THE IMPACT ON 'COLLEGE‘STUDENT
DEVELOPMENTOF SHORTTERM,
ENFORMAL FACULTYSTUDENT
SMALL GROUP INTERACTION

° Thesnstortnenegreeof PhD
MICHIGANSTATEUNIVERSITY -' V ,

' “a,ifROBERTiEDWARD ALBERT-l"

rhesus
i
V
1

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

THE IMPACT ON COLLEGE STUDENT DEVELOPMENT
OF SHORT-TERM, INFORMAL
FACULTY-STUDENT SMALL GROUP INTERACTION

presented by

ROBERT EDWARD ALBERTI

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Higher Education

Mfl/é/, ,. 4L

Date May 26, 1969

0-169

 

 

 

 

9

ABSTRACT

THE IMPACT OF COLLEGE STUDENT DEVELOPMENT
OF SHORT-TERM, INFORMAL
FACULTY-STUDENT SMALL GROUP INTERACTION

by Robert Edward Alberti

In an experimental study of faculty-student relationships
college students and faculty members met together in small
groups, and resulting changes in student behavior were measured.

Although it has been generally assumed in higher educa-
tion that close student-faculty relationships are to be de-
sired, and college catalogs typically extol the virtues of the
"small student-faculty ratio"auuithe "friendly academic com-
munity" that exists on the campus, research evidence to support
the value of these concepts is practically negligible. The
popular myths of the importance of instructional style and close
student-teacher interaction are simply not supported by the
available research data.

It was hypothesized that students involved in extra-class
small group interaction with faculty members would show post-
treatment differences in certain behaviors from students who
were not eXposed to such contact, and that the students in
small groups which were high in interaction would change more
than those in groups which were low. Experimental and control

groups were set up to test these hypotheses.

Robert Edward Alberti

Subject scores on the Omnibus Personality Inventory re-
vealed evidence of experimental effects in the case of the
dimension Altruism -- concern for the welfare and feelings of
others.

When measured behavior changes were viewed in relation-
ship to the level of interaction in a group, a significant
negative relation was suggested for the Social Extroversion
measure, which may suggest that this group experience tended to
meet the members' needs for social contact.

There is no evidence to indicate that the amount of ex-
posure to this experimental treatment is related to the quan-
tity of change on any of the CPI dimensions.

The sample of engineering students who took part in the
study were somewhat different from their classmates, and from
engineers in general. Compared to their own pOpulation, the
participants were significantly younger, more likely to be
freshmen, and included a greater proportion of women than the
total enrollment of the college. Their major fields were
representative of the various engineering departments. Com-
pared to engineering students in general, this group was more
highly autonomous and more liberal, had greater freedom of
impulse expression, and were better adjusted personally.

On a scale of attitudes toward closeness to undergraduate
students, the faculty members who volunteered to participate
in this project reported a significantly greater desire for
personal relationships with students than did the total

faculty of their college.

Robert Edward Alberti

On a follow-up questionnaire, the discussion group par-
ticipants indicated that they have found interpersonal relation-
ships to be the most outstanding feature of their college
experience. They volunteered for this project seeking to meet
other students and faculty. Although they were generally
favorable toward the results of their participation, they were
disappointed that attendance was not better, and that their
initial expectations were only partially fulfilled. Improved
interpersonal relationships were a result for many participants,
according to their reports. More favorable attitudes toward
engineering and the faculty were other notable reported out-
comes for the participating students.

The content of the small group discussions included a
broad scope of topics, including curricula, the engineering
profession, sexuality, politics, and university policies.

It is believed that the experimental gs. control differ-
ences in Altruism of the subjects is an actual difference in
behavior which may be attributed to the effects of the experi-
mental treatment. Supporting this finding is the self report
of the subjects on the follow-up questionnaire.

A potentially significant value from close faculty-
student contact is suggested by this study. However, it seems
critical that such interaction take place under conditions
which are purposefully designed as facilitative of growth in

directions sought by the student.

THE IMPACT ON COLLEGE STUDENT DEVELOPMENT
OF SHORT-TERM, INFORMAL
FACULTY-STUDENT SMALL GROUP INTERACTION

By

Robert Edward Alberti

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration and Higher Education

1969

DEDICATION

This thesis on college student development is dedicated
to Mom, who never went to college, and never lacked for it;
to Debby, who has sampled eight, and found them all lacking;
to Lawrence and Melissa, for whom, if they choose to go, I
wish a more human, loving collegiate environment than is

typical today.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My sincere appreciation for suPport and assistance in the

completion of this effort is extended:

to Dr. W. Harold Grant, for inspirational guidance and counsel
whenever I asked -- and sometimes when I didn't know I needed

it;
to Jean Fickes, for always-willing help, and for friendship;

to my guidance committee, Drs. Bob Winborn, Sheldon Lowry, and

John Suehr, for keeping me honest;

to Bob Docking, Jerry Eppler, and Bob Wilson, for support,
encouragement and advice, but most of all for their fellowship;

to Rick Eigenbrod, Dick Hark, Kyoto Mizuba, and Dave Wright,

for ready and incisive advice and encouragement;

to Professors Carl Cooper, Ian Ebert, Martin Hawley, Ben
HOltman, George LaPalm.and Denton McGrady of the College of
-Engineering for support, suggestions, and many hours willingly
given;

tn) Dean George VanDusen, Mrs. Virginia Phillips, and the staff
<IE the Office of Student Affairs in the College of Engineering

for much information and "logistic" support;

t1) those engineering students who took study, recreation or
Sleep time to take part in this research project;

arufl to Debby, Lawrence and Melissa, for love, patience,

acceptance, and understanding.

iii

LIST OF TABLES .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF APPENDICES o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Statement of the Problem
Hypotheses . . . . . . .
Definitions of Terms . .
Limitations . . .
Overview of the Study .

CHAPTER II BACKGROUND FOR THE STUDY . . . . . . .

The Impact of the Faculty on Student

Behavior . . . . . .
The Impact of the Small Group on
Student Behavior . . . . . . .

The Dimensions and Development of_
Student Behavior . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . . .

Research Design . . . .
Experimental Procedure .
Instrumentation . . . .
Data Analysis Procedure
Summary . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . .

Student Demographic Data . . . . . .

Omnibus Personality Inventory Scores:

Experimental gs. Control Groups .
Level of Group Interaction . . . . .
Exposure to the Treatment:

Attendance Data . . . . . .

Faculty-Student Social Distance Scale

Descriptive Data: The Follow-Up
Survey . . . . . . . . . . . .

Descriptive Data: The Content of
Group Discussions . . . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Page
vi

vii

\0 \nomew ._.

CHAPTER V

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TABLES . .
APPENDICES

TABLE OF CONTENTS CON'T.
Page

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . 77

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Summary of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Implications for Research and

Practice in Higher Education . . . . . . 84

O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 88
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 100

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O C C O O O 116

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENT
PARTICIPANTS AND ALL M.S.U. ENGINEER-
ING STUDENTS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 51

2 GROUP MEAN CHANGE SCORES - OMNIBUS
PERSONALITY INVENTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

3 OPI PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST MEANS AND
STANDARD DEVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

4 ANALYSIS OF CO-VARIANCE SUMMARY DATA -
OPI ALTRUISM SCALE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

5 OPI GROUP MEAN CHANGE SCORES Kg. .
INTERACTION LEVEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

6 OPI CHANGE SCORES Kg. INTERACTION LEVEL -
SOCIAL EXTROVERSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6O

7 FACULTY-STUDENT SOCIAL DISTANCE SCALE -
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

8 OMNIBUS PERSONALITY INVENTORY SCALE SCORES

FOR INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANTS, WITH GROUP

MEAN DIFFERENCE SCORES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
9 OPI PRE-TEST - POST-TEST INTERCORRELATION MATRIX . 111

10 FOLLOW-UP SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE - FREQUENCY
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

vi

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

A OMNIBUS PERSONALITY INVENTORY (FORM F)

DEFINITIONS OF THE FOURTEEN SCALES . . . . . 117
B CALCULATION PROCEDURE -— LEVEL OF

INTERACTION INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
C FACULTY-STUDENT SOCIAL DISTANCE SCALE . . . . . 122
D COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING SMALL GROUP PROJECT

GUIDELINES FOR DISCUSSION GROUPS . . . . . . 123
E OBSERVER SCORE SHEET FOR GROUP DISCUSSION

PARTICIPATION UNITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
F FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
G STUDENT PARTICIPANT COMMENTS ON FACULTY-

STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

vii

 

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The students are alive, and the purpose of
education is to stimulate and guide their
self-development.

Alfred North Whitehead

Few educators, one might reasonably surmise, would express
substantive disagreement with these words, yet the evidence is
manifest that Professor Whitehead's advice of four decades ago
has failed to guide the direction of higher education in this
country. In their recent highly significant report, the Hazen
Foundation's "Committee on the Student in Higher Education"
(1968) concluded that in colleges and universities today:

...we generally act so as to reinforce the freshman
trauma...

...instruction seems to extinguish curiosity and
lower intellectual aspirations...

...we largely ignore...knowledge...about the environ-

mental and developmental circumstances of learning
and growth...

...students...live in a physical and social environ-
ment which is hardly conducive to moral, cultural,
or esthetic growth...

...we measure the worth of our faculty by the distinc-
tions of the scholars who serve on it...carefully
protected from all but the most transitory contact
with undergraduates...

...our basic models...are still aimed at an intellec-
tual elite...

 

...we permit students little real involvement in
planning their own education or shaping the educa-
tional environment in which they work and live...

...we ignore the relevance of education outside the
school...

...we...permit little room for free-wheeling, wide-
range curiosity...

...our schools are grimly serious and competitive...

...we do little to help students in their search for
commitment... (pp. 13-14).

This is a serious indictment of institutions which pro-
claim dedication to preparing students for "a meaningful life,"
for "productive citizenship," or to developing "persons as well
as intellects." Yet it appears that college and university
curricula, ostensibly designed to expose the student to a broad
range of academic experiences and to teach independent, critical
thinking, have been developed from a continuing proliferation of
subject matter which focusses upon the subdivisions of factual
information. This is in sharp contrast to Whitehead's view
that the purpose of what we do in education is the encouragement
and guidance of the student's own self-development. Indeed,
research has amply demonstrated that facts and information may
be acquired by students from programmed materials -- even from
"ordinary books" -- at least as efficiently as from lectures.
Nicholas Hobbs (1966) observed:

It would seem that professors are not necessary

at all. A television screen will do as well.

Class size doesn't matter: like a cipher, a pro-

fessor is divisible by a number of any magnitude,

with quotient zero. When asked to list impor-

tant influences in their college years, one group

of students mentioned many things, including the

cafeteria, and forgot to mention the faculty. The

clincher was a study showing that students who

were simply assigned the text learned more than

students who had benefit of both text and
instructor (p. 202).

It seems evident, then, that the fundamental rationale
for bringing faculty members and students together on a college
campus is to provide an atmosphere within which a significant
human interaction may take place. That assertion is the basic

premise upon which this study was conducted.

Statement of the Problem

It is generally assumed in contemporary higher education
that regular informal faculty-student interaction is a desirable
feature in a college or university, presumably on the grounds
that such experiences contribute positively to the intellectual
development of students. Yet the literature of higher education
contains no specific evidence to demonstrate that improving out-
of-class relationships between faculty members and students
actually has any measurable impact upon student growth. There
is, in fact, little relevant research on the topic. Since the
assumption of benefit to students from such contact is basic to
such programs as faculty advising, small student-faculty ratios,
and faculty involvement in co-curricular affairs, there appears
the need for an investigation of the effects of informal faculty-
student interaction.

The present study represents an experimental assessment
of the effect on college students of informal faculty-student
interaction in small groups. The student participants were
systematically engaged in a small group situation, some with a
faculty participant, others without, and the resulting impact
upon student behavior was measured. Thus students in the
experimental groups were exposed to much closer contact with

members of the faculty of their college than they or their

colleagues would ordinarily encounter in their collegiate ex-
perience. This close contact with a professor over several
weeks provided a substantive test of the value of extensive
faculty—student interaction.

The study sample consists of forty-three men and women
undergraduate students who were enrolled in the College of
Engineering at Michigan State University during the Winter
Term 1969.

The following assumptions underfy the research:

(1) college is a structured attempt to help students change;

(2) personal interaction with significant others is an effec-
tive way of inducing change; (3) small group activity is a
proven method for encouraging personal interaction; (4) informal
small group interaction with faculty members may provide a means
for assisting students to change in ways associated with the
objectives of higher education; (5) it is possible to measure
such developmental changes with a standardized paper—and—pencil

instrument.

Hypotheses

The central hypothesis examined in this study was that
the behavioral development of college students is enhanced by
informal faculty-student contact which extends beyond that
normally associated with formal classroom instruction.

The specific experimental hypotheses tested were:

(1) Students who participate in informal small group

interaction with a faculty member over a period of

time demonstrate a difference in certain measured

developmental behaviors from students who do not
participate in such interaction.

(2) The amount of change in measured student develop-
mental behaviors is directly proportional to the
level of group interaction in experimental groups.
That is,measured change would be greater for
students in experimental groups which experience a
high level of group interaction than for those in

experimental groups with a low level of interaction.

 

Definition of Terms

Informal faculty-ggudent contact -- Verbal and/or non-
verbal exdhanges between college students and faculty members
outside the context of formal classroom instruction or functions
directly related to academic course work. Thus a discussion
over coffee, a bull session in a residence hall, a club meeting,
or a discussion group similar to those designed for this study
would be examples of such informal contact.

Informal small group interaction -- Face to face discus-
sion among the members of an experimentally set up, non-class-
related group of students (with a faculty member in the experi-
mental groups). The group discussions were self—directed by
the members on topics of mutual interest.

Level of group_inte£action -- Tape recordings were made of
the small group meetings and later monitored to record the
number of times each group member began a new unit of partici-
pation in the course of a meeting. Participation by members
of each group was analyzed in terms of verbal communication only.

The amount and distribution of participation serves as the

criteria for interaction analysis of each group. A low variance
of participation represents balanced participation (small vari-
ation from the mean). A high average of participation units
represents frequent exchange of verbal behavior. Thus the level
of interaction L is defined herein as a direct function of the
average of participation units M, and an inverse function of

2

the variance of participation §_:

L = ——E (See Appendix B)

Measured developmental behaviors -- Each student subject

 

in the study completed the Omnibus Personality Inventory (OPI)
before and after the treatment period. The scales on the
Inventory represent a series of defined personal behaviors
which are the criterion measures for change in this study.
Thus the "measured developmental behaviors" are equivalent to
the OPI scale descriptions (See Appendix A).

Participatipn unit —= Monitoring the tape recordings,
the observer recorded a "participation unit" for a group member
for (1) each pg! verbal communication made by a member, (2) a
"restart" =- new communication after a noticeable pause _- by
a member who has just been speaking, (3) each five minutes of

an extended statement by a member.

Limitations

Although a careful effort was made to set up a systema-
tic experimental investigation of the impact on student develop-
ment of informal contact with faculty, several important

limitations are inherent in this study:

The short time duration of the experimental treatment
obviates the potential impact of prolonged faculty—student
interaction over the four-plus years a student attends
college. A fully adequate design would require a similarly
controlled treatment over a longer period —- perhaps the
entire four years.

The short range evaluation of growth planned for this study
precludes the possibility that the real impact of such a
program may be best demonstrated over a somewhat longer
period of time, possibly even several years after college.
Although the Omnibus Personality Inventory is at present
one of the best-researched instruments available for
measuring change in selected student behaviors, it suffers
from the inherent limitations of a paper—and-pencil criterion.
The use of volunteer subjects, which was considered neces—
sary here to minimize subject attrition, introduces a bias
which is recognized. The participating sample is compared
to the total population of the college in Chapter IV.

The use of volunteer faculty participants, again considered a
necessary procedure, may limit the generalizability of re»
sults to faculty members somewhat like those who were

involved.

Overview of the Study

 

In this chapter it has been noted that this study attempts

to assess experimentally the specific behavior changes in

college students which result from increasing their contact with

members of the faculty, The research has grown out of the need

 

 

‘to define those experiences in higher education which are most
timportant to the development of each student.

Chapter II of this report is a review of the literature
relevant to the present study. In Chapter III, the research
design and experimental procedure are discussed in detail.

'The findings of the study are presented in Chapter IV, and the

summary and conclusions appear in Chapter V.

 

 

 

CHAPTER II

BACKGROUND FOR THE STUDY

"College students," according to the eminent higher educa-

tion historian Frederick Rudolph, "are the most neglected, least

understood element of the American academic community." Para-

 

doxically, he is able to observe in the same essay (1966, p. 47)
that "unquestionably the most creative and imaginative force in
the shaping of the American college has been the students."

Efforts to understand this shaping force have literally
exploded in contemporary literature -- both academic and popular.
In order to limit the scope of this review and to clarify its
intent, it is helpful here to identify those questions which are
of particular relevance to this study.

The general question to which this thesis is addressed
is: "What are the effects of close interaction with faculty on
the behavioral development of college students?" That question
is the central theme of this review. Also examined are these
related questions relevant to this area of inquiry: What are
the significant dimensions of college student behavior? What
are the important determinants of student behavioral development?
What is known about the uses of the small group as a vehicle

for student behavior change?

10

The following review summarizes earlier studies which may
be relevant to answering these questions. This material is
representative of the work which has been done in the areas of
the faculty in relationship to student behavior, the general
nature of student behavior and development, and the processes
of the small group. At the end of the section is a summary of
the implications of prior research for this study.

The Impact of the Faculty on
Student Behavior

The principal concept this paper examines is that the
faculty plays a key role in the developmental process of college
students. Evidence reported in the literature to support that
thesis is scarce indeed. Mayhew, in commenting on this seeming

paradox (1966), is cautiously optimistic:

Although the evidence about the effectiveness of
college faculty can at times shake professorial
egos (in one study, teachers were not even men—
tioned by students in response to an open-ended
query about educational influences), nonetheless,
feeling and logic suggest that kind and quality
of faculty are somehow involved. (p. 212)

An experimental study designed to examine the effects of
different degrees of faculty interaction with students in rela-
tion to specific coursework was conducted by E. K. Wilson at
two colleges (Newcomb and Wilson, 1966)° Students in a variety
of academic subject areas were exposed to systematically dif-
fering forms of instruction, involving large lectures, small
group discussions, independent study, and in each case, a
different quantity and quality of contact with the professor.
Outcomes of these experimental courses were assessed on a

variety of criterion measures, with a uniform result: "...by

11

not even one of these criteria, in any course in either college,
were there any significant differences between students who had
much contact, limited contact, or none at all with their instruc=
tors." (Newcomb, 1966, p. 108)° Newcomb is quick to add, how»
ever, that one ought not conclude that teachers are worthless,
but that the powerful influence of the student peer group acts

to significantly modify the specific impacts of an instructional
method. The extensiveness of student—peer interaction, particu—
larly in these small colleges, was sufficient to neutralize
possible differential results from the various treatments.

Nevertheless, such results do tend to shake the collective
"professorial ego." Can we demonstrate that faculty g9 have
some influence on the behavior development of their students?

It is possible to give a qualified "yes" on the basis of several
non-experimental studies which have been reported.

C. R. Pace (1966), reporting on his studies with the
College and University Environment Scales (CUES), has analyzed
student responses to those CUES items which deal with teaching
and faculty-student relationships. Professors, in the opinion
of their students, are characteristically "dedicated scholars."
Near-unanimity of student voice was found on this description
alone for faculty members at all types of institutions (public,
private, two=year, and fourmyear colleges, and universities).

On other items there appeared a hierarchy of effectiveness u-

in terms of instructional quality, personal interest in students,
academic standards __ which led Pace to "grade" the various

types of institutions according to this student report of faculty

quality. In his evaluations, the "high prestige liberal arts

12

colleges" received an A, other liberal arts institutions,
"strongly denominational colleges," and junior colleges got
B's, and universities and state colleges "also ran" —- earning
C's on the Pace—CUES scale. In the context of this single
evaluation of their collegiate environment, students seem
generally to feel their mentors are doing at least an adequate
job.

In a more specific examination of effective teaching pro-
cedures, McKeachie (1962) reported extensively on research
evaluating instructional methods. The general conclusions of
his work have been confirmed in more recent research and are
worthy of comment here. The evidence is quite clear that
information is transmitted to the students at least as effec—
tively by textbooks as by direct instruction, although closer
faculty-student interaction in the classroom may produce changes
in such non-cognitive dimensions as attitudes toward learning,
interest in the subject matter, satisfaction with the learning
experience, and ability to apply learning to new experience.

A critical variable in many such studies is the individual
instructor, and of signal importance is his enthusiasm for
teaching and for the subject matter.

One specific way in which teachers have impact upon stut=
dent behavior is in the role of social model. Joseph Adelson
(1962) discusses this concept from the psychoanalytic viewpoint
with the concepts of identification and identity, and the poten—
tial importance of the teacheramodel in fulfilling the identity
needs of the adolescent student. He characterizes four model

teachers: The shaman, a charismatic "entertainer"; the riest,

. -fi‘

13

a high status "recruiter" (and possibly "drill instructor") for
his discipline; the mystic healer, an altruistic doctor to the
educational ills of his students; and the antiamodel or disap—
pointing model, an example of everything the student wishes pp;
to be. Acceptance of a teacher—model is a highly individual
matter. The student may, on the one hand, actively seek out the
mentor who will meet his strong need for an object of identifica-
tion. At the opposite end of the spectrum is the student who

has fixed on a life style and will avoid any such interaction
with his teachers.

Hedegard (1968) concluded that the personality of a
teacher makes a difference in the response of his students. He
studied student achievement and attitudes, utilizing the Semantic
Differential technique to analyze student response to the dif-
ferent teacher "models" identified by Adelson. He found no
significant differences in academic achievement resulting from
the different teaching styles, however some models were more
influential in changing student attitudes than were others.

There is evidence to suggest that while a student may
wish to emulate a faculty model, he may nonetheless seek to
maintain a considerable distance from the chosen faculty member
(Wise, 1958; Coelho, Hamburg, and Murphey, 1963). This partial
identification may be very influential in certain aspects of
the student’s life, without his ever having had close personal
interaction with the teacher beyond the classroom.

Of particular importance, according to considerable re=
search evidence, is the impact of faculty upon the educational

aspirations and vocational choices of students (Austin, 1966;

14

Greeley, 1962; Gurin and Katz, 1966; Lehmann and Dressel, 1962;
Wilson, 1966). Although higher education traditionalists are
inclined to look with some disdain on vocational choice as a
criterion of collegiate success, it is nevertheless true that
a significant proportion of college graduates enter regular
employment (in contrast to further formal study) upon leaving
their undergraduate experience (with or without degrees).

Thus the influence of the faculty in the area of career de-

cisions ought not to be minimized. Indeed, the life style and

 

many personal decisions of an individual are intimately re-
lated to his selection of an occupation.

Austin's study of seniors at five midwestern liberal arts
colleges (1966) revealed the faculty as the most influential
persons in the career choices of these students. Frequent
contact with faculty proved an important factor in determining
faculty influence in a study of graduating seniors in thirty=
one southern colleges (Grigg, 1965). Students who reported
considerable personal contact with faculty members were more
likely to also report greater faculty influence on their plan=
ning for the future.

Teachers and faculty advisors tend to exert particular
influence on graduate school choice, according to Greeley's
nationwide sample of 1961 graduates (1962). Even when academic
achievement is controlled, a greater pr0portion of those in-
fluenced by faculty planned graduate school rather than pro~
fessional school.

Raising the sights of their students can be an important,

if difficult to measure, impact of the faculty. Freshmen at

15

predominantly black southern colleges who had the most contact
with faculty members reported significantly higher vocational
aspirations than their peers who had enjoyed less interaction
with their teachers (Gurin and Katz, 1966).

In an effort to structure additional meaningful teacher—
student contact, faculty members are typically assigned the
responsibility of guiding the academic planning of students.
An experimental study of the impacts upon freshman students
of "improved" faculty advisement was conducted recently at
Macalester College (Rossmann, 1968). A sample of incoming
freshmen were randomly assigned to advisors who were given
released time and special in-service training. Their achieve-
ment, persistence and attitudes toward college were compared
after the freshman year with the control group of students
assigned to regular faculty with fulletime teaching loads.

No significant differences were found except in satisfaction
with the faculty advisor himself! However, at the end of the
sophomore year the experimental students reported greater
satisfaction with their career choice than their control
group counterparts. Inevitably, the long-range impacts of
experimental programs are difficult to assess, yet may be the
most significant of all criteria.

Lienemann (1968) in a similar effort, studied faculty-
student interaction over an academic year by comparing experi=
mental and control groups of freshmen. The experimentals were
assigned as a block to a group of faculty and given a special
room for discussions and faculty-student meetings. Academic

achievement was improved significantly for his experimental

 

16

group, and student-student and student-faculty self-reported
interaction was greater than that experienced by the controls.

In a study of Justin Morrill College, the experimental
residential college at Michigan State University, Kafer (1966)
found these students "enjoyed more frequent and personal con—
tact with faculty members," and held "high positive regard
for the faculty who they felt were interested in and access-
ible to the students." Kafer's assumption —- and evidently
that of the Justin Morrill College founders -— is that such
interaction is a desirable thing.

It is obvious, perhaps, that not all individual faculty
members have the same potential for impact upon students.
Differences among academic fields, and varying personal styles
have been shown to be generalized to some degree
(Thistlethwaite, 1960, 1966). Greater influence is evidently
associated with teacher enthusiasm, teaching excellence, en—
couragement of independence and humanism, and the extension
of positive support to the student.

The total environment of an institution is itself an
important determinant of the meaningfulness of faculty-student
interaction. Increasing size tends to "disciplinize" the
faculty, and to weaken the pervasiveness of the "community of
scholars" atmosphere (Astin, 1963; Clark and Trow, 1966).
Nevertheless, there is evidence to support the notion that an
institutional attitude and commitment to close interpersonal
relations may psychologically reduce the sheer numerical size

of a population (Chickering, 1966)°

17

Williams (1965) questions the value of informal faculty-
student interaction. He found little relationship between
student perceptions of good and poor teachers and the amount
of teacher-student contact outside of class. The most im—
portant teacher behavior correlates of good teaching identi-
fied by his student—subjects are cultural interests, order~
liness, conscientiousness, enthusiasm, optimism, warmth, and
sociability.

Interestingly, when she asked faculty members to report
their attitudes toward social distance between faculty and
students, Knight (1968) found no significant differences
between faculty members whose overt behavior had been judged
high and those judged low in interaction with students out-
side of class. She concluded that perhaps "college teachers
overtly display a certain behavior but covertly feel that
social distance is necessary between teachers and students."

Thus, although we know that our limited ability to
measure behavior change is an important consideration, the
net result of research efforts to determine the specific im—
pacts of faculty upon students appears to be only a suggestion
of long-range influence upon academic and vocational goals.
Attempts to discover measurable short—term teacher influences
on student behavior have thus far yielded inconclusive
evidence. Nevertheless,it is difficult to accept the idea
that the faculty do not play an important role in the process
of development of the college student. Perhaps additional
experimental studies under controlled conditions will begin

to suggest the combinations of influence patterns which

 

18

produce measurable results. And perhaps we may some day be
able to devise instruments more sensitive to behavior change.
The dilemma of the nature and importance of faculty-

student interaction is summarized well by Joseph Katz (1968):

...most students have little contact with their
professors; and they may rank knowing and get~
ting recognition from professors low, not be—
cause they consider professors undesirable to
know, but because they find them relatively
inaccessible. To make things more complicated,
many observations show that students are

highly ambivalent about closeness to professors;
that they wish as much to be left alone by them
as to gain their attention and approbation.

This in spite of a certain kind of professional
vanity that assumes that if professors would
only spend more time with students, the students
would be much happier =— an assumption that is
frequently belied by the facts. It is the
nature of the contact, not its frequency, that
is crucial. (p. 27)

If the faculty are indeed not a primary determinant in
the development of college student behavior, what elements of
the collegiate environment may be identified as most impor—
tant in producing the changes which have been observed to
occur in students? Although a detailed review of the studies
in this area is not directly relevant to the present research,
a brief summary is in order here.

The academic environment of a college has been shown to
be an important influence in the selection of students. The
character of a student population seems to impose a self~
selection on future students, thus perpetuating a similar
population. Newcomb and Feldman have noted that "colleges'
distinctive impacts tend to be cumulative: the kinds of
students they admit help to determine the kinds of impacts

that those students will confront." (1968, p. 146).

19

Studies of student residence tend to show that the nature
of the student culture in a residence is a more important in-
fluence than the residence itself. (Nasatir, 1965; Siegel
and Siegel, 1957; Alfert, 1966; Eckland, 1964; Greenfield,
1964; Brown, 1966; Lozoff, 1968).

It may be seen from these studies of the environment
and student residences that the peer group is a pervasive
influence on student development. In fact, the most frequently

observed determinant of student behavior change is the culture

 

or the peer group. Several researchers in college student

development have unequivocally identified the peer culture as
the single most significant force in shaping student behavior
(Newcomb and Wilson, 1966; Wallace 1966; Heath, 1968; Becker,

1., 1961).

93;.

Because the culture exerts its influence upon the indi-
vidual principally through the small groups to which he
belongs, it is important to look in more detail at some of the
applications of group processes on the college campus and the
ways in which small groups are known to influence individual
behavior.

The Impact of the Small Group
on Student Behavior

Implicit in the assumptions underlying this study is the
concept that small group interaction is an effective approach
to changing behavior, or promoting learning. The writer has
been strongly influenced in this area by the work of Carl
Rogers (1961), Leland Bradford (1964), Jack Gibb (1964), and

William Schutz (1967). The material in this section will be

20

concerned principally with the application of small group pro-
cesses to the development and modification of behavior in
college students.

Earlier in this chapter, reference was made to compara—
tive studies of different modes of instruction in college
courses, noting that small group discussion shows no notice-
able advantage over large lectures in terms of the trans-
mission of information. Yet it is recognized that small groups

do have a favorable impact on the learning of attitudes and

 

values, in fostering positive feelings toward learning, and
in understanding applications of knowledge (Bowers and Soar,
1960; McKeachie, 1962; Wilson, 1966).

The teaching-learning process has been characterized as
a "transaction among persons." This concept is of particular
relevance to the affective dimension of learning, wherein the
medium of exchange is the behavior of the persons involved.
The idea and theoretical foundations of learning through the
pgppggg of interpersonal relationships has received substan-
tial support and development in laboratory training groups,
principally under the aegis of the National Training Labora-
tories (now "NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science")
of the National Education Association (Bradford, Gibb and
Benne, 1964). Since the earliest NTL workshops at Bethel,
Maine, in the late 1940's the training group has been used
extensively in the development of work teams and management
personnel in business, industry and government, finding its
major application in the improvement of human relations skills.

The use of the small group as a vehicle for human relations

21

training on the college and university campus has been a more
recent application (Mouton and Blake, 1961). Begun initially
in connection with student leadership training, the campus
t-group is today facilitating black-white confrontation,
student-faculty dialogue, teacher training, interdisciplinary
interaction.

Examining the impact of human relations training on
college students, Dyer (1967) found that a 1% hour meeting
each week for eight weeks produced significant changes in self-

report and peer ranking of interpersonal behavior.

 

On the other hand, L. K. Johnson (1966) found no effect
on personal functioning from t-group training with college
students. Similarly, LeMay (1966) compared students who had
volunteered for group counseling and found no post-treatment
differences between his treatment and control groups.

A dynamic program of student involvement in community
services has been underway for over three years at California
State College at Los Angeles (Brass, 1969; Newgarden, 1967).
During 1968-69 an on-campus program on racism has involved
white students, faculty and staff in small group encounters
designed to make them "confront their white identity," toward
the end of reducing racism and promoting racial equality.
Initial evaluations of this small group project are quite
favorable (Gordon and Newgarden, 1969).

Utilization of the sensitivity training group within the
framework of a course was described by Lorch (1969). Boland
(1969) reported a gradual expansion of the use of laboratory

training methods at the University of Notre Dame. Beginning

22

with new student orientation, the program moved in five phases
to include a large number of student and faculty-student
groups throughout the University. No objective evaluation
measures are reported, however, "research indicated an over-
whelmingly positive response" from participants.

Such programs as those described suggest that under
certain conditions the application of small group methods to
the processes of higher education may have considerable value.
It remains for further research, however, to provide the means

for measuring outcomes more effectively, so that the worth of

 

such learning experiences may be demonstrated more directly.
One very significant question regarding the effective-
ness of the training group in changing behavior remains un-
answered: "Exactly what features of the group experience pro-
duced which changes in behavior?" As in all human learning,
individual differences are an important variable here. The
unique emotional environment which each group creates for
itself may be growth producing for some individual members and
inhibiting for others. A variable largely unresearched until
recently is that of personality characteristics. Are there
generalizations which may be made about the types of persons
who are more likely to learn in group situations? The work
of Levin in the Student Development Study (Katz, 1968,
pp. 376-385) suggests that authoritarianism may be one signif-
icant characteristic, since individuals who are high in
authoritarian needs are likely to respond poorly to unstruc-
tured environments -- such as are usually found in the

training group.

 

 

 

23

Similar findings have come from other studies of indi-
vidual change in groups. Flexibility and openness have been
identified as important personality attributes in the facili-
tation of a person's ability to learn in the laboratory
group (Miles, 1960; Whitman, 1964).

Attempts to isolate those elements of the t-group which
are most facilitative of change have resulted in research on
(1) specific group techniques: role playing, non—verbal
exercises, feedback (Gibb, 1952; Lieberman, 1958; Giffin, 1967);
(2) the learning process: the specific steps involved in
changing behavior (Zimet and Fine, 1955; Carkhuff, 1967;
Culbert, 9;. a1., 1968); and (3) the role and functions of
the trainer in a group: is a trained leader necessary to facil-
itate group growth? (Blake and Mouton, 1962; Farson, 1965;
Solomon, Berzon and Sprague, 1965; L. K. Johnson, 1966; Gibb
and Gibb, 1968). Such work has suggested some tentative
generalizations about the nature of the impact of group experi-
ences: (1) a variety of specific group techniques have demon—
strated usefulness under certain conditions; (2) participation
in a human relations training group results in behavior change
for some people, under certain conditions relating to indivi-
dual personality, group climate, and the external environment;
(3) there are identifiable steps in the process of behavior
change (learning), however, the exact conditions under which
change takes place vary with each individual; (4) a training
group experience may be as effective without a live trainer

present as with one, under certain conditions.

24

As Dorothy Stock observed (1964), and as is obvious from
the statements above, the key to human behavior change is the
conditions under which change is attempted. The processes of
the small group can be used to great advantage in human de-
velopment when the objectives are specific, the character of
the participants and that of the environment are known, and
these variables are matched with a technique designed to help
the participants to move toward their desired objectives.

The Dimensions and Development
of Stpgent Behavior

 

In this section is a very brief overview of studies re-
lating to the principal intellectual, personality, and value
characteristics of the college student, and the process of
their development.

One subject of considerable research on college students
has been that of intellectual development. There is, accord-
ing to the published research, a slight tendency for students
to develop an increasing orientation to "intellectual" be-
haviors from freshman to senior years. While this trend appears
in most studies (eg. Elton and Rose, 1968; Flacks, 1963;
Lehmann and Dressel, 1962; McConnell, pp. al., 1968; Newcomb,
2;. al., 1967), it is frequently not significant statistically.
Moreover, when asked an "open—ended" question about how they
had changed since entering college, only twelve percent of a
sample of California and Stanford seniors (Katz, 1968) reported
intellectual development. They were much more likely to
describe personal and social gains from their college experi=

ences o

25

In a study of 10,000 high school graduates, Trent and
Medsker (1968) found significant differences not only from
freshman to senior year for college students, but also between
college and non-college youth on several personality variables.
The groups were matched at graduation from high school and
over the next four years the college group gained in autonomy,
complexity, and thinking introversion, and decreased in
authoritarianism significantly more than did their non-college

counterparts. A number of research studies show that seniors

 

demonstrate greater dominance, confidence, assertiveness,
self-sufficiency, independence and autonomy than freshmen. In
addition, they have lower dependency, deference and submissive
needs than do their younger counterparts. While not control-
ling for the effects of maturation, as did Trent and Medsker
(1968), these studies are relatively consistent in reflecting
psychological growth on the dimensions noted (cf. Burton,
1945; Izard, 1962; Nichols, 1965; Stern, 1966; Stewart, 1964;
Webster, Freedman and Heist, 1962).

Studies of spontaneity and impulse expression show seniors
to be somewhat more open and less self controlled than are
freshmen, who tend to be restrained and controlled (Beach,
1967; K. W. Johnson, 1966; Katz, 1968; McConnell, pg. $1.,
1968; Stern, 1966; Webster, Freedman and Heist, 1962).
Similarly, although these trends generally lack statistical
significance, seniors have been shown to have need for greater
flexibility and less order than the freshmen, who are typi-
cally more comfortable with structure and routine (Izard,

1962; Rowe, 1964; Webster, Freedman, and Heist, 1962).

26

Perhaps the most consistent and significant freshman-
to-senior personality change occurs in the degree of authori—
tarianism exhibited. This characteristic has been variously
defined in terms of dogmatism, rigidity, ethnocentrism, pre-
judice, stereotyping, and intolerance. The research con-
sistently shows that seniors are less authoritarian than are

freshmen (Flacks, 1963; Foster, pp. 1., 1961; Lehmann and

Dressel, 1962; Plant, 1958; Trent and Medsker, 1968; Webster,
Freedman, and Heist, 1962).
Broadly considered, the goals and values of college

students change in consistent and predictable ways as an ap-

 

parent result of the collegiate experience. Relative increases
in aesthetic and decreases in religious values characterize

the typical transition from freshman to senior. Less obvious
are tendencies for theoretical and social values to increase,
while the relative strength of the economic value goes down.
These studies, most of which are based upon the Allport-
Vernon-Lindzey Study of Valpgp as criterion, suggest that
students tend generally to adopt the value systems of their
institutions (Heath, 1968; Huntley, 1965; Stewart, 1964;
Twomey, 1962).

Student goals for the college experience itself change
from freshman to senior years in the direction expected.
Studies by Adams (1965), Baur (1965), Goldsen, g. a_1. (1960),
and Pemberton (1963), among others, demonstrate quite conu
clusively that students enter college with a largely .
utilitarian, vocational view of purpose, and after four years

are generally much more significantly oriented to a broad

27

"general education," and to the development of interpersonal
capacities.

A note on engineering students: Because the present
study was conducted in a college of engineering, and because
it is common in higher education to view students within the
context of their curricular emphases, a few observations
from the literature which deal specifically with "engineers"
are in order.

A number of studies have demonstrated conclusively

 

that engineering students are among the top ranks in intel-
lectual ability (Centra, 1965; Darley, 1962; Stern, 1962;
Wilson and Lyons, 1961). In addition, research on the in-
tellectual orientation of students in various curricula (de-
rived from such instruments as the OPI and Stern's Activities
nggg), suggests that engineering majors are among the upper
and upper middle ranks in such attitudes as thinking intro-
version (Warren, 1964), intellectuality (Wilson and Lyons,
1961), complexity (Warren, 1964) reflectiveness (Stern, 1962),
and science interest (Stern, 1962; Wilson and Lyons, 1961).
In contrast, they are low scorers in estheticism (Center for
the Study of Higher Education, 1962; Warren, 1964), humani-
ties and social sciences (Stern, 1962; Wilson and Lyons,
1961). It is difficult to generalize from these data, how-
ever, since conflicting results have been found on the same
dimensions under different conditions.

Engineers are typically masculine in outlook (Blum,

1947; Sherry, 1963; Warren, 1964) and tend slightly toward

28

emotional distress rather than well-being (Blum, 1947; Harder,
1959; Warren, 1964). They appear dominant, self-controlled,
and socially introverted (Blum, 1947; Pace, 1964; Stern, 1962;
Wilson and Lyons, 1961). Their value patterns have been
studied infrequently, but the minimal data available suggests
elevation of the economic and religious values (Harris, 1934;
Huntley, 1965). Several studies of economic, social, and
political liberalism characterize engineers as highly con—
servative in these areas (Ferguson, 1944; Miller, 1958;

Noble and Noble, 1954; Peterson, 1965).

Summary

In this chapter an effort has been made to bring into
focus those reports from the literature which provide the back—
ground and foundation for the present research. In order to
effectively place this material in perspective, this section
contains first a brief summary of these data, then is
directed to the implications for this study of earlier find-
ings.

The college faculty are influential in the collegiate
growth of undergraduates principally in relation to their
impact upon aspirations and plans for further study and vo-
cational choice. The popular myths of the importance of
instructional style and close student—teacher interaction
are simply not supported by the available research data.

The pgincipal determinants of student behavior are the
academic environment of the college, student residence, the

peer culture, and the college faculty. Most influential

 

29

among these is the peer group, which is consistently the de-
ciding factor in personal and social change in the college
years. The environment is more important in pre-selection
than as an active Change agent. Systematic differences among
the types of student residence relate largely to the influ-
ences of the dominant peer culture in each setting.

The processes pf phg small group as an agency of change
in the development of individual behaviors have been shown

to be effective, under those conditions wherein the group

 

experience is specifically designed to help accomplish the
behavioral objectives of the individual.

The developmental behaviors pf college students which
have been studied suggest that intellectual growth, person-
ality change, and the cultivation of mature values are the
principal effects of the college eXperience. In general it
may be said that college tends to increase the individual's
orientation to intellectual activities, as manifested by
life-styles and scores on attitude inventories. Personality
change in college is a highly individual matter, however, it
may be -- cautiously -- generalized that college tends to
increase autonomy and personal independence, liberalism,
self-confidence, and complexity, and to decrease authori-
tarianism. The college educated person's value hierarchy
changes toward higher regard for aesthetic and self-fulfill-
ment values, and a lesser emphasis upon religious and
economic concerns than is typically true of non-college

individuals.

30

Engineering students as a group demonstrate some dif-
ferences from students in general, in that they tend to be
more highly intellectual, more conservative socially and
politically, and less well adjusted personally.

What are the implications of these findings for this
study of faculty-student interaction? First, the five
initial assumptions of this study are generally supported
by research: (1) college is a structured attempt to help

students change; (2) personal interaction with significant

 

others is an effective way of inducing change; (3) small
group activity is a proven method for encouraging personal
interaction; (4) informal small group interaction with
faculty members may provide a means for assisting students
to change in ways associated with the objectives of higher
education; (5) it is possible to measure such developmental
changes with a standardized paper-and-pencil instrument.
Second, these data suggest several questions which this
study may in part help to answer: Does contact with members
of the faculty contribute to student behavior change? In
what ways? How do faculty members feel about close contact
with students inside and outside the classroom? How does
participation in a small unstructured student group affect
behavior change? Are there characteristics of a group which
may be identified as related to certain behavior changes in
its members? What is the attitude of students toward close

interaction with teachers?

 

 

31

These questions led to the design of an experimental
study of faculty-student interaction which brought college
students and faculty members together in small groups and
attempted to measure student behavior change. Chapter III

describes the design and methodology of this research study.

 

 

333%

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Included in this chapter are discussions of the method-

ological aspects of the research, including the research

design, experimental procedure, instrumentation, data

 

analysis procedure, and a summary of methodology.

Research Design

Ten small groups of students were formed randomly from
volunteers. Six groups were "treated" experimentally, in
that a faculty member was assigned to meet with them. Three
served as control groups, while the tenth was a no-contact
control group. Behavior differences between students in the
experimental groups and students in the control groups were
examined at the end of the experimental treatment.

The measure of student behavior was subject scores on
the Omnibus Personality Inventory (OPI), with analysis of
co-variance applied to the post-test OPI scale scores serv-
ing as the statistical test.

The experimental design was adapted from D.I. Campbell
and J. C. Stanley's "Design 4: The Pre-test - Post-test
Control Group Design" (1963). This procedure was selected
because, although the possibility exists for "contamination"

by reactive effects from a pretest, it provides a clear

32

 

It

33

"base line" measurement of the criterion characteristics, and
controls for most other important variables, including the
effects of maturation, history, instrumentation, regression,
selection, mortality, and for interactions among these
variables. In addition, undesired effects resulting from
imperfections in randomization are minimized in this way.
Specifically, the design of this experiment follows the

paradigm:

(1) R 01 X1 02 (Experimental Section)

(2) R 0 X2 04 (Control Section 1)

3

(3) R 0 (Control Section 2)

5

in which the experimental and two control sections were ran-

domly selected (R) and pretested (O1 O3 05), the experimental
section was exposed to the experimental treatment (X1), the

"treatment control" section (1) was exposed to the control
treatment (X2), and a "non-participant control" section (2)
was given no treatment. All three sections were then post-
tested (02 04 06).

The deviation from Campbell and Stanley's Design 4 was
the inclusion of both a "non—treatment" control section, in
which the students participated only in the pre- and post-
tests, and a "modified treatment" control section, in which
the student subjects met in small groups but without a
faculty member. This "parallel control" design provided con-
trol for possible changes resulting from the group inter-

action itself, and for possible experimental ("Hawthorne")

34

effects, thus isolating the presence of a faculty member as

the major independent variable in the experimental groups.

Experimental Procedure

The following steps describe the procedure followed in

setting up and carrying out the project:

(1)

(2)

(3)

The College of Engineering at Michigan State
University, through the Dean and Department
Chairmen of the College, was invited and agreed
to serve as the population within which the
exPeriment could be conducted. This college
was asked to participate because of a personal
background and interest in engineering and the
physical sciences on the part of the experi-
menter.

Six faculty volunteers from the college were
sought by letters announcing the nature of the
project, followed by personal contacts with
individual faculty members who had been sug-
gested by the department chairmen.

At the beginning of the Winter term, 1969,
seventy-two student volunteers were sought
from the student enrollment of the college

by letters to a random sample of one-third

of the student population. The sample was
selected by taking every third name from an

alphabetical list, after throwing a die to

 

 

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

35

determine the starting point. Only sixty
subjects volunteered, of which forty-three
completed the project.

The entire faculty of the participating college
was asked to complete a faculty-student "Social
Distance Scale" (See Appendix C), anonymously
reporting their desire for informal relation-
ships with students. The responses of the six
participating faculty members were identified,
however, to permit comparison with the entire
faculty. A total of seventy faculty members
completed the scale.

The student volunteers were divided, following
a table of random numbers, into the experi-
mental (Nx = 30) and two control sections

(N = 15, N = 15).

c1 c2

The participating students were pre-tested on
the Omnibus Personality Inventory prior to the
beginning of the experimental treatment. Fifty-
four students completed the pre-test and began
the project.

The experimental subject students were then
placed, following a table of random numbers,
into six groups, of five students with a pro-
fessor. It was necessary, in the case of six
students, to deviate from the original random
number assignment in order to accommodate in-

compatible time schedules. In every instance,

(8)

36

however, the vacancy was filled from the

pool of "non-treatment" control subjects

using a new random number sequence to make

the selection.

(a) The experimental groups were instructed,
by written communication identical for
all groups, regarding the group's pur-
pose and guidelines for operation (See
Appendix D).

(b) The groups were given no specific dis-
cussion topics or rigid structure, but
were encouraged to freely discuss any
matters of mutual interest.

(c) In a meeting prior to the beginning of
the experimental session, all participat-
ing faculty members were told that their
role was not to "lecture" (although dis-
cussion of academic topics was noted as
appr0priate), but to interact informally
with the students and to encourage free
participation.

(d) The experimental groups were scheduled to
meet for two hours each week for eight
weeks.

The control students in Section 1 (the modified

treatment groups) were similarly placed by a

table of random numbers into three groups.

Again, four instances of incompatible time

(9)

(1o)

37

schedules made adjustments necessary. These

were handled as described above for the ex-

perimental cases.

(a) These groups received written guide lines
identical to those of the experimental
groups (Appendix D). Thus they were es-
sentially identical to the six experi-
mental groups except there was no faculty
member present.

(b) These groups, like the experimentals, were
given no specific discussion topics or
rigid structure, but were encouraged to
freely discuss any matters of mutual in-
terest.

(c) The Section 1 control groups were also
scheduled for two hours each week for
eight weeks.

The students in Section 2 (the non-participant

controls) received no treatment.

Tape recordings were made of the experimental

and control Section 1 group sessions, and

selected tapes were analyzed to determine the
nature of the group interaction.

(a) The experimenter monitored each tape and
recorded the verbal participation of
members. Thus an entry was made (See
Appendix E for sample interaction score

sheet) for each participant every time

 

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

38

he expressed an audible communication by
initiating, responding, interrupting, or
beginning again after a noticeable pause.
(b) A "level of interaction index" was computed
for each group (See Appendix B).
At the end of the eight~week treatment period,
all experimental and control subjects (final
N = 43) were post-tested on the OPI.
OPI results were analyzed, utilizing an analysis
of co-variance procedure to assess differences
between experimentals and controls on each of
the fourteen scales, thus testing Hypothesis 1.
Group level of interaction indices were com-
pared with OPI results, utilizing a rank cor-
relation analysis, to assess any relationship
which may exist between level of group inter-
action and changes in OPI scores, as a test of
Hypothesis 2.
Two to three weeks following the post-test,
each experimental and control Section 1
participant was invited to take part in a half-
hour interview with the experimenter. At that
time the subject was asked to respond to a
series of questions about his reactions to the
project (See Appendix F). His OPI scores were
interpreted to him, and he was given the oppor-

tunity to ask any questions he had about the

 

 

39

research. This was the final contact with

the participants.

Instrumentation

The Omnibus Personality Inventory, Form F (Heist and
Yonge, 1962, 1968) consists of 385 true-false personality
items, most of which were reportedly derived from the Minne-
sota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and the California
Psychological Inventory. The Inventory was, according to its

manual:

...constructed to assess selected attitudes, values
and interests, chiefly relevant to the areas of
normal ego-functioning and intellectual activity.
Almost all dimensions included in the Inventory
were chosen either for their particular relevance
to academic activity or for their general impor-
tance in understanding and differentiating among
students in an educational context. The fourteen
scales represent the final selection after a long
developmental process in which over twenty psycho-
logical dimensions were studied (p. 1).

Thus, this instrument was selected because it is specifically
designed to measure those dimensions of student behavior which
correspond to the commonly stated objectives of the college
experience, and because of its extensive use as a research
device on college student development. Several reports of
student development research utilizing the OPI appear in the
review of literature section of this report. Appendix A
contains brief descriptions of the OPI scales. The fourteen
scales constituting Form F include: Thinking Introversion,
Theoretical Orientation, Estheticism, Complexity, Autonomy,

Religious Orientation, Social Extroversion, Impulse Expression,

 

 

 

40

Personal Integration, Anxiety Level, Altruism, Practical Out-
look, Masculinity-Femininity, and Response Bias. The follow-
ing statements from the Sixth Ment§i7Measuremenp§ Yeapbook
(Buros, 1965) help to describe the OPI and summarize early

validation research:

The OPI, a multiscale, true-false, self-adminis-
tering personality inventory, was developed to
assess the personality characteristics of normal,
especially the intellectually superior, college
students... Although more evidence is needed, it
would appear that most scales are sufficiently
stable to permit their use where one is interested
in intra-individual comparisons over time...OPI
scales are correlated with appropriate scales from
the Sppdy of Valueg, California Psychpiogical
Inventor , Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Stern
Activities Index, and §£gong Vocational Interest
Blank... This instrument would be most useful in
research on group differences involving relatively
normal subjects.

Paul M. Kjeldergard
Harvard University

...although the authors do not advocate the clini-
cal use of this instrument, the reliability and
validity of data are about as impressive (or un-
impressive) as for any existing inventories. For
the purpose of describing and comparing college
groups, the norms based on a defined college
group are an attractive feature.

Norman F. Wallen
University of Utah

The method of analygis of group intepaction utilized

 

was based on a simplified recording of units of participation
and a quantitative comparison among groups. The concept
"level of interaction" has been defined to describe a simple
quantitative index of the amount and balance of participation
in a group meeting. There are two principal reasons for the

choice of this methodology:

41

(1) This study is an attempt to determine the impact
of faculty-student interaction under conditions
which are as "natural" as possible. Under
conditions ip yiyp, the content of such inter-
action varies widely. In the experimental situ-
ation, the amount of interaction is considered
a more realistic criterion than any attempt at
analysis of ppppggg.

(2) The content analysis systems (e.g., Bales, 1950)
require, for adequate reliability of recording
interactions, quite extensive training of obser-
vers. Because the "participation unit" procedure
described herein does not require that the ob-
server make a judgment among qualitative cate-
gories but only a quantitative record, the
training process is greatly simplified, and is
thus more practicable for the present research.

The "Level of Interaction" index has been defined as a

single measure Which is descriptive of the quantity of inter-
action among all the members in a group. The level is
directly proportional to the mean number of participation
units (i.e., how much verbal activity there is in the group),
and inversely proportional to the variance of participation
(i.e., how much the participation was dominated by a few
members). Thus the level increases with increased group ver-
bal activity and with broadly balanced participation. Con-

versely, the level will be lower for a group in which there

 

42

is little talking and/or in which one or two persons dominate
the discussions. Participation was measured by monitoring
tape recordings of selected group meetings, and "scoring"
each verbal comment by each member (see Appendices B and E).

Several methodological difficulties were encountered in
this aspect of the study. A combination of mechanical dif-
ficulties (tape recorder malfunction), attendance patterns,
and group "extra-curricular" interests (for one session, held
in the faculty member's home, the tape consisted primarily of
the audio portion of a television program the group watched
that evening!), made it necessary to select only three tapes
from each experimental group with which to undertake a com-
parable analysis. The criteria used in choosing the tapes
were: (1) the first tape of each group; (2) the last tape
of each group; (3) a tape near the middle of the project --
third or fourth session; (4) "representative" attendance --
sessions with only two members present were avoided whenever
possible; and (5) sessions of full-length -- usually one and
three-quarter hours -- were chosen whenever possible. Some
compromise among these criteria was necessary in order to
make use of those sessions judged most "representative" for
each group.

It was planned initially that level of interaction would
be assessed only by means of the single index L. Following
the preliminary calculations of these data, it became evi-
dent that an attempt to represent this variable only as a
single statistic could result in a blurring of group differ-

ences on the two components thereof =- quantity and variance

43

of participation. The final analysis utilized the original
index gpg the mean and variance as Separate variables, con-
trasting these data for each experimental group on each OPI
scale, by means of a rank order correlation coefficient.

A consideration important to this analysis is the
sensitivity of the measurement technique to the subtleties
of small group interaction. While it was neither intended
nor anticipated that this analysis would produce a highly
sophisticated picture of group interaction, it could have
been somewhat more sensitive had the scoring procedure
utilized a standard of one unit for every minute of an ex-
tended discourse, rather than the unit-per-five-minutes which
was used. This consideration was most apparent when it be-
came necessary to analyze a tape involving just one student
and a faculty member (only one such two-person group was
included in the analysis). The index for level of inter-
action tends to break down for a two person group, since
the variance remains low for a "dialogue." A more sensitive
measure, however, would have more accurately described the
tendency for one person to dominate this group and would
have contributed to the accuracy of measurement, and the
ultimate usefulness of the statistic L.

Thus, although the concept of a quantitative index to
assess the "level" of interaction in a group was not demon-
strably effective, it did provide a rough source of addi-
tional descriptive data for use in analyzing the small

experimental groups. It may be worthy of refinement and

44

further application to assess the relationship of the quan-
tity and spread of group interaction to measures of process
and content outcomes.

A social distance ppaig was administered to one hundred
and ten members of the regular teaching faculty of the par-
ticipating college to compare the attitudes of the faculty
members taking part in the project with those of the general
p0pulation of the college faculty on the dimension of de-

sired social distance between faculty and students. The

 

social distance scale itself, adapted from the work of Bogardus
(1925) (see also Kadushin, 1962), was devised as an eleven-
point attitude continuum which permits the faculty member
to express his personal feeling about "closeness" to under-
graduate students. A sample of the scale appears in
Appendix C. Although the scale as administered had no quan-
titative values attached, the responses were scored by assign-
ing values 0 - 10 to the scale points to permit the computa-
tion of statistical data regarding the responses.

Individual perceptions of the meaning of the scale items
are, of course, an important consideration in interpreting
the results. One professor -- a participant in the project --
suggested that the scale items did not necessarily represent
different points on a single continuum (he checked only one
response however). It is true that, for example, the "close"
end of the scale ("personal friends") does not state expli-
citly that it represents the extreme on a continuum of close-
ness, although it was intended when the scale was designed.
However, it is recognized that this interpretation is not

necessarily obvious.

45

Despite these apparent limitations of exact meaning of the
social-distance scale, it does provide a useful index for
comparison of the attitudes of the volunteer faculty parti-
cipants with those of the general faculty of the college.

The administration of a follow-up survey questionnaire
to elicit student participant response to the project was
something of an afterthought -- not a part of the original
research design. Nevertheless, it plays an important role
in terms of the usefulness of the data acquired.

Each of the participants in an experimental or a con-
trol Section 1 group were invited to meet with the experi.=
menter at the beginning of the Spring term for a one-half
hour interview. The purpose of the interview, for the parti-
cipants, was to receive an interpretation of their OPI pro-
file of scores and, insofar as they might be interested, an
explanation of the purpose of the project. Prior to giving
this "feedback% however, the twenty students who volunteered
for interviews were asked to complete the nine-item follow-
up questionnaire (Appendix F), giving their evaluation and
response to participation in the project. All participants
who did not respond to the initial letter and telephone call
extending the opportunity for a personal interview were sent
a second letter and a copy of the follow-up questionnaire
which was pre-addressed and stamped for return to the pro~
ject director. An additional fourteen questionnaires were

returned from this mailing.

46

The questions were devised by the experimenter to elicit
a self-report of the impact of the project on the participant.
Specifically, he was asked to identify the outstanding fea-
tures of his college experience, his initial expectations
from the project, his assessment of how well his expectations
had been met and why, his recommendations for change in the
project, his self-report of learning from the project, an
over-all evaluation of the experience, and, in an open-ended
item, his attitude about informal faculty-student relation-
ships. The data collected from this interview is described in
Chapter IV. A sample of the questionnaire appears in

Appendix F.

Data Analysis Procedure

Seven dimensions of data analysis were carried out in
this research. In reviewing these procedures it will be
useful to first summarize the data collected as a part of
the experiment. They are, for each student participant:
the project group to which he belonged; age; sex; year in
college; major field of study; attendance in his project group;
pre-test scores on fourteen OPI scales; post-test scores on
fourteen OPI scales; interaction index for his group; his
responses to each of eight follow-up questions.

The data analysis has been designed to deal with the
seven dimensions in the manner described below:

Student demographic data -- Chi-square analyses of

difference were run, for each of the four demo-

graphic variables (age, sex, major, year), between

47

the student participants and the total student
population of the college. Chi-square provides

a good non-parametric test with which to compare
the sample with the population on variables which

are divided into discrete categories.

Hypothesis 1 -- Analysis of co-variance is used to
test the significance of the differences between
the experimental section and control Sections 1

and 2 on the group means of OPI post-test scores,
utilizing the pre-test scores as a co-variate. The
analysis of co-variance procedure provides a highly
sophisticated and powerful test of significant dif-
ference. The program used in the University's

CDC 3600 computer was that developed by Jeremy Finn

of the State University of New York at Buffalo.

Hypothesis 2 -- A rank order correlation co-efficient
(Spearman php) is used to test the hypothesized rela-
tionship between mean group OPI score changes and the
level of interaction for the group. Thus group mean
change scores are compared directly with the mean of
interaction participation units, the variance of
participation, and with the interaction index L. The
rank order co-efficient is used here because the
assumptions required for a parametric test (notably
linearity of relationship between variables) are not

met, and the sample size is very small (N = 6 groups).

48

Number of meetings -- A rank order correlation co-
efficient is also used to assess the presence of a
relationship between group mean OPI score changes and
the number of meetings held by the group, since not
all groups were able to meet for the scheduled eight

sessions.

Faculty social distance scaig -- To determine the re-
lationship of participating faculty to the total
faculty population on the dimension of desired social
distance from undergraduates, a Z distribution
analysis (t-test) was made of difference of the social
distance scale means. This test was chosen because of
its appropriateness in testing for difference between
the sample and population means in a one-sample

analysis with the population variance known.

Follow-up interview data -- Results of the follow-up
interviews have been treated as descriptive data and

no attempt was made at statistical analysis.

Group discussion content =- The content of the group
discussions is reviewed as a part of the descriptive

data resulting from the study.

Summary

It is hypothesized that students involved in extra-
class small group contact with faculty members would evidence

a difference on certain behavior measures from students who

49

were not exposed to such contact, and that students in such
small groups which were high in interaction would change
more than those in groups which were low. Experimental and
control groups were set up to test these hypotheses.

The student participants were pre-tested and post-
tested on the Omnibus Personality Inventory. Analysis of
co-variance was applied to the post-test scores to examine
the experimental yp. control group differences on each OPI
scale. A rank order correlation coefficient was used to com-
pare the group difference scores with the level of group
interaction for the experimental groups, as measured by an
index devised for this experiment.

Relationship of the number of group meetings to change
scores is also examined, using correlation techniques.

Faculty participants in the study completed a faculty-
student social distance scale, the results of which were
compared with those of the total faculty population of the
college, utilizing a t-test for significance.

Follow-up interviews were held with student partici-
pants to assess their responses to the project, as a source
of supplementary descriptive data.

A detailed analysis of the project data is reported in

Chapter IV.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Each of the measures utilized in this study will be
separately analyzed in this chapter. No attempt will be made
here to draw conclusions or make substantive inferences about
these data, since those topics are treated in some detail in

Chapter V.

Student Demographic Data

Comparisons of the participants in the project with the
general population of the College of Engineering in terms of
age, sex, major field, and year in college are summarized in
Table 1.

It is evident from the table that the sample was not
closely representative of the total student population of the
College of Engineering at Michigan State University. The
distribution of participants by major field is the only
variable on which the Chi-square analysis did not show a
significant difference. The sample includes an over-repre-
sentation of freshman students (p (1.02), and as a related
factor, of younger students (p <:.12). There are also a
significantly higher number of women (p <:.01) than would be

expected in a random sample of engineering students.

50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

51

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

+NN-HN-ON .mm aH-NH-NH ”manna N x N H

Auoasmoum HHmV poumHoopuD n .HOQZD waHuooGHwnm HMUHuuoon H mm

wcHHooGHwam mEouwSm n mwm wuaowom Housmaoo u mmo

oocoHom mHmaumumz .SwHOHHmuoz .moHaMHooz n 222 wsaumoafiwcm HH>H0 n mo

wGHumoussm Hmowsmsooz n m: wsauoosawcm Hmoaaono n mmo
oucmaum wnHuomGHwam u .Hum .wsm wcwuoocawsm HonduHDUHuw< n m<¥

.m.z mm.NH Hmn 0H mm com mm Nmm HNH wow NmH om muoocwwqo HHm z
«N o o m H m d o H H muummonuumm z
«Mama Nun .895 $6 :2: m: .wom mm 30 mo mmo we ...BmE 83.:

0 am
. wnmoaawao m

No.uvAH Ho.oH emu mum and cum . HH 2
N m N eN magmaaoflpuma z

4Muawam Nun e m N H mumuuoo zH m<m>

(1!! muoocawcm m

HOoV a HNOO Gd Nwwfi . HH 2
u mm muzmmauwuumm z

.qume Ndfi onEom onZ xmm
NH. V a Nm.N o.mH new NHm mmm oom on o muoonawcm HHm 2
H N.oH m N m 0H ma 0 muamaauuuuma z
.uaawam New new: +NN Hw oN SH mu NH mma

 

 

 

 

mHZMDDHm UZHMMMZHUZM .D.m.2 HH<
Qz< mHz<mHUHHm<m HZMQDHm mo WOHHmHMMHO<m<mU UHmm<mwOZmn

H MHm<H

52

Compared with the normative sample for the OPI, the
student participants in this project are more theoretically
oriented, autonomous, religiously liberal, and able to ex-

press their impulses, as may be seen in Table 3.

Omnibus Personality Inventory Scores:
Experimental vs. Control Groups

 

The difference between experimental and Section 1 or
Section 2 control groups on the post-test of the Omnibus
Personality Inventory is statistically significant (using an
alpha level of .05) only for the Altruism scale.

The analysis of co-variance procedure yields a confirm-
ation of the existence of a difference but does not describe
the nature or direction of that difference. It is necessary
to examine those data in greater detail.

Group mean Omnibus Personality Inventory scale score
changes are presented for each group in Table 2. As may be
seen in the table, experimental group mean differences are
small. Raw OPI data for each participant is found in Table 8
in the back of this report.

The Altruism (Am) column in Table 2 contains evidence
that the experimental groups actually changed little on
this dimension over the course of the eight weeks of the
project. The maximum pre-test - post-test difference for a
single experimental group is an increase of 2 raw score
points, and two of the six groups decreased, while one had

no change. The total net change for all experimental groups

 

53

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WHOHHHHOU
qH.q- mq.0 0N.H Nm.H 00.0- 0N.H- 0N.H- 0N.0- Nm.0 «H.H 0N.N- 0N.u- «H.0 eH.0 00.0 -uwwwm
unoz
0N.HH.00.0- mN.0- 0N.H- mN.m- 00.H- 0N.N- 00.Hn mN.H- ms.0 mN.0 0N.0 mN.H mN.H 00.0 00
00.N- 00.N- 00.H 00.H- 00.e- mN.N- 0N.m- 0N.m 00.0. 00.0 mN.H 00.e 00.0- 00.H- 00.0- N0
00.NH.mN.H- 00.N mN.H 00.N- 0N.Nu 00.N- 0N.0- 00.H- 00.0. 00.0- mN.H- ms.0- 0N.Nu mN.H- H0
mN.e- 00.0- 0N.H- 00.H- 00.N mN.0 0N.H 00.N- mN.m- 0N.0- mN.0- 00.N 00.0 0m.0 0N.N- 0x
00.0H mN.0 00.N 00.0 00.N 00.N 0N.H 00.0 mN.0- 0N.H 0N.H 00.0 00.H- 00.0 0N.e mx
00.0- 00.0- 00.N- N0.0 N0.0 N0.H- mm.q- 00.N mm.H- 00.0 N0.0 N0.H- N0.H- mm.m- 00.0- ex
00.0 00.H 0N.0- mN.m 0m.H- 00.N- 00.N- 0N.0 0N.H- 0N.N mN.N- 0m.H 0N.N mN.H 00.H 0x
0N.N 00.0 00.N- 00.0 00.0 0m.H- 0N.N- mN.e mN.H- mN.N 00.N 00.N 00.0 00.0- mN.0 Nx
mN.mH mN.N 0N.N 0N.H- 00.H- 00.0 00.H 0N.0- ms.0- ms.0 00.H mN.N 0N.0 mN.m 00.N ax
a<aoa mm a: 0m a< ea Hm mu mm 0m 5< 00 mm 09 He
msomo
m a a 0 m H a 0
smoazm>zH waua<zommmm momszo - mmmoom muzamo z<mz macaw

N MHm<H

 

54

was only eight raw score points, an average gain of 1.33 points
per group, or about one-third point per individual.

Since the analysis of co-variance controls for pre-test
differences, the source of this result is found in examina-
tion of the control group data in Table 2. The total net
change for all control groups was sixty-two raw score points,
an average total decrease of 15.5 points per group, or 3.1
points for each individual control group participant.

The differential change between experimental and control
groups -- approximately 3.4 raw score points -- is something
less than one-half standard deviation on the Altruism scale
of the OPI.

With these considerations in mind, it may be said with
appropriate caution that hypothesis 1:

Students who participate in informal small group

interaction with a faculty member over a period

of time demonstrate a difference in certain

measured developmental behaviors from those

students who do not participate in such inter-

action.
is supported for the Altruism dimension. As noted in Appen-
dix A, the OPI Altruism scale measures the individual's
affiliative tendencies and his concern for the welfare and
feelings of others.

The difference within experimental groups or between
experimental and either the Section 1 or Section 2 control

groups is not statistically significant on any of the other

55

thirteen scales of the Inventory. Table 3 contains the means
and standard deviations for the pre-test and post-test on

each of the fourteen scales. Post-test analysis of co-variance
data and the tests of significance for each of the scales,
adjusted for effects of the co-variate pre-test, are pre-
sented in summary form in Table 4 within the experimental
groups, between the experimental and control groups, and among
the section one control groups.

Since these analyses yielded a significant difference
on only one of the OPI scales, a single example analysis of
co-variance table is given in Table 4, demonstrating how the
analysis was carried out for the Altruism scale.

The matrix of intercorrelations among the fourteen OPI
scales for the pre-test and post-test is presented in Table 9
at the end of this report. It should be noted that the within-
group pre-test - post-test correlations are quite high for
each scale. P-values less than .0001 were found for each of
these correlations, indicating a very high relationship and
presenting strong evidence of precision in the analysis of

treatment effects.

Level of Group Interaction

It was hypothesized that the amount of activity in a
group discussion and the breadth of member participation
would be related to the effect of the group on its members.

Specifically, the hypothesis was stated:

56

 

. 000000 000 00000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 N.00 0000 00000000
0.0 0.0N 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.N0 0000000000 n 00000000002
0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 N.0 0.00 0000000 000000000
0.0 0.0N 0.0 0.00 N.0 N.0N 00000000
0.0 0.N0 0.0 0.N0 0.0 0.00 00>00 0000000
0.00 0.0N 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.N0 00000000000 00000000
0.0 0.0N N.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0000000000 0000000
0.0 0.0N 0.0 0.0N N.0 0.0N 000000>000x0 000000
N.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 00000000000 000000000
0.0 0.0N 0.0 0.0N N.0 0.0N 00000000
0.0 0.00 0.0 0.N0 0.0 0.00 0000000000
N.0 N.N0 0.0 N.00 0.0 0.00 00000000000
0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0N. 0.0 0.NN 00000000000 00000000000
0.0 0.0N 0.0 0.0N 0.0 0.0N 000000>00000 00000000
.0.0 000: .0.0 000: .0.0 000:
00000
002002 0000-0000 0000-000

 

 

 

 

 

mZOHH<H>ma nm<nz<Hm QZ<

mz<mz HmMHIHmOm Qz< HmMHIMMm Hmo

m m4m<H

 

57

~ ,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anouumv mmdouw
III: Inna ommm.oH wmwm.MNm Nm HancofiHuomxm
£03003
mmsouw
omen.uv HNNN.o mmom.q ONNN.w N Houuaoo
noo3umm
0Houucoo
quo.uv monq.¢ Nown.Hn coom.m0H N .0>
mHmucoEHuomxm
mmsouw
N000. V 0000.0 N000 0000.00 0 00000000000000
GooSumm
mmumsvm moumsvm Socooum
m 0 £002 00 65m 00 momsom
pouwshp< poumsnp< mmouwom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MH<Om ZmHDmHH< HmO
I <H¢Q Vm¢zzbm MOZ<HM<>IOU mo mHme<z<

d MHm<H

 

58

The amount of difference in measured student develop-
mental behaviors is directly proportional to the

level of group interaction in experimental groups.

That is, measured change on the OPI scales would be greater
for students in experimental groups which experienced a high
level of interaction than for those in experimental groups
with a low level of interaction. The interaction data ap-
pear in terms of these variables for each group in Table 5.

A review of the data in Table 6 demonstrates a sig-
nificant correlation between group interaction level and
group behavior (OPI score) change for the Social Extrover-
sion scale. Rhos of -.94 for variance and -.89 for the
index L suggest that a higher level of interaction within
the group is related to decreases in scores on the Social
Extroversion dimension. None of the other OPI scale changes
were related to the level of interaction in the groups.

Exposure to the Treatment:
Attendance Data

The design of this project called for eight meetings
of the experimental and Section 1 control groups. Unfor-
tunately with volunteer subjects it was not possible to main-
tain attendance at a high level for the entire eightaweek
treatment period. Only one experimental and one control
group actually held eight full sessions. One other group
met seven times, five groups each held six meetings, and
one experimental group was together for only four of the

planned eight discussions. Tables 5 and 6 contain the data

 

59

00.v.0 50000000000 .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00.: 00. 00. 00. 00.: 00.: 00. 00.: 00. 00.: 00. 00. 00. 00.: .0092 .02 0»
000 A»
00.: 00. 00.: 00. 00.: 00. 00.: 000.: 00.: 00.: 00. 00. 00.: 00.: 0 0» 092000000000
000 A»
.I: 20090000000
00.: 00. 00. 00.: 00.: 00.: 00. 000.: 00. 00.: 00. 00. 00.: 00.: 00240002 0>
0.00 4 00000
00.: 00. 00. 00. 00. 00. 00. 00. 00.: 00. 00. 00.: 00.: 00.: 2002 mm 0240
000 .4
00.0: 00.0: 00.0: 00.N 00.0 00.0 00.N1 00.0: 00.0: 00.0: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.N: 0000. 0000 0.000 0 0x
00.0 00.N 00.0 00.N 00.N 00.N: 00.0 00.0: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0: 00.0 00.0 0000. 0000 0.000 0 0x
00.0: 00.0: 00.0: 00.0 00.0: 00.0: 00.N 00.0: 00.0 00.0 00.0: 00.0: 00.0: 00.0: 0000. N000 0.00 0 0x
00.0 0N.0: 00.0 00.0: 00.0: 00.0: 00.0 00.0: 00.N 00.0: 00.0 00.N 00.0 00.0 0000. 000 0.00 0 0x
00.0 00.0: 00.0 00.0 00.0: 00.0 00.0 00.0: 00.N 00.N 00.N 00.0 00.0: 00.0 0000. 0000 0.000 0 00
00.0 00.0: 00.0: 00.0: 00.0 0N.0 00.0: 00.0: 00.0 00.0 0N.N 00.0 0N.0 00.0 N000. 0000 0.N0 0 0x
00 02 00 ea 04 00 00 00 om :0 oo 00 09 09 0 002¢Hm0> 2402 0092 00
.02
000000 002020 2402 00000 :: 000000 000 20090400920 00000

 

 

 

Am>md ZOHBU¢mmBZH NM wmmoom mwz¢m0 z<m2 maomo HmO

m

mqmflfi

 

6O

00.V 0 . 00800000000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. .000: .0 .: : 0 .00 .- : 0 .0> . : 000: .00
00 I "- omom 4 *0w .I awomd van—VG | NoMomd mo :l aflom d GOHUmHQHHOU
N m H oomo. N quH N m.oo~ o MN.m: ex
0 o m mofio. o BNmo m 0.000 0 mN.o: mx
0 o q @000. m NMHN q o.ww q mm.0: 0x
0 m N Nooo. H mmm o m.nm m mn.0: mx
0 o m «N00. 0 omwm H 0.m00 m MN.H: Nx
o q o NmHo. m womm m N.Nw N , mm.o: HN
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
0w000002 @5000 A xmvaH 0000000> 000:: 0002 0000: .m.m @500
no HQQEDZ 00000000000 0000000000000 G00000000000m owamno smmz w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AM>MA ZOHHO<MMHZH

onmmm>OMHNm A<H00m

o mqm<H

.m> mmmoom mwz<mo Hmo

 

61

related to the number of group meetings. Although an effort
was made to encourage attendance through written notices

and telephone contact, many participants found other demands
on their time had higher priority.

Because of this variability in exposure to the experi-
mental treatment, it was considered important to analyze
possible systematic differences which may have been associ-
ated with the number of sessions held by a group. This
analysis was treated by an observation of the relationship
between change on the various scales of the OPI and the num-
ber of exPerimental sessions.

A rank order correlation coefficient was used to com-
pare the mean group changes on the OPI scales with the num-
ber of meetings held by the group. No significant correla-
tions were found for any of the scales on this dimension.
Thus no relationship between amount of treatment and amount
of change is suggested by the data here.

It should be noted that no legitimate means were de-
termined for this study to analyze a possible relationship
of individual attendance to change scores, since randomi-

zation to control for relevant variables is not possible.

Faculty-Student Social Distance Scale

A frequency distribution of the faculty responses to
the faculty-student social distance scale is presented in
Table 7. Seventy faculty members returned the scale, rem
presenting sixty-three percent of the one hundred and ten

regular faculty to whom the scale was sent.

62

 

 

 

 

wmg- u N 3; n m aim n m
x o.w n 2 m.© M 2
mo. u m o u z "muammnoauumm ow n z “suanomm HH<
lflll INII .mcnoflum Hmaomuom
he on mucopdum mumsomuwnopad wnH>m£ SH woumououGH Em H AoHv
.IMII IMII .muouumfi UHEopmom mm HHoB mm Honomuom
SuH3 musovduw oumdpmuwuopns wnHmHon SH ooumououaa Em H va
4| IQ. A:
IAII. INII .maoHumDuHm
EooummmHo paw woumHouuoHEopmom mm HH03 mm mmHuH>Huom mmmHo Ho
uSo GH mucopdum mumspmuwuoosd nuH3 wstuo3 SH poumououGH Em H on
lull .Imfl: Amv
Idll .lflfll .wnowumduwm vmumHGHIUHEmvmom SH Eon“ SUH3
v7.83 on cam 3:33.... 0383303: some“ on wand? am H A3
Iql lo 5
ldll Idll .GOHumDuHm huoumuoan Ho EooummmHo
HmEuom onu GH hHso moumdpmuwuopcs SuH3 Hoop ou Homoum H ANV
d! lie 3
ldll H .muaopnum oumdpmuwumpav SuH3 ow ou wGHSuo: o>m3 ou homoum H AOV
mHz<mHUHHm<m wHHDQ<m HH< MH<Um

ZOHHDmHMHmHQ wozm30mmm I MH<Um moz<HmHQ H<HOOm BZMQDHmINHHDO<m
m mum<fi

63

Seventeen percent (twelve) of the engineering faculty
who responded would choose to limit their interaction with
undergraduates to academic situations. Another fifteen
professors -- for a total of thirty-eight percent -- listed
their interest in undergraduates as something short of partici-
pation in "out of class activities." Evidently more than
one-third of the faculty of the college -- if we may assume
this sixty-three percent to be representative -- prefer to
limit their teaching role to class~related functions. One
professor indicated his desire to avoid undergraduates
altogether.

At the other end of the scale, twenty-nine percent
(twenty-one) of the respondents expressed a desire to work
with students in personal matters (twelve) and/or to maintain
personal friendships with their students (nine).

The mean response of the total faculty falls slightly
above the item "I am interested in working with undergradu-
ate students in out of class activities as well as academic-
related and classroom situations," suggesting that the
engineering faculty in general are supportive of students
and student programs in the college.

Despite several indications in the statement of in:
structions that only a single response was requested, five
individuals checked more than one item. In those cases, the
result was recorded as an average of the checked responses,
with acknowledgement of the possible dilution of the intent

of the respondent by this averaging.

64

Table 7 shows that the all-faculty mean is 6.5 (one-
half scale point above the "out of class activities as well
as academic related" item). For the six faculty participants
(whose responses to the scale were not confidential -- a fact
which they knew prior to responding), the mean was 8.0, "I
am interested in helping undergraduate students with personal
as well as academic matters." A t-test for the significance
of the difference between the all-faculty and participant
means revealed the difference to be significant at the .01
point (one-tailed test), indicating that considerable confi-
dence may be placed in the existence of an actual difference
here.

This statistical confirmation of a difference which is
clearly evident on inspection lends substance to the inter-
pretation of the results. It may be said with considerable
confidence that those faculty members who volunteered to take
part in this project choose to associate with undergraduate
students at considerably closer range than do most of their

faculty colleagues.

Descriptive Data: The Follow-up Survey

The follow-up survey questionnaire was completed by a
total of thirty-four (ninety-five percent) of the thirty-six
participating (experimental and control Section 1) students
who completed the project. Twenty of these were filled out

by students who took part in a follow-up interview.

65

A brief summary of the questionnaire responses is pre-
sented here for each item. A detailed tabulation of the
cumulative ranking of responses appears in Table 10.

Classes, friends and personal freedom are listed as by
far the "most outstanding features" in the college experience
for the student participants in this project. While classes
are clearly ranked first on this item, the combined rankings
of "male friends," "female friends," and "roommates" place
peers on a par with classes at the t0p position. The intel-
lectual atmosphere of the university and the faculty have
evidently made little impression on these students thus far
since they fall near the bottom of this ranking. A further
examination of the original responses, however, reveals that
those who did indicate the faculty or the intellectual
atmosphere as outstanding features tended to be the upper-
classmen, perhaps an unsurprising finding. Thus this sample
in which freshmen are over-represented might be expected to
weight heavily the influence of peers, because of the great
importance of the peer culture in the first months of college
(see Chapter II). The high ranking of personal freedom as
an outstanding feature of college is a result which should
be recognized here as consistent with the relatively high OPI
scores for Autonomy.

Comments in response to this item ranged from one
cynical male freshman who observed that "Come to think of it,

no feature in my college experience has been outstanding,"

in.»

66

to a more optimistic female -- also a freshman -- who claims
to have "learned a lot about life that I didn't have oppor-
tunity to in (my home town)."

An element of loneliness is suggested by the reported
expectations of these participants at the beginning of the
project. Their most often expected gain was to meet other
students, followed by nearly equal hopes to meet faculty and
to learn about engineering. It was interesting to note the
number who hOped to "recommend changes" through their parti-
cipation in the project. And a number of responses indicated
that a "bull session" was the anticipation of some partici-
pants.

Interpretation of the responses to this item must take
into account the inaccuracy and unreliability of post hoc
recall. What one actually expects from an activity may differ
from his stated objectives, and differ more widely yet from
his recollection eight weeks later of what he expected.

It is evident that these student expectations were ful-
filled only partially at best. The comments of one faithful
participant characterize some of the sense of disappointment:

I had hoped that the small group project would

be a catalyst for change within the College of

Engineering as well as the University College,

toward a greater involvement of the individual

with his academic surroundings. ...I did get

to know some people...engineers tend to be a

rather staid lot. I guess I also learned that

engineers would not like to get involved with

these changes.

Another, however, noted that he "gained other things"

from participating, so that he felt his response (his

67

expectations were "little" met) did not represent his "true
feelings."

The group members themselves were clearly identified by
the respondents as the factor primarily responsible for meet-
ing their expectations from the project. The members were
considered a positive influence on the achievement of expecta-
tions, while lack of structure, the second ranked factor, was
generally considered to impede goal accomplishment for parti-
cipants, although a number responded positively to the un-
structured group. An important set of negative influences
was grouped under the category "outside factors," the single
most important of Which was, as might be expected, class work.

Few comments were made regarding this item, however, it
was evident that poor attendance was thought a significant
inhibitor of group success. On the positive side, one student
noted that "Meeting with the guys who have been through a lot
of what I have to go through helped to prepare me for what
to expect..."

Group members chastized each other again on the item
which offered them an opportunity to suggest changes in the
project. Better member attendance was the first choice for
change, followed by other changes in member behavior, in-
cluding more even participation and a request for more talk-
ing on the part of the faculty members. The latter proposal,
not surprisingly, was related to the individual faculty
members, since there were also a few suggestions that the

faculty participant talk less!

68

One student observed that the faculty member should
have been a "good leader," and that student participants
should have been more carefully selected. Another noted that
the "tape recorder inhibited some of the things that might
have been said." There was some support for assigned t0pics,
as suggested by the comment that the discussions "were stimu-
lating...but to assign subject matter would give some outline
to go on."

The principal self-reported gains from participation
in the project were "help in getting along with others,"
"more favorable attitude toward engineering," and "more
favorable attitude toward faculty." Informationabout himself,
and job and technical information were other major gains
reported by group members. Although a few observations of a
less favorable attitude toward engineering did appear, no
one reported feeling less favorable toward the faculty as a
result of participation in the small group project. Viewed
together with the one-third of the participants who now feel
more favorable toward the faculty (one-half of those who
were actually in a group with a faculty member), there may be
a "hidden value" suggested here.

Several student comments noted that they had gained from
learning how others feel about a variety of subjects, and
having the opportunity to share their own ideas with others.

In an over-all evaluation from the participants, the

project was rated "favorable" by twenty, "very favorable" by

69

two, and "mediocre" to "very poor" by twelve. Emphasis in
this item was on the value of the experience fee EEE ge-
spondent, not on any generalized estimation of its worth.
Nevertheless, some bias in the direction of a response which
would please the project director is probably represented
here. A further analysis to identify the respondents at
each evaluation level yielded no systematic pattern of dif-
ferences among experimentals and controls, among classes, or
among attendance patterns.

A number of comments on this item are of interest:

I felt I gained from the group, but no more than
I gain from bull sessions in the dorm.

I found that my ideas were also held by others
including faculty.

The small group project and I seemed to have two
different ends in mind.

I enjoyed meeting with other students with view-
points different than mine -- I may have helped
myself become better adjusted to MSU.

This was my first experience in a small group
and I enjoyed it and benefitted very much.

I enjoyed it!

The final question was open ended, and asked for the
student's view about "the importance of informal relationships
between faculty and students outside E22 eleeereem." The
responses were somewhat varied, although nearly all the stu-
dent participants were favorable toward the idea of informal
relationships with faculty. Because of the central importance

to this study of student opinion regarding faculty-student

 

70

relationships, selected student responses to this item are
presented here in their entirety, with no editing -- even
spelling and grammatical errors have been left in. These
statements are considered more effective in accurately ex-
pressing representative student attitudes than could be on
edited commentary. The balance of the student responses to

this item appear in Appendix G.

I believe outside relationships are very impor-
tant, especially in a university of this size
because the material gained in class is very cut
and dried and can usually be obtained in any
teXt O

I think it is important for the faculty and stu-
dent to have some relationship outside the class-
room. It helps in learning and creates a better
atmosphere.

I feel that their should be more outside contact
because you realize the professor is not just a
machine who presents the material to the class,

but an individual with his own motives and desires.

I feel it is fairly important on the basis that
the faculty get to know just how the students feel
about him and the way he is teaching.

I believe they are important to the education of
the individual. Without them a student could not
become fully educated. However they must be a
spontaneous thing and cannot be artificially
created.

It is helpful but not necessary.

I see no need for informal relationships with
faculty members outside of a persons major, un-
less of course it is on a friendship basis.
Within a persons major he has some one to go to
for help with problems, course selection, and
career Opportunities other than just his academic
advisor.

During the discussion of their OPI scores with the ex-

perimenter, the twenty students who were interviewed were

71

nearly unanimous in their endorsement of the profiles as ac-
curately descriptive of their self-perceptions of their
behavior.

Descriptive Data: The Content
of Group Dieeussions

The amount of interaction in an experimental group has
been considered herein as a more useful criterion for assess-
ment than the content, since discussions in more "natural"
situations may deal with a wide variety of content.

Nevertheless, this report would be incomplete without
at least a cursory look at "what went on" in the group dis-
cussions. First, it is worth noting that the similarities
among the groups "outweighed" the differences. The presence
or absence of a faculty member made a difference in some cases,
but the differences were not systematic. The same was true
of a female member. More readily observable were the dif-
ferences resulting from personality distinctions among the
members. When a faculty member acted in a dominant or
leadership role, the group tended to respond accordingly,
permitting him to control the direction of activity. If
the faculty member of an experimental group, however, operated
as "just another member," the group tended to ignore his out-
side "status" and to be relatively uninhibited by his pre-
sence.

Typically beginning with some form of personal intro-
ductions, the groups then often diverted to a discussion of

a major field, hometown, residence hall, or course which was

L."
n‘lll'vlll“ [In

Ill
...—

72

held in common by two or more members. Many of the first and
second sessions were characterized by questions from fresh-
men or sophomores to a faculty member or upper division
student about curricular matters (e.g., "Will I have to
take...?" "What is the policy regarding...?").

Residence halls were a common topic during the first
weeks in the life of these groups, largely because of the
then-current proposals for change in University policy re-
garding opposite-sex visitation in residences.

Boy-girl relationships were another frequent topic --
as often in mixed as in single-sex (all male) groups. An
all-University colloquy on sexuality, conducted during the
course of the Winter term, made discussions of sexual con-
cerns a more epee phenomenon than is typical -- although
it is doubtful that the frequency of occurrence of this
topic increased significantly across the campus. There was
some evidence in the discussion tapes that the colloquy gag
increased the students' awareness, and perhaps their know-
ledgeability, regarding sexuality.

The campus newspaper had an almost predictable impact
upon some groups. The current issues already noted were
regularly updated via the University daily, and other matters
of note were often brought into groups by this news vehicle.
The prospect of a new University president, the nonwreappoint-
ment of a controversial psychology professor, and the
national political scene were commonly brought up in the

groups as a result of an article or editorial in the day's

paper.

 

73

The engineering profession and the engineering curricu-
lum as a vehicle of preparation were often discussed. Job
prospects were very much a concern of seniors, and under-
classmen wanted to know "how the going was" for those near-
ing commencement. Faculty members and older students with
work experience were typically asked many questions about
what an engineer "does" on the job. The curriculum was a
source of considerable controversy as students questioned the
value of certain courses they had taken -- or would have to
take -- and faculty members attempted to explain the rele-
vance of those programs with which they were familiar. Be-
cause of the random assignment of subjects to the groups,
there were few instances in the groups of professor and student
from the same department within the college. Even in as
seemingly esoteric a field as engineering, departmental dif-
ferences are sufficient to cause some communication diffi-
culties. Nevertheless, these discussions seemed to be of
value for the underclassmen as they sought to understand what
lay ahead.

There was one group in the control section which began
with an active -- perhaps activist -- dialogue apparently
aimed at recommending major changes in the engineering cur-
riculum, including more flexibility and opportunity to choose
courses more freely. Somehow their enthusiasm evaporated
after the second meeting, and they never did complete a sub-

stantive proposal.

74

In all, the discussion content seemed of interest to the
participants if for no other reason than as a source of stimu-
lation to broaden their perspectives. Although limited to
engineering students and faculty, nearly all of the groups
ranged widely in their choice of topics. Student response
in the follow-up interviews was generally enthusiastic, and
as has been noted, their written evaluations were generally

favorable.

Summary

Students who participated in this study were not a re-
presentative sample of their classmates in the College of
Engineering. The participants were significantly younger,
more likely to be freshmen, and included a greater proportion
of women than the total pOpulation of the college. Their
major fields, however, were reasonably representative of the
enrollments in the various engineering departments.

Samples of student behavior, in the form of scores on
the Omnibus Personality Inventory, were the principal measures
of the outcomes of this project. Analysis of covariance
applied to the experimental ye. control group OPI score did-
ferences resulted in significance only in the case of the
dimension Altruism.

When behavior change is viewed in relationship to the
level of interaction in a group, a significant (negative) re-

lation is suggested for the Social Extroversion measure.

75

There is no evidence to indicate that the amount of
exposure to the experimental treatment (i.e., the amount of
small group interaction with a faculty member) is related to
the quantity of change on any of the measured dimensions.

On a scale of attitudes toward closeness to undergrad-
uate students, the faculty members who volunteered to parti-
cipate in this project reported a significantly greater
desire for personal relationships with students than did the
total faculty of their college. The faculty generally favored
moderately close relationships with the students.

In a follow—up survey of the discussion group partici-
pants, much of the previous research on student attitudes
and life-styles was confirmed. These students have found
interpersonal relationships to be the most outstanding fea-
tures of their college experience. They volunteered for the
small group project seeking to meet other students and faculty.
Although they were generally favorable toward their small
group participation, they were disappointed that attendance
was not better, and that their initial expectations were only
partially fulfilled. Improved interpersonal relationships
were -- perhaps predictably from the preliminary expectations --
improved for many participants. This and a more favorable
attitude toward engineering were notable reported outcomes of
participation.

A review of the content of the small group discussions

revealed a broad scope of topics, including curricula, the

 

76

engineering profession, sexuality, politics, and university
policies.
In Chapter V, conclusions and implications for higher

education and student develoPment are presented for these

findings.

J P

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION, SUMMARY, AND IMPLICATIONS

This study has attempted to demonstrate experimentally
the impact on the behavior of college students resulting
from close informal interaction with a professor in the en-
vironment of a small group. In addition, several related
issues in the general area of faculty-student relationships
in higher education were investigated. What is the meaning
of the results? What conclusions may be drawn from these
findings? What are the implications of this research for
practice in higher education? What further research is sug-

gested by these data?

Discussion
The assumption in higher education that the faculty

plays a critical role in the educational development of the
students is so firmly established by tradition as to be
considered a truism. Research, however, has failed to sup-
port the traditional faculty position that students benefit
from close contact with their teachers. It is noted in
Chapter II that little evidence exists to suggest that the

faculty significantly influence student behavior development.

77

78

The results of this study of faculty impact on students
generally corroborate the findings of prior research, with
one important exception. The data herein suggest that close
contact with a professor under these experimental conditions
may have produced in students a greater concern for others,
and a greater tendency toward personal, trusting relationships.
With the number of different behavior measures represented by
the fourteen OPI scales, it is possible that the resulting
significant difference on one scale could be a statistical
artifact. Nevertheless, when these data are viewed in the
perspective of the over-all results of the study, a pattern
of corroborating evidence appears.

The students who volunteered to participate in this
project were younger than a representative sample of their
fellows, more likely to be women, and more likely to be in
their first year of college. Thus, in many ways they repre-
sented a relatively isolated segment of the student popula-
tion. Younger students face many personal and academic un-
certainties. Women are largely regarded as strangers in
engineering. Underclassmen do not yet have identity with a
specific major field, and are still "finding their way" in
the multiversity.

The participants volunteered primarily to meet other
students and faculty, evidencing a need for contact with other
persons beyond their present circle. They met with faculty
members who were extraordinarily interested in personal

relationships with students. The more lively experimental

79

group interaction was more likely to meet their social needs.
As a result of this experimental interaction with a caring
faculty member, these students developed or maintained a
greater concern for the welfare and feelings of others, while
their peers who did not have such contact with the faculty
were decreasing in the same behavior. Moreover, they gained
help in interpersonal relations and a more favorable attitude
toward faculty as well.

It was also noted in these groups that with a high level
of group interaction and well-balanced participation, the
members' expressed need for being with others tended to de-
crease. This level of interaction during the meetings was
evidently a more important contributor to the outcomes than
was the number of times the group got together.

The attitude toward students of the participating faculty
was evidently an important factor. Compared with their teach-
ing colleagues, these professors represent a sample of those
who are highly concerned about students as persons, thus
modelling that behavior which was found to change in the
student participants.

It will be recalled from the expressed interests of the
students in voicing their expectations from the discussion
group meetings, that they sought to meet other students and
faculty members. After the treatment they identified improved
interpersonal relations as the most frequent gain from parti-
cipation. They came seeking an environment within which to

enjoy social exchange, and -- given the essential freedom to

8O

"create their own" environment -- produced a social situation
which yielded personal growth in the area of interpersonal
relationships, "help in getting along with others" and a
"more favorable attitude toward engineering."

These findings must be interpreted within the parameters
of this study, yet with some optimism as well. The experi-
mental controls and corroborating data present considerable
support for the results. It may be concluded that such out-
of-class faculty-student contact pep have a measurable impact
upon student behavior. The need to match the nature of that
contact with the objectives of the students -- as we theoreti-
cally attempt to do in the classroom -- appears to be the
critical variable which must be controlled.

College and university programs involving the faculty
in various forms of contact with students are common. Pro-
fessors are typically called upon to serve as "advisors" to
students, to sponsor organizations, to attend and participate
in a variety of campus activities. Deans, department chair-
men, and student personnel workers regularly encourage faculty
members to become "involved" with students outside the class-
room.

The result of this research calls into question the
assumption which apparently underlies the unquestioning sup-
port of such programs: that epy contact between faculty
members and students is valuable and will contribute to the
desired growth of the students. The evidence from this and

prior research is clear: most faculty-student interaction

81

has little measurable impact upon students. However, when

a faculty member is selected, because of particular competen-
cies, to interact with students who are seeking those be-
haviors for which he may be an effective guide, measurable
student behavior change may be effected.

A haphazard, catch-as-catch-can approach to interaction
between students and faculty has been shown of questionable
usefulness. Interactions which have been purposefully de-
signed to accomplish specific objectives may provide a means
to demonstrate the value of close faculty-student contact

beyond the classroom.

Summary of the Study

It has been generally assumed in higher education that
close student-faculty relationships are to be desired, and
college catalogs typically extol the virtues of the "small
student-faculty ratio" and the "friendly academic community"
that exists on the campus. Research evidence to support
these concepts, however, is practically negligible. There
is considerable need to define those educational experiences
which are most important to student development, including
the most educationally effective forms of human interaction
on the campus.

The literature of higher education reveals that the
faculty are influential in the collegiate growth of under-
graduates principally in relation to their aspirations and

plans for further study and vocational choice. The popular

82

myths of the importance of instructional style and close
student-teacher interaction are simply not supported by the
available research data.

The processes of the small group as an agency of change
in the development of individual behaviors have been shown to
be effective under certain conditions. The greatest value of
such programs seems to be when the group experience is specifi-
cally designed to help accomplish the behavioral objectives of
the individual.

These findings from prior research in higher education
led to the design of an experimental study of faculty-student
interaction, bringing students and faculty members together
in small groups and attempting to measure changes in students'
behavior which resulted. It was hypothesized that students
involved in extra-class small group interaction with faculty
members would develop in certain behaviors more than students
who were not exposed to such contact, and that students in
small groups which were high in interaction would change more
than those in groups which were low. Experimental and control
groups were set up to test these hypotheses.

The principal measures of outcomes of the project,
scores on the Omnibus Personality Inventory, revealed evidence
of experimental effects only in the case of the dimension
Altruism. Further examination of the data suggest cautious
Optimism in the interpretation of this result.

When measured behavior changes were viewed in relation-
ship to the level of interaction in a group, a significant

negative relation was suggested for the Social Extroversion

83

measure. This finding may be interpreted as indicative of
the tendency of group interaction to meet members' needs for
social contact.

There is no evidence to indicate that the amount of
exposure to this experimental treatment is related to the
quantity of change on any of the measured dimensions.

The student sample who took part in the study were
somewhat different from their classmates in the College of
Engineering, and somewhat different from engineers in general.
When compared to their own population, the participants were
significantly younger, more likely to be freshmen, and
included a greater proportion of women than the total enroll-
ment of the college. Their major fields were reasonably re-
presentative of the various engineering departments. Com-
pared to engineering students in general, this group was more
highly autonomous, more liberal, had greater freedom of
impulse expression, and were better adjusted personally.

On a scale of attitudes toward closeness to undergrad-
uate students, the faculty members who volunteered to parti-
cipate in this project reported a significantly greater desire
for personal relationships with students than did the total
faculty of their college.

A follow-up survey of the discussion group participants
confirmed much of the previous research on student attitudes
and life-styles. These students have found interpersonal
relationships to be the most outstanding features of their

college experience. They volunteered for the small group

84

project seeking to meet other students and faculty. Although
they were generally favorable toward their participation,

they were disappointed that attendance was not better, and
that their initial expectations were only partially fulfilled.
Improved interpersonal relationships were -- perhaps pre-
dictably from the preliminary expectations -- improved for
many participants. This and a more favorable attitude toward
engineering and the faculty were notable reported outcomes
for the participating students.

The content of the small group discussions revealed a
broad scope of topics, including curricula, the engineering
profession, sexuality, politics, and university policies.

It is hypothesized that the experimental ye. control
differences in altruism of the subjects is, although small,

a difference in behavior which may be attributed to the
effects of the experimental treatment. Supporting this
concept are the data from the self-report of the subjects
on the follow-up questionnaire.

A potentially significant value in close faculty-student
contact is suggested by this study, when this interaction
takes place under conditions which are purposefully facili-
tative of growth in directions sought by the student.

Implications for Research and
Practige in Higher Education

Joseph Katz (1968) has observed that the key to faculty-
student interaction in the university is not "how much" but

"how": "It is the nature of the contact, not its frequency,

85

that is crucial" (p. 27). The findings of this study cer-
tainly support that view.

The experimental treatment involved the presence of a
faculty member in six of ten randomly assigned groups of
students. The groups were given no agenda, no program to
follow, no specific objectives, no topics to discuss, and
essentially no structure except the membership and an adjust-
able meeting schedule. The assumption implicit in the design
of these groups was that simply expeeipg students to a weekly
small group discussion with a faculty member would produce
behavior change. In the light of the findings reported herein,
and in accord with the known principles of human learning,
it is hypothesized that behavior change will take place as a
result of an experience specifically designed to produce
that change. Thus for the present research, greater changes
in student behavior could have been expected to result from
interaction with a faculty member if EEEE contact pee peep
structured to provide the conditions leading to the desired
change.

To the degree one may legitimately generalize from the
results of this research, the following implications for the
future of higher education are suggested:

1. College students seek certain learning eXperi-

ences in terms of their perceptions of the ways
in which they will benefit therefrom. They look
for contact with a faculty member in terms of

their view of the role the professor may play

86

in student learning. Typically, they see
faculty members as information sources, and
seek them out for information. If colleges
wish to have teachers sought by students as
models for certain behaviors, the faculty role
in relation to students must change consider-
ably.

Much research is needed on the applications of
the social learning model to the area of
faculty-student relations in higher education.
For example, what structures for faculty be-
havior in phie project might have produced
other specific changes in the student partici-
pants?

The real impacts of participation in the kind
of human interaction which took place in the
small discussion groups are likely to appear
over a longer period of time. Thus, some type
of follow-up study on the participants in this
project should be made after perhaps one year
and three years to assess such factors as per-
sistence in college, persistence in engineering,
attitudes toward the college, the faculty, and
the profession, and scores on the CPI person-

ality variables.

87

4. Colleges and universities should stop promot-
ing "close faculty-student relations" except
when the closeness is accompanied by a pur-
poseful program to aid the growth and develop-
ment of students toward their own goals. It is
evident that the student peer group will con-
tinue to be the primary source of their satis-
factions in interpersonal relationships, however,
involvement with selected faculty members in
situations designed to accomplish specific ob-
jectives can be of significant value.

5. Additional research, toward the application of
the principles of human learning to the defini-
tion of the conditions which may produce desired
behavior change, should be undertaken. By de-
fining the ways in which faculty members may be
of maximum value in influencing student self-
development, we may determine important new and
purposeful directions for faculty-student inter—

action in higher education.

Alfred North Whitehead's statement with which this thesis
began provides a particularly fitting summary upon which to

conclude:

The students are alive, and the purpose of educa-
tion is to stimulate and guide their self-develop-
ment.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

88

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, D. V. An analysis of student subculturee at Michigan
State Univer§ity. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1965.

Adelson, J. The teacher as a model. In N. Sanford (ed.)
The american college. New York: John Wiley and Sons,

1962, pp. 312-364.

Alfert, Elizabeth. Housing selection, need satisfaction and
dropout from college. Psychological Reports, 19:183-186,
1966.

Arden, E. Faculty as teachers. Educational Forge, 32:447,
May, 1968.

Astin, A. W. Further validation of the environmental assess-
ment technique. Joupnal of Educationel Psychology,
54:217-226, 1963.

Augustine, R. D. and Phend, H. W. The group counseling program
in engineering at Michigan State University, IEEE
Traneections on Education, E-7: 72-78, 1964.

Austin, C. G. The identification and recruitment of prospective
college teachers. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Michigan Scholars
in College Teaching Program, University of MiChigan, 1966.

Bales, R. F. Interaction process analysis. Cambridge, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley, 1951.

Baur, E. J. Achievement and role definition in the college
student. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Cooperative Research Project No. 2605. Lawrence, Kan.:
University of Kansas, 1965.

Beach, L. R. Study of personality in the church-related liberal
arts college. Journal of College Student Personnel,
8:105-108, 1967.

Becker, H. 8., Geer, Blanche, Hughes, E. C. and Strauss, A. L.

Boys in white:_§tudent culture in medical_school. Chicago:
university of Chicago Press, 1961.

89

 

90

Berzon, Betty, and Solomon, L. N. A small group program for
continuingpperegnal growth. LaJolla, California:
Western Behavioral Sciences Institute, 1966. (Mimeo).

Blake, R. R. and Mouton, Jane S. The instrumented training
laboratory. In J. R. Weschler and E. H. Schein (eds.)
Issues in Heman Relations Treining. Washington, D.C.:
National Training Laboratories, 1962.

Blum, L. P. A comparative study of students preparing for
five selected professions including teaching. Journal
of ExperimentalyEducation, 16:31-65, 1947.

Bogardus, E. S. Measuring social distance. Journal of Applied
Sociology, 9:299-308, 1925.

Boland, D. M. The t-group method on campus: adaptations and
applications. Paper presented at the Annual Convention
of the American Personnel and Guidance Association,

Las Vegas, Nevada, 1969.

Borgatta, E. F. and Crowther, Betty. A workbook for the study
of social interaction processes. Chicago: Rand McNally
and Co., 1965.

Bowers, N. D. and Soar, R. S. Evaluation of leboratorv human
relatione training for classroom teachere. Studie§ of
hpman reletione in the teaching-learning proceee: V.
Final report. U. S. Office of Education Contract
No. 8143. Columbia: University of South Carolina, 1961.

Bowers, N. D. and Soar, R. S. Studiee of human relatione in
the teaching-learning process. Nashville, Tenn.: Coop.
Res. Prog. United States Office of Education, 1960.

Boyer, R. K. A laboratory approach to the improvement of
student-faculty relations and educational systems in
engineering. NTL Human Relations TrainingyNewe, 8:1-2,
1964.

Bradford, L. P. (ed.) Human forces in teaching and learning.
Washington: National Training Laboratories, National
Education Association, 1961.

Bradford, L. P. Membership and the learning process. In L.P.
Bradford, J. R. Gibb and K. D. Benne (eds.) T-group
theory and laboratory method. New York: John Wiley and
Sons, 1964, pp. 190-215.

Bradford, L. P., Gibb, J. R., and Benne, K. D. T-gropp theory
and laboratery method. New York: John Wiley and Sons,
1964.

 

1|.

91

Brass, R. V. College students turn to community action.
Journal orrColiege Student Personnel, 10:2-6, 1969.

Brown, R. D. Manipulation_pf the environmental press in a
college residence haii. Unpublished Doctoral Disser-
tation, University of Iowa, 1966.

Burton, Martha V. The effect of college attendance on per-
sonality as measured by the Bernreuter Personality
Inventory. Journei of Educational Research, 38:708-711,
1945.

Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C. Experimental and guasi-
experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand
McNally and Company, 1966.

Carkhuff, R. R. Toward a comprehensive model of facilitative
interpersonal processes. Journal 9; Couneeling Peychologv,
14:67, January, 1967.

Carter, L. F. Evaluating the performance of individuals as
members of small groups. In C. G. Kemp (ed.), Perspectives
on the Group Procese. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,
1964.

Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of Cali-
fornia. Omnibue personality inventgry: reseerch manual,
Berkeley, California, 1962.

Centra, J. A. Studentperceptione of total university and major
field environments. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1965.

Chickering, A. W. Institutional differences and student charac-
teristics. Paper read at the annual meeting of the Mental
Health section of the American College Health Association,
1966.

. Institutional objectives and student development in
college. Journal of Appiied Behavioral Science, 3:287,
1967.

 

Clark, B. R. and Trow, M. The organizational context. In T. M.
Newcomb and E. K. Wilson (eds.), College Peer Groups.
Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1966.

Coelho, G. V., Hamburg, D. A., and Murphey, Elizabeth B.
Coping strategies in a new learning environment: a study

of American college freshmen. Archiyes of General
Psychiatry, 9:433-443, 1963.

Committee on the Student in Higher Education, The student ip
higher egpcation. New Haven, Conn.: The Hazen Founda-
tion, 1968.

92

Culbert, G., EE- ei. Measures of change toward self-actualiza-
tion in two sensitivity training groups. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 15:53, 1968.

Darley, J. G. Premise and periprmance:_e stuey of ability and
achievement in higher educatipp. Berkeley, Calif.:
Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of
California, 1962.

Dennis, L. E. and Kaufmann, J. F. The college and the student.
Washington: American Council on Education, 1966.

Downie, N. M., and Heath, R. W. Basic statistical methods.
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959.

Dyer, R. D. The effecre of heman relations training on the
interpergonai behavior of coiiege students. Unpub-
lished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oregon, 1967.

Eckland, B. K. A source of error in college attrition studies.
Sociology of Education, 38:60-72, 1964.

Elton, C. F., and Rose, Harriet. The face of change. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 15:372, July, 1968.

Farson, R. E. Self directed groups and community mental health.
(Paper presented at American Psychological Association,
Chicago, 1965). LaJolla, Calif.: Western Behavioral
Sciences Institute. (Mimeo).

Ferguson, L. W. Socio-psychological correlates of the primary
attitude scales: 1. Religionism, II. Humanitarianism.
Journal of Social P§ychoiogy, 19:81-98, 1944.

Flacks, R. Adaptations of devients in a college community.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan,
1963.

Foster, J., 2;. ei. The impact of a value-oriented university
on student attitudes and thinking. U. S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare Cooperative Research Pro-
ject No. 729. Santa Clara, Calif.: University of Santa
Clara, 1961.

Gibb, J. R. Climate for trust formation. In L. P. Bradford,
J. R. Gibb and K. D. Benne (eds.), T-group thegry and
laboratory method. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964,
pp. 279-309.

. Effects of role playing upon (a) role flexibility
and upon (b) ability to conceptualize a new role.
Psychologist, 7:310, 1952.

93

Gibb, J. R. and Gibb, Lorraine, M. Leaderless groups: growth
centered values and potentialities. In H. A. Otto and
J. Mann (eds.), Keys of Growth. New York: Grossman
Publishers, 1968.

Giffin, K. Interpersonal trust in small group communication.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 53: 224, October, 1967.

Goldberg, J. Student-faculty_interaction: a study in role
transactions. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Columbia University, 1966.

Goldsen, Rose K., Rosenberg, M., Williams, Jr., R. M., and
Suchman, E. A. What college students think. Princeton,
N. J.: Van Nostrand,1960.

Gordon, Vivian and Newgarden, Peggy. Be aware: whites on racism.
Presentation at the Annual Convention of the American

Personnel and Guidance Association, Las Vegas, Nevada,
1969.

Greeley, A. M. The influence of religion on the career_plans
and occupational values of June 1961. college graduates.

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Chicago,
1962.

Greenfield, Lois B. Attrition among first semester engineering
freshman. Personnel and Guidance Journei, 17:1003-1010,
1964.

Grigg, C. M. Recruitment to graduate study: college seniors'
plans for post-graduate education and their implementation
the year after commencement. SREB Research Monograph
$86510. Atlanta, Ga.: Southern Regional Education Board,

Gurin, Patricia, and Katz, D. Motivation and aspiration in the
Negro college. Office of Education, U. S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare Project No. 5-0787. Ann
Arbor, Michigan: Survey Research Center, Institute for
Social Research, University of Michigan, 1966.

Gusfield, J. R. Community or communities: the faculty impact
on student life. Liberal Education, 53:23-32, March, 1967.

Harder, D. F. Differentiation of curricular groups based upon
responses to unique items of the MMPI. Journal or Counsei-

ing Psychology, 6:28-34, 1959.

Hare, A. P., Borgatta, E. F. and Bales, R. F. Small groups:
studies in social interaction. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1967.

94

Harris, D. Group differences in values within a university.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycholo , 29:95-102,
1934.

Heath, D. Growing up in coiiege. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers, 1968.

Hedegard, J. M. Student-instructor interacrion andrits effects
on student achievement and attitudes. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1968.

Heist, P. and Yonge, G. Omnibus personalit inventor , form E,
manual. New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1962,
1968.

Hobbs, N. The art of getting students into trouble. In L. E.
Dennis and J. F. Kaufmann (eds.), The college and the

student. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education,
1966.

Huntley, C. W. Changes in study of values scores during the

four years of college. Genetip PsyChology Monographs,
71:349-383, 1965.

Izard, C. E. Personality change during the college years.
Journal of Coneuiting Peychology, 26:482, 1962.

Johnson, K. W. An invesrigatipn into correlates of increase in
impulse expression among college etudents at selected
institutions. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley, 1966.

Johnson, L. K. The errect of trainer interventions on change
in personal functioning through t-group treining. Un-
published Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota,
1966.

Kadushin, C. Social distance between client and professional.
American Journal of Sociology, 67:517-531, 1962.

Kafer, L. G. An analysis of selected charecteristics and ex-
perienceeigfrfreshman students_in the MSU Justin Morrill
College. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1966.

Katz, J. No time for youth: growth and constraint in coiiege

—_i1

students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 9 8.

Kennedy, C. E. and Danskin, D. G. Pilot phase of a research
project studying student development. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 15:98, January, 1968.

95

Knight, 0. B. Decrease in social distance as a consequence of
interaction. California Journal of Educational Research,
19:121, May, 1968.

Koile, E. A. Higher education programs; students. Review of
EducationaiReeearch, 36:236, April, 1966.

Lehmann, I. J. and Dressel, P. L. Critical thinking, attitudes,
and values in higher education. U. S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare C00perative Research Pro-
ject No. 590. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State
University, 1962.

LeMay, M. L. An experimentally controlleg investigation of the
effects of group counselipg with college underachievers.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oregon,
1966.

Lieberman, M. A. The relationship of group climate to individual
change. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The University
of Chicago, 1958.

Lienemann, W. H. Mini-colleges in a commuter institution.
Journal of Hi her Education, 39:218, April, 1968.

Lorch, T. M. The t-group method on campus: adaptations and
applications. Paper presented at the Annual Convention
of the American Personnel and Guidance Association,

Las Vegas, Nevada, 1968.

Lozoff, Marjorie M. Residential groups and individual develop-
ment. In J. Katz, No tire for youth: growth and coperraint
in college etudepre. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers,
1968, pp. 253-317.

Mayhew, L. B. Institutional factors and the learning environ-
ment. In L. E. Dennis and J. F. Kauffman (eds.), 122
pollege and the student. Washington: American Council on
Education, 1966, pp. 211-230.

McConnell, T. R., Clark, B., Heist, P., Trow, M., and Yonge, G.
Student development during the college years. Cited in
T. M. Newcomb and K. A. Feldman, The impacts of colleges
upon their students, A report to the Carnegie Foundation
for the Advancement of Teaching, 1968.

McKeachie, W. J. Procedures and techniques of teaching: a
survey of experimental studies. In N. Sanford (ed.),
The emerican coliege. New York: John Wiley and Sons,
1962, pp. 312-364.

Miles, M. B. Human relations training: processes and outcomes.
Journal of Counselin Ps cholo , 7:301-306, 1960.

96

Miller, N. Social claee:and veiue differences among American
college etudente. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Columbia University, 1958.

Mouton, Jane S., and Blake, R. R. University training in human
relations skills. In L. P. Bradford (ed.), Humaprforces
in teaching7and learning. Washington: National Training
Laboratories, National Education Association, 1961.

Nasatir, D. Collegiate contexts. Paper read at the annual
meeting of the College Student Personnel Institute.
Claremont, California: CSPI, 1965.

Newcomb, T. M. Research on student characteristics: current
approaches. In L. E. Dennis and J. F. Fauffman (eds.),
The college and the student. Washington, D. C.: American
Council on Education, 1966, pp. 101-116.

Newcomb, T. M. and Feldman, K. A. The impacts of colleges_ppon
their students. A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for
the Advancement of Teaching, 1968.

Newcomb, T. M., Loenig, Kathryn E., Flacks, R., and Warwick, D.P.
Persistenre are change: Bennington Coiiege and its students
after twenty-five yeare. New York: John Wiley, 1967.

Newcomb, T. M. and Wilson, E. K. College peer groups. Chicago:
Aldine Publishing Co., 1966.

Newgarden, Peggy. EPIC: educational participation in communi-

ties. Personal communication to the author, February,
1967.

Nichols, R. C. Personality change and the college. NMSC
Research Reports, Vol. 1, No. 2, Evanston, 111.: National
Merit Scholarship Corporation, 1965.

Noble, Lois A. and Noble, R. E. A study of the attitudes of

college students toward civil rights. Journal of Social
Peychology, 40:289-297, 1954.

Pace, C. R. Perspectives on the student and his college. In
L. E. Dennis and J. F. Kauffman (eds.), The ceilege and
theyetudenr. Washington: American Council on Education,
1966, pp. 76-100°

. The influence of academic and student subcultures
in college and university environments. U. S. Department
of Health, Education and Welfare Cooperative Research
Project No. 1083. Los Angeles, Calif.: University of
California, Los Angeles, 1964.

97

Pemberton, W. A. Ability,_yalues and college achievement.
University of Delaware Studies in Higher Education,
No. 1, Newark, Del.: University of Delaware, 1963.

Peterson, R. E. On a typology of college students. Research
Bulletin RB-65-9. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing
Service, 1965.

Plant, W. T. Changes in ethnocentrism associated with a four-
year college education. Journal of Educatipnal Psy-
cholo , 49:162-165, 1958.

Rogers, C. R. On becoming a persen. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1961.

Rossman, J. E. Released time for faculty advising: the impact
upon freshmen. Personnei and Guidance Journal, 47:358-
363, 1968.

Rowe, F. B. Characteristics of women's college students. SREB

Monograph No. 8. Atlanta: Southern Regional Education
Board, 1964.

Rudolph, F. Neglect of students as a historical tradition.
In L. E. Dennis and J. F. Kaufmann (eds.), The college
and the student. Washington: American Council on
Education, 1966, pp. 47-58.

Sanford, N. (ed.), The american coliege. New York: John
Wiley, 1962.

Schutz, W. C. Joy: expanding numan awereneee. New York: Grove
Press, 1967.

Shepherd, C. R. Small groups;_epme sociological perspectives.
San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1964.

Sherry, Nancy M. Inconsistency between measured intereet and
choipe of college meior. Unpublished Doctoral Disserta-
tion, University of California, 1963.

Siegel, Alberta E. and Siegel, S. Reference groups, membership
groups, and attitude change. Journal 9; Abnormal ang
Social Ps cholo , 55:360-364, 1957.

Solomon, W. M., Berzon, B., Sprague, M. The self-directed
therapeutic group: a new rehabilitation resource. Paper
presented at the American Psychological Association meet-
ing, Chicago, Illinois, September, 1965.

Stern, G. G. Studies of college environments. U. S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare Cooperative Research
Project No. 378. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse Univer-
sity, 1966.

98

Stern, G. G. The measurement of psychological characteristics
of students and learning environments. In S. Messick and
J. Ross (eds.), Measurement in personaliryuand cognition.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962, pp. 27-68.

Stewart, L. H. Change in personality test scores during college.
Journal of Couneeling Peychgiogy, 11:211-230, 1964.

Stock, Dorothy. A survey of research on t- roups. In L. P.
Bradford, J. R. Gibb and K. D. Benne %eds.), T-gronp
theory and laboratory method. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1964, pp. 395- 441.

Thistlethwaithe,l).lu College press and changes in study plans
of talented students. Journal of Educational Ps cholo
51:221-234, 1960.

Thistlethwaite, D. L. and Wheeler, N. Effects of teacher and
peer subcultures on student aspirations. Journal of
Educational Ps cholo , 57:35-47, 1966.

Trent, J. and Medsker, L. Beyond high school. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1968.

Twomey, A. E. A study of vainee of a select group of under-
graduate students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Colorado State College, 1962.

Umstaadt, J. G. College teaching. Washington: The University
Press of Washington, D. C. and the Community College
Press, 1964.

Wallace, W. L. Student culture. Chicago: Aldine Publishing
Company, 1966.

Warren, J. R. Student characteristics associated with farm and
non-farm background. Unpublished Manuscript, 1964.

Webster, H., Freedman, M. B., and Heist, P. Personality changes
in college students. In N. Sanford (ed. ), The american
college. New York: John Wiley, 1962, pp. 811- 846.

Whitehead, A. N. The aims of education. New York: The MacMillan
Company, 1929.

Whitman, R. M. Psychodynamic principles underlying t- -group
processes. In L. P. Bradford, J. P. Gibb, K. D. Benne
(eds. ), T-group theory and laboratory method. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, 1964, pp. 310- 335.

Williams, H. Y. Collegerstudents' perceptions of the personal
traits and instructionalprocedures of good and poor
Eeeenere. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University
of Minnesota, 1965.

 

99

Wilson, E. K. The entering student: attributes and agents of
change. In T. M. Newcomb and E. K. Wilson (eds.),
College peer groups. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.,

Wilson, J. W. and Lyons, E. H. Work study college programs.
New York: Harper and Bros., 1961.

Wise, W. M. They come for the best of reasons: college
students today. Washington: American Council on Educa-
tion, 1958.

Yamamoto, K. The college student and his culture. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968.

Zimet, C. N., and Fine, H. J. Personality changes with a group
therapeutic experience in a human relations seminar.
Journal of Abnormel and Social Psychology. 51:68, 1955.

 

TABLES

100

‘L

101

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ON.N OA.N O~.H- OO.H- OO.O OO.H OA.O- ON.O- Os.O OO.H ON.N OA.O ON.O O.O wwwmhmwwwm
ON HO OH NN as Os ON ON OH ON Ha OO ON OO Owes
OH OO OH ON NH Os ON ON OH ON OH OO NN OO mum O
ON OO OO ON OH Os OH ON BO ON OH OO ON OO smom
ON OO so ON NH Os Os ON OO AN NH OO ON OO mum O
Os OO NH OH OO ON OO OH Ha ON OH HO OH ON smom
OH NO ON NN OH ON OO HN Ha NN OH OH OH HN mum O
NN NO NH ON OH NO NN ON OH HO OH OH 5N NN “mos
OH NN OO ON AH NO OH ON OH ON OO OO OH OH Ohm O
ude “mafia:
ax OOOOO
OO O: OO as OO HO OH OO OO OO OO Om OH He

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmmoom mozmmmmmHD z¢mz mbomw mHHB .mHZ<mHUHHm<m
H<DQH>HQZH mom mmmoom MH¢Om VMOHZM>ZH MHHH<ZOmmmm mDmHZEO

w MHm<H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

102

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OO.O OO.N- OO.O OO.O- ON.O mwmmhmewm
OO HO OH NH OH OH OO OH OO ON OH OO Na Na smom

OO OO OH OH HO ON OO ON NO NN OH OO NN OH mum O
OO OO NN HO OO NN OO ON ON ON OH OO ON OH “mom

HO HO NN OH OH NO OO OH NN ON OH NO ON OH mum O
HO OO HO OH OO ON OO OH NN ON OH NO ON OH swam

OH OO NH OH OO ON OO ON OH NN OH NO NN NN mum O
OO OH OH ON OO OO NO OO OH NO ON OH OH ON OO.O

OO NH OH OH OO NO NO HO NH NN ON NH OH OH mum O

ume H6986:
Nx OOOOO

OO O: OO z< OO HO OH OO OO OO OO Om OH HO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. .H. . 200 w mqmfiH.

 

103

 

IIIIIIIIII'IIIJIIIIIIIII.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OO.H ON.O- ON.O OO.H- OO.N- OO.N- ON.O ON.H- ON.N ON.N- OO.H ON.N ON. OO.H wwwmsMwme
OH ON OH NH OO OH OO NO OH NH OH OH ON ON OOOO
NH HO NH ON OO ON OO NO OH OH OH HH ON NN mum O
OH HO ON OH OO NO OO HN NH OH OH OH ON ON OOoO
OH OO NH NH OH NO ON ON OH ON NH NO ON NN OOO O
OH OO OH OH NH OO OO ON ON ON OH OO NN OH OOOO
wOH OO NH OH HH OO HO NN OH ON OH OO OH OH OOO O
OH HO NH ON NH NO ON OH ON HO OH NO NN NN OOOO
OH OO OH HN NH OO ON ON ON OO OH OO ON OH Ohm O
umoH Honaoz
Ox OOOOO
OO Oz OO 2O HO HO OH OO OO OO OO OO OH HO

 

 

 

.H.ZOU w MHm<H

 

 

 

104

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OO.O- OO.N- NO.O NO.O NO.H- OO.O- OO.N OO.H- O0.0 NO.O NO.H- NO.H- OO.O- OO.O- “MMMOMWWWW
OH OO HH ON ON OO ON NN OH ON OH OO NH ON OOOO
OH OO OH ON ON OO OO ON HH ON NH HH OH ON mum O
OH NN OH ON OH ON NO ON OO NN ON OH ON ON OOOO
NH ON OH OH OH NO NO ON NO ON ON NN ON HO mum O
HH OO OH OH NO OH HO OH HN OO OH OO OH HN OOOO
OH OO OH ON OO ON ON HN NN ON OH OO ON NN mum O
qum. Omens:
Ox OOOOO
OO O: OO 2O HO HO OH OO OO OO OO OO OH HO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. .H. .750 w MHm<H

 

105

 

 

monouoHHHm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ON.O OO.N OO.O OO.N OO.N ON.H OO.O ON.O- ON.H ON.H OO.O OO.H- OO.O ON.O sum: OOOOO

OH ON NH ON OH OO NO ON OH HO OH HH HN ON OOOO

OH ON OH HN NH OO HO ON OH ON OH OH ON NN «HO O

NH OO OO OO OH NO HN OH OH OO ON NH NH OO OOOO

OH ON OO ON OH OO OH NH OO NN NH OH OH ON OOO O

NH OO OH HN OH OO OO OO OH NO NO OO ON ON OOOO

ON HO OH NH OH OO NO HO OH OO OH OO NN ON OOO O

OH OO OH OH OH ON NN OH ON OO OH OO ON NN OOOO

OH OO NH OH OH OO OO OH ON OO ON OO ON HN OOO O

“woe Honfioz

mN mbomw

OO O: OO 2O HO HO OH OO OO OO OO OO OH HH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.H.ZOU w MHm<H

 

106

 

 

mouoHoHHHmi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OO.O- ON.H- OO.H- OO.N ON.O ON.H OO.N- ON.O- ON.O- ON.O- OO.N OO.O OO.O ON.N- saw: OHOOO
OH HO OH OH OO ON ON OH OH ON OH HH ON ON OOOO
NH ON NN OH OO ON NO ON OH ON OO OO OH ON OOO O
HH NN OH ON OH ON OO NN NH OH OH NH NN ON OOOO
OH OO OH HN OH ON OO NN NH NH OH HH ON ON OHO O
OO OO OH OH HH OH OO OH OH OO OH OO NH HH OOOO
OO OO OH OH OH NH OO HH ON OO OH HO OH OH OOO O
OH NO NO ON OH NO NO ON ON OO ON OH ON ON OOOO
OH OO NO ON OH OO OO ON ON OO NN ON OO HO OOO O
umoH Honfioz
Ox OOOOO
OO O: OO HO HO HO OH OO OO OO OO OO OH HH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. .H. .200 w MHm<.H.

 

 

107

 

 

 

ooamumHHHn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ON.H- OO.N ON.H OO.O- ON.N- OO.N- ON.O- OO.H- OO.O- OO.O- ON.H- ON.O- ON.N- ON.H- saw: ansO
OH HO OO HO NH OO OO NN OH OO ON OH NN OO OOOO
HN ON OO HO NH OO OO ON NH OO ON OH NN OO OOO O
OO OO OH NH NO OH OO OH NH OO OH OO OH OH OOOO
HH OO OH OH OH OH OO OH NN OO NH OO ON NH OOO O
OH OO OH OH OO ON NN HH NH ON OH OH OH ON OOOO
OH OO OH NH OO NN ON OH OH ON OH OH OH NN OOO O
NN OO OO ON OH OO OH ON NH ON OH NO ON NN OOOO
OH OO HH ON OH OO ON ON OH NN OH NO ON ON osO O
ummH Hmnfioz
HO OOOOO
OO O: OO HO HO HO OH OO OO OO OO OO OH HH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. .H. .200 w MHm<H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

108

 

 

 

 

 

OO.N- OO.H OO.H- O0.0- ON.N- ON.O- ON.O O0.0- O0.0 ON.H OO.O OO.O- OO H- OO.O- mmwmhmewm
NH ON OH HN OH OO OH OH HH NN ON OH ON OO OOOO

NH NN NH ON OH OO OH ON OH OO ON OH ON OO 8O O
OH NN NO HO OH OO OO NO HN OO OO HN NN NO OOOO

NH OO NO OO NH OO OO OO HN OO ON ON ON NO OOO O
OH HO HH ON OO HO HH OH OH OO OH OO OH OH OOOO

OH HO OH ON OH OO NO NH OH OO NH NO OH OH OOO O
OH OO OH OO NH OO OO OO OH HN OH OO HN NH OOOO

OH NO OH HN OH OO NN OO ON NN HH OO HN OH OOO O

ummH_ HQDEOE
NO OOOOO

OO O: OO 2O HO HO OH OO OO OO OO OO OH HH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.H.zoo w MHm<H

 

109

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O0.0- ON.O- ON.H- ON.O- OO.H- ON N- OO.H- ON.H- ON.O ON.O ON.O ON.H ON.H OO.O mmwmhmewm
HH OO OH OH OH OH ON OH HN OO HN OH NN ON OOOO
NH ON OO OH HH OH ON NH OH OO ON ON HN OO OOO O
OH OO OH OH OH OO HO NO HN ON OH OO NN ON OOOO
OH OO OH NN OH OO HO ON OH OO NH OO ON ON OOO O
OH NN HH NO OH ON OH NH HH ON ON OH ON NO OOOO
HN ON OO HO NH OO NH OH OO NN ON OH NN OO OOO O
OO OO ON OO OO NN OO NO ON OO HH OO NH NH OOOO
NO OO OH OH HH ON HO HH ON ON OO OO OH OO OOO O
OH NO OO OH OH ON ON NH OH OO NH OO ON ON OOOO
OH OO NO NN OH OO OO HH OH OO ON OO NN HN OO O
ummH HonEoZ
OO OOOOO
OO O: OO 2O HO HO OH OO OO OO OO OO OH HH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. .H. . ZOO w mama?

 

110

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OO.O ON.H NO.H OO.O. ON.H- ON.H- ON.O- NO.O OH.H ON.N- ON.H- OH.O OH.O OO.O wwwmumwwwm
ON NO OO NN NH OO OO OO NN OO NN OH OO OO OOOO

OH HO OO ON OH OO OO OO HN OO ON NH ON HO 8O O
HH HO NN HH OH ON HO OH ON ON OH OO ON ON OOOO

HH OO OH OH OH NN HO OO ON HO OH OO ON ON OOO O
NH OO OO ON OH NO OH HN OH ON OH OO ON ON OOOO

OH OO OH ON OH OO OH NN. HH OO OH OH ON OO OOO O
OH OO OO NH OH OO NO OH NN HO OH OH OO OO OOOO

OH OO OH NN OH OO NO NH ON OO ON HH OO NO OOO O
OH OO ON NH OH OO HH NH NN HN OO OO ON OH OOOO

OH OO NN OH OH NN HH OH NN ON OH NO ON ON OOO O
OH OO OH NH NH NN OO ON OH ON OH OH ON ON OOOO

OH OO OO HN NH NN ON OH NH ON NH NH ON ON OOO O
HH ON OO NN OO OH OO ON HN NO HN HH ON HO OOOO

OO ON OO ON OH HO NO ON NH NO ON OO HN OO OOO O

ume 909802
AHouuGoo uflmfiummuunnozv so ADOMG

OO O: OO 2O HO HO OH OO OO OO OO OO OH HH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. .H. .200 w muHm<H

 

111

 

oo.H Ho.| om.u mm. NO. on. ON.I mm. om.- No. mH. 0N. om. mm.
oo.H mm. ON.| wH. OH. mo.n mq.| om. mo. Nm.u om.u NH. m¢.u
oo.H no.u mm.- Hm.u mo. ON.I mm. wq. 00.: mm.1 wH.u qw.:

oo.H «N. md. wH.u mq. om.u ON. «m. CH. qq. no.

oo.H mm. Ho. mH. NH.| qm. mm. mo. «N. mo.

oo.H mm.: «m. mm.| OH. 00. Ho. 0N. mm.

oo.H mm. oq. mm. om. ON. mH. mo.

oo.H No.a om. oq. mq. ad. mm.
oo.H mm. 50. NN.: HH. wN.-

oo.H 00. 50. 0H. 00.

A<H<Q Emmanmmmv oo.H mo. mm. mm.

oo.H Om. On.

oo.H mm.
oo.H

mm m: cm z< H< Hm mH mm om D< 00 mm OH HH

XHMH<Z ZOHH<HMMMOOMMHZH HmMHnHmOm

o mqm<H

HmMHIMMA Hmo

 

mm
m:
on
Z<
H<
Hm
MH
mm
om
D<
00
mm
OH
HH

HmMHummm

112

 

 

Om. wH.u dm.u mm. wN. OO. mm.u Nd. Om.n wO. ON. HN. Md. Od.
Nw. mH. Od.: mH. mH. OO.: Od.: ON. OO. Om.u om.u HO.| Od.:
Ow. OO.: Hm.u mm.u HO.u Od.: HN. md. OO.: Od.: mH.n Om.u

mm. Nm. dd. mN.u Om. wm.: ON. Nm. om. HN. mm.

OO. NO. NH.| ON. NN.I mH. ON. HO. Om. OH.

mm. ON.u MN. dN.: NO. OO.: HO. OH. @0.

HO. OO. Om. ON. OH. do. OO. OO.

mm. mo. dN. mm. ON. Om. Od.
dw. mm. HO. dH.u dO. wH.n

mm. on. OO. HO. HO.

A<H<O HmMHIHmOm I HmMHummmV OO. OO. OH. mm.

mm. NN. OO.

NO. OO.

dw.

mm m: Om z< H< Hm mH mm om D< 00 mm OH HO

.H.ZOU O MHm<H

 

mm
m:
cm
Z<
H<
Hm
mH
Mm
om
D<
00
mm
OH
HH

HmMHIHmOm

113

 

 

OO.H mH.n Od.: HO. Od. OO.. dd.n mm. ON.u OH. OH. ON. om. HO.
OO.H om. Od.: ON.| mH. OO.: md.| mN. mO. Nm.| OO.: HH.| Od.:
OO.H NO.| ON.| mN.u HO. mm.| HH. Om.u OO.: Od.: Nd.n MO.I

OO.H om. Od. MN.n mm. mN.u Nd. om. Nd. Od. mo.

OO.H NO. wH.u Om. NN.| ON. HO. HO.u mm. mN.

OO.H om.u ON. NH.| mO. mH.| dO.u Hm. mN.
OO.H OH. mm. HH. wN. OO. OO. HO.I

OO.H HO. ON. ON. om. om. Od.
OO.H dN. NH.n OH.I OH. mH.|

OO.H dm. NH. mH. mN.

A<H¢O HmMHnHmOmV OO.H NO. Od. OO.

OO.H Nm. dO.

OO.H NO.
OO.H

mm H: OH. 2d H< Hm mH mm om D< 00 mm OH HH

.H.ZOU O mqm¢H

 

mm
m2
Om
Z<
H<
Hm
mH
mm
om
D<
00
mm
OH
HH

HmMHIHmOH

2.

TABLE 10

PARTICIPANT RESPONSES TO FOLLOW-UP
QUESTIONNAIRE-FREQUENCY
DISTRIBUTION

What do you consider to be the three most outstanding fea-
tures in your college experience thus far?

53 classes 7 residence

29 personal freedom 5 activities

25 male friends 5 faculty members

14 roommates 4 athletics

13 female friends 2 books read

13 social events 0 job

12 other 0 small group project

 

11 intellectual atmosphere

At the beginning, what did you expect to gain from partici-
pation in the small group project?*

51 meet students 14 break up routine

31 meet faculty 10 vocational advice

29 learn about engineering 9 other

26 recommend changes 3 help with coursework
23 bull session 1 discuss politics

How well have your expectations (item 3) been met by your
participation in a group?

3 completely 5 little
7 almost fully 1 not at all
18 partially

What factors are responsible for your expectations being
met (or not met) to the extent you noted in item 4?*

time schedule

group disagreements
meeting place
others

65 group members 1
28 lack of structure

25 faculty members

25 outside factors

22 yourself

NUJCDO‘

*
Weighted Rank Totals (lst choice = 3; 2nd choice = 2;

3rd choice = 1).

114

 

 

6.

115

What would you change if the project were starting again

and you could control what happens?*

26 better attendance 5 join different group
25 change members' behavior 5 faculty listen better
19 faculty talk more 4 change faculty behavior
18 more even participation 4 members stay on topic
14 not participate 4 change faculty (other)
13 other 3 change members (other)
12 assign topics 3 faculty talk less

12 meet at different time 3 faculty be friendlier
8 switch faculty 2 faculty stay on topic
7 eliminate tape recorder
Can you identify specific things you have gained from
participating?

12 help in getting along with others

12 more favorable attitude toward engineering

12 more favorable attitude toward faculty

11 information about yourself

7 job information

6 technical information

5 nothing

4 help with coursework

3 curriculum planning

3 less favorable attitude toward engineering

3 other

2 social acitivities information

What is your over-all evaluation of the small group experi-

ence for you?

2
20
9
2
1

very favorable
favorable

mediocre

poor
very poor

APPENDICES

116

APPENDIX A

OMNIBUS PERSONALITY INVENTORY (FORM F)
DEFINITIONS OF THE FOURTEEN SCALES1

Thinking Introversion (TI) -- 43 iteme: Persons scoring high
on this measure are characterized by a liking for reflective
thought and academic activities. They express interests in a
broad range of ideas found in a variety of areas, such as
literature, art, and philosophy. Their thinking is less
dominated by immediate conditions and situations, or by
commonly accepted ideas, than that of thinking extroverts
(low scorers). Most extroverts show a preference for overt
action and tend to evaluate ideas on the basis of their
practical, immediate application, or to entirely reject or
avoid dealing with ideas and abstractions.

Theoretieel Orientation (TO) -- 33 iteme: This scale measures
an interest in, or orientation to, a more restricted range of
ideas than is true of TI. High scorers indicate a preference
for dealing with theoretical concerns and problems and for
using the scientific method in thinking; many are also
exhibiting an interest in science and in scientific activities.
High scorers are generally logical, analytical, and critical
in their approach to problems and situations.

Estheticiem (Es) -- 24 iteme: High scorers endorse statements
indicating diverse interests in artistic matters and activities
and a high level of sensitivity and response to esthetic
stimulation. The content of the statements in this scale
extends beyond painting, sculpture, and music, and includes
interests in literature and dramatics.

Complexity (Co) -- 32 iteme: This measure reflects an
experimental and flexible orientation rather than a fixed
way of viewing and organizing phenomena. High scorers are
tolerant of ambiguities and uncertainties; they are fond
of novel situations and ideas. Most persons high on this
dimension prefer to deal with complexity, as opposed to
simplicity, and very high scorers are disposed to seek out
and to enjoy diversity and ambiguity.

1Reproduced by permission. Copyright(:)l962, 1968 by The
Psychological Corporation, New York, N.Y. All rights reserved.

117

118

Autonomy (Au) -- 43 iteme: The characteristic measured by

this scale is composed of liberal, non-authoritarian thinking
and a need for independence. High scorers show a tendency to
be independent of authority as traditionally imposed through
social institutions. They oppose infringements on the rights
of individuals and are tolerant of viewpoints other than

their own; they tend to be realistic, intellectually and
politically liberal, and much less judgmental than low scorers.

Religious Orientation (RO) -- 26 iteme: High scorers are
skeptical of conventional religious beliefs and practices and
tend to reject most of them, especially those that are orthodox
or fundamentalistic in nature. Persons scoring around the
mean are manifesting a moderate view of religious beliefs and
practices; low scorers are manifesting a strong commitment

to Judaic-Christian beliefs and tend to be conservative in
general and frequently rejecting of other viewpoints. (The
direction of scoring on this scale, with religious orientation
indicated by low scores, was based chiefly on the correlation
between these items and the first four scales, which measure

a general intellectual disposition.

Social Extroversion (SE) -- 4O iteme: This measure reflects
a preferred style of relating to people in a social context.
High scorers display a strong interest in being with people,
and they seek social activities and gain satisfaction from
them. The social introvert (low scorer) tends to withdraw
from social contacts and responsibilities.

impulse Expreesion (IE) -- 59 iteme: This scale assesses a
general readiness to express impulses and to seek gratifica-
tion either in conscious thought or in overt action. High
scorers have an active imagination, value sensual reactions
and feelings; very high scorers have frequent feelings of
rebellion and aggression.

Personal Integration (PI) —- 55 iteme: The high scorer admits
to few attitudes and behaviors that characterize socially
alienated or emotionally disturbed persons. Low scorers

often intentionally avoid others and experience feelings of
hostility and aggression along with feelings of isolation,
loneliness, and rejection.

Anxiety Level (AL) -- 20 items: High scorers deny that they
have feelings or symptoms of anxiety, and do not admit to
being nervous or worried. Low scorers describe themselves

as tense and high-strung. They may experience some difficulty
in adjusting to their social environment, and they tend to
have a poor opinion of themselves. (Note the direction of
scoring on this scale: a high score indicates a low anxiety
level, and vice versa.)

119

Altruiemu(Am) -- 36 iteme: The high scorer is an affiliative
person and trusting and ethical in his relations with others.
He has a strong concern for the feelings and welfare of
people he meets. Low scorers tend not to consider the
feelings and welfare of others and often view people from an
impersonal, distant perspective.

Practical Outlook (PO) -- 3O iteme: The high scorer on this
measure is interested in practical, applied activities and
tends to value material possessions and concrete accomplish-
ments. The criterion most often used to evaluate ideas and
things is one of immediate utility. Authoritarianism,
conservatism, and non-intellectual interests are very
frequent personality components of persons scoring above

the average.

Masculinity-Femininity (MF) -- 56 iteme: This scale assesses
some of the differences in attitudes and interests between
college men and women. High scorers (masculine) deny

interests in esthetic matters, and they admit to few adjustment
problems, feelings of anxiety, or personal inadequacies. They
also tend to be somewhat less socially inclined than low
scorers and more interested in scientific matters. Low

scorers (feminine), besides having stronger esthetic and

social inclinations, also admit to greater sensitivity and
emotionality.

Response Bias (RB) -— 28 items: This measure, composed

chiefly of items seemingly unrelated to the concept, represents
an approach to assessing the student's test-taking attitude.

High scorers are responding in a manner similar to a group of
students who were explicitly asked to make a good impression

by their responses to these items. Low scorers, on the contrary,
may be trying to make a bad impression or are indicating a

low state of well-being or feelings of depression.

APPENDIX B

CALCULATION PROCEDURE -- LEVEL OF INTERACTION INDEX

Level pi Interaction is defined for purposes of the present
study as the ratio of average participation units to the
variance of participation. Thus

 

_ M
L ‘ 2
s
where L = Level of Interaction
M = Average of participation units for a group session

(total units divided by number of members present)

5 = Variance of participation, a statistical term which
represents the "spread" of participation scores.
If one or two members dominate a discussion, S2 will
be high; if a discussion is well balanced among
those present, 82 will be low.

The calculation procedure, therefore, is as follows:

1) The participation unit scores for each member dur-
ing a session are to be used as the raw data (X).
Scores are arranged in a vertical column, with a
parallel column for the squares of these scores (X2 ).

2) The scores (X) and squares (X2 ) are summed for the
total group (XX and 2X2).

3) The average of participation units (M) is calculated
simply by dividingZIX by the number of participants

0

4) The variance 52 may be calculated according to the
formula
2 (22x22
EX "‘ N
2 _
S _.
N - 1

120

121

5) The level of interaction (L) is then calculated
simply by definition formula

 

It may be seen that it is theoretically possible, if a dis-
cussion is "perfectly balanced" (i.e., each member partici-
pates equally) for the index L to be infinite (since 32 = O).
The probability of such an occurrence in a group of six per-
sons is, however, negligible.

This index is purely a mathematical convenience used as a
representation of the gmggng of interaction which takes place
in a group. Obviously the term "level" has nothing to do
with the qualitative aspects of a discussion such as might

be measured in a content analysis profile.

The formula defining the index was devised to provide an in-
crease in level of interaction when the amount 9; participa—
tion increases, and when the participation is more balanced
among the members. The procedure for scoring participation
provides that one "participation unit" will be recorded for
(1) each new verbal communication by a member, (2) a "restart"
by the same member after a noticeable pause, (3) each five
minutes of an extended communication.

 

APPENDIX C

FACULTY-STUDENT SOCIAL DISTANCE SCALE

The following series of statements represent several possible
attitudes faculty members may hold toward undergraduate stu-
dents. You are asked to check that item which most closely
represents your own feelings -- either one of the items
listed or a point on the scale between two items. Your
answer will be completely anonymous, so please be honest in
your response.

I prefer to have nothing to do with undergraduate
students.

I prefer to deal with undergraduates only in the formal
classroom or laboratory situation.

I am willing to teach undergraduate students and to work
with them in academic-related situations.

I am interested in working with undergraduate students
in out of class activities as well as academic-related
and classroom situations.

I am interested in helping undergraduate students with
personal as well as academic matters.

I am interested in having undergraduate students as my
personal friends.

122

APPENDIX D

College of Engineering Small Group Project
Guidelines for Discussion Groups

The following guidelines are presented in an attempt to maximize
the benefit to each participant in the group, and to assure a
very broad comparability between groups. A purposeful attempt
to minimize unnecessary structure has been made, and you are
encouraged to feel unbound by any concern for "what we should

do."

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

The group and the time are yours.

The group is to meet for two hours each week for eight
meetings, at a time convenient for all members.

Each member is asked -- but in no way coerced -- to attend
all sessions of the group.

Each member will be asked to assume a minor "housekeeping"
responsibility such as picking up the tape recorder.

The group meetings are for our own benefit and may be
organized (or disorganized!) in any way you choose. It
is suggested that you make an honest effort to get to
know the members of your group personally.

As noted, discussion topics are open to the group. Two
suggestions may be helpful to you:

a) Some possible areas of interest may include the
academic process, your individual hobbies and
interests, personal philos0phies, professional
interests, developing friendships, politics,
dating, this group, personal adjustment to
college and/or life in general.

b) It is recommended that specific matters dealing with
your current course work -- for example a particular
homework problem, exam, or class assignment -- g2;
become topics of discussion, primarily because so
few in the group are likely to be interested.

123

(6)

(7)

(8)

124

Any material (comments, questions, criticisms, feelings,
problems, suggestions) which is presented in the group
meetings will, although tape recorded, be maintained as
strictly confidential by the project director. However,
if any member has comments about the program of the
University or the College of Engineering which he wishes
to be passed on anonymously, an effort will be made to
report such items to the Office of Engineering Student
Affairs. Obviously, no promise of results from such
items is expressed or implied.

The group may meet anywhere and at any time which is
mutually convenient for the members, however, each group
session is to be tape recorded for the project director.
The small third floor conference rooms are available for
the scheduled meeting time and may be arranged for other
times upon request.

I sincerely hope you and the members of your group find
this experience to be rewarding and stimulating. Please
feel free to contact me at any time.

Robert E. Alberti
Project Director
355-0921

APPENDIX E

Observer Score Sheet for Group
Discussion Participation Units

Member Member Member Member Member Memfer
1 2 3 4

 

 

 

 

 

Note: One participation unit is to be scored for:

each new verbal communication by a member
a "restart" by the same member after a noticeable pause

each 5 minutes of an extended communication by one
member

AAA
b.) N b-I
vvv

125

.4“fi"""

 

APPENDIX F
FOLLOW-UP QUE ST IONNA IRE

Name Group

Age Major Year Group Attendance

What do you consider to be the three most outstanding
features in your college experience thus far? (Rank
1.2. '

__ class __ social events
__ male friend(s) __ activities

__ female friend(s) __ faculty members
__ roommates __ athletics

__ residence __ other (list)

intellectual atmosphere

 

 

personal freedom
small group project
job

books read

At the beginning, what did you expect to gain from partici-
pation in the small group project? (Rank 1, 2, 3 :

meet faculty vocational advice
meet students break up routine
learn about engineering help with coursework
bull session discuss politics

__ recommend changes
__ other (list)

 

 

Comment:

126

127

How well have your expectations (item 3) been met by your
participation in a group?

__ completely __ almost fully __ partially
__ little __ not at all
Comment:

What factors are responsible for your expectations being
met (or not met) to the extent you noted in item 4?

(Rank 1, 2, 3, and mark + by positive factors, - by nega—
tive factors).

__ group members __ lack of structure
__ faculty members __ time schedule
__ yourself __ group disagreements

others (list)

 

 

__ meeting place

outside factors

(job, class work, etc.)
specify

What would you change if the project were startin again
and you could control what happens? (Rank 1, 2, 3 :

join different group assign topics

switch faculty eliminate tape recorder
not participate meet at different time
change members' behavior change faculty behavior
more even participation talk less

better attendance talk more

stay on topic listen better

other stay on topic

be friendlier

other (list)

 

__ other (list)

 

 

 

Comment:

128

Can you identify specific things you have gained from
participating?

nothing
technical information

job information

help with coursework

social activities information
other (list)

 

 

curriculum planning

information about yourself

help in getting along with others

more favorable attitude toward engineering
less favorable attitude toward engineering
more favorable attitude toward faculty
less favorable attitude toward faculty

What is your over-all evaluation of the small group
experience for you?

__ very favorable __ favorable __ mediocre
__ poor __ very poor
Comment:

Would you please describe briefly your point of view about
the importance of informal relationships between faculty
and students outside the classroom.

APPENDIX G

STUDENT PARTICIPANT COMMENTS ON FACULTY-
STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS

I think it is a very good idea for faculty and students to
get along informally.

Without some type of outside contact, many members of the
faculty would have little knowledge of how their students
think, and in general, would make grading much harder if the
students were not known outside of class.

Students are relaxed and not afraid their questiOn might be.
laughed at by other students when in an informal atmosphere.
Many students can gain more insight in a problem area when a
personal relationship between instructor and student is
acquired.

A relationship would help break the feeling that the faculty
are out to screw everyone to the wall, and too to prove to
the student that they are just as human as the students are.

In our group I never saw a faculty member but I would be in
favor of more informal relationships.

I believe, "I think," that faculty-student relationships and
informal communication can be a very great help to students
(and perhaps even to the faculty), but only if the student
is interested and willing -= he should not (could not) be
forced into such a relationship.

Faculty members are human beings and it is important that
students see themin a different light than the lecture hall.

Helps strengthen the students interests in the faculty.

I think it is important for students to become aware of the
fact that profs are human.

It helps you to realize that faculty members are human and
don't always consider you subordinate to them.

129

130

This lets a person get to see a rof and gain more respect for
him. Also gives a person ( to ask questions.

It gives the student something to grab on to while swimming
in the sea of higher education.

It helps you to understand them. Therefore, acting better
toward classwork.

I feel it would help both groups. It would be easier to learn
from some one whom you know, some one who doesn' t seem like a
robot placed in the room to spout formulas for an hour. An

all Engineering Bull Session (with alcohol to remove inhibitions)
would do much to improving student morale and interest. Maybe

a study session at Revere's or Monty's.

I think that they could be a good thing. The teacher could
get a feel for what the student wants to learn and how he
wants to learn it. The student would be able to understand
the teacher and his teaching habits better.

Most students don't want to talk to their professors outside of
the classroom about anything but classwork and grades. My
opinion is alot of profs. have too much to do to sit around and
shoot the bull. If I see a professor I know in the hall or
elsewhere I merely say hi and it ends at that. There are, how-
ever, a few profs. on campus I do talk freely with. Informal
relationships are, therefore, of little importance to the
student and faculty member except in certain cases.

Such relationships are highly desirable, but more important
is the feeling of esprit d'accord among engineering students.

I feel that the faculty student relationship, speaking for
myself, is very far but I am trying to get to know my profs.
and try to break down an illusion of the prof. residing in some
impregnable castle with his time for the student limited and
have a friend and someone to help with problems.

Professors are just people outside the classroom.

As the experience with Dr. __ showed, it is definitely
an advantage. Also Dr. '8 interest was stimulating
towards communications with students.

Generally you never get to know faculty members very well which
is too bad because many of them are so interesting and it would
be both beneficial and interesting to talk with them and get to
know them better.

131

I feel that a student should have a friendly, but not a real
close relationship with faculty. Mainly a student will feel
free to see a faculty member to ask questions or work out pro-
blems freely; not nerves or scared to speak to a faculty
member. A student will benefit more with a friendly relation-
ship in the future.

More important for students who are overawed by the curriculum
or the faculty to get to know one or more faculty members in-
formally than for a more mature student or one who is less
Challenged by his course of study.

Relationships with students are invaluable for many reasons
the most important of which may be lessons in how to deal with
people, how different people react to different situations,
and how to live and work with someone you.may not especially
like. Relationships with faculty are important but I wouldn't
rate them as important as those with your peers. I would have
enjoyed getting to know several of the faculty better but I
feel that those that I do know have been very helpful.

I don't have any point of view.

No.