Kensall (1957) agreed that following fathers into professions, particularly law and medicine, was a well-known phenomenon. Several researchers have observed that science students tend to come from families with scientific backgrounds (Butcher, 1969). Tillery (1973) agreed that the influence of parents and family was a factor in college choice, but he saw the father's occupation as a less-significant factor in that decision than the general lifestyle of the family, reflected through the parents' values, their interac- tions with their children, and the family's activities outside the home. In a pioneer research project, Kahl (1953) evaluated the effects of parents' social position, measured by the father's socio- economic status, on the educational and occupational aspirations of adolescent boys. He found higher socioeconomic status to be a posi- tive influence on the educational aspirations of siblings. Harrison et a1. (1977) pointed out that the range of parental influence on academic decisions varies from tacit support to strongly expressed desires for students' futures, accompanied by prodding in particular directions. Rehberg and Westby (1967), in a study of the college plans of sophomore boys in Pennsylvania, found that "education-specific" parental influence is, at least for certain p0pulations, the strongest and best indicator of college intentions. This finding was reaffirmed 37 by Sewell and Shah (1968a, 1968b) and Jacobsen (1971). Another study, by Bordau (1960), acknowledged parental encouragement of off- spring to pursue college educations. He found that encouragement from parents did have a direct influence on college aspirations. In this situation, he found that more pressure was placed on the girls than on the boys. The quality of parent-child interaction is measured by the level of communication and quality of time spent together as well as by reliance on parental advice. All of these factors contribute to a determination of the level of influence of the parents on the col- lege choices made by their offspring. These are the influences that we consider to be external pressures (Morris, 1964; Clausen, 1968; Furstenberg, 1971). Other research has shown that the children themselves, in many cases, want assistance and advice of parents on their vocational and college choices (Hurlock, 1964; Venerable, 1974). Some studies have shown that parental concern as to how well the children perform in school has a positive relationship to the manner in which parents encourage the children to attend college (Williams, 1972; Schwarz- weller, 1974). Attitudes toward higher education have changed in the last decade, especially among middle-income families, which, for many reasons, have problems meeting college expenses (Gladieux & Hansen, 1978). A study by Linney (1979) about changing values in higher edu- cation stated: 38 The consequences of changing values toward higher education, should they develop beyond the limited evidence that currently exists, would be many. There would be additional pressures on the government for increased student subsidies. Parents would become increasingly hostile in their dealings with institu- tions and agencies administering student financial aid. . . . Yet, as long as the public continues to demand support for edu- cation and sees education as one of the most worthwhile of pub- lic expenditures, these consequences are unlikely. What is most likely is a continued shifting of the burden of financing higher education from individuals to the federal and state gov- ernments. This represents a changing value toward higher edu- cation whose effects are just beginning to make themselves felt (pp- 7-81- One must conclude from this passage that the family/parental influences associated with socioeconomic status and lifestyle have a strong bearing on the educational aspirations of youth, playing a significant role in determining the ambition of the high-school senior after graduation (Rehberg & Westby, 1967; Clay, 1976). Other investigators have agreed on the significance of the parental role in the college choice. These include Simpson (1962), Brittain (1963), McDill (1965), Trent (1968), Kandel (1969), and Menacker (1975). m The related literature reviewed in this chapter was presented in three separate parts. The first part reviewed literature related to decision making and its relationship to choice of college. Effec- tive decision making is a process that needs time, effort, and com- plete information. In educational decision making, students, especially high-school and college students, showed that they prefer to make their own decisions without getting help from others. 39 The second part reviewed the literature on factors underlying choice of college as perceived by students and parents. It showed that in relation to college selection, students and their parents felt differently about factors related to college selection. Parents gave more importance to financial, geographical, and academic fac- tors than others. Students showed greater concern for social and cultural factors. In the third part, which was on the parental influence on college and major choices, it was shown that parents play a signifi- cant role in this educational decision. Also, the review of litera- ture showed that there was a significant correlation between socioeconomic status and perceived parental influence in that matter. Although most of the previous studies were done in different communities and cultures than the one in which the current research took place, one can say that the main factors influencing college choice and selection of major, identified by those studies, are simi- lar throughout the world. And, although the relevant literature is quite limited, it has provided considerable help to the researcher in designing this study. CHAPTER IV PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY This survey research is an attempt to uncover students' perceptions of parental influence on their choice of college and their selection of field of study at King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia. As mentioned before, this study combines statistical and descriptive methods to analyze the data on students' perceptions gathered by the research questionnaire. This chapter first presents the research questions and hypotheses; then it describes the population and sample used in the study, the survey instrument, and the data collection and analysis. Research Questions This study was undertaken to seek answers to the following research questions: 1. How do male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are I freshman students at King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia per- ceive parental influence on their choice of college and their selec- tion of major; and how is any perceived parental influence related to the students' levels of satisfaction with college and major? 2. 00 male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are fresh- man students at King Abdulaziz Univeristy differ significantly by 40 41 age and college in their perceptions of parental influence on choice of college and of major; and how are any differences reflected in their levels of satisfaction with college and major? 3. Are there significant differences among demographic classifications in the students' perceptions of parental influence on choice of college and of major when male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are freshman students at King Abdulaziz University are classified by differing levels of parental education, social status, and income; and how are any differences reflected in students' levels of satisfaction with college and major? Research Hypgtheses The following nine null hypotheses were tested at the 0.05 level of significance: 1. There is no significant difference between male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are freshman students at King Abdulaziz University in their perceptions of parental influence with regard to (a) choice of college, (b) selection of academic field of study (major), (c) satisfaction with college, and (d) satisfaction with major. 2. There is no significant difference among different age groups of male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are freshman students at King Abdulaziz University in their perceptions of paren- tal influence on (a) college choice, (b) selection of major, (c) satis- faction with college, and (d) satisfaction with major. 42 3. There is no significant difference among different col- leges of male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are freshman students at King Abdulaziz University in their perceptions of paren- tal influence on (a) college choice, (b) major selection, (c) satis- faction with college, and (d) satisfaction with major. 4. When male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are freshman students at King Abdulaziz University are grouped by differ- ing levels of fathers' education, there is no significant difference in student perceptions of parental influence on (a) choice of college, (b) choice of major, (c) satisfaction with college, and (d) satisfac- tion with major. 5. When male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are fresh- man students at King Abdulaziz University are grouped by differing levels of mothers' education, there is no significant difference in student perceptions of parental influence on (a) choice of college, (b) choice of major, (c) satisfaction with college, and (d) satisfac- tion with major. 6. When male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are freshman students at King Abdulaziz University are grouped by differ- ing levels of fathers' social status (as demonstrated by fathers' jobs), there is no significant difference in student perceptions of parental influence on (a) choice of college, (b) choice of major, (c) satisfaction with college, and (d) satisfaction with major. 7. When male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are freshman students at King Abdulaziz University are grouped by differ- ing levels of mothers' social status (as demonstrated by mothers' 43 jobs), there is no significant difference in student perceptions of parental influence on (a) choice of college, (b) choice of major, (c) satisfaction with college, and (d) satisfaction with major. 8. When male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are freshman students at King Abdulaziz University are grouped by differ- ing levels of fathers' income, there is no significant difference in student perceptions of parental influence on (a) choice of college, (b) choice of major, (c) satisfaction with college, and (d) satisfac- tion with major. 9. When male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are freshman students at King Abdulaziz University are grouped by differ- ing levels of mothers' income, there is no significant difference in student perceptions of parental influence on (a) choice of college, (b) choice of major, (c) satisfaction with college, and (d) satisfac- tion with major. Population of the Study The population of this study was composed of Saudi Arabian freshman students-~ma1e and female--at King Abdulaziz University (KAU) in Saudi Arabia. A total of 5,771 freshman students was dis- tributed among the three campuses operated by KAU. Taken from the statistical units at the Offices of Registrar and Admissions at the University, this figure, for the second semester of the academic year 1979-1980, included some non-Saudi Arabian students, male and female. An exact count of Saudi Arabian freshman students was unavailable for the time the researcher conducted this study at KAU during April, May, and June 1980. Table 4.1 clarifies these figures. 44 Table 4.1.--Distribution of the survey population among the three locations of KAU. Total Saudi Arabian Number Used Campus Sex Freshmen Students in the Study Mecca M 2,044 1,326 1,326 F 1,828 1,482 1,482 Jeddah M 2,655 1,930 1.930 F 818 not available 818 Medina M 123 not available 123 F 92 not available 92 Total population = 5,771 It should be noted that this is the last year in which these three campus locations will be under the administration of the KAU. For more details, see Chapter II (the section of KAU). For the present study, the total population figure was set at 5,771. Survey Sample Moser and Kalton (1972) offered the following description of random sampling: "With simple random sampling each possible sample of n_different units has an equal chance of being selected, which also implies that every member of the population has an equal chance of selection into the sample" (p. 81). The researcher used simple random sampling to select the sample for this research. Out of the total population (5,771), the survey questionnaire1 was randomly distributed to a sample of 580 1A full discussion of the research instrument follows in the next section of this chapter. 45 freshman students (about 10% of the total population). According to the responses given by the sample, 432 (n) met the survey criteria selected for this research: 1. A student had Saudi Arabian citizenship. 2. A student had at least one living parent, mother or father, or both. 3. A student answered atleast the first, general information part of the questionnaire, which included the independent variables of this survey: sex, income, education of parents, etc. The method of distributing the questionnaire and collecting the students' responses is represented in the following section on the research instrument. Table 4.2 shows the allocation of the sur- vey sample among the three campus locations of KAU and the number of student responses (n) out of that random sample that were used for the data analysis in the study. Table 4.2.--Allocation of the survey sample among the three campuses. University Sex Total No. of Responses Meeting Location Random Sample Survey Criteria (n) Mecca M 130 91 F 130 94 Jeddah M 130 96 F 100 83 Medina M 50 36 F 40 32 Totals 580 n = 432 46 The Survey Instrument For the purpose of the study, the researcher developed a questionnaire to be distributed to the sample in order to collect research data. The questionnaire-development process involved sev- eral steps. First, a comprehensive review of the related research literature was conducted to gain general background on the different factors that affect students' choice of college and major, and on students' perceptions of the influence of their parents in these choices. Second, research literature on the techniques of question- naire construction was reviewed. Among these works were writings by Oppenheim (1972) about survey methods in social investigation. Finally, the researcher consulted with Dr. Walter F. Johnson, disser- tation and academic advisor; with personnel of the Research Consul- tant Office (RCO) at the College of Education, Michigan State University; and with the other members of his doctoral committee. The questionnaire is composed of three parts and has a total of 43 items. The first part contains 11 items seeking general infor- mation about the students and their parents. This part also seeks data on the independent variables, including student age, college, sex, and parents' education. Thus, Part One is the most important part of the questionnaire; the student must complete it to enable analysis of the relationships of the independent variables alone and with the dependent variables. The second and third parts of the questionnaire contain 16 items each. The second part focuses on the students' perceptions of parental influence on college choice. The third part focuses on 47 students' selection of academic field of study. These two parts of the questionnaire contain two different types of items: 1. The first 12 items in each part are objective statements; the student is asked to respond by selecting a number on a five-point scale known as the Likert-type scale (Oppenheim, 1966). Murphy and Likert (1967) pointed out that If five alternatives have been used, it is necessary to assign values of from one to five with the three assigned to the unde- cided position on each statement. The ONE end is assigned to one extreme of the attitude continuum and the FIVE to the other. This should be done consistently for each of the statements which it is expected will be included in the scale (p. 283). 2. Items 13-16 in Parts Two and Three are subjective. They require written responses. Students' responses to these statements were examined by the researcher and a panel of judges. (Details about this phase follow, in the section on data analysis in this chapter.) This evaluation led to the assignment of one of the gradu- ated ranks of the Likert scale (1-5), as used with the previous objec- tive items. Thus, the responses to both types of items--objective and subjective--can easily be used for statistical analysis. (See Chapter V.) The questionnaire was first developed in English and then translated into Arabic. (Appendix A contains the questionnaire in both English and Arabic, the cover letter, and a letter from the Educational Research Center at the KAU confirming the accuracy of the Arabic translation of the questionnaire.) 48 Validity of the Instrument According to Mosher and Kalton (1972), "validity" is the ability of the survey instrument to measure what it sets out to measure. They pointed out that "the assessment of content validity is essentially a matter of judgment; the judgment may be made by the surveyor or, better, by a team of judges engaged for the purpose" (p. 356). To ensure validity, the questionnaire was developed after reference to current publications and consultation with other scholars. (See previous section on the survey instrument.) Some English copies of the questionnaire were given for comments to several graduate stu- dents-~Saudi Arabian and non-Saudi Arabian--at Michigan State Univer- sity. The same step was repeated with the Arabic translation. In addition, the researcher discussed different aspects and dimensions of the questionnaire development and construction with Saudi Arabian scholars, including Dr. Mahmoud Assadula, Dean of the Education Col- lege at KAU, and Dr. Mohamad Al-Ghamdi, Director of the Educational Research Center in the College of Education at KAU. Based on all of the responses, comments, and suggestions about the questionnaire, the researcher revised several items to make the questionnaire more valid. The final revision of the questionnaire was accepted and approved in design and wording by a group of 12 students (six male and six female) from KAU before it was distributed to the survey sample. The final version was also reviewed and accepted by all the other persons with whom the researcher consulted. 49 Reliability Reliability refers to consistency, to obtaining the same results again. . . . The degree of reliability (consistency) sets limits to the degree of validity possible: validity cannot rise above a certain point if the measure is inconsistent to some degree. On the other hand, if we find that a measure has excellent validity, then it must also be reliable (Oppenheim, 1966, pp. 69-70). For data analysis, the items in Parts Two and Three of the questionnaire were divided into four subscales of the dependent variables on which this study focused: 1. Influences on college choice: items 3-6, 9, 11, and 14—16 of Part Two 2. Students' perceptions of their satisfaction with their college choice: items 1, 2, 7, 8, and 13 of Part Two 3. Influences on major selection: items 3-6, 9, 11, and 14-16 of Part Three 4. Students' perceptions of their satisfaction with their major selection: items 1, 2, 7, 8, and 13 of Part Three To test the reliability of the items contained in the four subscales, the researcher used Cronbach's Alpha, a statistical approach to determining the reliability of a survey instrument. Table 4.3 shows the Alpha Cronbach reliability coefficients for each of the four subscales. The table indicates that these four subscales (dependent variables) have quite high reliability coefficients, which means that the variation between items (within the same subject) is smaller than the variation between subjects. Thus, one can conclude that the research questionnaire has an acceptable level of reliability for the purpose of the research. 50 Table 4.3.--Reliabi1ity of subscales. Alpha Cronbach Reliability b Su scale Coefficients 1. Influence on college choice 0.70 2. Satisfaction with 0 75 college choice ° 3. Influence on major selection 0.67 4. Satisfaction with 0 81 major selection Data Collection To distribute the survey questionnaire, special arrangements were made with some instructors who teach TOO-level courses, which are required of all University freshmen regardless of major. Special arrangements were made with instructors for the male students and with the Women's Section at KAU for the female students. The researcher received the cooperation and supervision of the Educational Research Center along with the permission of the College of Educa- tion of KAU at the Mecca Campus. (A letter granting the cooperation of the Educational Research Center to the researcher granting approval of the survey process is included with the questionnaire in Appen- dix A.) The freshman students attending the selected courses were considered a random sample of the total population of freshman students. The instructors of those courses agreed to distribute the questionnaire 51 to their freshman groups during one hour of their courses' lecture time.1 The advantages to this method of questionnaire distribution were as follows: 1. It gave the same opportunity for response to both male and female students. 2. The percentage of returned responses was very high. Other methods require special kinds of facilities and special methods of ensuring student familiarity, which were not available to the required extent at the time. 3. The time required for distribution and collection of the questionnaire was limited--much shorter than that required for any other method. 4. The expense was lower than with methods which might require mailing. Analysis of Data As previously mentioned, the questionnaire is composed of three parts. Part One has 11 items seeking general information about the background of the student and parents. Responses to the objec- tive items (1-12) in both Parts Two and Three follow the Likert-type scale (1-5) and are easily coded for analysis. Responses to the sub- jective items (13-16) in both Parts Two and Three require a: compli- cated process of organizing into the same scale as the objective 1These questionnaire group tests showed that an average of about 35 minutes was required to complete the questionnaire responses. 52 items. The following technique was used: A panel of judges1 read the subjective items and the students' responses. Each reader ranked each item response by referring to criteria set up for this transla- tion. The average of the three judges' ranks for each item was the final figure used for the statistical analysis. The criteria used for the judges' appraisal of the subjective items were the same as those used for the Likert-scale ranking of objective items. (For a copy of the criteria used by the panel of judges to transfer the students' writings to the five ranks, see Appendix A.) Some of the comments taken from the students' written responses to the subjective items are discussed in the descriptive- analysis section of the next chapter. For the statistical data analysis, all of the students' responses on the questionnaire were punched onto cards, one card for each subject, by the computer analysts at the Michigan State Computer Center. Multivariate analysis (MANOVA) was used for analysis of the data gathered by the questionnaire. A significance level of 0.05 was set for rejection or nonrejection of the null hypotheses. For the data analysis, it was necessary to separate the ques- tionnaire items by four dependent variables: college choice, major selection, students' satisfaction with college, and students' major satisfaction. These four variable groups were related to the students lTwo persons besides the researcher: one was Mr. A. H. Aidarous, M.A. in Psychology, a lecturer in the College of Education, KAU, in Mecca; the other was the researcher's wife, Samiha, a gradu- ate student (Masters) in the College of Education, MSU. 53 perceptions of parental influence. The first part of the question- naire contained 11 items, which examine the following independent variables: students' sex, age, college, and parents' education, social status, and income. Part Two of the survey questionnaire con- tained 16 items, which focus on students' perceptions of parental influence on college choice and the effect of that influence on the students' satisfaction with the chosen college. In this part, nine items (3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14, 15, and 16) were used to measure the students' perceptions of parental influence on college choice; five items (1, 2, 7, 8, and 13) were used to measure the students' percep- tions of their satisfaction with the college as a reflection of paren- tal influence on students' college choice. A multivariate analysis of frequencies (MANOVA) was performed to determine the relationship between dependent and independent variables in Part One. Items 10 and 12 in Part Two were not included with the other items; rather, these two items were analyzed on an individual basis as part of the data analysis to test the research hypotheses. Data analysis of Part Three parallels that of Part Two. Part Three, however, focused on students' perceptions of parental influence on selection of academic field of study (major) and students' satisfaction with chosen major. The same data-analysis procedures as used in Part Two were used in Part Three. As mentioned before, the design of Parts Two and Three was based on a Likert-type scale (1-5). This type of scale was used with both the subjective and the objective items of Parts Two and Three. Number 1 on the five-point scale represents strong disagreement; 54 Number 5 stands for strong agreement. Numbers 2, 3, and 4 represent graduated rankings between the two ends of the scale. Thus, for items regarding parental influence on choice of college or major, if students' responses fell into the first posi- tion of the five-point scale, strongly disagree, this meant that the students perceived no parental influence on college or major choice. On the other hand, if responses fell into the fifth position, strongly agree, this meant that students did perceive parental influence in these matters. The same interpretation was applied to the items regarding students' satisfaction. Number 1 indicated that students were com- pletely dissatisfied with their college or major choices, whereas Number 5 showed that students were completely satisfied with their college or major choices. Table 4.4 presents the means and standard deviations for the whole survey sample (432) on the four subscales (four dependent vari- ables) of parental influence and effect perceived by the students on college choice, major selection, students' satisfaction with college, and students' satisfaction with major. Summary This chapter discussed the procedure and methodology used in the study to uncover the parental influence on sons' and daughters' choice of college and selection of academic field of study (major). In addition, the study also examined how parental influence affects students' satisfaction with the college and the major field chosen. 55 The questionnaire responses from a random sample of 432 male and female freshman students at King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia were analyzed in the study. Table 4.4.--Means and standard deviations of the dependent variables. Dependent Variable as Perceigggpb: Survey Mean gzgggiggn " 53'531i292"§i.3?2§e 2.83 0.72 2‘ 3332.131 121223132 2.66 0.65 3. atgge251sgglsfaction 3.76 0.88 4. Student satisfaction 3.87 0.89 with major The questionnaire--research instrument-~was developed by the researcher after in-depth research, consultation, and pilot studies, to give the survey the required validity and reliability. The ques- tionnaire was developed in English and then translated into Arabic by the researcher. The Educational Research Center at the College of Education, Mecca Campus of King Abdulaziz University, checked the accuracy of the Arabic translation by comparing it with the original English version of the questionnaire. The Research Center also cooperated with and assisted the investigator in administering the survey instrument. 56 The statistical strategy of multivariate frequency analysis (MANOVA) was used to analyze the data (the responses to the survey sample). To test the nine null hypotheses, a significance level of 0.05 was set. CHAPTER V PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA This chapter presents the analysis of the survey data gathered from the responses of the study sample to the research ques- tionnaire. Responses from a total of 432 subjects were used for this analysis. These subjects consisted of 225 male students (52.1% of the total sample) and 207 female students (47.9%). The multivariate frequency analysis (MANOVA) was used to test the following research hypotheses with regard to the students' perceptions of parental influ- ence on college choice and major selection, and students' satisfac- tion with college and major fields. The nine hypotheses, tested at the significance level of 0.05, apply to male and female Saudi Arabian citizens who are freshman students at King Abdulaziz University. 1. There is no significant difference between male and female students in perceived parental influence on these decisions and in satisfaction with them. 2. There is no significant difference among different age groups of students. 3. There is no significant difference among students enrolled in different colleges. 4. There is no significant difference among students whose fathers have received different levels of education. 57 58 5. There is no significant difference among students whose mothers have received different levels of education. 6. There is no significant difference among students whose fathers differ in social status (as demonstrated by fathers' jobs). 7. There is no significant difference among students whose mothers differ in social status (as demonstrated by mothers' jobs). 8. There is no significant difference among students whose fathers differ in income level. 9. There is no significant difference among students whose mothers differ in income level. The data analysis tests the null hypotheses at the 0.05 sig- nificance level. An interpretation accompanies each analysis of data.1 Comparison of Results of the Objective Versus the Subjective Items Before discussing the hypotheses tests, it is appropriate first to compare briefly the survey sample responses for the two dif- ferent kinds of questionnaire items--objective and subjective--on Parts Two and Three. This discussion compares the students' responses on the four dependent variables (subscales) of parental influence. Is there any significant difference between their responses to the objec- tive items and their responses to the subjective items when both refer to the same variable? Did male and female students differ in this matter? If so, how? This discussion also gives a general idea of how 1For a table of frequencies and means for responses to each single item of the survey sample, see Appendix C. 59 male and female students perceived the influence of their parents upon their choice of college and major selection, and how that influence affects their satisfaction with their college as well as with their major. The comparison between the overall mean of the objective items and the overall mean of the subjective items for the first sub- scale, "parental influence on college choice," showed that for male as well as for female students, there was a clear difference between responses to the different types of items (subjective and objective), but this gap seemed to be wider with the responses of male students than with the female students' answers. For the objective items in Part Two (parental influence on college choice), the mean of the male students' responses was about 2.85 on the 1-5 response scale, with "1" representing "strongly disagree” (meaning there was no parental influence) while "5" is "strongly agree" (meaning there was heavy parental influence). However, the mean of the males' responses for the subjective items was around 3.45, which means that in their responses to the subjective items, male students perceived more parental influence than they did on the objective items. For the female students, the mean response to the objective items on parental influence on college choice was about 3.0. For the subjective items it was almost 3.35, indicating a higher degree of parental influence on females' college choice than in the responses to the objective items. The gap here is less than in the male stu- dents' responses. 60 The same result was also found in students' responses to the objective and subjective items in Part Three of the questionnaire, relating to parental influence on major selection. The mean of the subjective items was higher than the mean of the objective items. Male students again showed a wider gap--objective mean about 2.70 and subjective mean 3.60--than shown in responses of the female stu- dents--objective mean 2.80 and subjective mean about 3.50. For the third and fourth subscales, the parental influence on students' satisfaction with their colleges (third) and with their majors (fourth), the differences between survey responses to the objective items and the subjective items were not significant, among both male and female students' responses. On the third subscale-- college satisfaction--the mean of male students' responses to the objective items was around 3.60 on the 1-5 scale where “1" means "strongly disagree" (meaning completely dissatisfied with college [Part Two] or major [Part Three]) while "5" is "strongly agree" (satisfied with college [Part Two] or major [Part Three]). The mean of the males' subjective responses was almost 3.55. For satisfaction with major, the mean of the male responses to the objective items was about 3.85, and for the subjective items it was around 3.95. The female students had a mean of 3.90 for their responses to the objective items on satisfaction with college, and on the subjec- tive items they had a mean of 3.65. The mean of females' responses to objective items on satisfaction with major, the fourth subscale, was around 3.85, compared with 3.90 for their responses to the subjective items. 61 Taking the responses to objective and subjective items together, one can conclude from the foregoing discussion that male and female students perceived almost the same degree of parental influence (which seemed to be quite high) on their college choice and the selection of their major. Although parental influence appeared obvious in the perceptions of both boys and girls, that influence did little to diminish the satisfaction level of both males and females with their colleges as well as their majors. This result might also allow us to conclude, in a broad sense, that although there was some degree of parental influence upon the boys and girls in their choice of college and of major, students of both sexes seemed to show little opposition to that influence over their educa- tional choices. Before considering the testing of the hypotheses, it should be noted that multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA), the statistical analysis strategy used in the research, was applied to the survey responses to the objective and subjective items together, since both types of items had been ranked on the same scale, as explained pre- viously in Chapter IV in the discussion of the research analysis process. The Hypothesis Tests Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 1 states that there is no significant difference between KAU freshman male and female students' perceptions of parental 62 influence on college choice, selection of major, students' satisfac- tion with college, and students' satisfaction with major. The analysis produced a Wilks multivariate F-test statistic equal to 3.65; it was significant at the 0.05 level (p = 0.00618). Thus, at least one of the four subscales met the level of signifi- cance. Table 5.1 shows the univariate F-test, df = 1430. Table 5.l.--Univariate F-tests (df = 1430). 5”bsca‘es Significance (Dependent Variables) F of F 1' Efirfifll‘figlflgfiflge 4-6609 0.03m 2' Egrggjgl 13333:: 3-5556 0.0600 3. St:fie2§s{eagtisfaction 3.5225 0.0611 4. Students' satisfaction 0.3092 0.5785 with major *Significant at the 0.05 significance level. It is clear that parental influence on college choice was significant at the 0.05 level (p = 0.0313). Table 5.2 compares the two different groups of survey sample students (male and female) on the four subscales to examine whether one sex group perceives greater parental influence on college and major choice, and also compares male and female satisfaction with 63 college and major choice. Means and standard deviations of male and female students' perceptions for the four dependent variables are presented. Table 5.2.--Means and standard deviations of male and female students' perceptions of the four subscales. Subscales Standard (Dependent Variables) Sex N Mean Deviation 1. Parental influence on M 225 2.76 0.74 college choice F 207 2.91 0.68 2. Parental influence on M 225 2.59 0.64 major selection F 207 2.71 0.65 3. Students' satisfaction M 225 3.69 0.85 with college F 207 3.84 0.90 4. Students' satisfaction M 225 3.90 0.82 with major F 207 3.85 0.95 Female students appear to perceive slightly more influence by their parents on college choice and selection of academic field of study than male students. A comparison of the effect of parental influence on students' satisfaction with college and major shows that female students also have a slightly higher degree of satisfaction with their college choice than males. But in regard to satisfaction with major choice, male students reveal a slightly greater level of satisfaction than females. A comparison of male and female responses to four specific survey items allows a closer examination of the issue of perceptions of parental influence with regard to the four dependent variables. 64 Items 10 and 12 in Parts Two and Three ask the following questions. Item 10 asks the students if they agree or disagree that parents put more pressure and influence on daughters than on sons regarding college choice (Part Two) and selection of major (Part Three). Item 12 asks students if they agree or disagree that parents sufficiently check their sons' and daughters' satisfaction with col- lege (Part Two) and with major (Part Three) to determine whether parental influence benefited the students. Male and female responses to these four items were compared for means and standard deviations. Table 5.3 presents and analysis of male and female survey sample responses to the four items.1 Table 5.3.--Means and standard deviations of male and female responses to survey items 10 and 12 in Parts Two and Three. Questionnaire S N M Standard Item Part ex ean Deviation 10 Two M 225 3.14 1.30 F 207 2.73 1.49 10 Three M 225 3.00 1.19 F 207 2.60 1.37 12 Two M 225 2.85 1.35 F 207 2.50 1.36 12 Three M 225 2.70 1.31 F 207 2.68 1.35 1 For means and standard deviations of male and female sur- vey sample responses to each item of Parts Two and Three of the research questionnaire, see Appendix C. 65 A comparison of the means of student responses to Item 10 in Part Two (about college choice) and in Part Three (about major selection) reveals that both sex groups perceive greater parental efforts to influence daughters' college choice and major selection; but female students' agreement appears less strong than male agree- ment on this issue. A comparison of the means of student responses to Item 12 in each part appears to suggest that although both sex groups disagree that parents sufficiently follow up on their off- springs' satisfaction with college and major, females' disagreement is somewhat stronger. Since one of the four subscales (dependent variables) of Hypothesis 1 meets the standard of an 0.05 level of significance (see Table 5.1), this hypothesis would be rejected. The data analy- sis proves a significant male and female student perception of paren- tal influence on college choice. Hypothesis 2 The second hypothesis states that there is no significant difference among the perceptions of freshman KAU students of differ- ent age groups of parental influence and its effect on (a) college choice, (b) major selection, (c) students' satisfaction with college, and (d) students' satisfaction with major. Responses to the random survey samples were categorized into five age groups. Table 5.4 summarizes the data analysis on the five categories of age groups. The table shows that the most frequent age code was group code three, students aged 19 and 20. 66 Table 5.4.--Frequencies and percentages for the distribution of survey sample members' ages among the five age groups. Students aged less than 17 l 1 0.2 Students aged 17—18 2 50 11.6 Students aged 19—20 3 236 54.6 Students aged 21-22 4 100 23.1 Students aged more than 22 5 45 10.4 Totals 432 100.0% Data were analyzed by means of the multivariate Wilks F-test. The results of 1.29 is not significant at the 0.05 level (p = 0.19328). Table 5.5 presents the univariate F-tests (with 4,427 degrees of freedom) for the four subscales. It is clear that none of the four subscales meet the standard for significance (the 0.05 level). Thus, Hypothesis 2 cannot be rejected. Table 5.5.--Univariate F-test with 4,427 degrees of freedom. Subscales F Significance (Dependent Variables) of F 1. Parental influence on college choice 1'2323 0'2964 2. Parental influence on 2.3305 0.0553 major selection 3. Students' satisfaction with college 0.6344 0.6382 4. Students' satisfaction 1.2170 0.3029 with major 67 Table 5.5, a specific comparison of the five student age group responses to the four subscales, is shown on the preceding page. Table 5.6 represents the means and standard deviations of the responses of the five student age groups with regard to parental influence on college choice. Table 5.7 gives the same analysis for students' major selection. Table 5.8 shows this analysis for the effect of parental influence on students' satisfaction with college. Table 5.9 presents the results for students' satisfaction with major. Table 5.6.--Means and standard deviations of the responses of the five student age groups on parental influence on college choice. Age Group Code N Mean 323?:ITgn Under 17 l l 2.43 0.00 17-18 2 50 2.83 0.77 19-20 3 236 2.88 0.69 21-22 4 100 2.71 0.75 Over 22 5 45 2.76 0.65 Entire sample 432 2.82 0.71 Table 5.7.--Means and standard deviations of responses of the five student age groups on parental influence on major selection. Age Group Code N Mean DESTgtign Under 17 l 1 2.77 0.00 17-18 2 50 2.75 0.68 19-20 3 236 2.72 0.63 21-22 4 100 2.56 0.64 Over 22 5 45 2.46 0.63 Entire sample 432 2.65 0.64 68 Comparing the overall means for parental influence on college choice and major selection, it seemed that college choice was slightly more influenced than was major selection. Table 5.8.--Means and standard deviations of responses of the five student age groups on the effect of parental influence on students' satisfaction with college. Age Group Code N Mean 3:3?giggn Under 17 1 1 3.60 0.00 17-18 2 50 3.68 0.85 19-20 3 236 3.76 0.90 21-22 4 100 3.83 0.80 Over 22 5 45 3.60 0.90 Entire sample 432 3.75 0.88 Even though students perceived some degree of parental influ- ence on college choice as well as major selection, their level of satisfaction with their colleges was high. Table 5.9.--Means and standard deviations of responses of the five student age groups on the effect of parental influence on students' satisfaction with major. Age Group Code N Mean ngggzign Under 17 l l 5.00 0.00 17-18 2 50 3.77 0.91 19-20 3 236 3.85 0.91 21-22 4 100 3.98 0.72 Over 22 5 45 3.74 1.04 Entire sample 432 3.87 0.89 69 The students' satisfaction with major seemed to be slightly higher than their satisfaction with college. The results of the data analysis to test for significant differences indicate that Hypothesis 2 should not be rejected. Hypothesis 3 This hypothesis states that there is no significant differ- ence among freshman students at the different colleges of KAU and their perceptions of parental influence and effect on (a) college choice, (b) major selection, (c) students' satisfaction with college, and (d) students' satisfaction with major. The random sample represents the total research population of Saudi Arabian freshman students attending the eight colleges of KAU. Table 5.10 illustrates how the survey sample represents these eight colleges. Table 5.lO.--Distribution of college subsamples within the total survey sample (men and women). 333:9 Wad 3:22:23. 1 Education (Mecca) 124 28.7 2 Islamic Law (Sharia) (Mecca) 63 14.6 3 Arts and Humanities (Jeddah) 47 10.9 4 Economic and Business Admin- 58 13.4 istration (Jeddah) 5 Engineering (Jeddah) 19 4.4 6 Science (Jeddah) 40 9.3 7 Medicine (Jeddah) 13 3.0 8 Education (Medina) 68 15.7 Total sample 432 100.0% 70 The data analysis result, using the multivariate Wilks F-test, is 4.32. It is significant at the level of 0.05 (p = .00001). This means that at least one of the four subscales met the 0.05 level of significance. Table 5.11 reports the univariate F-tests (with 7,424 degrees of freedom) to enable comparisons of significance among the four sub- scales. Table 5.ll.--Univariate F-tests (with 7,424 degrees of freedom) of student responses from the eight colleges. Subscales F Significance (Dependent Variables) of F 1. Parental influence on * college choice 5'9887 0'000] 2. Parental influence on 3.1320 0.003]* selection of major 3. Effect of parental influence on students' satisfaction 5.0377 0.0001* with college 4. Effect of parental influence on students' satisfaction 2.7479 0.0083* with major *Significant at the 0.05 level. Student responses to all four dependent variables meet the standard for significance. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is rejected. Tables 5.12 through 5.26 represent specific data analyses for each subscale by college. They are shown to clarify the comparison 71 of differences among the eight college groups. Each one of the four dependent variables (subscales) is represented separately. Since the univariate F-tests indicate that there were sig- nificant differences among the eight colleges with regard to the four dependent variables, planned comparison was used to determine the sig- nificance of the differences among the eight colleges regarding students' perceptions of parental influence on the four subscales: college choice, major selection, students' satisfaction with colleges, and students' satisfaction with their majors. Three different types of planned comparisons between colleges were made, as follows: 1. Paired comparisons of each one of the colleges with each other college. A series of 28 different comparison pairs was used to cover all possible pairs of colleges. To clarify this point, Table 5.12 lists the 28 different comparison pairs. Each college is represented by its number. Table 5.12.--The different possible pairwise comparisons between eight colleges. 1 vs. 2 2 vs. 3 3 vs. 4 4 vs. 5 5 vs. 6 6 vs. 7 7 vs. 8 1 vs. 3 2 vs. 4 3 vs. 5 4 vs. 6 5 vs. 7 6 vs. 8 1 vs. 4 2 vs. 5 3 vs. 6 4 vs. 7 5 vs. 8 1 vs. 5 2 vs. 6 3 vs. 7 4 vs. 8 1 vs. 6 2 vs. 7 3 vs. 8 1 vs. 7 2 vs. 8 1 vs. 8 72 It should be noted that out of all these possible compari- sons, only those that showed the 0.05 level of significance will be discussed. 2. Comparisons between groups of colleges versus other groups. A planned comparison was made between one group, colleges 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 (those colleges that have enrollment of male and female students [not mixed]), and another group, colleges 4, 5, and 6 (in which only male students are enrolled). The comparison was made to see if there were any significant differences between the two groups of colleges regarding parental influence on all four subscales: college choice, major selection, students' satisfaction with college, and students' satisfaction with major. 3. A planned comparison between colleges by campus location to find any significant differences in parental influence on the four subscales among the three different campus locations of KAU. Thus, a comparison was made between colleges at the Mecca campus versus the colleges at the Jeddah campus, between colleges in Mecca and the col- lege in Medina, and between the colleges in Jeddah and the college in Medina. In the following discussion of the planned comparisons, each of the four dependent variables (college choice, major selection, students' satisfaction with college, students' satisfaction with major) will be reviewed separately. College choice.--Before making comparisons among the colleges with regard to the first dependent variable, college choice, it is 73 appropriate to consider the list of means and standard deviations of responses of students at each of the colleges. Table 5.13 sets forth this 1ist. Table 5.13.--Parenta1 influence on college choice: means and standard deviations of the responses from the different colleges of KAU. Group . Standard Code College Name and Location N Mean Deviation 1 Education (Mecca) 124 2.98 0.65 Sharia (Mecca) 63 2.96 0.68 Arts and Humanities 4 Economic and Business Administration (Jeddah) 58 2'48 0'7] 5 Engineering (Jeddah) 19 2.55 0.71 6 Science (Jeddah) 40 2.60 0.66 7 Medicine (Jeddah) 13 2.67 0.64 8 Education (Medina) 68 3.06 0.73 Entire sample 432 2.82 0.71 Pairwise planned comparison showed that there were signifi- cant differences between college 1 (Education, Mecca) and college 4 (Economic and Business), between college 2 (Sharia) and college 4, and between college 8 (Education, Medina) and college 4. These pairwise comparisons showed that students at college 4 (Economic and Business) perceived the lowest level of parental influence on college choice, compared with students at colleges 1, 2, and 8. The comparisons between college 1 (Education, Mecca) and college 3 (Arts and Humani- ties), and between college 2 (Sharia) and college 3, showed that 74 students at college 3 felt significantly less parental influence than students at both colleges 1 and 2, and that college 2 showed less parental influence than college 1. Table 5.14 summarizes these com- parisons. The second planned comparison was between a group composed of colleges 1 (Education, Mecca), 2 (Sharia), 3 (Arts and Humanities), 7 (Medicine), and 8 (Education, Medina), the five colleges that have enrollment of males and females (not mixed), and a group composed of colleges 4 (Economic and Business), 5 (Engineering), and 6 (Science), the three colleges that have only male students. The comparison indicated that there was a significant difference among those two groups for the first subscale, college choice, as well as for the second subscale, which will be discussed later. The significant dif- ference found by planned comparison between the two college groups indicates that students at colleges 4, 5, and 6, which have only male students, felt less parental influence on college choice, as a group, than did students in the other college group (colleges 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8). Table 5.15 summarizes the comparison. The third comparison was between each of the three campus locations of KAU (Mecca, Jeddah, Medina). The planned comparison showed that there were significant differences among each pair of campus locations except between the campus in Mecca and the campus in Medina regarding parental influence on college choice. Comparison of the significant differences indicated that although the colleges at the campus in Jeddah were significantly different from the colleges either in Mecca or in Medina, regarding the students' responses on parental influence on college choice, the students at the Jeddah 75 Table 5.14.--Result of pairwise planned comparison between colleges 1, 2, and 8 vs. college 4, and between college 2 vs. college 3, on college choice (first subscale). CONTRAST COEFFICIENT MATRIX, COLLEGE GROUPSa Contrasts l 2 3 4 5 6 9 Contrast 1: college 1 -l.0 0 0 1.0 0 0 0 vs. college 4 Contrast 2: college 2 0 -1 0 1.0 0 0 0 vs. college 4 Contrast 3: college 8 0 0 O 1.0 O 0 -1.0 vs. college 4 Contrast 4: college 1 1.0 0 -1.0 0 0 0 0 vs. college 3 Contrast 5: college 2 0 l -l.0 0 0 0 0 vs. college 3 COMPARISON RESULTS Value of Contrasts Comparison 5. Error t-value df t Prob. Contrast 1 -0.4942 0.1095 -4.5124 424 0.001* Contrast 2 -O.4777 0.1253 -3.8126 424 0.001* Contrast 3 -0.5747 0.1231 -4.6697 424 0.001* Contrast 4 0.3318 0.1291 2.2851 424 0.013* Contrast 5 0.3152 0.1327 2.3750 424 0.018* *Significant at 0.05 level. aGroup l = Education (Mecca), Group 2 = Sharia, Group 3 Arts & Humanities, Group 4 = Economics, Group 5 = Engineering, Group 6 Science, Group 7 = Medical, and Group 8 = Education (Medina). 76 Table 5.15.--Resu1t of planned comparison between colleges 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 as a group and colleges 4, 5, and 6 as a group for parental influence on college choice (first subscale). CONTRAST COEFFICIENT MATRIX, COLLEGE GROUPSa Contrasts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Contrast: colleges 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 1.2 1.2 1.2 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 1.2 1.2 vs. colleges 4, 5, 6 COMPARISON RESULT Value of Comparison 5. Error t-value df t Prob. 1.9277 0.5228 3.6874 424 0.001* *Significant at 0.05 level. aGroup i = Education (Mecca), Group 2 = Sharia, Group 3 = & Humanities, Group 4 = Economics, Group 5 = Engineering, Group 6 Science, Group 7 = Medical, and Group 8 = Education (Medina). Arts campus showed less influence by parents on college choice than at the other two campuses; next were the responses of the students in Mecca, and last, which showed the greatest influence by parents, were the students at the Medina campus. Table 5.16 summarizes that planned comparison between the campuses. The same comparisons as were done for college choice, the first dependent variable, were also done with the other three subscales, parental influence on major selection, students' satisfaction with college, and students' satisfaction with majors. 77 Table 5.16.--P1anned comparison between the three different campus locations of KAU for the first subscale, parental influ— ence on college choice. CONTRAST COEFFICIENT MATRIX, COLLEGE GROUPSa Contrasts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Contrast 1: Mecca, colleges 1, 2 vs. Jeddah, colleges -2.5 -2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Contrast 2: Mecca, colleges 1, 2 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 -1.0 vs. Medina, college 8 Contrast 3: gfdgf“; °°"eges 3’ 4. o o 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 -5.0 vs. Medina, college 8 COMPARISON RESULTS Value of Contrasts Comparison S. Error t-value df t Prob. Contrast 1 -l.8994 0.4030 -4.7126 424 .001* Contrast 2 -0.0887 0.0990 -O.8957 424 .371 Contrast 3 -2.3429 0.5156 -4.5444 424 .001* *Significant at 0.05. aGroup 1 = Education (Mecca), Group 2 = Sharia, Group 3 = & Humanities, Group 4 = Economics, Group 5 = Engineering, Group 6 Science, Group 7 = Medical, and Group 8 = Education (Medina). Arts 78 ngpr selection.--Before discussing differences among the eight colleges at KAU regarding parental influence on major selections, found through three different planned comparisons, it is appropriate to indicate the means and standard deviations of each college on this subscale, major selection. Table 5.17 presents the means and standard deviations of the survey responses on parental influence on major selection. It should be noted that the responses were ranked on the 1-5 scale, with "1" indicating little or no parental influence and "5" indicating parental influence. Table 5.17.--Means and standard deviations for parental influence on major selection by colleges. Egggp College Name and Location N Mean ngggiign 1 Education (Mecca) 124 2.79 0.64 Sharia (Mecca) 63 2.85 0.62 Arts and Humanities (Jeddah) 47 2.63 0.59 4 Economic and Business Administration (Jeddah) 58 2.45 0.65 5 Engineering (Jeddah) 19 2.46 0.54 6 Science (Jeddah) 40 2.58 0.55 7 Medicine (Jeddah) 13 2.65 0.57 8 Education (Medina) 68 2.54 0.75 Entire sample 432 2.65 0.64 79 The first pairwise planned comparison showed college 4 (Economic and Business Administration) to differ significantly from college 1 (Education, Mecca) and college 2 (Sharia), but not signifi- cantly with the others, including college 8 (Education, Medina), which showed a significant difference in college choice, the first subscale. College 4 indicated the least parental influence on major selection of all the colleges, with this difference reaching the 0.05 level of significance in the comparisons with college 1 and college 2. Another significant difference was found in contrasting college 2 (Sharia) with college 8 (Education, Medina)--the college of Sharia indicated more parental influence on major selection than the college of Education (Medina). Table 5.18 presents a summary of the pair- wise comparisons, indicating the levels of significance of the differ- ences. The second planned comparison was between colleges 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8, which have male and female students (not mixed), and col- leges 4, 5, and 6, which include only male students. The comparison showed that parental influence on major selection was significantly different among these two groups. It showed that the colleges that have only male students perceive less parental influence on major selection than those that have both males and females. A summary of the comparisons is presented in Table 5.19. The third planned comparison was between the different col- lege locations of KAU. The comparison was done to see if there was any significant difference between the college in Mecca and the college in Jeddah, between Mecca and Medina, and between Jeddah and Medina. 80 Table 5.18.--Pairwise planned comparison between colleges 1 and 2 and college 4 showing significant differences between the colleges regarding parental influence on major selection (second subscale). CONTRAST COEFFICIENT MATRIX, COLLEGE GROUPSa Contrasts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Contrast 1: college 1 -1.0 0 0 1.0 O O 0 0 vs. college 4 Contrast 2: college 2 0 -1.0 O 1.0 O 0 0 0 vs. college 4 Contrast 3: college 2 0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 -l.0 vs. college 8 COMPARISON RESULTS Value of Contrasts Comparison 5. Error t-value df t Prob. Contrast 1 -0.3483 0.1020 -3.4150 424 0.001* Contrast 2 -0.3983 0.1167 -3.4136 424 0.001* Contrast 3 0.3008 0.1121 2.6829 424 0.008* *Significant at 0.05 level. aGroup 1 = Education (Mecca), Group 2 = Sharia, Group 3 = & Humanities, Group 4 = Economics, Group 5 = Engineering, Group 6 Science, Group 7 = Medical, and Group 8 = Education (Medina). Arts 81 Table 5.19.--P1anned comparison between colleges 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 (boys and girls) and colleges 4, 5, and 6 (boys only) regarding parental influence on major selection. CONTRAST COEFFICIENT MATRIX, COLLEGE GROUPSa Contrast 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Contrast: colleges 1, 2,3, 7,8 1.2 1.2 1.2 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 1.2 1.2 vs. colleges 4, 5, 6 COMPARISON RESULT Value of Comparison S. Error t-value df t Prob. 1.1827 0.4868 2.4293 424 0.016* *Significant at 0.05 level. aGroup 1 = Education (Mecca), Group 2 = Sharia, Group 3 = & Humanities, Group 4 = Economics, Group 5 = Engineering, Group 6 Science, Group 7 = Medical, and Group 8 = Education (Medina). Arts The comparison found that there were significant differences between the colleges in Mecca and the colleges in Jeddah, and also between the colleges in Mecca and the college in Medina--a difference that did not appear in the comparison for the first subscale, college choice. The students in Jeddah perceived less parental influence on major choice than did the students at the other campuses; they were followed by the students at the Medina campus, and the greatest parental influence on major selection was perceived by the students at Mecca. The comparison also showed no significant difference between the college in Jeddah and the college in Medina with regard 82 to parental influence on major selection. Table 5.20 presents a statistical summary of that planned comparison between campuses. Table 5.20.--P1anned comparison of the three different campus loca- tions of KAU regarding parental influence on major selection (second subscale). CONTRAST COEFFICIENT MATRIX, COLLEGE GROUPSa Contrasts l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Contrast 1: Mecca, colleges 1, 2 vs. Jeddah, colleges -2.5 -2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Contrast 2: Mecca, colleges 1, 2 0.5 0.0 0 0 O 0 0 —1.0 vs. Medina, college 8 Contrast 3: g‘fdgf“; ““99953’4’ o o 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 -5.0 vs. Medina, college 8 COMPARISON RESULTS Value of Contrasts Comparison S. Error t-value df t Prob. Contrast 1 -1.3291 0.3753 -3.5410 424 0.001* Contrast 2 0.2758 0.0922 2.9907 424 0.003* Contrast 3 0.0501 0.4801 0.1043 424 0.917 *Significant at 0.05 level. aGroup 1 = Education (Mecca), Group 2 = Sharia, Group 3 & Humanities, Group 4 = Economics, Group 5 = Engineering, Group Science, Group 7 = Medical, and Group 8 = Education (Medina). Arts 03 83 Students' satisfaction with their college.--The means and standard deviations of students' responses by college regarding their perception of how parental influence affected their college satisfac- tion (the third subscale) are the first items of data mentioned here, since they were relied on heavily. Table 5.21 presents the data. It should be noted that the means were developed from the means of survey sample responses on a 1-5 scale where "1" indicated the smallest degree of satisfaction with college, while "5" indicated the strongest satisfaction with college. Table 5.21.--The effect of parental influence on student satisfaction with college: means and standard deviations of students' responses from the different colleges of KAU. 3:32p College Name and Location N Mean DESTgETgn Education (Mecca) 124 3.64 0.90 Sharia (Mecca) 63 4.13 0.74 Arts and Humanities (Jeddah) 47 3.85 0.85 4 Economic and Business Administration (Jeddah) 58 3.82 0.84 5 Engineering (Jeddah) 19 3.97 0.71 6 Science (Jeddah) 40 3.80 0.90 7 Medicine (Jeddah) 13 4.20 0.56 8 Education (Medina) 68 3.35 0.86 Entire sample 432 3.75 0.88 The first planned comparison was the pairwise comparison for significant differences in student satisfaction with college among the eight colleges. The comparison showed significant differences 84 between college 7 (Medicine) and both college 8 (Education, Medina) and college 1 (Education, Mecca). There were significant differences between college 2 (Sharia) and both college 1 and college 8. The planned comparison indicated that the College of Medicine (7) had the highest degree of student satisfaction, as indicated by the responses of the survey sample rep- resenting the freshman students at KAU. The College of Sharia (2) followed the College of Medicine (7) in the degree of student satis— faction. The lowest degree of student satisfaction was shown at the College of Education in Medina (8); the second lowest was at the College of Education in Mecca (1). Another significant difference in student satisfaction with college was found between college 7 (Medicine) and college 4 (Economic and Business Administration). The results of these pairwise compari- sons allow one to conclude that parental influence had a great effect on the dissatisfaction of students in both Colleges of Education at KAU (Mecca as well as in Medina). Table 5.22 presents a summary of the statistical analysis of the pairwise planned comparisons that showed differences at the 0.05 level of significance, students' satisfaction with their colleges. The second planned comparison was between colleges 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8, which have male and female students (not mixed) and colleges 4, 5, and 6, which have only male students. Although the same comparison showed significant differences between the two groups on both the first and the second subscale (college choice and major selection), 85 Table 5.22.--Statistica1 analysis of pairwise planned comparisons between various colleges that showed differences signifi- cant at the 0.05 level regarding parental influence on students' satisfaction with their colleges. CONTRAST COEFFICIENT MATRIX, COLLEGE GROUPSa Contrasts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Contrast 1: college 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 -l.O 1.0 vs. college 8 Contrast 2: college 7 -l.0 0 0 0 0 O 1.0 0 vs. college 1 Contrast 3: college 2 0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 -l.0 vs. college 8 Contrast 4: college 2 -1.0 1.0 0 O 0 0 0 0 vs. college 1 Contrast 5: college 7 0 0 0 -1.0 0 0 1.0 0 vs. college 4 Contrast 6: college 2 0 -1.0 O 1.0 O 0 0 0 vs. college 4 COMPARISON RESULTS Contrasts ngpgiiggn S. Error t-value df t Prob. Contrast 1 -0.8382 0.2574 -3.3561 424 0.001* Contrast 2 0.5629 0.2479 2.2704 424 0.024* Contrast 3 0.7716 0.1487 5.1881 424 0.001* Contrast 4 0.4962 0.1316 3.7713 424 0.001* Contrast 5 0.3690 0.2831 3.4791 424 0.002* Contrast 6 -0.3023 0.1548 -1.9533 424 0.050* *Significant at 0.05 level. aGroup l = Education (Mecca), Group 2 = Sharia, Group 3 = & Humanities, Group 4 = Economics, Group 5 = Engineering, Group 6 Science, Group 7 = Medical, and Group 8 = Education (Medina). Arts 86 the comparison did not indicate any significant difference between the two groups on the third subscale, students' satisfaction with college. For the third planned comparison, between the colleges by campus location, the comparison showed that there were significant differences between Mecca and Medina, and between Jeddah and Medina. The comparison did not show any significant difference at the 0.05 level between the campus in Mecca and the campus in Jeddah. The campus in Jeddah showed the highest level of students' satisfaction with their colleges, followed by the campus in Mecca, and last (with the lowest degree of student satisfaction) was the college in Medina. Table 5.23 presents a summary of the comparisons between the colleges by campus location regarding the third subscale (students' satisfac- tion with their colleges). Students' satisfaction with their major.—-The three planned comparisons were applied to the fourth subscale (dependent variable) to determine the significant differences among the eight colleges at KAU regarding students' satisfaction with their majors. Before the discussion of the comparisons, a list of means and standard deviations for survey sample responses, from each of the eight col- leges, on perceptions of parental influence toward satisfaction with major is presented in Table 5.24. The first planned comparison was a pairwise comparison between each of the colleges. As was done with the previous three subscales, the discussion includes the pairwise comparisons that showed differ- ences at the 0.05 level of significance of Type I error. 87 Table 5.23.--Summary of statistical analysis Of a planned comparison between the different campus locations of KAU regarding students' satisfaction with their colleges. CONTRAST COEFFICIENT MATRIX, COLLEGE GROUPSa Contrasts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Contrast l: Mecca, colleges 1, 2 vs. Jeddah, college 3, -2.5 -2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 4, 5, 6, 7 Contrast 2: Mecca, colleges 1, 2 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 -1.0 vs. Medina, college 8 Contrast 3: gfdgf“; C°"eges 3"“: o o 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 vs. Medina, college 8 COMPARISON RESULTS Value of Contrasts Comparison S. Error t-value df t Prob. Contrast 1 0.2252 0.4979 0.4523 424 0.651 Contrast 2 0.5235 0.1223 4.2790 424 0.001* Contrast 3 2.8424 0.6368 4.4634 424 0.001* *Significant at 0.05 level. aGroup 1 = Education (Mecca), Group 2 = Sharia, Group 3 = & Humanities, Group 4 = Economics, Group 5 = Engineering, Group 6 Science, Group 7 = Medical, and Group 8 = Education (Medina). Arts 88 Table 5.24.-~The effect Of parental influence on students' satisfaction with major: means and standard deviations. Group . Standard Code College Name and Location N Mean Deviation 1 Education (Mecca) 124 3.85 0.83 Sharia (Mecca) 63 4.11 0.79 Arts and Humanities (Jeddah) 47 3.53 0.96 4 Economic and Business Administration (Jeddah) 58 3'99 0°79 5 Engineering (Jeddah) 19 4.16 0.63 6 Science (Jeddah) 40 3.96 0.90 7 Medicine (Jeddah) 13 4.05 0.47 8 Education (Medina) 68 3.68 1.09 Entire sample 432 3.87 0.89 The comparison shows that there were significant differences between college 5 (Engineering) and both college 3 (Arts and Humani- ties) and college 8 (Education, Medina). Analysis Of the comparison indicated that the College Of Engineering (5) had the highest degree Of students' satisfaction with their majors, while the least satis- faction, as expressed by the students, was among the students at the College of Arts and Humanities (3). The next-to-least-satisfied students were at the College of Education in Medina (8), which also showed a significant difference from college 5 (Engineering). Another significant difference appeared between college 3 (Arts and Humani- ties) and college 2 (Sharié); college 2 showed more student satis- faction with major than any other college except college 5 (Engineering), which was the highest in degree of students' 89 satisfaction. College 2 (Sharia) also was significantly different from both college 1 (Education, Mecca) and college 8 (Education, Medina). College 7 (Medicine) had the third highest level Of students' satisfaction toward their major. Table 5.25 summarizes the statistical analysis Of the pairwise planned comparisons that showed differences significant at the 0.05 level. The second type of planned comparison applied to the fourth subscale (students' satisfaction with their major) was the comparison between groups Of colleges--1, 2, 3, 7, and 8, those that contain enrollments of boys and girls (not mixed); and colleges 4, 5, and 6, which have male students only. The comparison did not show any dif- ferences between the two college groups significant at the 0.05 level regarding the satisfaction Of students toward their major. The third type Of planned comparison was between the three campus locations of KAU. The comparison between the three campuses (Mecca, Jeddah, and Medina) shows a significant difference regarding students' satisfaction with majors only between the campus in Mecca and the campus in Medina. The other two comparisons, between Mecca and Jeddah and between Jeddah and Medina, did not show significant differences. The significant difference that appeared between Mecca and Medina indicated that the campus in Medina had a lower level Of stu- dent satisfaction with majors than the other two campuses, whereas the comparisons between Mecca and Jeddah, and between Jeddah and Medina, did not show differences significant at the 0.05 level. It was clear that the campus in Jeddah came between the other two in 90 Table 5.25.--Summary of statistical analysis for the pairwise planned comparisons, significant at the 0.05 level, for students' satisfaction with their majors. CONTRAST COEFFICIENT MATRIX, COLLEGE GROUPSa Contrasts 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 Contrast 1: college 3 0 0 -1.0 0 1.0 0 0 vs. college Contrast 2: college 8 0 0 0 0 1.0 0 -1.0 vs. college Contrast 3: college 3 0 1.0 -1.0 0 O 0 0 vs. college Contrast 4: college 8 0 1.0 0 0 0 0 -l.0 vs. college Contrast 5: college 1 -1.0 1.0 O 0 0 0 0 vs. college COMPARISON RESULTS Value of Contrasts Comparison S. Error t-value df t Prob. Contrast 1 0.6302 0.2378 2.6504 424 0.008* Contrast 2 0.4726 0.2270 2.0822 424 0.038* Contrast 3 0.5835 0.1686 3.4609 424 0.001* Contrast 4 0.4258 0.1530 2.7840 424 0.006* Contrast 5 0.2643 0.1353 1.9533 424 0.050* *Significant at 0.05 level. aGroup 1 = Education (Mecca), Group 2 = Sharia, Group 3 = Arts & Humanities, Group 4 = Economics, Group 5 = Engineering, Group 6 = Science, Group 7 = Medical, and Group 8 = Education (Medina). 91 degree of student satisfaction with major, as perceived by the survey sample, and the campus in Mecca had the highest degree of students' satisfaction with major. Table 5.26 presents a statistical summary of the comparisons. Table 5.26.--Summary Of planned comparison between the three different campus locations Of KAU regarding students' satisfaction with their majors. CONTRAST COEFFICIENT MATRIX, COLLEGE GROUPSa Contrasts l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Contrast l: Mecca, colleges 1, 2 0.5 0.5 0 0 O 0 0 -l.0 vs. Medina, college 8 Contrast 2: Mecca, colleges 1, 2 _ vs. Jeddah, colleges 3, 2.5 -2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 4, 5, 6, 7 Contrast 3: Jeddah, colleges 3,4, 5, 6, 7 O 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 -5.0 vs. Medina, college 8 COMPARISON RESULTS Value Of Contrasts Comparison S. Error t-value df t Prob. Contrast 1 0.2936 0.1258 2.3340 424 0.020* Contrast 2 -0.2083 0.5120 -0.4069 424 0.684 Contrast 3 1.2599 0.7276 1.7315 424 0.060 *Significant at the 0.05 level. aGroup 1 = Education (Mecca), Group 2 = Sharia, Group 3 = & Humanities, Group 4 = Economics, Group 5 = Engineering, Group 6 Science, Group 7 = Medical, and Group 8 = Education (Medina). Arts 92 It is clear from this data analysis that although freshman students perceived more parental influence on college choice and major selection, the effect Of that parental influence had little effect on their satisfaction with either college or major. Hypothesis 3 is rejected because the F-tests for the four subscales do meet the standard for significance set at 0.05. This means that there is a significant difference among the perceptions of freshman students at the different colleges of KAU Of parental influence on (a) college choice, (b) major selection, (c) students' satisfaction with college, and (d) students' satisfaction with major. Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 4 states that there is no significant difference between the level Of fathers' education and the perception Of fresh- man students at KAU about parental influence and effect on (a) college choice, (b) major selection, (c) students' satisfaction with college, and (d) students' satisfaction with major. Table 5.27 presents the distribution of paternal education levels given in responses to the survey by freshman students at KAU. It is clear that the majority of the survey sample's fathers (56.9%) had a very minimal level of education, followed by those who had been educated at the secondary-school level. Although a small portion of the students' fathers (9.5%) had higher education degrees, the per- centage of illiterate fathers was not so small. The differential in fathers' education was studied to find its effect on the four sub- scales. 93 Table 5.27.--Frequencies and frequency percentages for the distribu- tion Of fathers' education level (fathers of the survey sample). Level Of Education Frequency Code Attained by Father Frequency Percentage 1 NO writing or reading (illiterate) 56 (3'0 2 Some reading and writing, but no formal school 138 31.9 experience 3 Elementary school 108 25.0 4 Secondary school or equivalent level 87 20'] College level 29 6.7 Advanced degree (Master's, 12 2 8 Doctoral) ’ 7 Vocational training or other 2 0'5 Total 432 100.0% NOTE: Mean = 2.86, standard deviation = 1.26. Tables 5.28-5.34 show results Of data analysis testing for significant differences among the parental educational levels on the four subscales (college choice, major selection, students' satisfac- tion with college, and students' satisfaction with major). The data analysis shows a Wilks multivariate F-test result of 1.58, which is significant at the 0.05 level (p = 0.0384). This indicates that one or more Of the four dependent variables (sub- scales) reached the 0.05 level of significance of Type I error. Table 5.28 presents the data. There were significant differences in satisfaction with college among students whose fathers held different levels Of education. 94 Table 5.28.--Univariate F-tests (with 6,425 degrees Of freedom) of the four subscales by fathers' level of education. Subscales F (Dependent Variables) Significance of F 1. Fathers' influence on college choice 1.8470 0.0885 2. Fathers' influence on major selection 0.6113 0.7212 3. Students' satisfaction with college 2.2267 0.0396* 4. Students' satisfaction with major 1.3482 0.2344 *Significant at the 0.05 level. The following tables present a summary of the statistical comparison, giving means and standard deviations for each Of the four subscales. Since the third subscale (students' satisfaction with college) was affected significantly by the different levels Of fathers' education, a planned comparison was done to find signifi- cant differences in satisfaction among students whose fathers had varied education levels. Tables 5.29 and 5.30 show that whereas students whose fathers had different educational levels perceived little difference in paren- tal influence on college choice and major selection, a comparison of the overall means on these two subscales shows that the parental influence was slightly higher on college choice than on major choice. 95 Table 5.29.--Means and standard deviations: fathers' influence on students' college choice by fathers' level of education. COdEa N Mean standard Deviation l 56 2.91 0.68 2 138 2.87 0.66 3 108 2.68 0.74 4 87 2.77 0.72 5 29 3.06 0.86 6 12 3.02 0.51 7 2 2.93 1.0] Entire sample 432 2.82 0.72 aCode for fathers' level of education. See Table 5.27. Table 5.30.--Means and standard deviations: fathers' influence on students' major selection by fathers' level of education. Codea N Mean Standard Deviation l 56 2.66 0.56 2 138 2.70 0.58 3 108 2.57 0.72 4 87 2.64 0.69 5 29 2.69 0.74 6 12 2.84 0.64 7 2 3.00 0.46 Entire sample 432 2.65 0.64 aCode for fathers' level of education. See Table 5.27. 96 Since the F-tests indicate significant influence of level of fathers' education on students' satisfaction with college, the following method was used to find out if there were any significant differences among the different levels of fathers' education. For the third subscale (the students' satisfaction with their colleges), there were significant differences among the various levels of fathers' education in effect on the degree of students' satisfaction with their colleges. For this reason, a planned com- parison was done to find significant differences between the seven categorized levels of fathers' education. The planned comparison was done using the following plans. 1. Pairwise comparison between all categories of fathers' educational levels. The discussion will include only those pairwise comparisons that show differences significant at the level of 0.05. 2. Group comparison of the first level (category) of fathers' education (no education or illiterate) to all the other levels, which include fathers who have received some education. Another group com- parison was done between the first level, no education, and level 2 (fathers who can read and write but did not have any school experi- ence), level 3 (fathers who went to elementary school), and level 4 (fathers who went to secondary school)--those levels in which the majority of the survey sample's fathers, 77%, fell, compared with 13% in level 1. In the first comparison, the pairwise comparison, it appeared that there were significant differences between group 1 and group 2, and between group 2 and group 5, in the fathers' education category. 97 Table 5.3l.—-Means and standard deviations of fathers' education level and its effect on students' satisfaction with college. Group Code N Mean Standard Deviation l 56 3.53 0.94 2 138 3.94 0.71 3 108 3.74 0.89 4 87 3.73 0.92 5 29 3.50 1.00 6 12 3.64 1.06 7 2 3.40 0.27 Entire sample 432 3.75 0.88 Fathers who could read and write, but had no formal school experience, seemed to have the least effect on students' decisions, and the stu- dents who reported that their fathers' education put them in this group (2) showed the highest degree of satisfaction with their col- leges. The least satisfaction seemed to be with those students who reported that their fathers had no education or were illiterate (level 1 of the grouped levels). It is interesting to note that a significant difference appeared between group 2 and group 5 (fathers who have college degrees): those fathers who were described by their sons or daughters as having college degrees seemed to have interfered heavily with their sons' and daughters' educational decisions, and the students' perceptions indicated lower satisfaction with their colleges than the level indicated by the other groups, except group 1, which indicated the least satisfaction. Table 5.32 summarizes the 98 pairwise planned comparisons, shown to be significant at the 0.05 level or less, between the seven groups. Table 5.32.--Statistical summary of the pairwise planned comparisons, significant at the 0.05 level, of the seven groups of fathers' education levels regarding students' satisfaction with their colleges (third subscale). CONTRAST COEFFICIENT MATRIX, GROUPED LEVELS OF FATHERS' EDUCATIONa Level Level Level Level Level Level Level Contrasts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Contrast 1: level 2 0 -1.0 0 0 1.0 0 0 vs. level 5 Contrast 2: level 1 -l.0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 vs. level 2 COMPARISON RESULTS Value of Contrasts Comparison 5. Error t-value df t Prob. Contrast 1 -0.4433 0.1778 -2.4928 425 0.013* Contrast 2 0.4108 0.1379 2.9782 425 0.003* *Significant at 0.05. aLevel l = illiterate, level 2 = read and write but no school, level 3 = elementary education, level 4 = secondary education, level 5 = college, level 6 = graduate education, level 7 = vocational education. The second type of planned comparison was a group comparison between the first group (fathers have no education or are illiterate) and the combination of all the other groups. The comparison did not show differences significant at the 0.05 level. However, there were 99 significant differences between the first group and the combination of groups 2, 3, and 4, into which the majority of fathers of the sur- vey sample fell. This significant difference indicated that students who reported their fathers to be in either of these three groups (2, 3, or 4) perceived themselves to be more satisfied with their colleges than those students who reported that their fathers are illiterate (group 1). Table 5.33 reports the statistical summary of the group planned comparison between the first category of fathers' education level and the combination of the other six groups, and between the first group and groups 2, 3, and 4, combined. Table 5.34 shows the results of data analysis for the last subscale of the four dependent variables, students' satisfaction with major. Because the data analysis of fathers' education level and students' college and major selection and students' satisfaction with college and major shows significant differences for the level of fathers' education on the third subscale (student satisfaction with college), Hypothesis 4 should be rejected. Hypothesis 5 This hypothesis states that there is no significant differ- ence regarding the level of mothers' education and the perception of freshman students at KAU about the effect and influence of their parents on (a) college choice, (b) major selection, (c) students' satisfaction with college, and (d) students' satisfaction with major. 100 Table 5.33.--Summary of statistical analysis for planned comparison between level 1 of fathers' education and levels 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and between level 1 and levels 2, 3, and 4, regarding students' satisfaction with colleges (third subscale). CONTRAST COEFFICIENT MATRIX, GROUPED LEVELS OF FATHERS' EDUCATIONa Level Level Level Level Level Level Level Contrasts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Contrast 1: level 1 vs. levels 2’ -6.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3,4,5,6,&7 Contrast 2: level 1 vs. levels 2, -3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 3, & 4 COMPARISON RESULTS Contrasts Value 0f 5 Error t-value df t Prob Comparison ' ° Contrast 1 0.7313 0.9882 0.7401 425 ' 0.460 Contrast 2 0.7996 0.3782 2.1144 425 0.035* *Significant at 0.05 level. aLevel l = illiterate, level 2 = some reading and writing but no formal education, level 3 = elementary school, level 4 = secondary school, level 5 = college, level 6 = graduate school, level 7 = vocational school. 101 Table 5.34.--Means and standard deviations of fathers' education level and the effect on students' satisfaction with major. Code N Mean Standard Deviation 1 56 3.75 0.78 2 138 4.01 0.79 3 108 3.78 0.94 4 87 3.77 1.03 5 29 4.07 0.83 6 12 3.92 0.89 7 2 3.69 0.41 Entire sample 432 3.87 0.89 Table 5.35 presents the distribution of the mothers' varied education levels of the survey sample, which is relevant to this hypothesis. Table 5.35.--Frequencies and frequency percentages of the distribution of mothers' education level for the survey sample~students. . Frequency Code Level of Education of Mother Frequency Percentage 1 No writing or reading (illiterate) 221 51.2 2 Some reading or writing, but no formal school experience 189 43'8 3 Elementary school 5 1.2 4 Secondary school or equivalent 9 2.1 5 College level 7 1.6 6 Advanced degree (Master's, Doctoral) l 0.2 7 Vocational training or other 0 0.0 Total 432 100.0% NOTE: Mean = 1.60, standard deviation = 0.78. 102 The analysis of data using Wilks multivariate F-tests yielded a result of 1.14, which is not significant at the 0.05 level (p = 0.2908). Table 5.36 shows the results of the F-tests by mothers' level of education for the four subscales (dependent variables). Table 5.36.--Univariate F-tests with 5,426 degrees of freedom of the four subscales by mothers' level of education. Subscales (Dependent Variables) F Significance Of F l. Mothers' influence on college choice 1.8328 0.1051 2. Mothers' influence on major selection 1.9644 0.0827 3. Students' satisfaction with college 1.0656 0.3787 4. Students' satisfaction with major 0.4942 0.7804 Tables 5.37 through 5.40 report the comparative data for the different levels of mothers' education with regard to each of the four subscales. Even though there was no significant difference among the various levels of mothers' education in influence on their sons' and daughters' college choices and major selections, the influence of mothers' education seemed to be slightly higher on student perception of college choice than on major selection. 103 Table 5.37.--Means and standard deviations for influence on students' college choice by mothers' level of education. Codea N Mean Standard Deviation l 221 2.77 0.69 2 189 2.90 0.74 3 5 2.26 0.27 4 9 3.05 0.87 5 7 2.62 0.71 6 l 3.77 0.00 7 O 0.00 0.00 Entire sample 432 2.82 0.72 aCodes for levels of mothers' education. See Table 5.35. Table 5.38.--Means and standard deviations for influence on students' major selection by mothers' level of education. Codea N Mean Standard Deviation l 221 2.64 0.62 2 189 2.67 0.66 3 5 2.24 0.49 4 9 2.99 0.64 5 7 2.51 0.80 6 1 4.11 0.00 7 0 0.00 0.00 Entire sample 432 2.65 0.64 aCodes for mothers' education levels. See Table 5.35. 104 Table 5.39.--Means and standard deviations for effect on students' satisfaction with college by mothers' level of education. Codea N Mean Standard Deviation 1 221 3.82 0.83 2 189 3.69 0.87 3 5 3.71 1.14 4 9 3.30 1.18 5 7 3.90 1.16 6 1 3.19 0.00 7 0 0.00 0.00 Entire sample 432 3.75 0.88 aCodes for mothers' level of education. See Table 5.35. Table 5.40.--Means and standard deviations for effect on students' satisfaction with major by mothers' level of education. Codea N Mean Standard Deviation 1 221 3.91 0.83 2 189 3.81 0.91 3 5 4.07 0.82 4 9 3.63 1.16 5 7 3.83 1.12 6 l 4.40 0.00 7 0 0.00 0.00 Entire sample 432 3.87 0.89 aCodes for mothers' education levels. See Table 5.35. 105 Although there was no significant difference between the varied levels of mothers' education in students' satisfaction with their colleges and their majors, the overall influence of the mothers' education seemed to be almost the same on student satisfaction with college as on major, but students' satisfaction with majors appeared very slightly higher than their satisfaction with colleges. Data analysis shows no significant differences for the edu- cation level of mothers with regard to the four subscales as perceived by the survey sample. Thus, Hypothesis 5 could not be rejected. Hypothesis 6 The sixth hypothesis states that there is no significant dif- ference regarding the fathers' social status (job) and the perceptions of the freshman students at KAU about the parental influence and effect on (a) college choice, (b) major selection, (c) students' sat- isfaction with college, and (d) students' satisfaction with major. Table 5.41 shows the distribution frequencies of sample responses among the four different social-status (job) categories of fathers. To test the significance of this hypothesis, the data were analyzed with the Wilks multivariate test. The result of the F-test was 0.9368, which is not significant at the 0.05 level (p = 0.5259). Table 5.42 shows that no significant differences by fathers' job in the four subscales (dependent variables) appeared. 106 Table 5.4l.--Frequencies and frequency percentages of fathers' job categories distributed among the different job categories. Group . . Frequency Code Description of Job Category Frequency Percentage 1 No job 74 17.1 2 Government employee 150 34.7 3 Private employee 32 7.4 4 Does own work (businessman, farmer) 176 40.7 Total 432 100.0% Table 5.42.--Univariate F-tests (with the fathers' job and the four variables. 4,427 degrees of freedom) for Subscales (Dependent Variables) F Significance Of F 1. Fathers' influence on college choice 1.4204 0.2262 2. Fathers' influence on major selection 0.8273 0.5082 3. Students' satisfaction with college 0.7950 0.5289 4. Students' satisfaction with major 0.3597 0.8371 Tables 5.43 through 5.46 represent means and standard devia- tions for each of the four fathers' job groups to indicate the level of its effect on the four dependent variables (subscales). There is one table for each of the four subsca les. 107 Table 5.43.--Means and standard deviations-flnrthe influence of fathers' social status (job) on college choice as perceived by the survey sample. . . Standard Code Description of Job Category N Mean Deviation 1 No response, or no job 74 2.84 0.61 2 Government employee 150 2.90 0.73 3 Private employee 32 2.59 0.79 4 Does own work 176 2.80 0.70 Entire sample 432 2.82 0.71 Table 5.44.--Means and standard deviations for the influence of fathers' social status (job) on major selection as perceived by the survey sample. . . Standard Code Description of Job Category N Mean Deviation 1 No response, or no job 74 2.61 0.55 2 Government employee 150 2.71 0.65 3 Private employee 32 2.58 0.64 4 Does own work 176 2.66 0.68 Entire sample 432 2.65 0.64 108 Table 5.45.--Means and standard deviations for the effect of fathers' influence on students' satisfaction with college. Code Description of Job Category N Mean 0:3?giign 1 No response, or no job 74 3.65 0.84 2 Government employee 150 3.80 0.89 3 Private employee 32 3.72 0.91 4 Does own work 176 3.79 0.85 Entire sample 432 3.75 0.88 Table 5.46.--Means and standard deviations for the effect of fathers' influence on students' satisfaction with major. Code Description of Job Category N Mean 0:3?gzign 1 No response, or no job 74 3.77 0.90 2 Government employee 150 3.88 0.88 3 Private employee 32 3.90 0.89 4 Does own work 176 3.90 0.89 Entire sample 432 3.87 0.89 The data analysis showed that there were no significant dif- ferences by fathers' social status (job) in the four subscales, which meant that fathers in every category of job had almost the same degree of influence on the subscales. 109 Since the F-test analysis of data shows that none of the four fathers' job categories meet the standard for significance, Hypothe- sis 6 cannot be rejected. Hypothesis 6 thus indicates that there is no significant difference between fathers' social status (job) and students' perception of parental influence on college choice, major selection, students' satisfaction with college, and students' satis- faction with major. Hypothesis 7 This hypothesis states that there is no significant differ- ence between mothers' social status (jobs) and the perception of freshman students at KAU about parental influence and effect on (a) college choice, (b) major selection, (c) students' satisfaction with college, and (d) students' satisfaction with major. Table 5.47 presents the distribution of mothers' social status (job) by frequency of students' responses about the social status of their mothers among the four general job categories. The table indi- cates that a very high percentage of students' mothers have no job besides the job of a housewife. A very low percentage of the mothers work as government employees, mostly at educational institutions as teachers or administrators. None of the students' mothers' work falls into two of the four job categories (codes 3 and 4). The data were analyzed by Wilks multivariate tests, which showed a result of 1.7041, not significant at the 0.05 level (p = 0.1481). 110 Table 5.47.--Frequencies and frequency percentages of mothers' job categories distributed among the different job categories. Code Description of Job Category Frequency :ggggfiggge 1 No job (housewife) 97.9 2 Government employee 2.1 3 Private employee 0.0 4 Does her own work 0.0 (businesswoman, farmer) Total 100.0% Table 5.48 shows the F-test results scales (dependent variables). on any of the four subscales. for each of the four sub- It indicates no significant influence Table 5.48.--Univariate F-tests (with 2,430 degrees of freedom) for significance of mothers' job on the four subscales. Subscales . . . (Dependent Variables) F Significance 0F F l. Mothers' influence on college choice 2.9340 0.0874 2. Mothers' influence on major selection 0.1352 0.7130 3. Students‘ satisfaction with college 0.0807 0.7762 4. Students' satisfaction with major 1.0321 0.3101 111 Tables 5.49 through 5.52 represent the means and standard deviations for the two mothers' social status (job) codes in order to compare the influence of these two categories on the four subscales (dependent variables). The tables summarize the statistical analysis for each of the four subscales, to allow an overall comparison of the effect of the different mothers' jobs upon the four subscales. Table 5.49.--Means and standard deviations for the influence of mothers' jobs on students' college choice. . . Standard Code Description of Job Category N Mean Deviation l Housewife only 423 2.81 0.72 2 ' Government employee 9 3.22 0.54 Entire sample 432 2.82 0.71 Table 5.50.--Means and standard deviations for the influence of mothers' jobs on students' major selection. . . Standard Code Description of Job Category N Mean Deviation 1 Housewife only 423 2.66 0.65 2 Government employee 9 2.73 0.51 Entire sample 432 2.65 0.64 112 Table 5.51.--Means and standard deviations for the effect of mothers' job on students' satisfaction with college. . . Standard Code Description of Job Category N Mean Deviation 1 Housewife only 423 3.75 0.87 2 Government employee 9 3.83 0.54 Entire sample 432 3.75 0.89 Table 5.52.--Means and standard deviations for the effect of mothers' job on students' satisfaction with major. . . Standard Code Description of Job Category N Mean Deviation 1 Housewife only 423 3.87 0.88 2 Government employee 9 3.48 0.93 Entire sample 432 3.87 0.89 The data analysis to test Hypothesis 7 shows no significant difference for both of the mothers' social status (job) groups with regard to students' perception of the four subscales (dependent vari- ables). So, Hypothesis 7 cannot be rejected, indicating that different mothers' social status levels (jobs) do not differ significantly in influence on the four subscales of parental influence and effect as perceived by students. 113 Hypothesis 8 This hypothesis states that there is no significant differ- ence regarding fathers' income and the perception of the freshman students at KAU of parental influence and effect on (a) college choice, (b) major selection, (c) students' satisfaction with college, and (d) students' satisfaction with major. The income of the sample students' parents was categorized into seven groups. Table 5.53 shows the distribution of fathers' income among these seven categories. The respondents gave the monthly income of their parents (father separate from mother) in the Saudi Arabian currency, Saudi Riyals (SRs); then, the researcher converted these figures into their U.S. dollar equivalents.1 The data analysis to test the significance of this hypothesis used Wilks multivariate tests. The F-test of fathers' income related to the four subscales yielded a result of 0.3443, which was not sig- nificant at the 0.05 level (p = 0.9986). Table 5.54 shows the univariate F-tests (with 6,425 degrees of freedom). It makes clear that no significant differences appeared among the different fathers' income levels on the four subscales (dependent variables). Tables 5.55 through 5.58 compare the effect of each income category on the four subscales by giving the mean and standard devia- tion for each category. There is one table for each of the four sub- scales. 1This conversion was made according to the exchange scale in Saudi Arabia at the time of the research. 114 Table 5.53.--Distribution of the monthly incomes of the fathers of the survey sample among the seven income categories. Code Category of Fathers' Income Frequency Egigzfiggge 1 No response, zero income 143 33.1 2 Less than $300 7 1.6 3 $300-600 48 11.1 4a $601-900 45 10.4 5 $901-1500 100 23.1 6 $1501-2400 49 11.3 7 More than $2400 40 9.3 Total 432 100.0% aThis category includes the average Saudi Arabian worker's monthly income ($865). Source: Statistical indicator by the Ministry of Finance and National Economy, Central Department of Statistics, 1978. Table 5.54.--Univariate F-tests (with 6,425 degrees of freedom) of the significance of fathers' income on the four sub- scales. Subscales . . . (Dependent Variables) F Significance OF F l. Fathers' influence on college choice 0.2927 0.9402 2. Fathers' influence on major selection 0.2228 0.9692 3. Students' satisfaction with college 0.0751 0.9984 4. Students' satisfaction with major 0.4701 0.8304 115 Table 5.55.--Means and standard deviations for the effects of the different fathers' income levels on students' college choice. “‘33::1132523228 ~ 3:32:33. 1 No response, zero income 143 2.83 0.62 2 Less than $300 7 2.89 0.69 3 $300-600 48 2.91 0.75 4 5601-900 45 2.83 0.72 5 $901-1500 100 2.82 0.73 6 $1501-2400 49 2.71 0.80 7 More than $2400 40 2.84 0.79 Entire sample 432 2.82 0.71 Table 5.56.--Means and standard deviations for the effects of the different fathers' income levels on students' major satisfaction. Catiazuigfiizzlzr' ~ 3:32:33. 1 No response, zero income 143 2.67 0.65 2 Less than $300 7 2.67 0.76 3 $300-600 48 2.69 0.66 4 $601-900 45 2.60 0.55 5 $901-1500 100 2.65 0.61 6 $1501-2400 49 2.58 0.70 7 More than $2400 40 2.72 0.76 Entire sample 432 2.65 0.64 116 Table 5.57.--Means and standard deviations for the effects of the different fathers' income levels on students' satisfac- tion with college. “msg#32533? ~ 3:32:22”: 1 No response, zero income 143 3.78 0.91 2 Less than $300 7 3.66 0.90 3 $300-600 48 3.72 0.93 4 $601-900 45 3.75 0.84 5 $901-1500 100 3.75 0.79 6 $1501-2400 49 3.76 0.96 7 More than $2400 40 3.71 0.83 Entire sample 432 3.75 0.88 Table 5.58.--Means and standard deviations for the effects of the different fathers' income levels on the students' satisfaction with major. Cataazziigaizzlzr' ~ 323292223. 1 No response, zero income 143 3.82 0.94 2 Less than $300 7 3.70 1.19 3 $300-600 48 3.79 0.87 4 $601-900 45 3.92 0.87 5 $901-1500 100 3.97 0.83 6 $1501-2400 49 3.89 0.86 7 More than $2400 40 3.81 0.86 Entire sample 432 3.88 0.89 117 Data analysis shows none of the seven income categories meet the 0.05 level set for significance. Thus, Hypothesis 8 is not rejected, indicating that among the various levels of fathers' income there were no significant differences in the influence and effect of parents on students' college choice, students' major selection, students' satisfaction with their college, and students' satisfaction with their major as perceived by the students themselves. Hypothesis 9 The ninth hypothesis states that there is no significant dif- ference between the mothers' income and the perceptions of freshman students at KAU about parental influence and effect on (a) college choice, (b) major selection, (c) students' satisfaction with college, and (d) students' satisfaction with major. For the purpose of data analysis, the researcher set up the same seven categories for monthly income as used for fathers' monthly income. The same mathematical procedure was used as with the fathers' income to exchange Saudi Arabian currency--"Saudi Riyal" in the stu- dents' responses--to its equivalent in U.S. dollars. Table 5.59 presents the distribution of mothers' monthly income among the seven income categories. Clearly, the majority of the respondents' mothers have no income. This is reasonable when compared with the data gathered on mothers' social status (job). Here, there are almost the same high percentages of no income as for mothers who have no other job besides their job as housewife. 118 Table 5.59.--Distribution of monthly income of mothers of the survey sample among the seven income categories. “tisaiiisfilzgazm' 3:225:23. 1 No response, zero income 426 98.7 2 Less than $300 1 0.2 3 $300-600 0 0.0 4 $601-900 3 0.7 5 $901-1500 l 0.2 6 $1501-2400 0 0.0 7 More than $2400 1 0.2 Total 432 100.0% The significance among these categories of mothers' monthly income on the four subscales was tested using Wilks multivariate tests. The F-test of mothers' income yielded 0.8149 and was not significant at the 0.05 level (p = 0.6694). Table 5.60 gives the univariate F—tests (with 4,426 degrees of freedom) to compare the four subscales (dependent variables) as related to mothers' income. It shows that there were no significant differences between the various levels of the survey sample mothers' income in relation to their influence and effect on the four subscales. Tables 5.61 through 5.64 illustrate a comparison analysis by giving the mean and standard deviation of the effect of each income category on the four subfactors. These tables are presented to facili- tate the statistical summary needed for comparison among the different 119 levels of the students' mothers' incomes in terms of the four dependent variables. There was no significant difference among them. Table 5.60.--Univariate F-tests (with 4,426 degrees of freedom) of the significance of mothers' income on the four subscales. Subscales . . . (Dependent Variables) F Significance 0F F 1. Mothers' influence on college choice 1.1764 0.3205 2. Mothers' influence on major selection 0.5510 0.6983 3. Students' satisfaction with college 0.9253 0.4488 4. Students' satisfaction with major 0.6273 0.6433 Table 5.61.--Means and standard deviations for the effect of the different levels of mothers' income on the students' college choice. Cataazziisfilzzlz": ~ 32:29:32. 1 No response, zero income 426 2.83 0.72 2 Less than $300 1 3.78 0.00 3 $300-600 0 0.00 0.00 4 $601-900 3 2.73 0.55 5 $901-1500 l 3.89 0.00 6 $1501-2400 0 0.00 0.00 7 More than $2400 1 ‘ 2.21 0.00 Entire sample 432 2.82 0.72 120 Table 5.62.--Means and standard deviations for the effect of the different levels of mothers' income on the students' major selection. Cat:::::i:%:::::“' ~ 3:32:33. 1 No response, no income 426 2.65 0.64 2 Less than $300 1 3.32 0.00 3 $300-600 0 0.00 0.00 4 $601-900 3 2.63 0.49 5 $901-1500 l 2.43 0.00 6 $1501-2400 0 0.00 0.00 7 More than $2400 1 2.00 0.00 Entire sample 432 2.65 0.64 Table 5.63.--Means and standard deviations for the effect of the different levels of mothers' income on students' satis- faction with college. Cat::::::fi:::::“' ~ 33:22:: 1 No response, zero income 426 3.77 0.88 2 Less than $300 1 3.79 0.00 3 $300-600 0 0.00 0.00 4 $601-900 3 4.07 0.69 5 $901-1500 1 3.39 0.00 6 $1501-2400 0 0.00 0.00 7 More than $2400 1 2.19 0.00 Entire sample 432 3.75 0.88 121 Table 5.64.--Means and standard deviations for the effect of different levels of mothers' income on students' satisfaction with major. 33332223132322.2235“ N 32322222. 1 No response, zero income 426 3.87 0.89 2 Less than $300 1 4.00 0.00 3 $300-600 0 0.00 0.00 4 $601-900 3 3.79 0.70 5 $901-1500 1 3.00 0.00 6 $1501-2400 0 0.00 0.00 7 More than $2400 1 2.79 0.00 Entire sample 432 3.88 0.88 The data analysis for testing the ninth hypothesis shows that among the varied mothers' income levels none met the standard level of significance. So Hypothesis 9 cannot be rejected, which indicates that there was no significant difference between the categories of mothers' monthly income in terms of effect and influence on the fresh- man students at KAU regarding the four subscales. Summary of Subjective Comments by Respondents A number of common factors were mentioned frequently by the survey respondents at KAU in their written answers to item 13 of Parts Two and Three. These items asked the student to give the reason(s) for his/her choice of college (Part Two) and the reason(s) for his/her choice of major (Part Three). 122 These two item 135 were part of the other subjective items of Parts Two and Three that were transferred by the panel of judges1 to the same type of scale as used for the objective items. So these subjective items were used in the statistical analysis of data to test for validity of the nine null hypotheses. The following reasons for choice of college and major were common among both males and females surveyed. l. The grade point average (G.P.A.) received by the students after passing the general secondary school examination. This exami- nation is required before applying to a college which then uses it as a criterion for accepting students. 2. The location--the college was near home so living arrange- ments were convenient. 3. Parents did not want the student to go to college far from home; sometimes they did not allow him/her to choose a major the student preferred because it would require attendance at a college far from home. 4. The major and the college the student preferred were not available in Saudi Arabia. This reason was common among female stu- dents more than males since there are some majors and colleges (such as business and engineering) that do not permit enrollment of females.2 1This process was described in the discussion of the question- naire development and data analysis in Chapter IV. 2The university in this regard has followed the Saudi Arabian General Educational Policy by offering the Islamic style of education for women: to fulfill roles in life that suit their nature, such as teaching, nursing, and the medical profession (Hibshi, 1979, p. 125). 123 5. Different circumstances forced making educational deci- sions. 6. Missing the deadline for applying to the college the student preferred. 7. Random selection because of a lack of knowledge. The orientation program of the major and college before or while apply- ing for college admission. The following reasons for major or college choice were common among the responses of male students. 1. The student had the major responsibility for his family either because his father was not living or his parents were too old to be able to tend to family duties. 2. The college or major was useful and would enable him to assist parents in a trade or business or to be successful--this reason was common among students who chose the College of Business and Economic Administration. Summarygof Findings Presented at the beginning of this chapter, before the hypothesis tests, is a discussion, including comparisons, to determine the degree of parental influence on the four subscales (college choice, major selection, satisfaction with college, and satisfaction with major). A comparison was made between the overall means of male and female students' responses to the objective and subjective items of Parts Two and Three of the research questionnaire. The comparison showed that both male and female students perceived a quite high 124 degree of parental influence on their college and major choices. There were some differences between the students' responses to the objective items and their responses to the subjective items relating to the same subscale. Compared to the girls' responses, the boys' responses differed more markedly between the objective and the sub- jective items on parental influence on college choice and selection of major. It was also found that students, male and female, were quite satisfied with their colleges and with their majors. The data analysis presented in this chapter tests the signifi- cance of nine null hypotheses related to student perceptions of paren- tal influence and its effect on students' college and major choices and on students' satisfaction with college and major. Four dependent variables (subscales) were to be tested in each of the nine hypothe- ses in relationship with some independent variable. Hypothesis 1 examines whether parental influence on the four subscales is significantly different between male and female students in the sample. The analysis shows that there is a significant dif- ference between the two sexes on the first of the four dependent variables, parental influence on college choice. A comparison of the means for each sex shows that female students perceive more influ- ence by parents on college choice than male students perceive. But both sexes perceive influence by their parents on college choice and on major selection. While the students perceived parental influence on college and major choice, they did not perceive that parental influence decreased their satisfaction with either college or major. Both males and females were quite satisfied with their college and 125 their major. Since there was a significant difference between the males' and females' perception of one of the four dependent variables (college choice), Hypothesis 1 was rejected. Hypothesis 2 looked at differences among students' ages with regard to their responses to the four dependent variables. This hypothesis was not rejected since data analysis showed no signifi- cant difference among the freshman students' ages and their percep- tions of the four subscales. Hypothesis 3 tested for significant differences among the students' responses by the colleges. The data analysis using a multivariate F—test indicated that there was a significant difference among the colleges and students' responses to at least one of the four subscales. The univariate F-test (Table 5.11) showed that there were significant differences among colleges on all four subscales. A planned comparison was applied to each of the four sub- scales to find any significant differences in students' perception among the eight different colleges of KAU. The planned comparison for the first subscale (parental influence on college choice) showed that while students at college 4 (Economics and Business) indicated the least influence by parents on college choice, students at col- lege 8 (Education, Medina) indicated the highest degree of parental influence on college choice. There were also significant differences between college 4 (Economics and Business) and college 2 (Sharia) and college 1 (Education, Mecca); students at both college 1 and college 2 perceived a high degree of parental influence upon their college choices. The planned comparison for the second subscale, 126 parental influence on major selection, showed again that students in college 4 (Economics and Business) felt the lowest level of parental influence on major choice, followed by college 5 (Engineering), college 8 (Education, Medina), college 6 (Science), college 3 (Arts and Humanities), college 7 (Medicine), college 1 (Education, Mecca), and last, with the greatest perceived level of parental influence on major selection, college 2 (Sharia). The comparison showed that there were significant differences between college 1 and college 4; between college 4 and college 2; and between college 4 and college 8. The planned comparison to find significant differences in students' satisfaction with their colleges showed that the students in college 7 (Medicine) expressed the highest degree of satisfaction toward their college. The students, ranked from highest level of satisfaction with college to lowest level, were in college 7 (Medi- cine), the highest; college 2 (Sharia), college 5 (Engineering), college 3 (Arts and Humanities), college 4 (Economics and Business Administration), college 6 (Science), college 1 (Education, Mecca), and last, with the least satisfaction toward their college, college 8 (Education, Medina). The comparison for this third subscale indi- cated that there were significant differences in college students' satisfaction between college 7 and college 8; between college 1 and college 4; and between college 2 and college 8, college 1 and college 4. For the fourth subscale, students' satisfaction with their majors, the comparison showed that college 5 (Engineering) had the students who were most satisfied with their majors, followed by col- lege 2 (Sharié), college 7 (Medicine), college 4 (Economics and 127 Business Administration), college 6 (Science), college 1 (Education, Mecca), college 8 (Education, Medina), and, with the lowest level of satisfaction with majors, college 3 (Arts and Humanities). The planned comparison indicated that there were significant differences between college 5 and colleges 3 and 8, and between college 2 and colleges 3, 8, and 1. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is rejected because sig— nificant differences were obtained among the college groups on all four subscales. Hypotheses 4 and 5 tested the effects of the parents' level of education on the four subfactors. Hypothesis 4 looked at fathers' level of education, and Hypothesis 5 focused on mothers. The levels of education, for fathers and mothers, were grouped into seven cate- gories. (See Tables 5.27 and 5.35.) To measure the effect of the fathers' education on the four subscales, the multivariate F-tests (see Table 5.28) showed that a significant difference among levels of fathers' education for the third subscale (students' satisfaction with college) was present. This result required that Hypothesis 4 be rejected. As far as Hypothesis 5 is concerned, no significant differ- ences among the different levels of mothers' education were found related to their influence on the four subscales. So Hypothesis 5 was not rejected. Hypothesis 6 is concerned with significant differences between fathers' social status (job) and students' perceptions of parental influence on the four subscales. The fathers' social status (job) was categorized into four groups. (See Table 5.41.) The multivariate 128 F-test does not show any significant difference among the levels of fathers' social status in relation to the four subscales. This means that all four categories of the fathers' jobs had the same level of influence on the four subscales. So Hypothesis 6 is not rejected. The same findings were reached for Hypothesis 7, which looked for significant differences among levels of mothers' social status; thus, Hypothesis 7 was not rejected. Hypothesis 8 looked at the effect of different levels of fathers' income in regard to the four subscales as perceived by stu- dents. Fathers' income was grouped into seven levels. (See Table 5.53.) The data analysis by multivariate F-test shows no significant difference among the seven categories of fathers' income in relation- ship with students' responses on the four subscales. So Hypothesis 8 was not rejected, indicating that no significant difference in effect exists among the different levels of fathers' income. The last hypothesis tests for significant differences on the four subscales among the levels of mothers' income. The same results were obtained as for fathers' income. There are also no significant differences among the levels of mothers' income, which had almost the same level of influence on all the four subscales. This result required that Hypothesis 9 not be rejected. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Problem The process of decision making is very significant and time consuming since it will affect the future of the decision makers. Educational decisions are considered among the more significant tasks in this life. The students, the parents, and the community are all affected by the educational decision-making process. One of the educational decisions that faces youngsters at an early age is the choice of college and the selection of academic field of study (major). These kinds of educational decisions take place whenever the person thinks of entering or continuing higher education. General factors that contribute to the educational decision process include student motivation, high—school achievement, peer- group views, and the cultural, educational, and economic background of the society from which parents and students come. Plenty of indi- vidual and group research studies have been done, especially in modern societies, in an effort to discover the effects of, as well as the relationships between, these factors in the process of students' decision making on college choice and selection of major. But unfortunately, these studies are still very limited in quantity as 129 130 well as quality in some developing societies, such as the Saudi Arabian society, where this research was conducted. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to investigate how students perceive parental influence on their choice of college and of field of study. The perceptions of Saudi Arabian male and female freshman students at King Abdulaziz University were surveyed by research ques- tionnaire to ascertain parental influence on academic decisions. Specifically, this study has tested and analyzed several research questions: 1. How do Saudi Arabian freshman students, male and female, at King Abdulaziz University perceive parental influence on their college choice and selection of major; and how is any such perceived parental influence related to the students' level of satisfaction with college and major? 2. Do Saudi Arabian male and female freshman students at King Abdulaziz University differ significantly by age and college in their perceptions of parental influence on college choice and major selection; and how are any such differences reflected in their level of satisfaction with college and major? 3. Are there significant differences among students with parents with different levels of education, social status, and income, in the students' perceptions of parental influence on college choice and selection of major; and how are any such differences reflected in students' levels of satisfaction with college and major? Hypotheses 131 The research questions were stated in the form of nine null hypotheses to be tested, through data analysis of students' responses, at the significance level of 0.05. The nine hypotheses include nine factors--considered as independent variables--written in the framework of the students' perceptions of parental influence on (a) college choice, (b) major selection, its reflection on (c) students' satis- faction with college, and on (d) students' satisfaction with major. A, b, c, and d were considered as four dependent variables or sub- scales. The nine factors tested were: 1. Students' sex, male and female 2. Students' 3. Students' 4. The 5. The 6. The 7. The 8. The 9. The level level level level level level age group college of enrollment of fathers' education of mothers' education of fathers' social status (job) of mothers' social status (job) of fathers' income of mothers' income Methodology This study sought to discover the perceptions of Saudi Arabian male and female freshman students at KAU on parental influ- ence on college choice and major selection; and its reflection in 132 students' satisfaction with college and with major, as related to the nine factors listed above. Population and Sample The population for this study was the Saudi Arabian freshman student class, male and female, at all the colleges of KAU at its three locations (Mecca, Jeddah, and Medina). The total population was 5,771 students. A simple random sample of 580 students was selected out of the research population to be used as a survey sample to respond to the research questionnaire. Although the rate of response was very high (almost 98%), because the distribution and collection of the questionnaire was done by hand, not all of the returned responses could be included for data analysis because they did not meet the conditions that were established for inclusion in the study. Out of the returned responses, 432 were used as data to be analyzed. Research Instrument For the purposes of the study, a research questionnaire was developed. The questionnaire contained three parts with a total of 43 items. Part One covered the information needed about the back- ground of the students and their parents. Part Two contained items related to the students' perceptions of parental influence on their college choice and its reflection in the degree of their satisfaction with the college they were attending. Part Three contained items concerned with the parental influence on the students' major selection and students' satisfaction with their majors. Both Part Two and 133 Part Three included a combination of objective and subjective items. The responses to the objective items were on a 1-5 type scale (with "1'I meaning "strongly disagree” and "5" meaning "strongly agree"). The subjective responses were translated by a panel of judges into the same type of 1-5 range. The questionnaire was developed in English and then trans- lated into Arabic to be distributed to the survey sample. (For a copy of the questionnaire in English and Arabic, see Appendix A.) Collection and Treatment of Data The survey questionnaire was distributed to the random sample of students, then collected by hand with the assistance of several instructors at the different colleges of KAU. This process took place with the permission of the College of Education in Mecca and with consultation and supervision from the Educational Research Center located at and sponsored by the College of Education, KAU, in Mecca. This Research Center is responsible for the educational research in all colleges of the University. The research data gathered through the responses of the sur- vey sample to the questionnaire were coded, one card for each subject, and entered for statistical analysis into the computer at the Michigan State University Computer Center. A multivariate frequency analysis (MANOVA) was used as the research statistical strategy for analyzing the data, to measure the consistency between the various independent variables and the four dependent variables (subscales) throughout testing of the hypotheses. The significance level was set at 0.05. 134 Findings The survey research was conducted to determine parental influ- ence on students' college choice and selection of academic field (major); and the effect of that influence on students' satisfaction with colleges and with majors. The perceptions of the freshman stu- dents at KAU in Saudi Arabia were used for the purposes of the study. The analysis led to several findings: 1. Parental influence was quite strong for both male and female students regarding college choice and selection of major. Parental influence appeared to be quite high even though the satis- faction among male and female students with their colleges and their majors was high. In testing the first null hypothesis, about significant dif- ferences between male and female students regarding parental influence on the four subscales, the MANOVA analysis showed that there was a significant difference at the 0.05 level between the two sexes on only the first subscale, college choice. Female students perceived more parental influence on college choice than did male students. The other three subscales showed no significant differences. Since one of the subscales was significantly different, Hypothesis 1 was rejected. 2. Hypothesis 2 was not rejected, since data analysis showed no significant differences among the different student age groups in regard to the four dependent variables (subscales). 3. Hypothesis 3, testing the significant differences between groups of students at the eight colleges of KAU, was rejected. The 135 statistical analysis showed that there were significant differences among the colleges on all four subscales. For the first subscale, parental influence on college choice, the College of Economics and Business Administration (college code number 4) showed the least parental influence on choice of college. It was followed by the College of Engineering (5) and the College of Science (6). The high- est degree of parental influence on college choice was among students at the College of Education in Medina (8), followed by the College of Education in Mecca (l), the College of Sharia (2), the College of Medicine (7), and the College of Arts and Humanities (3). The analy— sis indicated significant differences between college 4 and colleges 2 and 1. In the parental influence on major selection (the second subscale), the eight colleges were ranked, from the lowest parental influence to the highest, as follows: college 4, college 5, college 8, college 6, college 3, college 7, college 1, and last, college 2. Sig- nificant differences were found between college 4 and colleges 2, l, and 8. Analysis of the comparison for the third subscale, students' satisfaction with college, showed the satisfaction of students toward their colleges to be organized as follows, from the highest satis- faction to the lowest: college 7, college 2, college 5, college 3, college 4, college 6, college 1, and college 2. Significant differ- ences on this third subscale were found between college 7 and colleges 8, l, and 4, and between college 2 and colleges 8, 1, and 4. 136 The last subscale was students' satisfaction with their majors. The comparison between colleges on this subscale showed the satisfac- tion of college students toward their majors to be as follows, from the highest level of satisfaction to the lowest: college 5, college 2, college 7, college 4, college 6, college 1, college 8, and college 3. Significant differences were shown between college 5 and colleges 3 and 8; and between college 2 and colleges 3, 8, and 1. Thus, as a result of this testing, which showed significant differences among the students at the various colleges of KAU regard- ing all four subscales, Hypothesis 3 was rejected. 4. Hypotheses 4 and 5 tested the effect of the parents' level of education on the four subscales (Hypothesis 4 for fathers' education and Hypothesis 5 for mothers' education). Although the analysis did not show any significant difference by level of mothers' education on the four subscales, which led to nonrejection of the hypothesis, the analysis showed that there were significant differ- ences among the categories of fathers' education on the third sub- scale, students' satisfaction with their colleges. The students who reported their fathers' education to be in level 2 (fathers who can do some reading and writing) seemed to be more satisfied with their colleges than the others, whereas the least-satisfied group was those students who mentioned that their fathers had no education or were illiterate. Significant differences appeared between the group of students whose fathers' education fell in level 2 and those in level 5 (fathers who have college degrees), and between level 2 and level 1. 137 Since one of the four subscales (the third) showed signifi- cant differences among the various levels of fathers' education, Hypothesis 4 was rejected. 5. Hypotheses 6 and 7 were concerned with significant dif- ferences among the various categories of parents' social status (job) in influence on students' college choice and major selections and the students' satisfaction with their colleges and majors. Whereas Hypothesis 6 was tested to find any significant differences among students whose fathers differ in social status, Hypothesis 7 related to the same phenomenon for mothers of the survey sample students. The multivariate F-test did not show any significant differences between the different levels of fathers' or mothers' social status regarding their effect on the four subscales. This result required that Hypotheses 6 and 7 not be rejected. 6. The last two hypotheses, 8 and 9, were related to the effect of the different level categories of parents' income on each of the four subscales. Hypothesis 8 was tested to find any significant difference by fathers' income, whereas Hypothesis 9 was focused on mothers' income. Again, the statistical analysis tests did not indicate any significant differences among the various categories of fathers' or mothers' income in effect of parental influence on each of the four subscales. Thus, while there was parental influence upon students on the four subscales, the analysis showed that there was no significant difference between students when categorized by fathers' or by mothers' monthly income. Hypotheses 8 and 9 were not rejected. 138 Conclusions The conclusions in this section have been drawn from the results of the research. These conclusions are: 1. The overall mean of the survey respondents indicates that both male and female students perceived some degree of parental influ- ence upon their college choice and their selection of academic field of study. The parental influence did not decrease the students' satisfaction with their colleges or their majors, since the overall mean of students' perceptions of their satisfaction toward college and major was quite high among male and female students. 2. An analysis of the data indicates significant differences (at the 0.05 level) between male and female students in parental influence upon college choice (the first subscale). The female stu- dents perceived more influence by their parents than did the male students. As for the other three dependent variables (subscales)-- major selection, satisfaction with college, and satisfaction with major--there were no significant differences between the two sexes. 3. The different age groups in the survey sample did not show any significant differences regarding their perception of parental influence on the four subscales. 4. Significant differences were shown among the various colleges in terms of student perceptions of all four subscales. Students in some colleges perceived significantly more parental influ- ence on their college choice and major selection than students at other colleges. The same is true with respect to student satisfac- tion with college and major. 139 5. While the data indicated that the education levels of the mothers of the survey sample ranged from illiterate (the first category) to the graduate-degree level (the sixth category), the results showed no significant differences in the effects of these various levels of mothers' education upon students. The effect of mothers with differing education levels seemed basically similar in terms of all four subscales. But in terms of the fathers' education levels, the results indicated that there were significant differences between students with fathers who have different education levels in terms of student satisfaction with their colleges (the third subscale). The students who described their fathers as illiterate claimed to be significantly less satisfied with their colleges than those who clas- sified their fathers otherwise than illiterate. This result might indicate that these less-satisfied students either had not chosen the proper colleges for themselves because of the lack of educated advice from their fathers, or that the illiterate fathers had more influence over their sons and daughters and led them to choose colleges that were not appropriate or in which the students had little interest. 6. The results of the study did not indicate any significant differences on any of the four survey subscales between students whose fathers and mothers had different social status (job) levels. The effect of parents seemed to be largely similar regardless of social levels of fathers and mothers. 7. Differences in incomes of respondents' fathers or mothers did not show significant effects on any of the subscales. The insig- nificance of differences here might be a result of the monthly 140 allowance which every Saudi Arabian student at the college level receives. With this allowance, financial support for college educa- tion is not a significant element about which parents or students need by very concerned. Recommendations Before giving recommendations for further research, the researcher would propose one general recommendation for the university under study-~King Abdulaziz University-~as well as for all the univer- sities and colleges of higher education in Saudi Arabia. A compre- hensive orientation program to higher education should be developed for senior high-school students as well as for parents. This kind of program, presented at the proper time, would introduce students to all the important information about opportunities they might need to know before decision making on their higher education plans would take place. For parents, the orientation program is also important in giving them a chance to understand, or at least to think about, the role they might play in their offsprings' decisions on higher education. University and college orientation programs would require the following steps in order to properly serve the suggested purposes: 1. Full cooperation between all universities and colleges in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 2. Support research into elements related to college choice, admission, or recruitment, to aid in developing the programs. 3. A search for assistance and cooperation from individuals and groups with experience and background in developing these kinds 141 of orientation programs, from outside or inside the country, to take advantage of the benefits of such previous experience in their field, with adaptation of such experiences to be valid in the communities where the programs take place and without conflict with any of the society's values. Following are recommendations for further study: 1. While students' perceptions of parental influence on their college and major choices are needed for a study of this kind, the participation of parents in a study would be useful. A better way to gather the data is the interview, since other methods are not appropriate with parents who are illiterate. This recommendation would be quite difficult to implement, if it is not impossible, due to the individual efforts required under time limits and obstructions from some of the traditional cultural values. A group of researchers or a research committee supported by official government authorization would be needed. 2. Longitudinal studies on students' college and major choices should take place. This means that research study in this area would be undertaken with a sample of senior high-school (secondary) stu- dents to find out what they plan for their future education after graduation from the secondary school; then, after they leave the secondary school, another follow-up study would be done with, as much as possible, the same sample used in the first study. The follow-up survey would study the sample members again to find out to what extent the wishes and plans expressed earlier had been carried out. Following the two studies, conclusions could be drawn through 142 comparison of the two surveys. Such studies should be concerned with the different factors--effect of parents is one of them--which might have significant roles in attainment or change of students' goals. 3. Further research similar to the present study should be undertaken in the different provinces of Saudi Arabia. The present research applies only to students at KAU in the western provinces of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 4. The admission policies in all the Saudi Arabian universi- ties should be taken into consideration in further research studies, since many members of the study sample complained in their comments that the admissions office had forced them to attend colleges they did not want because of the criteria set by these offices for accept- ance of students to the specific colleges and majors (depending mostly on students' general secondary school examination scores). 5. Fathers' level of education should be studied further to focus more on the relationship between the fathers' level of educa- tion and the students' educational decision making, on one hand, and the students' satisfaction with their colleges or major fields, on the other hand. 6. Comparative studies should be made between the results of the present study, or any similar ones done in the developing coun- tries, compared with results of similar studies done in the modern world, such as in the United States. APPENDICES 143 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE, COVER LETTER, LETTER CONFIRMING ACCURACY OF QUESTIONNAIRE TRANSLATION, AND CRITERIA USED BY PANEL 0F JUDGES TO TRANSFER SUBJECTIVE RESPONSES TO OBJECTIVE RANK SCALE 144 APPENDIX A Dear Student at King Abdulaziz University:1 The questionnaire attached is for scientific research purposes only. Your cooperation in responding to it and returning it will aid in the completion of this study, in which one of your fellow students, working toward a doctoral degree in Higher Education in the United States, is interested. Would you, please, give your attention to the following? 1. It is not necessary to write your name on your response to the questionnaire. 2. The word "parent" in this questionnaire does not refer to just one parent, father or mother; however, in some cases it may mean just father or just mother. 3. This questionnaire contains three parts. The first part is to find out some general information needed by this study. The second part contains items related to your choice of college, and the third part is the same as part two, except that part three refers to your selection of major. 4. As mentioned before, all information collected in this survey is for the purpose of scientific research only. There is no connection of your response to any purpose other than this. Your cooperation in providing accurate information in your responses is strongly urged and is necessary in order for this study to provide the best results. Thank you for all of your cooperation, and best wishes for continuing good luck and success. Sincerely, Zohair Ahmed Al-Kazmi May 1980 1This questionnaire cover letter was translated into Arabic in the same format as shown here, except that it follows the standard writing format for Saudi Arabian Arabic script. 145 146 Questionnaire Given to the Study Sample of Freshman Students at King Abdulaziz University Part I: General Information (Please check the appropriate square.) 1. 2. Sex: E] Male I: Female Citizenship: [:3 Saudi Arabian [:]Non-Saudi Age: College: Major or Field of Study: Father is: [:11iving [:1not living Father's education (check one or more): 1:] Does not read or write. [:]Some reading and writing but no formal school experience. 1:] Has finished elementary school. [:]Has finished secondary school or equivalent level. [:3 Has finished college. [:]Has advanced degree(s) (Master's or Doctoral). [:lHas vocational training (please specify:) 8. 9. 10. 11. 147 Father's socioeconomic status: a. Please describe, generally, what type of job your father has. (Examples: elementary or secondary school teacher or princi- pal, laborer at company or manufacturing firm, officer of company, etc.) b. If possible, please estimate your father's monthly income: Mother is: [:Iliving [:Inot living Mother's education (check one or more): [:]Does not read or write. [:]Some reading and writing but no formal school experience. [:1Has finished elementary school. [:lHas finished secondary school or equivalent level. [:1 Has finished college. [:]Has advanced degree(s) (Master's or Doctoral). [:]Has vocational training (please specify:) Mother's socioeconomic status: a. Does your mother have any job besides her housewife job? [:1 yes C] no If "yes": b. If possible, please estimate your mother's monthly income: 148 Instructions for Parts II and III: The numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 indicate a graduated rank, starting with "l"--"strongly disagree" through "5"--"strongly agree." Numbers 2, 3, and 4 represent graduated rankings between the two ends of the scale. For Parts II and 111, after you read each item, please put a mark (such as / or x) under the appropriate number corresponding to your response. 00 not use this method for responding to Items 13-16 of Parts 11 and III. Part II: Student's Choice of College Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 1 2 3 4 5 1C. The college I am now attending was my first choice. 20. I have a clear idea, including specific reasons, why I am enrolled in the college I am now attending. 3C. In the decision as to my choice of college, I received a great deal of help from others (parents, friends, teachers). 4C. I consider my parents to be the strongest influence on my choice of college. 5C. My friends and peers had less influence on my choice of college than did my parents. 60. My parents discussed with me, before I was admitted to this college, the reasons why they wanted me to attend this college. 7C. BC. 9C. 10C. 11C. 12C. 149 I feel satisfied with the college I am presently attending. If I had the opportunity to change colleges, I would not consider making the change. If I were to change col- leges, I would obtain the permission of my parents before making the change. In the matter of choosing a college, parents put more pressure and influ- ence on their daughters than on their sons. In general, parents be— lieve that students who have just graduated from secondary school are not mature enough to choose a college independently. Since my admission to this college, my parents have not checked with me to see if I am satisfied with the college. Strongly Disagree 1 Strongly Agree 5 Please comment briefly on these aspects of your choice of college. 13C. What are your reasons for choosing the college you are now attending? 14C. 15C. 16C. 150 Please list in order of importance the persons who influenced or helped you in arriving at your choice of college. List their relationships to you (e.g., parents, friends, teachers, etc.), not their names. (List the most important person first; the next most important person second, etc.) How were your parents involved in helping you choose your college, and what reasons or arguments did they give in expressing their preferences? Were you convinced by these reasons? Please explain, briefly, why or why not. IF YOU MUST USE ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR ANSWERS TO THE ABOVE, PLEASE LABEL YOUR ANSWERS "13C," "14C," ETC. ON THE BACK OF THE PAGE. 151 Part III: Student's Selection of Academic Field of Study (Complete as you did Part II.) Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 1 2 3 4 5 1M. My present academic field of study was my first choice. 2M. I have a clear idea, including specific reasons, why I chose my current academic field of study. 3M. In the decision as to my aca- demic field of study, I received a great deal of help from out- side sources (parents, friends, teachers. 4M. I consider my parents to be the strongest influence on my academic field of study. 5M. My friends and peers had less influence on my academic field of study than did my parents. 6M. My parents discussed with me, before I chose my academic field of study, the reasons why they wanted me to choose my academic field. 7M. I feel satisfied with the major I have chosen. 8M. If I had the opportunity to change majors, I would not consider making the change. 9M. If I were to change majors, I would obtain the permission of my parents before making the change. 10M. 11M. 12M. 152 In the matter of choosing an academic field of study, par- ents put more pressure and influence on their daughters than on their sons. In general, parents believe that students who have just graduated from secondary school are not mature enough to choose their academic field of study independently. Since my admission to this college, my parents have not checked with me to see if I am satisfied with my academic field of study. Strongly Disagree 1 Strongly Agree 5 Please comment briefly on these aspects of your choice of major field of study. 13M. What are your reasons for choosing your current major? 14M. 15M. 16M. 153 Please list in order of importance the persons who influenced or helped you in arriving at your choice of major. List their relationships to you (e.g., parents, friends, teachers, etc.), not their names. (List the most important person first; the next most important person second, etc.). How were your parents involved in helping you choose your major, and what reasons or arguments did they give in expressing their preference? Were you convinced by these reasons? Please explain, briefly, why or why not. IF YOU MUST USE ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR ANSWERS TO THE ABOVE, PLEASE LABEL YOUR ANSWERS "13M," “14M," ETC. ON THE BACK OF THE PAGE. 154 H3)” 0*)” “U1 1“” 411.322, qucllfi 2.2.113- mum 5.2.1- gum 02.1 g «15,, dlbflrirkrwl c4. use-13,05,333 MIMI” ‘3ng! 3,41%»?! 01 113,92, gibbon». ,Lsi ijigluwgtsycauurpi, a___.,Jui 31.... ué'agfi..,2134¢.3dlc-.L‘J,J1J WJIJJIL‘DXJ' 32.1 , 59113.51 deuIc‘g. ”55.012?” 4,0 610.11 ”1.2.21, . 'WYIZE” UL (dwlg1 ) f......‘Jl‘,§..lJ131.112.. col.) ‘J .\ “.54., LA, L,3,‘2I,.,.‘vi aye i! ‘héh‘ll up “aw-2.3 _ y . L... Ohfillfiififillfiwcfin 13,2483“; jfli. 352.1831: ”.1: M‘hfiLYI 1.3.2. C,i _ ,- 0.31m 3.7.11, . LbdlaingdlLWIgLMl$~ aw 3,4: 1.1 . 2,211,th mchLbobiigfih M51551, UL... ..-1 vi use» 3,4: 1.1.: .42.”; . r‘J‘J‘J‘ wow ”a ‘65:...111 is, yawn-3191.018... C,i taut-95.5 LS - t .22... 22,-2.3. 1243.323: sum.» 2i... J‘s-‘1 J 6211523 Elf-DUWJIFPLJL-J‘ ‘15“ u‘ ”bat-“3 0151-3 . 411w: Oldw,iiéuiwbbul.ia ' CW5 Jéfl'rbdfl #115)” gr“ dx 433: éfiérv‘i’w 15:5“ “MVIldJIb1 Genny,- WIdelrgadlzjbm 4511-0/ / of». 155 gMIDuLL, 21,119 C, $5.91: L.1),1JIZ;___._.-J 01“,; 4,1432,“ 39% JGUU‘JB Zei'l‘J‘LU-fi‘wr J» Juée-J‘dé uU-J‘ «wk-«a J31“ . ((e.g-Ji , L’21, 3.1102223”; smug.“ ULFJ‘IJ : LdeLfiJA. FIL'ELny a. “5‘31 ‘53:.J1 : W331 www'ow‘ u5( 1/1321-3‘ Comm cult ) .55 ( 1:34:41-» 6‘9”“)? ( 1 ada-M ( ) :M-J‘ - 1' .................................................... ,fisJi _,~ (LdaJ‘_OJb_4So)L;p—&35o .................................................... : 2,..EJ1 -g 0..O......C..OOIDOOOOOI.....................ID.-OOCD...0.0--....................-...O...’COO....0.CO...D.-.I...’................... 00000000000000 156 3 (2'1”) 0,41pr - W'ubwdewii zwwuti l-i 2513134e'93r 0993',» ( (/) 3au'c-é: 9"“"1‘? - V . 2511,21»; 0530931124.." E,» .2451'9.‘ ( ) WJW‘wdhhflbz‘bi-JLEN'W ( ) . (maul gwa‘wa. 2,2,1 . JIQYIAQI 3,1... ”:1 ( ) .lfJJmLfiagbelaLHl 9,41,12,31 ( , . 349'le ( l , human. ”£3le “31,1an ( , ' (‘MJJJé-we-L) 0'):u°-1—- J12- 61J3ew~=3434 #1514144 ( ) e __ - (JLlelinumsc-Uai -,zgu,.vi,a,aw~1igsiuu - x wd- :lh-I l a—Fl“ J-‘U‘ ”‘5'" ”£49,1de (11 gdfl¢-Z¢JUI,1'&L.M31u|.n¢§IIUarJL Lbs.“ J 41.33,... ”SL513, . . . 20:13. 21:14:31 . (... wJuJIL,J....,1 -, axe-.11 gMch-JAJI, Jsufifildwo. (T) -3 (fFUI) “4.1wa - .WIugauJQUp( ) .3L9J149u5( )-i 157 gig-2.6.132). 03,310,... (”Jules WEIRD; _ ,. . (.3190: ”22121.20 . 373353311133 3) ( ) JDJ‘—"""‘" 050 1435-”: 3‘55”: EruJ‘cfi-H Fwd-1 ( l . . ° 333383-043'912-2‘53 3.0-34" eb"»'“->.>\< > 4911+». :'~}'>1~"’?'( ) F . 1.93001 ELL-.rJl 22.1.1 ( ) M22221. ) K.uL7J14A.: L UGLLIJ11~A11~54J( ) _ . “535.131 0 qJL‘z-uo-J‘ ‘s-OLO UZJL'S. M 0‘ : UJwLfidflzJjJW‘( ) , 2,2122% eawyif'siwi, - n 0L?555¢wa-US 1.355541ng «132934-513 1.545 J13 (1) - ‘1 1 ) {~33 ( ) )5.)ch a. 01,212,...22153-2121 u!) {3.13:215151 (1’) 25,1421! 212.01,“? r5” 051.321 4.3.1191 a223,,- . 11,.) LfJ-gdm‘ 158 cJ—x— JL~ micr-i '1 guy)“ : “JIJQM J5... . u:1»:.J1 '5 Ji 1.“..- {1.591) 141...; om): 4;... c 'r-U: L.L._~.¢.JLJI J;._. ‘\ F7), . 114.22.. WAD”... J.) ~L—v “LA-IL.“ 2.....2154105, uwiebwi- 2,1; J: 1.1.4.21, (V) 2,1...1 .2, ‘l-.,Jl . (yew-9201,31... 1.1121136.» 423-,1ch Gun '1' l ‘ _ o T t \' “g —T I 03131 1 } doJlJI M... i m ""‘"‘“‘“““1" " ““ 1 Jun 211,91 6.21 do: 1,5.” _ , 1 ado-.11 ”plum L.,;..l o l’aJLJI'.| J" 3.4“?» 15...“, 3):} (JFYI {5 JJ .. y dJL‘zJ ,5... 243-... Eta-1 o 3:5..110i') u; ”Ltd-3, WWULI-‘JJDS J - r wluiluggvzfigzal... ‘lfiy‘lium, W91; 5:313:51: 9:310:4-‘55‘91 - t . 1:151;le u.11....211, ‘N—afl" "I “y'fik 33,4 .. o L—efiflajwlw 4,- . ,,si,,:l: o. 4le5 1 fibe‘aifiJlat-JI‘LB-1 o WIouLdeJl:&' . om 0.15:1 J." 159 .. o - 0 t ’i" 1' l T 0.51:1 Jun! LL: LL: ............... ................ ................. .................. .................. .................. oooooooooooooooooo ------------------ ............... oooooooooooooooo ................ ... c.rI...»onCe9A.ccon-OODOIOIODOOOOQOOQQOIOOOOOOIOOUDCQIO.C... oooooooooooo UL J45" 5)“ W'wc J? J'- uk .5. .0le LL“, 0 .31 . ,fia-Ji Lid.) .L.-=..£- QlBQfiJIJLyJ 01‘.” .372: c». 1201 a" 0,“;in 15---,“ 411,311 at}. Li." . Q'LgJi wit-N 249331-11 ”‘11 (ll 4.-c,-l:l.:5 5,55- ”21,101 if 2.;wa 72.94.11 Wren“ uh 2,65." 2,41” ”flu ”i: ‘51 c234: left-J1 WUL‘E-l . 25%| 0,315.11, 2.5.11.2” gee-.113... y‘ab‘dd- 0‘ u“ Wr’ o W‘OAQJJWyL : QUIQWZfiQIQBW‘Jl’uLAQIMLU'15,)“ 3' 0.311 [firs-2:: dUlZPLU@JL:;.lH.L~l um I. - -11 --ll' 11' 160 ........................................................................................................................ .................................................................................................................... 6.3,;1: ”J c,is wu1.~.u...n,1 9.3-JUL”, ‘l._.,Jl - u -l (.Ls,‘il, 532.12.. ...,.-.,-,51 $71,711 ) 2,1543 d,L,:-'.lz,.L«. ...... 3312318.... 145:, 421-4 U; 1: ,:S\J( l ) one. 1., 72.5.0 3,1,1“ ”34.05,;1: 455,13.st ca, - \o . duct.»- gigmi “39,14,226; all [5,431 daiy‘si ._.—_-_——-———-———_—_——_—_O_“-—_—_--_——_—— _-- c_————.—_;——_————o————-¢.—o_—--————-.—. -_————_- ..———-. ___——_—_——_—_—-——.——— ~_H_———_—————_—_~—_— 2,152.11 UBBJ§JJ19p5UuLa§£1 clelrjl 5.1.,La2'1, 0.2.1 - ii ...................................... ................... .......................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................... ............................................ 161 U'gaéJ-J'Jufi' “bx- thJl "In." 2.40.11 .9: uwiebwi L.,.:.,;.5 “59.1 2.1.1, V3,L:IL_5,'L,,JI) . (11.;153,wiua‘i.,i.Jau,-a: .5... 33,103,... J." o i l" T l OJ'JF Jul-‘11 LL: LL: 1 . .,.n #21 J .JiJlU/prdl .b'vijuwi .,,;.1 am 0 OJLSE-I 4’365 6,1.“ ...................................................................... M 2.5.31, 2,13 0'91 .54-1 Lag-221.532.”... cpl aw was 31...». W¢AS=JUWUV J ywviuwuagwt. . 3.1:L.‘1| 1,2,1, 1...:JL,.:1:JI,51 “£1,006 0 MdIJLkal J u] 3L)". 'uwwk 3e)“ chew 641155112)" Lb“- . “db-"’13"; o. Jilcés V‘s—t" Law-"r“ u-‘w‘JL' ‘4—-—+J. «SJ-335‘ u'r-F-P) . $45.3.“ ...................................................................................... 162 o t i' ,_ i \ 0.92:1 1 ”'5le. LL: Lu. 3,. ,1: [Cabral . 9‘31 “183‘ L5.1.] 'Jw’dl ,f...-.-;Ji,,_.=.-.Ja.~,:.n U31, 1.11 1.9,iJldJ: Jams}... 03‘; . uJL'.J1 W35 #5.: u‘ 3....1 '--5}~e°.w'dl,.. 2: JJ L-,....,.ui,Ji C1,”, 051 ”I. . ”an :4le J:- Us. .1.» ¢BU'.4L&:J1,L;&I 01;, The-5J1 winch—1' chm-”'9‘ . 91.211 1.3.“ avfii Us ............................................................................... ,vdizmghlsafia.‘ (”3151101 4...... tin, was- (154931.31 3’ 3051‘“ Low-b" a- pee-:63 ubuEJlI-JJUI mdufis («04—4 thlUIA-kflblgal . Bhul .51 U/Aslelifl 0'5li .13. w”- 0‘ o‘- WFwJ‘HB ‘51—“ Jab-3"“ UPLJJ‘ . 9.2.0.;le 163 -3 Quit-3WD Efl’JloLsutybchdelJb—g 315 ‘15.," I UVIQer Lfifl'dfl'wflijf.'pty-‘ 0.0L .. "v ............................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ........................................................................................................................................ .00....o...-......o..o..--....oDQOOOO0.0-O...00....0.0.0-...-OOOOOOOCOOOOOQOOOOO0-00.... OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 71—249 &)§1=reJo5 ceiJ‘OWQJK—N‘wéfi ‘13)“ - ‘8 SJML’J‘JWI L:- bs'bfi‘nwnsfit. Wwfl' 3.5.34») ...((~) Law-JIM) 0941““) i —l o “i' ’1 i" ”_..—J; LjufaaéJ-ULUJI‘Sé‘ udegéjbfiFwalak's‘g M -10 .M' LLfJ H4,433: ”aw 19,2331 L,-:.ii,,.2li .................................................................................... oooogooo — - oooooooouo-coon-co...cocoooooco...u...o-oo-oo.............ogoo-0...... ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 164 H ZjulglwmoJLABJJ «21913131 ¢¢JL422L 0.2.141 . @LJI 2,3.01 ooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo . -.. ... . . . . ......- -...............- -...-........O nag-0.... coo. coco-c 0.-.-.00-.-...... .- o C-...............-.........-......-.-.......... no. I O Io...cog-Q-onoauooolOCC...O0....-.000.COOODDQOO0......Ob..-----.........-......‘....-............-u..O....Q...O....-.........0......OOCODOOIO.I ........... oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Iofingponn~ll...oOno-QOCQOIIOGOOOOIID...5.09--..-OQOOOOQOOIOOOOO.OCIOOOOOOODIOOOOOOIOOCOQOOCODOOO. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 165 . / . . . I 9" ‘ '00 . King Abdulaziz University .17-1..., _.MU Jo. i W.$aad¢'xfia&a ;___-,._..c.........-...=.. . ”s“ M A...“ . NM‘mf ”W. was-n’ :» .x 2-1. .- - a. __ RCV. : _P)' 00,82... -7 —&UI TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN We hereby certify that Mr. Zohair A. Al-Kazmi has transla- ted into Arabic language the English version of the questionnaire used as a tool in his research for his Ph.D. dissertation entitied STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTAL INFLUENCE IN CHOICE OF COLLEGE AND ACADEMIC FIELD OF STUDY AT KING ABDULAZIZ UNIVERSITY IN SAUDI ARABIA. We hereby verify that the translation is honest, accurate, and valid. It gives us great pleasure to state that during the period he spent among us in Saudi Arabia collecting his data for the disser- tation, he made tremendous effort to accomplish his objectives that he came for. The center has supervised the process of conducting the questionnaire. We are looking forward to benefit from his findings and to have him as a colleague. We do wish him the best of luck. Dr. Farouk S. Abdulsalam, Dr. Mohamad El—Chamdi, rbfkg‘Qé/7/(/A/lablxw /7. ~w Deputy Director, Educational Dire or, Educational and and Psychological Research Psychological Research Center. Center. 166 Criteria for Translating Subjective Responses Into Objective Responses on a 1-5 Scale The five categories listed below were followed by a panel of judges in classifying the subjective responses of the survey sample to Items l3, 14, 15, and 16 of Parts Two and Three of the research questionnaire. (The letter "C" in the item number on the questionnaire indicated an item in Part Two related to the respondent's choice of college, while "M" in the item number in Part Three indicated an item related to the respondent's choice of major.) 1328M; l. The reason given showed that the parent was the main influ- ence on respondent in choosing the college or major, and the student seems completely dissatisfied with the decision. 2. The reason given showed that various factors--friends, parents, teachers--affected respondent's choice of college or major, and the student seems dissatisfied with this decision. 3. No response; student did not know. 4. The reason given showed that the respondent chose the col- lege or major mainly by himself/herself, and the respondent is par- tially satisfied with the choice. 5. The reason given showed that the respondent chose the college or major by himself/herself and he/she is completely satisfied with the decision. 14C&M: 1. If the student listed nobody except himself/herself as the only factor that influenced him/her in college or major choice. (No influence by others.) 167 2. If student listed somebody else--friends, teachers--or other factors, such as high school grade point average, beside himself/ herself as influencing his/her college or major choice, but the stu- dent did not mention the parent on his/her list. (Student influenced by somebody other than parents.) 3. If student did not list any factors or wrote anything that indicated that he/she did not know. 4. If the student listed his/her parents as an influencing factor in his/her college or major choice but he/she did not list the parents as the influence of most importance. (Student partly influ- enced by parents.) 5. If the student listed the influence of his/her parents as most important in rank, whether followed by others or not. (Student is strongly influenced by parents.) 1528M: 1. If student mentioned anything that showed that there was totally no influence by his/her parents in the matter. 2. If there was partial parental influence and a student completely agrees with the decision. 3. No response. 4. Partial parental influence, but student was not satisfied with that parental interference in his/her college or major choice. 5. If student showed that he/she was strongly influenced by parents in the matter and the student strongly disagrees with the decision made. 168 C&Ml6: 1. Student is completely convinced. 2. Student is partly convinced. 3. No response, or response which does not give any indica- tion of whether respondent was convinced or not. 4. Student partly rejected his/her parental influence as interference in college or major choice. 5. Student completely rejected parental influence. APPENDIX B SUMMARY STATISTICS ON EDUCATION PROVIDED IN SCHOOLS OF THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA 169 APPENDIX B .‘lu 29.3..» 2 . .93.» .3: p 5.) 5.0 5.2... 22:: e. 5) I...) 2...... Sci! 2.. 5) is 33.8.. 22.... v... 51.: 5a... 3.3... gin» :. _.....) i z. I... It! .826 . 5;th... 3.5...2. 3m .82 8.2.2 I. 2.2.. I. {sirloin-III!!! PI! 5.: \ «it... 5.: \ :21 37.1 .370 14.1! Arid 33 .1431 $1.: ”5...: i3... 315 ibis... 3.1.. . a...» glans... 83...: aigglsgxnli 23:8... 2.5838381p fogs-B. 33.1.21. 33313183313103 1.... .1... «is. a: in. 1.4 d3 .31.... .15 .3... 5... a... 3.... 3 . .r n]... .5... 4;... 003:). \fiafiiilxmuxu .13; 7.929 51.8} 3.3 a... 8: a _.. a 2 Sign. {.14 :8. z: 8.8 . .. to; I, .88 8:. 82. 3. Inc. 18 ‘3... I.» 1.: i 9. =93 la. «ml.» ‘5 1 1.... 3 \: .33 1.20 {to 1.... 8: a... 812 8"! E. Jew» .13 a a: 82. i 3.: ‘5 .11.. .1.) 28 so: 2:: .83 2.: 8.383 In!» ‘1. 33 3 a: a: I. a. in. all: 11. is I 2. an. a. a! migiufiwfltp 3 5 28. so. a: €81.88 1.5 on an .88 8... 5 31.1.5... .‘f‘. 0 2.8 an: .22 on: in 5.1.6 a... 8.3 $2: 3.! 3.. 8:383: 2‘. 5.3.. . S x: a : III-3.. 1: \ Ila I]! I10 I... III.» \H. .1- . b I... .15 1.. A... :1... A.» 8.5.0.3310"... 3310615180332 3. 3.: \ ..:1 .143 ... .31 5.... .31. if. .1... D j» 832. .33. Roan- v.2 1.... 8:35.: .33. :8. 3!. 82. a 2 1...» 3...... :2. e: .. v: 2 3 ‘5 5A.. 5k) 553...... .913 9.4. 3». £9. a 1 It 3x. £9.55... .3...th IL ‘l’ .2.- ..u anc p _ 2:52— .1!» . c n .. .‘R .103 «E. c . $2: u. . 3:5 I. 1‘. q 33 u . $66.5»...— q‘IJ. _..-m. 25.. 2:: a... ..... It»: 5 5 5...: .295 g 0.32: c: E..“.8£l.1¥lii 1.11... 1111. 111 . 2 w HJ\I .fjfi: : r III! .- III. ‘1’. I.» 1|: I: \ t8... 1.. .143 x \u 11 law: 4\ 1:5 ‘10 “Jinan“ 1.38... I x... I. .27. 3 a}... all" I. .1}. .3... .11. i .13.. 1 .1. .1. .3... . , i I . 5 In. 3: .3... I} 13 . .19 .3. I: 89 a: 31985:... .2383 34 3 9.8. 8.: 5.: €263.03 5.2.5 2 a. 9, .3 32.. a5. 2 to. 2.2.: 2. :2 :33 3.55;: 52.32.. 7.55.31 E. 5.82. m:- ‘e!!. 1.03-'8; a... 3.: . 5.51 m... 3. 3t . $51 .11.... 31.. as...a .3. 3... A. iYEhI’T—aij .33 T3] 1... 1.1.... .3» .3... 80p \ Chop .guiot. gaunt»!!! 3309.3 _... 0350.! 80.2 long g 3.5:: x :3... 53..."..an 55.27114. A. 4332.33qu 1..) $21,). a «.5.- .j. N...) o .o....ql\.....r|1l_n1.. NOA‘KS .fi‘luzdvfl’lfil‘nnu a... 0.00 32.2.0.9 0. 82.00 8:8,: .. it... i . 3: 53¢ 8 808.: 170 .... 3. f3. I!sllitl333:§l.lilfl Ilia-QU‘III-Digl‘liii‘ia C.1 171 .rIfl ..3012.3%.1..341.§\.359Ii\.‘53I... 1.8.8.2....» 0» 1.. .x . .. . . .. _. 2... 3.. :0 I .2 5 2... .2 .5 5 c .. .2 3. 3 .. 1 2 .. =2 :55 r. up 5....1. : z. . 5 11!. :3. v: 2.5 E. .n I .2 .. .. . 3 8......— .n T. a- - .1... t; —‘a \.*fi r r I- hid... 3v —¢o. 3' r.- 1 r. z“ '- Ju I “O ’5‘: . 3:: pH up 5.1.. 3. .2 E . 2: E...- ..Z: e... v“. 9.3: 1!. 5... 5, Z 9:: a... n. .n . in 113.8 2 .II .. Is... .r .. . .... .3: 2..“ .3. .22 .... _..: 2 a: :. .n .. 2. 5...... .n .. .1... .1... 2 i .. q . . s: :5. 23.. I... .2 .5. 2 5.8. :2 .2 .... 2. L. 3 I." a... .2 u. r. _.. .. .5 as?! i v. .31.. Z. 7. . . z... .2... 7.... .2 S. 2.... .7... r... :. .. .3. 3. 3 . _.. an .325 9. <. 1 z. .1 .. w . w E. .3... :23 5.. a: 3. 2. no... .3. 5. 1.. 3. 5. .3 2.0.. ‘2. :2 a. n. we a. _.3 32.30 a. >. I1. i. .... 9 5.. .909 I... 2.. 3.... .2. 3.. 3 3n .n. 9 mu .9. .393 Z r. Jan‘s .1 3 .. . n... 2:. in. .3 a! S... _.9 E... x. v. .5. .2 .1 _.. n. i... .21: c. o. In... .2 5 .. . 2. :3: f... :3 .i. 2... E... .1. .. I. 3... .u. 2. Z .. i. 8:. 2 u. .413 3 . - . Z 3.... :7. :- 9. 2.... J. 2. 3 : $2 .. _. 2 q t. .8. .. IIJTI . I. II L. a...“ 5. .... - _ a: Z)... .3... .0. on of. n3 1... .3 s 0.! u. an a n :2 12:... p. .. I. 2.. 2 : .. .... _..... r... :z. 3. $3. a: f... z .. .3. 3.. .2 n. .. 7... 1.... n. .. 55. .1 .. _.. . 3... .3: i... .3. a... 2.... 5.. .2 _... Z .3. c! 3 .. .. 2.. 3..- : . . A . . - .. .7.er I. , .. .. .s... .3. c! 0...... _.. .. 2 .7 t. x. n .. .1... a. v .5... . . 2 . . .. .Z 7... 7.... f... _..: 2 .. =3... 1.... .2 E. Z. c. _.. .7... 2. .4. on c. .2 . .3 22.. .. - mwn < .2!) . . 3. 3... c... 4 2.... v... 2 . f... .n . c. at: u 3... u > V 1% sun... :_ .. .. . .. q 3.. 2.2 3:... 2... 2. .2. _.. 1...... n... :1 7... 2. i 2. :2 2n 1.. 5 S. o .. _.. 95.! u mm . II TII Hum N J r r a B...) .7 m. .. w . .a. L... 5... E: .2. i. .3: .5: _.. .... i. 9.. =2... 7.. .c. n. v. c. .5 t...— m - m. .. fiIII. }u 0 TI 0 I16 .2 .4 _.. . . . 7... 3.8. .21: Z... .n. 2:: .2 23.. n... 2.. ..... 2 2.. s. u... 5.. no. 9. . : E u... .13.— me n I‘ II n H M \‘k r. .. . 5 9?. I... 2. 18... 2.. v... .... i3 3 .2 ¢ 5 i... - .. . .1 .. 3...! L .rAJ. . 2. : : . .. f. 2.. .2... 2:. _....n 5.. :x. 3.... .. 9.. 2.. c... 1.. _.. :5 . .2 9.. 3 F. n. 2. 3.... a: .. . p 51.1 . z. .. _... n . .. .3. :3 2.... i... .6... .3 :2. 3 3a.. .. .5: 2.. 1. i a. 3. .3. .. 3.. u... n. r. 2 .u .3 III... . .. a... .3... 31...... . . . .. .2 .3 E . 7. _...q 3.... :7... .23.. Z... .5“ 7.2 9’- 23: E 2.3 2.: :2 .6». .7. .5 22.. n. E. u... u... 2. 5 2... :8. _ a _..-‘0 .33 c .2... III). I r .l 0 I. if‘ . IIA i0]... .1). . .2. 5. 3.. 3 5 t. "2.. a... 2...... 2.... .37. 32: 3...... F... :2... .3 3:8 _..... 2.... .2: 3.. :2. SN: 2 ,3... 9.... .2 .3 n... 3.. t... 1...! N. .1 I I. I. I. I I. I. . I. I . I. I. I. I. I. I. m . n n u w x. n. n. . . . _ . . . I .. . - _.- .m _..... «m. . .. Tim; .. w. .. f.“ w... x _m m... .. II n m. x f J a .u o a w T . a. . f .. J. a s9 .H. .— f on a. I . f c a. a. I w ._.._......._..........................:.........:..II. a — .I .. Q! A H .I . I J ~ .I . . f 5’ At I . -..- > if , .Ii...r- . . fi - I r1. r \ ’ I .J... .. 1.1.... .3) .1... .111.) III. 53.1.) i I Eiut‘itfip‘Izt i lip!‘..llls§t§§ II X1. «_....u .3... 5 .345 .114 I13 «J... 3......) «if? . q3.9.... «5.2.1.. .11... . APPENDIX C FREQUENCIES OF THE SURVEY SAMPLE RESPONSES (RANGE 1-5) FOR EACH OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS, PARTS TWO AND THREE. REPRESENTED BY SEX AND BY WHOLE SAMPLE, ALONG WITH MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS T72 Table C.1.--Frequency responses of the survey sample to the question- naire items (range 1-5), Parts Two and Three. APPENDIX C S.D. S.A. Std. PART TWO Sex 1 2 3 4 Total Mean Dev. Item: C1 M 26 27 33 71 68 225 3.57 1.338 F 16 28 ll 57 95 207 3.89 1.322 Entire sample M&F 42 55 44 128 163 432 3.73 1.339 Item: C2 M 6 6 37 101 75 225 4.04 0.920 F 3 7 32 78 87 207 4.15 0.906 Entire sample M&F 9 13 69 179 162 432 4.08 0.914 Item: C3 M 49 52 12 62 50 225 3.04 1.508 F 21 39 15 74 58 207 3.53 1.343 Entire sample M&F 70 91 27 136 108 432 3.27 1.449 Item: C4 M 56 68 18 46 37 225 2.72 1.449 F 24 66 20 45 52 207 3.15 1.418 Entire sample M&F 80 134 38 91 89 432 2.93 1.449 Item: C5 M 49 58 41 48 29 225 2.78 1.348 F 33 58 40 48 28 207 2.89 1.300 Entire sample M&F 82 116 81 96 57 432 2.84 1.325 Item: C6 M 49 62 26 45 43 225 2.86 1.450 F 30 51 19 68 39 207 3.15 1.384 Entire sample M&F 79 113 45 113 82 432 3.00 1.425 Item: C7 M 17 19 31 63 95 225 3.89 1.254 F 11 16 34 46 100 207 4.00 1.201 Entire sample M&F 28 35 65 109 195 432 3.93 1.229 Item: C8 M 39 30 39 46 71 225 3.36 1.475 F 35 22 26 51 73 207 3.49 1.491 Entire sample M&F 74 52 65 97 144 432 3.43 1.483 Item: C9 M 40 49 44 47 45 225 3.04 1.390 F 37 31 33 57 49 207 3.23 1.428 Entire sample M&F 77 80 77 104 94 432 3.12 1.413 Item: C10 M 32 42 55 55 41 225 3.12 1.311 F 53 63 19 31 41 207 2.73 1.486 Entire sample M&F 85 105 74 86 82 432 2.93 1.411 173 Table C.1.--Continued. 174 PART Two 5 S'D' 5"“ T Std' ex 1 2 3 4 5 otal Mean Dev. Item: C11 M 32 77 37 59 20 225 2.80 1.225 F 58 87 27 19 16 207 2.27 1.187 Entire sample M&F 90 164 64 78 36 432 2.54 1.236 Item: C12 M 39 74 21 61 30 225 2.85 1.347 F 58 73 12 42 22 207 2.49 1.365 Entire sample M&F 97 147 33 103 52 432 2.68 1.366 Item: C13 M 4 58 12 105 46 225 3.57 1.131 F 5 39 12 117 34 207 3.66 1.040 Entire sample M&F 9 97 24 222 80 432 3.62 1.088 Item: C14 M 27 83 25 37 53 225 2.96 1.401 F 36 32 28 46 65 207 2.64 1.489 Entire sample M&F 63 115 53 83 118 432 2.82 1.451 Item C15 M 67 72 54 28 4 225 3.76 1.068 F 28 107 52 15 5 207 3.67 0.887 Entire sample M&F 95 179 106 43 9 432 3.70 0.985 Item: C16 M 81 21 105 14 4 225 3.72 1.077 F 82 16 94 10 5 207 3.76 1.102 Entire sample M&F 163 37 199 24 9 432 3.73 1.088 Table C.1.--Continued. 175 PART THREE 5 S'D' S'A° T t 1 M Std' ex 1 2 3 4 5 o a ean Dev. Item: Ml M 18 27 22 56 102 225 3.88 1.320 F 17 35 16 47 92 207 3.77 1.378 Entire sample M&F 35 62 38 103 194 432 3.82 1.348 Item: M2 M 4 12 29 92 88 225 4.09 0.942 F 7 12 36 74 78 207 3.99 1.045 Entire sample M&F 11 24 65 166 166 432 4.05 0.993 Item: Me M 39 64 21 68 33 225 2.95 1.369 F 34 47 25 68 33 207 3.08 1.360 Entire sample M&F 73 111 46 136 66 432 3.02 1.365 Item: M4 M 63 83 22 36 21 225 2.42 1.300 F 40 67 35 39 26 207 2.72 1.321 Entire sample M&F 103 150 57 75 47 432 2.56 1.318 Item: M5 M 37 78 39 51 20 225 2.73 1.233 F 32 54 46 51 24 207 2.91 1.260 Entire sample M&F 69 132 85 102 44 432 2.81 1.248 Item: M6 M 51 87 22 42 23 225 2.54 1.302 F 32 64 26 57 28 207 2.93 1.322 Entire sample M&F 83 151 48 99 51 432 2.72 1.323 Item: M7 M 16 13 21 82 93 225 3.98 1.176 F 10 17 30 55 95 207 4.00 1.172 Entire sample M&F 26 30 51 137 188 432 3.99 1.173 Item: M8 M 23 34 37 63 68 226 3.53 1.333 F 31 16 35 48 77 207 3.60 1.431 Entire sample M&F 54 50 72 111 145 432 3.55 1.380 Item: M9 M 39 57 48 56 25 225 2.86 1.277 F 35 50 49 42 31 207 2.92 1.321 Entire sample M&F 74 107 97 98 56 432 2.88 1.297 Item: M10 M 28 49 67 55 26 225 3.01 1.195 F 51 65 34 28 29 207 2.59 1.368 Entire sample M&F 79 114 101 83 55 432 2.81 1.295 Item: M11 M 30 71 53 52 19 225 2.82 1.179 F 50 73 39 23 22 207 2.47 1.273 Entire sample M&F 80 144 92 75 41 432 2.66 1.235 Table C.1.--Continued. 176 5.0. s.A. PART THREE Sex Total Mean Std: 1 2 3 4 5 Dev. Item: M12 M 44 79 26 51 25 225 2.71 1.314 F 47 63 33 35 29 207 2.68 1.362 Entire sample M&F 91 142 59 86 54 432 2.70 1.336 Item: M13 M 2 20 21 117 65 225 3.98 0.906 F 2 23 31 93 58 207 3.88 0.975 Entire sample M&F 4 43 52 210 123 432 3.94 0.941 Item: M14 M 27 77 48 26 47 225 3.05 1.334 F 34 46 44 35 48 207 2.92 1.407 Entire sample M&F 61 123 92 61 95 432 2.99 1.369 Item: M15 M 84 58 74 8 1 225 3.96 0.958 F 42 85 64 13 3 207 3.71 0.924 Entire sample M&F 126 143 138 21 4 432 3.83 0.948 Item: M16 M 93 18 106 4 4 225 3.85 1.062 F 90 15 93 5 4 207 3.88 1.070 Entire sample M&F 183 33 199 9 8 432 3.86 1.065 NOTE: 5.0. = strongly disagree; s.A. standard deviation. strongly agree; Std. dev. BIBLIOGRAPHY 177 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books and Journals Aburokba, Hassan A. 1979. "Economic Development and World Economy." In Saudi Arabia and Its Place in the World. Edited by Dar Al-Shoroug. Jeddah: Ministry of Information, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Al-Sagoff, Dato Alsyed. 1967. An Introduction to Saudi Arabia. Singapore: Malaya Engraving and Litho Printing Co. Berdie, R. F. 1967. "A University Is a Many-Faceted Thing." Personnel and Guidance Journal 45:768-775. Bindagti, Hussein H. 1979. "The Geography of Saudi Arabia." In Saudi Arabia and Its Place in the World. Edited by Dar Al-Shoroug. Jeddah: Ministry of Information, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Bordua, David J. 1960. "Educational Aspirations and Parental Stress on College." Social Forces 38:262-69. Bowers, Thomas A., & Pugh, Richard C. 1973. “Factors Underlying College Choice by Student and Parents." Journal of College Student Personnel (May):220-24. Brittain, C. V. 1963. "Adolescent Choices and Parent-Peer Cross Pressures." American Sociological Review 28:385-90. Butcher, H. J., & Butcher, H. B. 1969. "Predicting Arts and Science Specialization in a Group of Scottish Secondary School Children: Some Preliminary Results." Scottish Educational Studies 1:3-10. Clausen, J. A., ed. 1968. Social Science Research Council. Sociali- zation and Society, Boston: Little, Brown. Collier, A. 1938. "Social Origins of a Sample of Entrants to Glasgow University." Sociological Review 30:161-85, 362-77. Festinger, Leon. 1964. Conflict, Decision and Dissonance. Stanford, Ca1if.: Stanford University Press. Furstenberg, Frank. 1971. "The Transmission of Mobility Orientation in the Family." Social Forces 49:595-603. 178 179 Gibson, E. 1969. Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Gladieux, Lawrence E., & Hansen, Janet. 1978. Income Students: A New Target for Federal Aid. New York: College Entrance Examina- tion Board. Goldstein, Michael S. 1974. "Academic Careers and Vocational Choices of Elite and Non-Elite Students at an Elite College." Sociol- 99y and Education 47:491-510. Hansen, Morris H., Hurwitz, William N., & Madow, William G. 1953. Sample Survey Methods and Theory, Vol. 1: "Methods and Appli- cations." New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Harrison, 8., Bidgeon, J., Rigby, M., & Volger, C. 1977. "The Decision to Enter Higher Education: The Case of Polytechnic Sociology Students." Journal of Higher Education 6:453-76. Hays, Donald G., & Rothney, John W. "Educational Decision-Making by Superior Secondary-School Students and Their Parents." Personnel and Guidance Journal 40:26-30. Hibshi, Muhammad Ali. 1979. "Educational Development: Some Basic Considerations." In Saudi Arabia and Its Place in the World. Edited by Dar Al—Shoroug. Jeddah: Ministry of Information, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Holland, John L. 1958. "Student Explanations of College Choice and Their Relation to College Popularity, College Productivity, and Sex Differences." College and University 33:313-20. Hood, Albert 8. 1968. ”What Type of College for What Type of Student?" Minnesota Studies in Student Personnel Work 14 (University of Minnesota). Hoopes, Luther H. 1976. "Enlist Current Parents in Your Admissions Recruiting Effort." National Association of College Admissions Officers 21:7-8. Hurlock, Elizabeth. 1964. Child Develgpment. New York: McGraw-Hill. Jacobsen, R. Brooke. 1971. "An Exploration of Parental Encouragement as an Intervening Variable in Occupational-Educational Learning of Children." Journal of Marriage and the Family 33:174-82. Kahl, Joseph A. 1953. "Educational and Occupational Aspirations of 'Common-Man' Boys.“ Harvard Educational Review 23:186-203. 180 Kandel, D. B., & Lesser, G. S. 1969. "Parental and Peer Influences on Educational Plans of Adolescents." American Sociological Review 34:213-23. Kelly, Alison. 1976. "Family Background, Subject Specialization and Occupational Recruitments of Scottish University Students: Some Patterns and Trends." Journal of Higher Education 5: 177-88. Kelsall, R. K. 1957. Report on an Inquiry Into Applications to University. London: Association of Universities of the British Commonwealth. Kerr, W. D. 1962. "Student Perception of Counselor Role in the College Decision." Personnel and Guidance Journal 41:337-42. Lanzetta, J. T. 1963. "Information Acquisition in Decision Making." In Motivation and Social Interaction. Edited by O. J. Harvey. New York: Ronald Press. Levy, Charles S. 1964. "The Classification of Personal Decision: An Aid in Decision Making." Adult Leadership 13:103-104. Linney, Thomas J. 1979. "Changing Values in Higher Education, AAHE- ERIC/Higher Education." AAHE Bulletin 31:5-8. Lipsky, George. 1959. Saudi Arabia: Its Pegple, Its Society, Its Culture. New Haven: HRAF. McDill, E. L., & Coleman, J. S. 1965. "Family and Peer Influence in College Plans of High School Students." Sociology of Educa- tion 38:112-26. Menacker, Julius. 1975. From School to College: Articulation and Transfer. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education. Ministry of Education. 1977. Bi-Annual Report of the Ministry of Education, 1975-76. Presented at the 36th Sess. of the Inter- national Conference of Education, Geneva (Sept.). Ministry of Finance and National Economy, Central Department of Sta- tistics. 1978. Statistical Indicator 3. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Ministry of Information. [1976 or thereafter.] Saudi Arabia. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Morell, R. W. 1961. "The Pattern of Decision Making." Catholic School Journal 61:46-48. 181 Morris, P. 1964. The Experience of Higher Education. London. Morrison, Jack R. 1968. "Factors Influential in College Selection." The Clearing House 42:265-70. Mosher, C. A., & Kalton, G. 1972. Survey Methods in Social Investi- gation. 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Murphy, Gardner, & Likert, Rensis. 1967. Public Opinion and the Individual. New York: Russell and Russell. Rehberg, R. A., & Westby, A. 1967. "Parental Encouragement, Occupa- tion, Education and Family Size: Antifactual or Independent Determinants of Adolescent Educational Expectation." Social Forces 45:362-74. Schwarzweller, Harry K., & Lyson, Thomas A. 1974. "Social Class, Parental Interest and the Educational Plans of American and Norwegian Rural Youth." Sociology of Education 47:443-65. Sewell, W. H., & Shah, Vimal P. 1968a. "Parents' Education and Children's Educational Aspirations and Achievements." Ameri- can Sociological Review 73:559-72. . 1968b. "Social Class, Parental Encouragement and Educa- tiona1 Aspirations." American Journal of Sociology 33:191-209. Seymour, Warren R., & Richardson, Morgan. 1972. "Student and Parent Perceptions of a University: A Generation Gap?" Journal of College Student Personnel 13:325-30. Simpsion, R. L. 1962. "Parental Influence, Anticipatory Socializa- tion and Social Mobility." American Sociological Review 27: 517-22. Stordahl, Kalmer E. 1970. "Student Perceptions of Influences on College Choice.“ Journal of Educational Research 63:209-12. Tillery, Dale. 1973. Distribution and Differentiation of Youth: A Study of Transition From School to Co11ege. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Co. Trent, J. W., & Medsker, L. L. 1968. Beyond High School: A Psycho- Sociological Study of 10,000 High School Students. Berkeley, Calif.: Center for Research and Development in Higher Edu- cation. Venerable, Wilbur R. 1974. "Parental Influence on College and Voca- tional Decisions." National Association for College Admissions Counseling Journal 19:9-12. 182 Williams, Trevor H. 1972. "Educational Aspirations: Longitudinal Evidence on Their Development in Canadian Youth." Sociology of Education 45:107-33. Yelon, Stephen L., & Weinstein, Grace W. 1977. A Teacher's World: Psychology in the C1assroom. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Dissertations Al-Badr, Hamoud A. 1972. "Public Relations Activities at Two Saudi Arabian Universities." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University. Bertsch, Donald P. 1966. "An Analysis of Factors Related to Per- ceived Parental Influence on College Freshmen and Parent- Student Perceptions of Central Michigan University." Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University. Clay, Daniel C. 1976. "Parental Rapport and the Changing Patterns of Educational Mobility Among High School Seniors in a Rural Michigan County." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Uni- versity. Nallman, George H. 1980. "An Analysis of Factors Affecting Student Decisions Under the Minnesota-North Dakota Tuition Reciprocity Program." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University. Arabic-Languege Publications Akhbar Al-Mobtaas (Student Abroad News). 1980. Monthly magazine. Houston: Saudi Arabian Educational Mission. No. 15. Arabic- 1anguage publication, recently renamed Majalat Al-Mobtaas (Student Abroad Magezine). Educational Documentation Journal. 1980. Center for Statistical Data and Educational Documentation, Ministry of Education, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. No. 19 (May). Arabic-language publication. Ministry of Education. 1979. Survey Research About the Wishes of Senior High School Students--in Both Scientific and Literacy Departments--Towards the Future. Dammam: General Educational Directorate of the Eastern Province, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Arabic-language publication. Umm Al-Qura. 1959. Official newspaper of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. No. 1780 (Oct. 23). Published in Arabic. "IITIIIIITIAIAIIIT