This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS AND UNIVERSITY HOUSING STAFF REGARDING THE RESIDENCE HALL SERVICES AND PROGRAMS AT UMM AL—QURA AND KING SAUD UNIVERSITIES IN SAUDI ARABIA presented by Ali Abdullah B.A. Al—Zahrani has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D Educat ional Admin is t rat ion ' degree in 1”] ¢/ I)//'lhm Major professor / Date 6/2” (¢ I (7 ”VIII-n- 143‘ ’J A v I“ In - v . . 042771 MSU LIBRARIES m RETURNING MATERIALSb Piace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped beiow. THE PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS AND UNIVERSITY HOUSING STAFF REGARDING THE RESIDENCE HALL SERVICES AND PROGRAMS AT UMM AL-QURA AND KING SAUD UNIVERSITIES IN SAUDI ARABIA By Ali Abdullah B. A. Al-Zahrani A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration T987 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS AND UNIVERSITY HOUSING STAFF REGARDING THE RESIDENCE HALL SERVICES AND PROGRAMS AT UMM AL—QURA AND KING SAUD UNIVERSITIES IN SAUDI ARABIA presented by Ali Abdullah B.A. Al-Zahrani has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D Educational Administration ' degree in J”, g I /4: #1 Major professor / Date 6/2 2’ ( MTIIi-n- A“:— n’ A ' :- yn » , I . 042771 Copyright by ALI ABDULLAH B. A. AL-ZAHRANI 1987 ABSTRACT THE PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS AND UNIVERSITY HOUSING STAFF REGARDING THE RESIDENCE HALL SERVICES AND PROGRAMS AT UMM AL-QURA AND KING SAUD UNIVERSITIES IN SAUDI ARABIA ‘ By Ali Abdullah B. A. Al-Zahrani This study was conducted to examine similarities and differences in the perceptions of residence hall students and staff regarding dormitory services and programs at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Universities in Saudi Arabia. The independent variables were the respondents' institution. status. gender. age. and nationality. and size of residence hall. A questionnaire was distributed to a cross-sectional sample of 982 students and staff. From the 860 usable returns. 551 and 84 were students and staff. respectively. from King Saud University: T98 and 27 were students and staff. respectively. from Umm Al-Qura University. In the analysis of the data. means and standard deviations were used to estimate the average and variation in responses to the questionnaire. Analysis of variance and Tukey's test were used to determine pair-wise significant differences among various group means. The results indicated that the quality of most dormitory services and programs was perceived as satisfactory by residence hall Ali Abdullah B. A. Al-Zahrani students and staff at both Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Universities. However. respondents perceived accommodations for the disabled. safety orientation for residence hall staff and students. and provision of storage rooms. emergency exits. and emergency ambulance services as unsatisfactory. Staff and students at King Saud University perceived relatively higher satisfaction than those at Umm Al-Qura University with the provision of religious activities. quiet study areas. rooms for parties. television rooms. elevators. and fire extinguishers. The results also indicated that students perceived the quality of dormitory services and programs to be lower than did staff members. Comparisons according to nationality. age. gender. and residence hall size revealed that. generally. non-Saudi students were more satisfied than Saudi students; younger students were more satisfied than older Students; female students were more satisfied than male students; and students living in smaller residence halls were more satisfied than those living in larger residence halls with regard to dormitory services and programs. Based on the study findings. rec0mmendations for program implementation and for further research were suggested. DEDICATION This humble work is dedicated to: My parents. Abdullah B. Al-Zahrani. for his prayers. love. and support as a great father; and Thuraia M. Al-Zahrani. my mother. for her care. prayers. support. and love throughout her life and who added so much to my life when she joined me in the United States during my final period of study. My sincere wife. Khadra S. Al-Zahrani. for her patience. encouragement. and understanding during my doctoral studies at Michigan State University. My beloved children. Nesreen and Nezzar. for their concern and beautiful smiles. which provided me with strength and encouragement to complete this study. All my brothers. sisters. and relatives. especially my oldest brothers. Saeed and Ghurmallah. for their complete support. encouragement. and valuable advice. and my brother Dr. Saad. for his advice and continuous encouragement and support. All of the groups and individuals at King Saud and Umm Al- Qura Universities who participated directly or indirectly in this research. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost. I would like to thank God. the source of all knowledge. all good. and all love. who gave me the strength. patience. and endurance to accomplish this study. Sincere thanks and deep appreciation go to Dr. Eldon Ray Nonnamaker. my doctoral committee chairman. for his clear guidance. advice. wise counsel. and continual encouragement and support throughout my doctoral program at Michigan State University. Grateful acknowledgment. deep gratitude. and appreciation are extended to Drs. Kenneth Neff. Ben A. Bohnhorst. and Louis Hekhuis for their willingness to serve on my committee and for their valuable advice. suggestions. and continuous encouragement. My thanks are extended to all those individuals who participated in this study and took the time to respond to the research questionnaire. Special thanks are extended to many friends. colleagues. faculty members. and administrators at King Saud University. Umm Al-Qura University. Michigan State University. and elsewhere for their contributions to this effort. I am grateful to Umm Al-Qura University for its sponsorship and support. which made this study possible. I also wish to express my thanks to Drs. Abdulrazak Habib and Kebede Daka for their assistance with computer scoring and data vi analysis and to Susan Cooley for her professional editing and beautiful typing of this manuscript. Appreciation is extended to my brother. Dr. Saad Al-Zahrani. and to Drs. Hasen Al-Shehri. Ali Sagr Al-Ghamdi. Ali Al-Karni. and Daifalla Al-Zahrani for their suggestions and assistance with this research. Special thanks and appreciation are extended to my nephew Abdullah for his help and participation in reviewing the final translation of the questionnaire from Arabic to English. Deep appreciation is extended to my father. Abdullah: my mother. Thuraia: my brothers. Saeed. Ghurmallah. Saad. Ahmed. Mesfer. Hamed. Mohammed. and Saadi; and to the other members of my family for their encouragement and support throughout the period of my higher education. Last but not least. I would like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to my wife. Khadra. and my loved children. Nesreen and Nezzar. for their patience. love. support. and understanding during my graduate studies. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................... Chapter I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ............... Background ...................... Statement of the Problem ............... Purpose of the Study ................. Importance of the Study ............... The Development of Higher Education in Saudi Arabia The Study Setting .................. King Saud University ................ Umm Al-Qura University ............... Research Questions .................. Null Hypotheses ................... Data-Analysis Procedures ............... Limitations and Generalizability of the Study Definition of Terms ................. Organization of the Study .............. II. LITERATURE REVIEW ................... Introduction ..................... The Educational. Social. and Economic Aspects of Residence Hall Experiences ............. Educational Aspects ................ Social Aspects ....... . ........... Economic Aspects .................. Research on Residence Hall Experiences ........ Advantages of Living in a Residence Hall ....... Residence Hall Staff Members ............. Goals and Objectives of Residence Halls ....... III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES ................. Introduction ..................... The Study Population ................. Development of the Questionnaire ........... viii Page xi Data-Collection Procedures .............. 43 Research Questions .................. 45 Null Hypotheses . . ................. 45 Dependent and Independent Variables ......... 46 Dependent Variables . . . . . . .......... 46 Independent Variables ............... 47 Data-Analysis Procedures ............... 48 IV. RESULTS OF THE DATA ANALYSIS .............. 49 Introduction . . . .................. 49 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents . . . . . . 50 Findings Pertaining to Research Question l ...... 59 General Services .................. 60 Information and Communication Services ....... 63 Facility Services ..... . ........... 66 Safety Services ............... . . . 69 Food Services . . . ...... . ......... 72 Social Interaction ................ 75 Findings Pertaining to Research Question 2 and Hypotheses l and 2 ................. 79 General Services .................. 79 Information and Communication Services ....... 81 Facility Services ..... . ........... 83 Safety Services . ................. 85 Food Services ................... 87 Social Interaction ................. 89 Summary of Hypothesis Tests . . .......... 9l Findings Pertaining to Research Question 3 and Hypothesis 3 .................... 9T General Services . . . . .............. 9l Information and Communication Services ....... 93 Facility Services ................. 95 Safety Services . . . . .............. 97 Food Services ................... 98 Social Interaction ................. 99 Summary of Hypothesis Tests ....... . . . . lOl Findings Pertaining to Research Question 4 and Hypotheses 4 Through 7.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 General Services .................. 102 Information and Communication Services ....... l06 Facility Services ...... . .......... llO Safety Services .................. llS Food Services ................... 118 Social Interaction ................. l22 Summary of Hypothesis Tests ..... . ...... 126 ix SUMMARY. FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS. RECOMMENDATIONS. AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ......... Summary ........ . . ............. Study Population . ................. Characteristics of Respondents ......... . . Methodology .................... Major Findings .................... General Services ......... . . ..... Information and Communication Services . . . . . . . Facility Services ......... . ....... Safety Services .................. Food Services ................... Social Interaction ................. Conclusions ..................... Recommendations ........... . ....... Suggestions for Further Research ........... APPENDICES ENGLISH AND ARABIC VERSIONS OF THE COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE ................... CORRESPONDENCE AND LETTERS 0F APPROVAL ......... BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................... Page l28 l28 129 129 l3l l3l l3l I35 T37 l4l I44 l47 ISO l53 155 157 178 19l LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1.1 Number of Students and Teaching Staff in Saudi Arabian Universities. 1957 to 1982 .......... 9 1.2 Number of Residence Hall Students at King Saud University. 1974 to 1985 ............... 10 1.3 Number of Residence Halls and Residence Hall Students at Umm Al-Qura University. 1980-81 to 1986-87 . . . . 12 3.1 Number in Target Group. Usable Responses. and Percentage of Response for Each Group ........ 40 3.2 Number in Target Group. Usable Responses. and Percentage of Response by University ......... 41 4.1 Distribution of Students by Nationality ......... 51 4.2 Distribution of Students by Gender ...... . . . . . 51 4.3 Distribution of Students by Marital Status ....... 52 4.4 Distribution of Students by Age ............. 53 4.5 Distribution of Students by College (Major Area of Study) ........................ 54 4.6 Distribution of Students by Location of Residence Halls ........................ 55 4.7 Distribution of Students by Number of Years They Had Lived in Residence Halls ............... 56 4.8 Distribution of Staff by Nationality .......... 56 4.9 Distribution of Staff by Gender ............. 57 4.10 Distribution of Staff by Marital Status ......... 57 4.11 Distribution of Staff by Position in Residence Hall . . . 58 xi 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 Distribution of Staff by Age .............. Distribution of Staff by Level of Education . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations for Staff Members' Perceptions of General Services . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations for Students' Perceptions of General Services ................ Means and Standard Deviations for Staff Members' Perceptions of Information and Communication Services ....................... Means and Standard Deviations for Students' Perceptions of Information and Communication Services ...... Means and Standard Deviations for Staff Members' Perceptions of Facility Services ........... Means and Standard Deviations for Students' Perceptions of Facility Services ............ . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations for Staff Members' Perceptions of Safety Services ............ Means and Standard Deviations for Students' Perceptions of Safety Services .................. Means and Standard Deviations for Staff Members' Perceptions of Food Services ............. Means and Standard Deviations for Students' Perceptions of Food Services ................... Means and Standard Deviations for Staff Members' Perceptions of Social Interaction .......... Means and Standard Deviations for Students' Perceptions of Social Interaction ................ ANOVA Results for Students' and Staff Members' Perceptions of General Services ........... ANOVA Results for Students' and Staff Members' Perceptions of Information and Communication Services ....................... Page 60 61 64 64 66 67 70 7O 73 73 76 77 8O 82 4.28 4.29 4.30 4.31 4.32 4.33 4.34 4.35 4.36 4.37 4.38 4.39 ANOVA Results for Students' and Staff Members' Perceptions of Facility Services ......... . . ANOVA Results for Students' and Staff Members' Perceptions of Safety Services ......... . . . ANOVA Results for Students' and Staff Members' Perceptions of Food Services . . . .......... ANOVA Results for Students' and Staff Members' Perceptions of Social Interaction . . . . . . . . . . ANOVA Results for Perceptions of General Services: Students/Staff at Umm Al-Qura and Students/Staff at King Saud ..................... ANOVA Results for Perceptions of Information and Communication Services: Students/Staff at Umm Al-Qura and Students/Staff at King Saud ....... ANOVA Results for Perceptions of Facility Services: Students/Staff at Umm Al-Qura and Students/Staff at King Saud ..................... ANOVA Results for Perceptions of Safety Services. Students/Staff at Umm Al -Qura and Students/Staff at King Saud ................ . . . . ANOVA Results for Perceptions of Food Services: Students/Staff at Umm Al-Qura and Students/Staff at King Saud .................. . . . ANOVA Results for Perceptions of Social Interaction: Students/Staff at Umm Al- -Qura and Students/Staff at King Saud . . . . ............... ANOVA Results for Students' Perceptions of General Services According to Nationality. Gender. Age. and Size of Residence Hall ................ Means of Significant Comparisons for Perceptions of General Services According to Students' Nationality. Gender. Age. and Size of Residence Hall ....... ANOVA Results for Students' Perceptions of Information and Communication Services According to Nationality. Gender. Age. and Size of Residence Hall ....... xiii Page 84 86 88 9O 92 94 96 97 99 100 103 104 107 4.41 4.42 4.43 4.44 4.45 4.46 4.47 4.48 Means of Significant Comparisons for Perceptions of Information and Communication Services According to. Students' Nationality. Gender. Age. and Size of Residence Hall . . . ...... . ..... . . . . ANOVA Results for Students' Perceptions of Facility Services According to Nationality. Gender. Age. and Size of Residence Hall . ............... Means of Significant Comparisons for Perceptions of Facility Services According to Students' Nationality. Gender. Age. and Size of Residence Hall ....... ANOVA Results for Students' Perceptions of Safety Services According to Nationality. Gender. Age. and Size of Residence Hall ................ Means of Significant Comparisons for Perceptions of Safety Services According to Students' Nationality. Gender. Age. and Size of Residence Hall ....... ANOVA Results for Students' Perceptions of Food Services According to Nationality. Gender. Age. and Size of Residence Hall ................ Means of Significant Comparisons for Perceptions of Food Services According to Students' Nationality. Gender. Age. and Size of Residence Hall ....... ANOVA Results for Students' Perceptions of Social Interaction According to Nationality. Gender. Age. and Size of Residence Hall .............. Means of Significant Comparisons for Perceptions of Social Interaction According to Students' Nationality. Gender. Age. and Size of Residence Hall ....... Page 108 111 112 116 117 119 120 123 124 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY W The post-World War II college enrollment boom and the resultant increase in campus housing created a demand for personnel to assist with counseling and programming. The literature of the 19505 consequently reflected an increasing concern with topics related to residence hall staff. including their selection (Brady. 1955). train- ing (Orme. 1950). and duties (Ricker. 1965). Limited research on residence hall evaluation was conducted during the late 1940s and the 19505. Early efforts included Sefferd's (1949) evaluation of a residence hall counseling program. Since the late 19505. Educational Facilities Laboratories is probably the only American organization that has consistently conducted research and published reports regarding campus housing. dealing exclusively with a single issue (Shaker. 1984). Beginning in the early 1960s. several studies of on-campus student housing were conducted to determine the factors affecting Students' preferences regarding such housing. Gonyea and Harman (1962). in a study of student perceptions of dormitory counselors. found that counselors were not striving to be or to do what students. head residents. and administrators wanted or expected of them. Academic level and number of years spent in college have been found to be major determinants of students' opinions about campus housing (Duvall. 1969: Katz. 1968; Keller. 1979: Korn. 1968; Smail. DeYoung. & Moose. l974; Sommer. 1968). The lack of systematic study led Stoner and Yokie (1969) to designate research as the greatest Single need in the area of student housing. A search of the literature indicated that few attempts have been made to ascertain the effectiveness of residence hall programs or to evaluate students‘ residence hall experience. Yet program evalua— tion is essential in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of and improving educational programs. A residence hall program can be evaluated in a number of ways. One way to measure a program and its effects is to compare it to generally agreed upon outside standards. This method assumes such standards are readily available. which is not always the case. In addition. using one general set of standards as a criterion for judging the effectiveness of a residence hall program presupposes all programs have similar objectives. A second method is self-evaluation. in which students evaluate their perceptions of the actual program as compared to their expecta- tions of what their hall experiences would be like. This approach could not be used in the present study because there was no way to determine the students' previous expectations. However. such an approach could be used in a longitudinal study. A third method of evaluation would be to compare what students say actually happened to them in their residence hall experience with what residence hall staff and student personnel administrators believe happens to most students living in the residence hall. This type of evaluation method was chosen for the present inquiry for two reasons. First. the present perceptions of students and staff members concerning the residence hall experience could be measured and statistically compared with each other. Second. if such a measure was valid. it would indicate to staff members whether the program is succeeding as they perceive it to be. Statement of the Problem Almost all four-year colleges and universities provide some type of residence hall facility for their students. Public and private. large and small. residential. and even urban institutions of higher education are increasing both the number and the proportion of students housed in college- and university-owned group-living accommo- dations. Figures compiled by the United States Office of Education in 1960 indicated that public institutions housed 33.3% of their students and private institutions housed 42.3%. In these institutions. 31.9% of the men and 46.6% of the women were housed by the colleges. Of all institutions. 66% had housing for men and 71.4% had housing for women (Rork. 1962). College and university catalogues and residence hall handbooks often contain general statements to the effect that residence hall living contributes to the student's total educational experience. Institutions' investment in residence hall facilities and personnel is based on the premise that a student‘s education is enhanced by living in a residence hall and that the professional personnel. student staff. and student leaders have a meaningful influence on that development. Housing personnel. however. must ask themselves whether merely providing these environmental ingredients ensures that student development occurs. In student personnel services today. as in all of higher education. much emphasis is placed on accountability. Student person- nel specialists are continually being asked to justify the need for their services on college campuses. "College housing officers are being bombarded by suggestions as to what would be the most desirable administrative structure to meet the needs of students living in resi- dence halls“ (Gifford. 1974. p. 133). Apartment housing for students has become increasingly common on college campuses. Some of these apartments have been newly constructed and specially designed to meet the contemporary living- learning needs of college students. Others have been remodeled from conventional dormitories to provide a choice of residential life styles. Still others have been acquired by institutions from private owners in an attempt to supply living spaces for students on housing waiting lists. Whatever the reasons for their acquisition. styles of construction and their suitability for students' living and meaningful educational experiences are as diverse as their origins. University housing program personnel believe that evaluative data can assist and guide program improvement. test new ideas. keep the needs of students in residence halls in focus. and generate information necessary to help the residence hall system meet its defined goals. Furthermore. evaluation is helpful for improving the motivation and performance of residence hall staff. identifying their training needs. providing constructive feedback. and making future placement. promotion. and other employment decisions (Kuh. 1979). To provide the needed information. the residence hall experiences need to be evaluated in terms of what happens to students who live in university housing and how residence hall staff contribute to the students' total educational experience. To what extent does dormitory life contribute to students' total educational experience? What do students say is actually happening in the residence halls? What do the residence hall staff and student personnel supervisors believe is happening to most students in the residence halls? To what extent are the perceptions of residence hall managers similar to or different from those of students who are living in the residence halls? Although student affairs professionals have recognized the importance of the physical environment to students' total development and have implemented strategies to enhance the educational experiences of dormitory students. no formal research has been undertaken to assess the effectiveness of residence hall programs in Saudi Arabian colleges and universities. Regardless of the ever-increasing concern expressed by students concerning residence hall services. no study has been conducted to evaluate dormitory effectiveness or to identify the attitudes and opinions of students and residence hall staff in Saudi Arabian universities concerning what types of residence hall services are needed to enhance occupants' total educational experience. Purpose of the Study The primary purpose of the study was to examine the similari- ties and differences in the perceptions of staff members and students in university housing programs at two universities in Saudi Arabia regarding various components of residence hall services. A second purpose was to provide a basis for university housing program planners to make decisions about whether to continue and/or alter the current residence hall services and programs. A third purpose was to obtain information that can be used to inform current and prospective stu- dents of the kinds of services and programs available in residence halls and to make recommendations for further research. Importance of the Study Evaluating university residence hall programs is essential in determining the strengths and weaknesses of educational programs. Evaluation is important because it influences decision making regard- ing a program. “An evaluation is both a judgment on the worth or impact of a program. procedure. or individual. and the process whereby that judgment is made" (Dressel. 1978. p. 1). Evaluating university residence hall programs and services at the beginning of the academic .year can help in determining appropriate changes to enhance the educa- tional environment. Given the current economic. educational. and student- development emphasis of most residence halls. it is important to understand students' perceptions of residence hall services and programs. The study findings may provide a basis for understanding residence hall students' and staff members' perceptions of the residence hall experience. as well as their recommendations for program improvement. Furthermore. the results of the study may help in initiating residence hall programs that are pertinent to the needs of those living in university housing. The findings of this study might also have implications for the activities. services. administra- tive organization. and policies of dormitories in the Saudi universi- ties under investigation. The Development of Higher Education in Saudi Arabia Education is a time-intensive process that takes place in both formal and informal settings (Bashshur. 1973). Higher education in Saudi Arabia began with the advent of Islam about 1.400 years ago. Since that time. Makkah and Medina. two of Islam's holy cities. have assumed importance as centers of learning. and places from which knowledge was disseminated. particularly to the Islamic world. For centuries. millions of pilgrims would flock to Makkah and Medina each year: the two cities constantly experienced an influx of knowledge from these visitors. Moslems from the world over would come together. exchanging ideas and knowledge. Sometimes pilgrims stayed and became teachers. spending their time writing books. learning from other scholars. and teaching. The history of higher education in Saudi Arabia is a study of educational progress almost unparalleled in history. Since the estab- lishment of the Ministry of Education in 1953. the Saudi educational system has expanded significantly. University education as it is known today began in 1957 with a single institution having an enroll- ment of 21 students and a staff of nine (King Saud University. 1982). By 1982. higher education had grown to include seven universities with an enrollment of 63.563 students and a teaching staff of 6.906. (See Table 1.1.) Saudi Arabia's public expenditure per student for higher education is one of the highest in the world (Ministry of Higher Edu- cation. 1980). In Riyadh. the capital. the Saudi government is build- ing one of the largest and most modern university complexes in the world. The Study,Setting The setting of the study was King Saud University (KSU) and Umm Al-Qura University (UQAU) in Saudi Arabia. A brief description of each university follows. King,Saud University Founded in 1957. King Saud University is the oldest and largest of Saudi Arabia's universities. The other Six universities in Saudi Arabia were patterned on its framework. The enrollment at King Saud University has increased immensely due to the expansion of higher .om ”Amma_v mp m=_=:a_a _a=owoau=cm vcm cowpmozvm gmswfiz mo Pacezon Pmcoepmcemch ”mogsom nm—.o mom.om coo.~ wmm.mm mfim Nam.o m Fm Peach man mum.m u- u- i- u- I .. Auwmew>wcz mgso-_< 55: mum an.m Na mmc._ om _mm - .. prmem>wcs QwsmFmH wmm Paw.m “mm o_n._ mm omq - -- prmem>wca mFmemcwz new Ezmpoepwa exam mcwx Gem «Fm._ mm o“, -- -- - -- sp_maa>w:= _amwaa nave Nm¢.F wmo.w_ owe mmm.m mop mma . .. .>w:: Nva_:un< m:w¥ mmm m¢_.m com «Fm.v No moo.m - .. xpwmem>wcz owsmpmH uzmm nan umEEmgzz EmEH mmu.F emp.mp mam new.n NFm mmw.m m Fm xpwmem>wcs czwm mcmx Leaom mpeauzom Leapm mpeaezpm ,Laaom mpeacspm Leapm mpcauzpm prmaa>wcp mm-_mmF on-mfimp om-mmm_ mm-nmmF .Nmm_ 0D Amm_ .mmwp_maa>wcz emanaa< Assam EL Leaam memeoaaa use macaesam Lo Iaaesz--._.F a_aap 10 education in Saudi Arabia. The 1984 report of the Ministry of Higher Education indicated that King Saud University's enrollment increased fr0m 21 students in 1957-58 to 22.153 students in 1983—84. The growth of King Saud University is reflected in the increased number of students living in residence halls between 1974 and 1985. Table 1.2 shows the annual increase in the number of residence hall students at King Saud University. Currently. King Saud University has 34 residence halls on the new campus and 10 on the old campus. Table l.2.--Number of residence hall students at King Saud University. 1974 to 1985. 01d Campus New Campus Year Residence Hall Year Residence Hall Students Students 1974 903 1980 6.193 1975 2.287 1981 6.606 1976 3.616 1982 7.000 1977 4.057 1983 7.857 1978 4.986 1984 9.569 1979 5.587 1985 9.558 Source: Deanship of Student Affairs. Office of Student Housing Director. King Saud University. 1986. Umm Al-Qura University Umm Al—Qura University began in 1948. nine years earlier than King Saud University. as the College of Shar'ia and Islamic studies. the first institution of higher education in Saudi Arabia. Its purpose was to prepare students to become Moslem judges or teachers at intermediate schools and high schools. In 1960-61. the College of Shar'ia and Islamic Studies was integrated with the College of Teacher Training. Two years later. the institution was divided; the College of Teacher Training was renamed the College of Education. whereas the College of Shar'ia and Islamic Studies maintained its status under the umbrella of the Ministry of Education. A decade later. both the College of Education and the College of Shar'ia and Islamic studies became affiliated with King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah. The colleges maintained their distinct identi- ties despite that integration (Umm al-Qura University. 1985). In 1980-81. King Khalid Iban Abdul Aziz issued a decree in response to a recognized need for additional colleges and universities. and the two colleges became Umm Al-Qura University. Saudi Arabia's seventh state University. Currently. Umm Al-Qura University includes seven colleges: (a) the College of Education in Taif. (b) the College of Shar'ia and Islamic Studies. (c) the College of Education in Makkah. (d) the College of Arabic Language and Its Arts. (e) the College of Social Studies. (f) the College of Dawa and USUL-Al-Dean. and (g) the College of Applied Science and Engineering. The university also has four leading research centers: (a) the World Center for Islamic Education. (b) the Pilgrimage Research Center. (c) the Center for Scientific 12 Research and Revival of the Islamic Heritage. and (d) the Center for Research in Education and Psychology (Jan. 1983). Umm Al-Qura University is one of the smallest universities in Saudi Arabia. It offers several fields of study and programs for undergraduate and graduate students. It also provides residence hall services to both males and females. The university rents all of these residence halls from private owners. As shown in Table 1.3. the number of students living in residence halls at Umm Al-Qura University has increased dramatically between 1981 and 1987. Table 1.3.--Number of residence halls and residence hall students at Umm Al-Qura University. 1980-81 to 1986-87. Year Number of Number of Residence Halls Residence Hall Students 1980-81 3 30 1981-82 5 900 1982-83 8 1.400 1983-84 10 1.700 1984—85 13 2.100 1985-86 17 2.500 1986—87 18 3.000 Source: Deanship of Student Affairs. Office of Student Housing Director. Umm Al-Qura University. 1986. Research Questions The following research questions were posed to guide the collection of data for this study: 13 1. What are the perceptions of residence hall students and estaff at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Universities concerning the kinds crf services students are now experiencing in their dormitories? 2. What similarities and differences exist between residence Iiall students and staff at Umm Al-Qura University and between resi- dence hall students and staff at King Saud University concerning their perceptions of the types of services and programs available to stu- dents in the dormitories? 3. What Similarities and differences exist between students/staff at Umm Al-Qura University and students/staff at King Saud University concerning their perceptions of the types of services and programs available to students in the dormitories? 4. What similarities and differences exist in the perceptions of residence hall students at both Umm Al Qura and King Saud Univer- sities according to their nationality. gender. age. and size of resi- dence hall? Null Hypotheses Seven null hypotheses were formulated to test the data col- lected for this investigation. They are as follows: Hypothesis 1: There is no statistically significant difference between residence hall students and staff at Umm Al-Qura Univer- sity concerning their perceptions of the types of services and programs available to students in the dormitories. Hypothesis 2: There is no statistically significant difference between residence hall students and staff at King Saud University concerning their perceptions of the types of services and programs available to students in the dormitories. 14 Hypothesis 3: There is no statistically significant diffe between students/staff at Umm Al-Qura University and stud- staff at King Saud University concerning their perceptions 0 types of services and programs available to students ir dormitories. Hypothesis 4: There is no statistically significant diffe among students of different nationalities concerning t perceptions of the types of services and programs availabl students in the dormitories. Hypothesis 5: There is no statistically significant diffe] between male and female students concerning their perceptior the types of services and programs available to students 11 dormitories. Hypothesis 6: There is no statistically significant diffe: among students in different age groups concerning their pel tions of the types of services and programs available to stu. in the dormitories. Hypothesis 7: There is no statistically significant diffe! among students living in various sizes of residence h concerning their perceptions of the types of services programs available to students in the dormitories. Data-Analysis Procedures Descriptive statistics were used to identify participa perceptions about residence hall programs and services. Analysi variance was used to examine the similarities and differences be' stIJdents' and residence hall staff members' perceptions concerninq residence hall services and programs. Limitations and Generalizability of the Study Any study that involves individuals' perceptions of t PEPSonal experience. and their feelings in particular. is subject number of limitations. Those that pertained to the present res: are as follows: 15 1. Individuals react to what is uppermost in their minds at particular time. and their perceptions may change rapidly as a resu of"various 'factors. Likewise. an individual's responses could biased. depending on his/her mood and attitudes. 2. The questionnaire method of data gathering is subject limitations. even when appropriate principles of test constructi have been employed to elicit accurate information. 3. The study was delimited to fourth-year students living university housing and residence hall staff at King Saud and Umm A Qura Universities in Saudi Arabia. Although the fourth-year studen were assumed to have lived longer and experienced more in t residence halls than other college students. this assumption is diff cult to substantiate. The residence hall staff may also have h varying amounts of experience in university housing. The study w further delimited to describing existing residence hall programs a services as the study participants perceived them. 4. The Islamic culture does not allow unrelated males a females to intermingle. Thus the researcher. being a male. was 1i ited in distributing the questionnaire among females and could n answer any questions those respondents may have had. 5. The sample of residence halls. staff members. and studen was obtained from both on-campus housing (built by the university a designed for students) and off-campus facilities (rented by t university and not necessarily designed for students). Hence it was biased cluster sample. Inferences derived from the study results c 16 therefore be generalized only to similar populations. Howeve certain generalizations may be made about procedures that can undertaken to determine the effectiveness of a a particular resider hall program. Definition of Terms The following key terms are defined in the context in whi they are used in this dissertation. Fourth-year students. Male and female students in the fourth year of college and who had lived in university residence hal three to four years at the time of the study. Off-campus residence halls. Residence halls rented by t university off campus. These facilities usually were not original intended for student lodging but provide services and programs f youths as they pursue their studies. On-campus residence halls. University-owned residence hal built on campus and intended to accommodate students during the college experience. Perceptions. Self-reported attitudes and opinions regardi personal experiences with university residence hall programs a services. Residence hall staff members. Personnel and managers w carried out residence hall rules and regulations that direct involved the welfare of the resident students. 17 Residence hall students. Male and female fourth-year college students who were residing in on- and off-campus university housing at the time of this study. Organization of the Study Chapter I contained the background of the study. statement of the problem and purposes of the study. importance of the study. the development of higher education in Saudi Arabia. and a description of the study setting. Research questions and hypotheses. limitations and sgeneralizability of the study. and definitions of key terms were also 'included. Chapter II contains a review of literature on various Elspects of residence hall services and functions. In Chapter III. the sstudy design and procedures are explained. Findings of the data ainaiysis are elaborated in Chapter IV. A summary of the study. major f"indings. conclusions based on the findings. and recommendations for further research may be found in Chapter V. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Very little literature was found regarding college and u versity student housing services and programs in Saudi Arab Therefore. the results of studies done in the United States and G1 where regarding university residence hall services and experiences reported in this chapter. The literature on residence hall experiences is discus under the following headings: the educational. social. and econo aspects of residence hall experiences: related research on reside ha‘ll experiences: the advantages of living in college residence hal residence hall staff members; and goals and objectives of reside halls. Several writers have indicated that the primary purpose Student housing is not merely to provide a "home base" for educatio aetivities. Rather. I‘student housing relates directly and indirec '60 the entire experience. be it academic. social. intellectual. e rlomic. or cross-cultural" (McCullough. 1977. p. 2). Colleges and universities. whether in developing or develo COuntries. must respond to the pressing challenges posed by ' educational. social. and economic aspects of residence he 18 19 experiences. These three major issues are discussed in the following section. The Educational. Social. and Economic Aspects of Residence Hall Experiences Educational Aspects A number of authorities have asserted that residence halls are a vital part of the learning process (Adams. 1968; Mueller. 1961: Ricker. 1965). As part of the educational process. living in resi- dence halls furnishes various opportunities for learning in areas as essential to the student's development as classroom work. Some such opportunities are: 1. To gain from the educational possibilities of group living. 2. To adapt to student living in ways that will enhance the learning experience. 3. To experience companionship in a group small enough that one remains a person rather than a commodity to be housed. 4. To learn some of the amenities of living. 5. To enhance one's values. attitudes. and academic achievement. As Pulley (1953) noted. “residence halls are an important part of the total functioning of the university in its education and development of the whole individual'I (p. 9). Residence hall programs in which classroom and extracurricular activities are coordinated through the medium of well-supervised 20 housing and recreational facilities contribute to educational group living and development of the student as an individual and as a member of society. Many writers have viewed residence halls as an integral part of living and learning in college (Williams 81 Reilley. 1972). One student who lived in a residence hall commented: I have met many new people and experienced things I never experi- enced in the traditional dorms. I have become friends with fac- ulty members and their families: they further enhanced the learning-living center as a community. It cfifered many advan- tages with speakers. workshops. etc. Students in my entry enabled me to form strong friendships that might have been absent in other dorms. Finally. the members of my suite were all part of an experiential living: they helped me to learn how much I was willing to sacrifice for others and how strongty I held to nw convictions. I developed some ‘very strong friendships. ones which will not be easily extinguished. After living in the resi- dence hall for a year. it is hard to imagine living anywhere else. (Magnarella. 1975. p. 303) Magnarella (1975) concluded that students living and working together because of their mutual commitment to develop common educational interests are more likely to attain their personal educational objectives. experience intellectual growth. engage iri serious discussions. participate in extracurricular activities. and discover new ideas than are students who reside together by chance or for social reasons only. Rand and Carew (1970) estimated that residence halls and peer groups are responsible for stimulating and facilitating from three to five times more of the college student's learning than are his/her classes. Much of the learning of students in residence halls involves. directly or indirectly. their roommates. residence hall assistants. and university housing personnel. 21 Living-learning residents have shown significantly better personal adjustment. intellectual growth. and attitudes toward their college experience than students in other types (fl: housing (Gordon. 1974: Nosow. 1975). Residence hall students also are more likely to complete their college programs than are students who do not live in residence halls (Gordon. 1974: Pascarella & Terenzini. 1980). In addition. faculty-student relations are enhanced by this living arrangement (DeCoster. 1969: Pascarella & Terenzini. 1980). Researchers concerned specifically with first-year students have indi- cated that dormitory students tend to perform better academically than do apartment residents (Langley. 1965: Jones. McMichael. & McPherson. 1973). According to Graff and Cooley (1970). "the commuter misses the on-campus and dormitory life. [and] his/her educational and personal development is said to be impeded“ (p. 54). Based on research concerning the effect of living-learning residence hall experiences on students. the following conclusions can be drawn. First. living-learning halls are effective in reducing the cold. impersonal atmosphere that characterizes the traditional residence halls at many large universities (Centra. 1968). Second. according to Pemberton's (1968) findings. living-learning centers make important contributions to one of the primary goals of higher educa- tion enumerated by Mueller (1961): the preservation. transmission. and enrichment of the culture. Third. although no research has defi- nitely substantiated that living-learning halls provide a more intel- lectual environment ‘than traditional halls. Brown (1968) concluded 22 that intellectual discussions in a residence hall had at significant effect on the intellectual attitudes and activities of the students. Social Aspects Increasing numbers of student enrollees with diverse goals and objectives have created concern among residence hall administrators. In addition. rapid social changes are forcing redefinition of the role of college and university residence halls. Some of the major concerns are college residence. the residential social-life experience. and its contribution to higher education. Since World War II. the college residence hall has become an important aspect of the educational program. A residence hall is no longer merely an accumulation of sleeping and dressing quarters. With the development of the concept of living and learning centers. a commitment has been made to studying how the residence hall's social setting and environment affect the college students. The two primary functions of college housing are (a) to provide a satisfactory place for students to live and (b) to help students learn and grow by providing an environment that facilitates related learning experiences because such housing is part of the educational institution. Each college and university must specify these functions according to its unique needs. However. in terms of student housing generally. living is to be defined as more than a bed and learning as more than a desk. They are part of the total process. the student's entire experience on the campus. To contribute favor- ably and consistently to this experience. the living and learning that 23 occur in student housing should be stimulated and sustained by planned programs. When students leave home to attend college. one of the many differences between their new life and the old one is that they will share a room and often a good portion of the college experience with persons they have never met before arriving at college. Through gradual processes of mutual selection they found room- mates. hallmates. and others. who were compatible: they created relatively closed and stable friendship groups with whom they spent most of their time . . . which brought "brothers" and "sisters'I together in closed living situations for three or more years. (Chickering. 1974. p. 3) A student's satisfaction or dissatisfaction with his roommate often influences his attitudes toward the rest of the collegiate experience. as well as his academic achievement (Lozier. 1970. p. 256). Along with the informal activities that occur from time to time. planned programs and activities are designed to nurture the social development of residence hall students. According to sociologists Clark and Trow (1978). students' emotional ties to the institution are forged through contact with certain faculty members and peers who share their interests and orientation. Astin (1973) found that dormitory residents had more cunnortunity for social interaction than did apartment residents. Ankele and Sommer (1973) reported a lack of cohesion among apartment residents. compared to students in dormitories. Apartment residents also reported greater difficulty in making friends within their living 24 units: many complained that their acquaintanceships rarely extended beyond those living in their entry or building wing. We do have sufficient opportunity to meet other people if we go about it intentionally. But. there are few opportunities to meet new people in a casual way on your own turf--in and around your suite. People who don't live there just don't pass by. So it is easy to simply stay within your own small. self-sufficient. iso- lated group. (Magnarella. 1975. p. 304) Many on-campus students have commented that living in a residence hall is like having one's own apartment. One student assessed her residence hall experiences as follows: [It] afforded us the opportunity to get to know each other. as well as ourselves. . . . We have shared ideas on many varied sub- jects and have had each other to share special things with. . . . That's what always made life so exciting and interesting there. (Magnarella. 1975. p. 303) Case studies and statistical research have documented the importance of friendships during college residence hall years. Davie (1958) noted the influence of close friends on overall development. particularly on autonomy and identity. Dressel and Lehmann (1965) analyzed the influence of roommates and residence hall associates on students' attitudes and values. Newcomb (1961. 1962) and Newcomb and Feldman (1968) studied the forces generated by shared interests and values. hi a similar vein. White (1958) wrote (H: the influence of friends on students' vocational plans and aspirations. and on freeing interpersonal relationships. Wallace (1966) found that close friend- ships not only influence the fundamental development of students in college. but also affect youths' orientation to life in general. to adulthood. life goals. parents. religion. sex. and politics. 25 In large universities with increasing specialization of knowledge and enormous classes. it is unusual for two students who share common academic interests to meet outside the classroom. Commenting on colleges and universities' role in planning and organizing the residence hall environment. Brown (1967) stated: A situation which throws people together in a university but provides little shared intellectual experience will quite naturally lead the students to seek ways of interacting that are not necessarily congruent lNlth the purpose of 'the university. Therefore. the university should consider new ways of grouping students in the curriculum. in the residential arrangements. and in schooling so that large numbers will have common shared intellectual life which will serve as function for intellectual and social interactions. (p. 101) The residential environment can make a valuable contribution to students' basic educational experiences. The most effective learning occurs in situations in which persons come to know each other personally. Research indicates that most changes in attitudes. values. future plans and aspirations. and intellectual interests at college occur . . . as resident students come to grips with fellow stu- dents to spend large blocks of time in college dormitories throughout their college career. (Chickering. 1974. p. 10) Economfic Aspects Students' financial concerns have become an increasingly important issue for all personnel on today's campuses. from trustees to residence hall advisors. "As the financial pinch gets tighter. we can even expect greater attention to be paid to what makes a student want to remain at or leave a college. Residence halls often play a crucial role in this decision" (Sank. Smrekar. & Debeal. 1975. p. 405). According to Pmslow (1954) humans' primany need is shelter. 26 Yet as students approach the end of their academic careers. "they become increasingly unhappy with the shelter provided by their residence hall environment" (Duvall. 1969). Residence hall environments are especially in need of examination on campuses where dormitory fees are an important source of financial support. where dormitory living is required for certain students. or where alternative housing is unavailable. According to Ricker (1966). buildings that house students account for 36% of the total physical plant of higher educational institutions. This fact. as well as the large sum of money being spent annualty to build and maintain student residences. establishes the economic significance of residence halls in achieving the student-development objectives of higher education. Many experts consider residence halls an integral part of living/learning lfl colleges and universities (Williams & Reilley. 1972). However. many administrators' short-term considerations do not rest on questions of the living-learning environment. but rather on a fear of half-empty residence halls draining already scarce economic resources (Brownell. 1969). During the late 1950's and 1960's. spurred by low interest federal loans. major building programs increased dramatically the dormitory space available for the rapidly growing college popula- tion. Today. under the gun of inflation and rising costs. of decreasing federal and foundation support. and cfi’ decelerating tax support. many state and many private institutions have ceased or sharply curtailed new construction and are looking toward new non-residential approaches to higher education. (Chickering. 1974. p. 2) 27 Too often. decisions are made in light of evidence concerning the costs of the building. and of maintaining and sustaining college residence halls. without analyzing the educational benefits that accrue from those facilities. For instance. students who. because of economic constraints. are denied access to residential facilities do not have an educational Opportunity equal to that of students who are able to live in college residence halls. As Chickering (1974) stated. "highly able and affluent students are much more likely to live in dormitories during the college years than are the less able and less affluent students" (p. x). If residence halls are to provide students sufficient housing facilities of a reasonable quality at rates they can afford. every possible means must be employed to reduce room rates. and meals must be made available at a reasonable cost. Much advice has been offered on how in) reduce residence hall construction costs. Perkins (1953) suggested that: It is rather generally the opinion of those responsible for operating residence halls. that building materials. particularly finish materials. should be selected which will require a minimum of maintenance. even though initial costs of construction are increased by doing so. It is considered better to borrow more money originally and be able to direct a larger percentage of income toward debt retirement than to have a slightly lower initial cost. necessitating diversion of a large portion of income to maintenance. Not only can the debt thus be retired more rapidly. but after retirement. more of the income would be available for expanding the housing program. (p. 15) Research on Residence Hall Experiences Research concerning the influence of residence hall living on students has confirmed that such experience enhances the quality of 28 the educational-developmenta1 process (Upcraft. 1982) and the probability of graduation (Astin. 1977). This is especially true in those settings where students are encouraged to believe that they are important and belong (Tinto. 1975) and to feel integrated with their peers into the social and academic aspects of campus life (Pascarella & Chapman. 1983). Various authors have described the educational potential of residence halls in terms of a hierarchy of functions. First. resi- dence halls provide an environment for individuals with needs for security. friendship. and "belongingness." Second. they supply infor- mation and models necessary to conduct an effective program of selec- tion. training. and supervision. This is not just a matter of trading successes among colleges and universities. Educational residence halls require the stimula- tion of personal involvement in the exchange of ideas: residence assistants provide personalization and assistance: group manage- ment and facilitation: social. recreational. and educational pro- grams: referral and informational resources; and the maintenance of secure and orderly environments with appropriate regulations. (Mable. 1984. p. 110) In college and university residence halls. many opportunities exist for students to share their skills and interests. Sharing interests gives students a greater awareness of different perspectives (Miser. 1977). One effective means of fostering such sharing is through special-interest residence halls. in which students help each other learn various skills. Thereby. a stronger sense of community is fostered because students residing together share a common focus from 29 the start. Furthermore. this type of environment encourages the for- mation of friendships (Jennings. 1977). In March 1979. the ad hoc committee on the quality of residential life at Indiana University recommended further directions for the residence hall system (Bourassa & Wilson. 1985). One recom- mendation involved creation of a unit with enforced 24-hour quiet regulations. Students were asked to use headphones for stereos and television. and typing in rooms was confined to certain hours of the day and relegated to lounge areas otherwise. Second. a cooperative programming effort was established in which each resident was required to present a cultural or educational program to the unit sometime dur- ing the year. The programs could be on any topic the student chose. as long as they were not strictly social. At the end of the year. residents evaluating the unit stressed three major advantages: (a) the 24-hour quiet hours fostered a better atmosphere for studying. (b) the program gave them a chance to learn about areas they might not have otherwise. and (c) residents got to know each other on a deeper level. Through discussion and participa- tion in the programs. residents had a chance to hear divergent View- points and opinions. thus increasing their interest in others' opinions and ideas and often forming closer friendships. Schleman (l974) administered an informal questionnaire to 600 women in a Big Ten university residence hall to see what they expected the hall experiences to contribute to their education and what possible gains they thought dormitory living could provide. In both 30 areas. respondents placed great value on learning to get along with others and on the Opportunity to meet new and different people. Ballou (1985) surveyed freshman students' perceptions of the living environment. behavior. and academic achievement in the resi- dence hall systems of 12 colleges and universities. Results of the study indicated that freshmen perceived significant differences among the environments of six residence hall types. No significant rela- tionships were found between residence hall types and freshman stu- dents' behavior patterns or academic performance. Latta (1984) administered a residence hall environment ques- tionnaire to 9.595 dormitory residents to measure their perceptions about the residence halls and provide feedback to housing staff mem- bers. The results indicated that most students characterized their residence halls as supportive. active. and educational environments. 0n the whole. respondents were satisfied with their living conditions. Triplet (1984) assessed the effect of residence halls' judicial policies on attitudes toward rule-Violating behavior. The results showed that students who were given control over their dormitory judicial system expressed attitudes that were less tolerant of rule-violating behaviors (destructive and cHsruptive activities) than did students who had no control over enforcement of rules and regulations. The findings provided evidence that attitudes can be affected through modeling the social environment and fostering a sense of personal control. 31 McCullough (1977) conducted a survey of students' opinions concerning the residence hall living environment at the University of Tennessee. The purpose of the study was to (a) obtain a representa- tive view of students' attitudes toward residence hall life. (b) assess the level of satisfaction with specific areas. (c) evaluate the areas of concern most related to general residence hall satisfaction. and (d) provide information leading to corrective action in weak areas. A representative sample of 960 students was surveyed by the questionnaire. The results indicated that (a) student orientation procedures were good. (D) students' performance was high. (c) opportunities for meeting people in residence halls were satisfactory. and (d) general satisfaction was high. The findings also indicated that communication of housing and living problans to residence hall staff was not satisfactory. Bourassa and Wilson (1985) conducted an environmental assess- ment of college residence halls to identify issues students felt strongly about and to recommend actions the university might take to enhance or rectify particular situations. The study results showed that students approved of available services. felt they had an oppor- tunity to participate in student government. and had adequate informa- tion to meet their needs. However. students reported that study conditions in the dormitories needed improvement. The American Council of Education's (1949) statement regarding the services provided by student housing stated that "housing and food services shall not only provide for the physical comforts of the 32 students but Shall also contribute positively to education in group living and social grace" (cited by Johnson. 1965. p. 13). In a later publication of this same group. Strozier (1950) emphasized that “student housing . . . should be recognized as an opportunity for educational achievementII (cited by Johnson. 1965. p. 13). Williamson (1958) identified several possible functions of student housing: controlling student behavior. providing better sani- tary and living standards. giving a financial return on an investment. furnishing a "student union." and providing a place to learn social graces. Social education in the residence hall helps students gain poise and maturity through social experience. provides experience in leadership and the development of democratic attitudes. and helps stu- dents find personal fulfillment and develop a satisfactory self- concept. Advantages of Living in a Residence Hall Numerous studies of residence hall experiences have focused on the social. economic. educational. and developmental advantages asso- ciated with living in college and university housing versus commuting to college (Astin. 1968. 1973. 1977. 1982: Chickering. 1974: George. 1971). Such research generally has shown that students living on cam- pus are more likely to become involved in educational. social. and cultural experiences in college than are commuter students. Living in residence halls was significantly and positively associated with stu- dent involvement in the social system of the institution and with the degree of developmental growth during the college experience. 33 Chickering (1974) stated that residential living had a strong positive effect on social interaction with peers and faculty. In a college atmosphere. students have many opportunities to Share their skills and interests. and to gain an increased awareness of different perspectives (Miser. 1977). Furthermore. it is generally accepted that residence hall students fare better academically than their counterparts who do not live in residence halls (Moos. 1978; Potter. 1978). Research has shown that students living in residence halls obtained higher year-end grade point averages than those living in off-campus student housing (Ludeman. 1940: Matson. 1963; Peterson. 1943; Stickler. 1958). Other researchers. controlling for initial differences. also indicated that residence hall students obtained significantly better grade point averages than off-campus students (Alfert. 1966: Freed. 1965: Smallwood & Klas. 1974; Welty. 1974). However. several writers analyzing academic achievement of residence hall and nonresidence hall students obtained contradictory results (Dollar. 1966: Graff & Cooley. 1970). Residence Hall Staff Members The residence hall staff position entails a variety of functions. ranging from discipline to counseling. Frierman and Frierman (1981) compared the role of the residence hall staff member to that of the industrial manager. They identified the following rol es: figurehead. liaison. monitor. disseminator. spokesperson. entrepreneur. disturbance handler. resource allocator. negotiator. and =1 34 motivator. In a survey conducted in 1966. Brown and Zunker found that. in 40% of their sample of American colleges and universities. residence hall assistants were involved in counseling functions. Educational potential itself. particularly in college and university residence halls. requires the stimulation of personal involvement in the exchange of new ideas. The residence hall assistants and staff provide personalization and assistance: group management and facilitation: social. recreational. and educational programs: referral and informational resources; maintenance of resources: and orderly environments with appropriate regulations. Mable (1984). who Spent nearly ten years developing. testing. and refining residence hall models. discovered that: An institution's influence is transmitted to its residence halls largely through the residence hall staff. Consequently. the way resident assistants are selected. trained. and supervised can have an important influence on what happens to the students in the residence halls. (p. 111) Wise (1958) believed that the staff member's emphasis deter- mines the purpose and orientation of the hall program. The managerial attitude emphasizes cooperation. is a good control measure. reduces conduct problems. and gives the staff member an opportunity to exer- cise leadership skills. Also. the staff member can provide psycho- logical services for students who need them. Goals and Objectives of Residence Halls Investigations reviewed in the preceding sections used similar Peseearch methods in examining the goals. purposes. and objectives of resi dence halls. However. in discussing the goals and objectives of 35 residence halls. Ricker (1965) analyzed more comprehensively the wide range of possibilities for residence hall programming. He stated that the following four assumptions regarding residence halls are required for a delineation of purposes: 1. The residence hall is a part of the college and university plant. 2. The plant is especially designed for processing exceed- ingly valuable material--the students. 3. The process is learning. which is change through living and growing in an environment. 4. The preferred product of a college plant is the individual who has changed in a desired way. Assuming that the purposes established for the residence hall program will bring about desired changes in the students. Ricker (1965) developed six categories of residence hall purposes. which he drew from an extensive review of pamphlets and brochures describing student housing and from questionnaires and personal interviews employed in his study. The six major purposes are elaborated in the following paragraphs. 1. Instructional support. To broaden intellectual interests and aesthetic appreciation: provide social training: develop better recreational habits: improve standards of living: promote citizenship education: provide educational counseling: assist in improvement of study habits: implement college orientation: coordinate class and 36 extra-class activities: and make possible total. optimum. rich. broad educational experiences. 2. Developmept of the individual. To foster personal growth of the student physically. socially. spiritually. and culturally: provide opportunities. to learn poise. maturity. social competence. personal confidence in social situations. self-reliance. independent judgment. tolerance. sharing. cooperation. self-discipline. and respect for others: and create opportunities iRN‘ the enrichment of personality and for the sharing of ideas by which men and women grow and reach new understanding. 3. Experience in group living. ‘To develop a: sense of personal responsibility for the community's welfare: provide training in leadership. group discussion. and decision making: provide opportu- nities to practice human relationship skills: and provide group living in a democratic setting. 4. Provision of atmosphere. To maintain an intimate. personalized atmosphere: cultivate a climate of good taste. good social manners. and "gracious living": and promote an cwderly envi- ronment conducive to academic pursuits. 5. Satisfaction of physical needs. To provide at a reasonable cost a place to eat. sleep. and spend leisure time: an environment for quiet study: and a place that is comfortable. conveni- ent. healthful. and safe. 6. Supervision of conduct. To provide security. protection. and administrative control over residential life and to encourage 37 self-discipline and planned activities that give direction and support to student life. These six functions or categories cover most of the goals and objectives of residence hall living. The items developed for the questionnaire used in the present study were based on the specific goals and objectives of university residence halls in Saudi Arabian universities as reported by deans of student affairs (Office of the Dean of Student Affairs. King Abdul-Aziz University. 1980). The goals and objectives of university lodging are: --To provide a convenient residential environment for males and females --To provide national and international news. sports. and music --To provide meaningful social life and brotherhood in residence halls --To accommodate international students regardless of socioeco nomic status --To provide cultural and recreational programs --To provide Islamic principles. laws. and culture in daily life --To provide open communication between staff and students --To provide good care of the handicapped --To provide solutions to students' group and personal problems --To provide orientation for newcomers --To assist residential students to develop self-discipline --To provide health care for resident students --To direct students to Islamic religious practices --To provide athletic facilities --To provide a variety of food at each meal 38 --To provide kitchen facilities --To provide an information services center in each residence hall --To provide sufficient light. water supply. air conditioning. etc. --To provide telephone. first-aid kits. and fire extinguisher --To provide strong security for the residence hall students --To provide adequate health care facilities --To provide a transportation system and parking facilities CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES Introduction The purpose of the study was to explore the similarities and differences in perceptions of residence hall students and staff regarding dormitory services and programs at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Universities in Saudi Arabia. In this chapter. the study population. development and pretesting of the questionnaire. research questions and hypotheses. independent and dependent variables. and data- collection and data-analysis procedures are described. The Study Population The study population comprised fourth-year male and female college students who were living in residence halls at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Universities during the first term of the 1986-87 academic year. The population also included all residence hall staff members at those universities who had three or more years of residence hall experience. The total population comprised 1.817 students and 139 staff members. Lists of all fourth-year residence hall students (males and females) were obtained through the assistance of university housing personnel at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Universities. Lists of 39 4O residence hall staff with three or more years of residence hall experience were obtained from the housing offices at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Universities. All residence hall staff from both universities. all fourth- year students from Umm AJ-Qura. and all fourth-year female students from King Saud were included in the study. To obtain a more propor- tionate representation from the two universities. one-third (487) of the 1.461 fourth-year male students at King Saud were randomly selected for the study. The target group comprised 982 individuals--843 students and 139 staff members. 0f the 982 students and staff in the target group. 860 returned usable questionnaires. for a response rate of 87.5%. Table 3.1 shows the number of usable responses and the percentage of response from each group. Distribution of usable responses by univer- sity is shown in Table 3.2. Table 3.l.--Number in target group. usable responses. and percentage of response for each group. Target Usable Percentage Group Group Responses of Response Students 843 749 88.8% Staff 139 111 79.8% Total 982 860 87.5% —_ 41 Table 3.2.--Number in target group. usable responses. and percentage of response by university. Target Usable Percentage University Group Group Responses of Response Umm Al-Qura Students 212 198 93.3% Staff 32 27 84.3% King Saud Students 631 551 87.3% Staff 107 84 78.5% Total 982 860 87.5% Development of the Questionnaire Because no instrument was available with which to collect the data needed for this study. the researcher adopted and modified appropriate items from questionnaires used by various researchers in the area. Especially useful were the questionnaires by Ricker (1956). Rork (1962). Chick (1960) and Johnson (1965). The researcher also devised several new items that were specifically suited to the Saudi Arabian situation and incorporated them irflx: the questionnaire. A research consultant ‘hi the College of Education at Michigan State University reviewed the instrument to make sure each question was con- sistent with current assumptions in educational research. The instru- ment was then translated into Arabic by colleagues who are experts in Arabic. The questionnaire comprised two parts. (See Appendix A for a copy of the instrument.) Part one sought demographic and personal 42 information on the respondents. The 12 items in this section concerned staff and students' university. nationality. gender. marital status. age. and status (student or staff): students' college. resi- dence hall. number of students in residence hall. and number of years in residence hall: and staff members' level of education and position in the residence hall. Part two was designed to ascertain staff and students' perceptions regarding six areas of services or programs in the residence halls. These six areas were (a) general services. (b) information and communication services. (c) facility services. (d) safety services. (e) food services. and (f) social interaction. As a pretest. the researcher administered the questionnaire to 15 Saudi graduate students at Michigan State University and asked for their comments and suggestions. Appropriate modifications were made. based on their recommendations. In June 1986. when the researcher arrived in Saudi Arabia. he submitted the English and Arabic versions of the questionnaire to six professors in the College of Education and the College of Arabic Language at Umm Al-Qura University to compare the original version with the Arabic translation and ensure that both versions conveyed the identical meaning. The professors made some recommendations to improve the clarity of the instrument. and the researcher made the necessary final modifications in both versions. Reliability testing of the instrument resulted in 21 Cronbach alpha of 0.94. indicating that the questionnaire was reliable for use in this study. 43 Data-Collection Procedures On May 29. 1986. the researcher's doctoral committee approved the proposal for this study. A letter from the researcher's academic advisor and two copies of the proposal were sent to Dr. Henry Bredeck. Chairman of the University Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS). who reviewed the materials and granted approval to conduct the study as it was designed (see Appendix B). To obtain permission to conduct research on the Umm Al-Qura University campus. the researcher presented an explanatory letter from his academic advisor at Michigan State University and two copies of the approved proposal to the College of Education at Umm Al-Qura University. Personnel in the College of Education reviewed the materials and granted permission to carry out the research. In mid-October 1986. the researcher met with the Dean of Student Affairs. the Director of Student Housing. and the Managers of Food Services at Umm Al-Qura University. He furnished them copies of a letter from the Dean of the College of Education seeking their cooperation and assistance in collecting the data. This they agreed to provide. Three weeks later. the researcher administered the questionnaire to residence hall students and staff at Umm Al-Qura. The staff for male and female residence halls were given a list of fourth-year students in each unit. to whom they distributed the questionnaires. The researcher gave specific examples to ensure that the students and staff understood how to respond to the questionnaire ‘11 44 items. The researcher was available to answer questions concerning the questionnaire by telephone or in person. No time limit was set for completing the questionnaire. The data were collected at Umm Al- Qura University within a three-week period. The President of Umm Al-Qura University wrote a letter to personnel at King Saud University. requesting their cooperation in allowing the researcher to conduct the research at King Saud. After this permission was granted. the researcher met with the Dean of Student Affairs. the Director of Student Housing. and Food Service Managers and gave them a copy of the letter from the President of Umm Al-Qura. seeking their full cooperation and assistance with data collection. The researcher obtained lists of male and female fourth-year residence hall students and of staff members with three or more years of residence hall experience through the University Housing Office at King Saud University. Male and female dormitory staff were given a list of students in each unit to whom questionnaires should be distributed. The researcher gave specific examples to ensure that the students and staff understood how to respond to the questionnaire items. He also provided a phone number at which he could be reached to answer any questions. No time limit was set for completing the questionnaire. Respondents at both universities were assured that the information they provided would be kept confidential and would be used solely for purposes of the research. 45 Research uestions Four research questions were posed in this study. They are as follows: 1. What are the perceptions of residence hall students and staff at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Universities concerning the kinds of services students are now experiencing in their dormitories? 2. What similarities and differences exist between residence hall students and staff at Umm Al-Qura University and between resi- dence hall Students and staff at King Saud University concerning their perceptions of the types of services and programs available to stu- dents in the dormitories? 3. What similarities and differences exist between students/staff at Umm Al-Qura University and students/staff at King Saud University concerning their perceptions of the types of services and programs available to students in the dormitories? 4. What similarities and differences exist in the perceptions of residence hall students at both Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Univer- sities according to their nationality. gender. age. and size of resi- dence hall? Null Hypotheses The following seven null hypotheses were formulated to test the data collected for this investigation. Hypothesis 1: There is no statistically significant difference between residence hall students and staff at Umm Al-Qura Univer- sity concerning their perceptions of the types of services and programs available to students in the dormitories. 46 Hypothesis 2: There is no statistically Significant difference between residence hall students and staff at King Saud University concerning their perceptions of the types of services and programs available to students in the dormitories. Hypothesis 3: There is no statistically significant difference between students/staff at Umm Al-Qura University and students/ staff at King Saud University concerning their perceptions of the types of services and programs available to students in the dormitories. Hypothesis 4: There is no statistically significant difference among students of different nationalities concerning their perceptions of the types of services and programs available to students in the dormitories. Hypothesis 5: There is no statistically significant difference between male and female students concerning their perceptions of the types of services and programs available to students in the dormitories. Hypothesis Q: There is no statistically significant difference among students in different age groups concerning their percep- tions of the types of services and programs available to students in the dormitories. Hypothesis 7: There is no statistically significant difference among students living in various sizes of residence halls concerning their perceptions of the types of services and programs available to students in the dormitories. Dependent and Independent Variables Dependent Variables The dependent variables in the study were students' and staff members' perceptions of the services and programs available to stu- dents in their dormitories. Perceptions were measured using a five- point Likert scale to which participants responded for each of the 50 questionnaire items related to dormitory services and programs. The scale was as follows: 47 strongly disagree disagree moderately agree agree strongly agree 01$de ll II II II II The researcher assumed that strongly agree and agree responses indicated satisfaction with dormitory services. moderately agree indicated average satisfaction with dormitory services. and strongly disagree and disagree indicated dissatisfaction with dormitory serv- ices. In reporting the results. the response means were categorized as follows: l.OO-2.33 = unsatisfactory 2.34-3.66 = satisfactory 3.67-5.00 = very satisfactory The measures were not aggregated to form a composite score but were treated as separate outcomes in the data analysis. Independent Variables To determine whether students' and staff's perceptions of dormitory services and programs \were related 'to their demographic characteristics. the following independent variables were included in this study: (a) institution. (b) status of respondent. (c) national- ity. (d) gender. (e) age. and (f) size of residence hall. Institution referred to the university where the students/staff were studying/ working. Status referred to whether the respondent was a student or a staff member. Nationality referred to whether the respondent was a Saudi citizen or a non-Saudi. Size of residence hall was measured according to the number of students living in the hall. 48 Data-Analysis Procedures Frequency distributions and percentages were used in describ- ing the personal characteristics of the respondents. Means and stand- ard deviations were used in reporting the average responses and the variations in responses to each item in the descriptive analysis of the data. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to deter- mine if statistically significant differences existed in respondents' perceptions concerning the dormitory services and programs according to their institution. status. nationality. gender. age. and size of residence hall. Tukey's test was used to determine pairwise differ- ences when the ANOVA showed statistically significant differences in the means. Chapter IV contains the results of the data analysis. Findings are reported in both narrative and tabular form for each research question and hypothesis posed in the study. CHAPTER IV RESULTS OF THE DATA ANALYSIS Introduction The purpose of this study was to explore the similarities and differences in perceptions of residence hall students and staff members concerning the university housing programs and services at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Universities in Saudi Arabia. Specifically. the writer intended to answer the following research questions: 1. What are the perceptions of residence hall students and staff at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Universities concerning the kinds of services students are now experiencing in their dormitories? 2. What similarities and differences exist between residence hall students and staff at Umm Al-Qura University and between resi- dence hall students and staff at King Saud University concerning their perceptions of the types of services and programs available to stu- dents in the dormitories? 3. What similarities and differences exist between students/staff at Umm Al-Qura University and students/staff at King Saud University concerning their perceptions of the types of services and programs available to students in the dormitories? 49 50 4. What similarities and differences exist in the perceptions of residence hall students at both Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Universities according to their nationality. gender. age. and Size of residence hall? In this chapter. the results of the data analysis are reported in five sections. The first section contains demographic and personal characteristics of the respondents: frequency distributions are used to report these data. In section two. staff and students' perceptions are examined. using means and standard deviations. In the third sec- tion. similarities and differences in perceptions between students and staff at Umm Al-Qura and students and staff at King Saud are reported. In section four. similarities and differences in perceptions between students/staff at Umm Al-Qura and students/staff at King Saud are examined. In the fifth section. students' perceptions are examined according to their nationality. gender. age. and size of residence hall in which they lived. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents Routine demographic information about the respondents was sought to provide a background for the study findings. The demo- graphic characteristics of the study participants are discussed in the following paragraphs. The total number of respondents was 860. of whom 749 (87.1%) were students and 111 (12.9%) were residence hall staff members at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Universities. 51 As shown in Table 4.1. 62.1% (123) of the students at Umm Al- Qura University were Saudis. and 37.9% (75) were non-Saudis. Seventy- two percent (395) of the students at King Saud University were Saudis. whereas 28.3% (156) were non-Saudis. Table 4.1.-~Distribution of students by nationality. Umm-Al-Qura King Saud Total Nationality N % N % N % Saudi 123 62.1 395 71.7 518 69.2 Non-Saudi 75 37.9 156 28.3 231 30.8 Table 4.2 shows that 75.3% (564) of the students in the sample were males and 24.7% (185) were females. 0f the students from Umm Al- Qura. 70.7% (140) were males and 29.3% (58) were females. Of those from King Saud. 77% (424) were males and 23% (127) were females. Table 4.2.--Distribution of students by gender. Umm-Al-Qura King Saud Total Gender N % N % N % Male 140 70.7 424 77.0 564 75.3 Female 58 29.3 127 23.0 185 24.7 52 Eighty-nine percent (177) of the students from Umm Al-Qura were single and 10.6% (21) were married. 0f the students from King Saud University. 91.3% (503) were single and 8.7% (48) were married. (See Table 4.3.) Table 4.3.--Distribution of students by marital status. Umm-Al-Qura King Saud Total Marital Status N % N % N % Single 177 89.4 503 91.3 680 90.8 Married 21 10.6 48 8.7 69 9 2 As shown in Table 4.4. the majority of students from both universities were between 19 and 24 years of age: those who were under 18 or between 37 and 42 were in the minority. Seventy percent (138) of the students from Umm Al-Qura and 85.3% (470) of those from King Saud were between 19 and 24: 24.7% (49) from Umm Al-Qura and 12.2% (67) from King Saud were between 25 and 30: and 4.0% (8) from Umm Al- Qura and 1.3% (7) from King Saud were between the ages of 31 and 36. At both universities. less than 1.3% of the students were under 18 or between 37 and 42 years of age. 53 Table 4.4.--Distribution of students by age. Umm-Al-Qura King Saud Total Age N % N % N % Under 18 2 1.0 7 l 3 9 1.2 19-24 138 69.7 470 85.3 608 81.2 25-30 49 24.7 67 12.2 116 15.5 31-36 8 4.0 7 1.3 15 2.0 37-42 1 0.5 -- -- l 0.1 Table 4.5 shows the distribution of students according to their college (major area of study). Students' responses indicated that Umm Al-Qura University concentrates more on Islamic studies. such as Islamic law and religion. and less on scientific pursuits. King Saud University specializes in a wider range of subjects than does Umm Al-Qura. At Umm Al-Qura University. 32.8% (65) of the students were in the College of Shar'ia and Islamic studies: none was in the College of Business. In contrast. the highest percentage of students from King Saud University (21.8% or 120) was in the College of Business. and none was in the College of Shar'ia and Islamic Studies. The second highest percentage of students at Umm Al-Qura (16.7% or 33) was in the College of Dawa and Usul Al-Dean. At King Saud. the second highest percentage of students (17.1% or 94) was in the College of Arabic Language and Arts. 54 Table 4.5.--Distribution of students by college (major area of study). Umm-Al-Qura King Saud Total College N % N % N % College of Agriculture -- -- 52 9.4 52 6.9 College or Arabic Language & Arts 25 12.6 94 17.1 119 15.9 College of Business -- -- 120 21.8 120 16.0 College of Education 24 12.1 78 14.2 102 13.6 College of Engineering -- -- 48 8.7 48 6.4 College of Pharmacy -- -- 22 4.0 22 2.9 College of Associate Medicine -- -- 12 2.2 12 1.6 College of Architecture & Planning -- -- 12 2.2 12 1.6 College of Computer Science -- -- 10 1.8 10 1.3 College of Dawa & Usul Al-Dean 33 16.7 -- -- 33 4.4 College of Applied Engineering & Science 25 12.6 -- -- 25 3.3 College of Social Science 26 13.1 -- -- 26 3.4 College of Medicine -- -- 29 5.3 29 3.9 College of Shar'ia & Islamic Studies 65 32.8 -- —- 65 8.7 College of Science -- -- 49 8.19 49 6.6 (Zollege of Dentistry -- -- 18 3.3 18 2.4 Center of Teaching Arabic Language -- -- 7 1.3 7 0.9 55 The overwhelming majority (H’ students from lhmn Al-Qura University (97% or 198) lived in off-campus residence halls. None lived on campus. In contrast. a large majority of students from King Saud (85.1% or 469) lived on campus: only 14.9% (82) lived off campus. (See Table 4.6.) Table 4.6.--Distribution of students by location of residence halls. Umm-Al-Qura King Saud Total Type of Residence Hall N % N % N % On campus -- -- 469 85.1 469 63.4 Off campus 198 97.0 82 14.9 280 36.6 As shown in Table 4.7. most of the students in the study (64.9% or 486) had lived in residence halls between three and four years: 33.9% (254) had lived in residence halls more than four years. In the total sample. just nine students (1.2%) had lived in residence halls between one and three years. The distribution was almost identical at the two universities. As shown in Table 4.8. 68.5% (76) of the total staff from the 'two Infiversities were non-Saudis. Sixty-seven percent (18) (H: the staff at Umm Al-Qura were Saudis. whereas only 20.2% (17) of the staff at: King Saud were Saudis. The proportion of non-Saudi staff at Umm Al-Qura (33.3% or 9) was lower than that at King Saud (79.8% or 67). 56 Table 4.7.--Distribution of students by number of years they had lived in residence halls. Umm-Al-Qura King Saud Total Number of Years N % N % N % 1-2 years 2 1.0 -- -- 2 0.3 2-3 years 4 2.0 3 0.5 7 0.9 3-4 years 132 66.7 354 64.2 486 64.9 Over 4 years 60 30 3 194 35.2 254 33.9 Table 4.8.--Distribution of staff by nationality. Umm-Al-Qura King Saud Total Nationality N % N % N % Non-Saudi 9 33.3 67 79.8 76 68.5 Saudi 18 66.7 17 20.2 35 31.5 More male (71.2% or 79) than female (28.8% or 32) staff mem- bers were employed at both universities. (See Table 4.9). Sixty- three percent (17) of the staff from Umm Al-Qura were males. and 37% (10) were females. At King Saud. 73.8% (62) of the staff were males. and only 26.2% (22) were females. The overwhelming majority of residence hall staff (83% or 92) yvere married: only 17.1% (19) were single. Seventy-eight percent (21) (of the staff at Umm Al-Qura and 84.5% (71) of the staff at King Saud 57 were married. Conversely. 22.5% (6) of the staff at Umm Al-Qura and 15.5% (13) of the staff at King Saud were single. (See Table 4.10.) Table 4.9.--Distribution of staff by gender. Umm-Al-Qura King Saud Total Gender N % N % N % Male 17 63.0 62 73.8 79 71.2 Female 10 37.0 22 26.2 32 28.8 Table 4.10.--Distribution of staff by marital status. Umm-Al-Qura King Saud Total Marital Status N % N % N % Married 21 77.8 71 84.5 92 82.9 Single 6 22.2 13 15.5 19 17.1 As shown in Table 4.11. 73.9% (82) of the staff members were residence hall supervisors. 14.4% (16) were residence hall managers. 9.9% (11) were residence hall staff. and only 1.8% (2) were residence hall managers' assistants. Fifty-nine percent (16) of the staff from Umm Al-Qura were residence hall supervisors. and 78.6% (66) from King Saud University performed that role. 58 Table 4.11.--Distribution of staff by position in residence hall. Umm-Al-Qura King Saud Total Position N % N % N % Supervisor 16 59.3 66 78.6 82 73.9 Manager 7 25.9 9 10.7 16 14.4 Staff 3 11.1 8 9.5 11 9.9 Manager's assistant 1 3.7 l 1.2 2 1.8 Table 4.12 shows that 30.6% (34) of the total residence hall staff were between the ages of 37 and 42. 24.3% (27) were between 31 and 36. and 18% (20) were between 25 and 30. All five (4.5%) of the staff members over 48 years of age were from King Saud University. The majority of the staff from Umm Al-Qura (40.7% or 11) were between 25 and 30. At King Saud. the majority (32.1% or 27) were between 37 and 42. Table 4.12.--Distribution of staff by age. Umm-Al-Qura King Saud Total Age N % N % N % 19-24 years 1 3.7 8 9.5 9 8.1 25-30 years 11 40.7 9 10.7 20 18.0 31-36 years 6 22.2 21 25.0 27 24.3 37-42 years 7 25.9 27 32.1 34 30.6 43-48 years 2 7.4 14 16.7 16 14.4 Over 48 years -- -- 5 6.0 5 4.5 59 As shown in Table 4.13. the overwhelming majority of staff members at both universities (76.6% or 85) had a bachelor's degree: 8.1% (9) had a high school education. 6.3% (7) had a secondary-school education. 5.4% (6) had a master's degree. and 3.6% (4) had a doctor- ate. At Umm Al-Qura. 59.3% (16) of the staff had a bachelor's degree: at King Saud. 82.1% (69) had a bachelor's degree. Table 4.13.--Distribution of staff by level of education. Umm-Al-Qura King Saud Total Level of Education N % N % N % Secondary school 2 7.4 5 6.0 7 6.3 High school 4 14.8 5 6.0 9 8.1 Bachelor's degree 16 59.3 69 82.1 85 76.6 Master's degree 3 11.1 3 3.6 6 5.4 Doctorate degree 2 7.4 2 2.4 4 3.6 Findings Pertaining to Research Question 1 Research Question 1: What are the perceptions of residence hall students and staff at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Universities con- cerning the kinds of services students are now experiencing in their dormitories? In the following pages. the findings pertaining to the first research question are discussed. The reader is reminded that the response means with respect to students' and staff members' satisfac- tion with dormitory services were categorized as follows: 1.00-2.33 = unsatisfactory 2.34-3.66 = satisfactory 3.67-5.00 = very satisfactory 60 General Services In the category of general services. students and staff at both Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Universities perceived air-conditioning as very satisfactory. Students and staff at Umm Al-Qura disagreed with their counterparts at King Saud regarding residence hall concentration. Students and staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived residence hall concentration as satisfactory. whereas those at King Saud perceived it as very satisfactory. Students and staff at King Saud perceived the location of the residence hall as very satisfactory. whereas students at Umm Al-Qura disagreed. Other general services were perceived as satisfactory: none was perceived as unsatisfactory. (See Tables 4.14 and 4.15.) Perceptions of each general service category are discussed in the following paragraphs. Table 4.14.--Means and standard deviations for staff members' percep- tions of general services. Umm Al-Qura King Saud Total Item Mean 5.0. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Air conditioning 4.56 0.75 4.38 0.68 4.42 0.70 Residence hall concentration 3.33 1.27 4.35 0.74 4.09 0.99 Residence hall location 3.67 1.07 4.08 0.75 3.98 0.85 Elevator availability 3.04 1.09 3.66 1.29 3.51 1.27 Laundry machines 2.89 1.60 3.24 1.14 3.15 1.27 Quality of maintenance 3.44 1.22 3.00 1.09 3.11 1.13 Transportation 3.67 1.21 2.76 1.39 2.98 1.40 Access to parking 3.15 1.32 2.89 1.15 2.96 1.19 General feeling about 3.22 1.12 2.87 1.00 2.96 1.04 operation & maintenance Employee to student ratio 3.30 1.27 2.58 1.31 2.76 1.33 61 Table 4.15.--Means and standard deviations for students' perceptions of general services. Umm Al-Qura King Saud Total Item Mean 5.0. Mean 5.0. Mean S.D. Air conditioning 4.39 0.93 3.87 1.05 4.01 1.05 Residence hall concentration 2.46 1.41 4.24 0.86 3.77 1.30 Residence hall location 3.22 1.40 3.90 1.05 3.72 1.19 Elevator availability 2.40 1.33 3.48 1.38 3.20 1.45 Employee to student ratio 3.20 1.21 2.77 1.09 2.89 1.14 Quality of maintenance 3.05 1.15 2 81 1.03 2.87 1.07 Transportation 3.23 1.40 2.73 1.24 2.86 1.30 General operation 2.97 1.09 2.75 0.99 2.81 1.02 Access to parking 2.72 1.44 2.49 1.23 2.55 1.29 Laundry machines 2.40 1.52 2.35 0.56 2.37 1.29 Air conditioning. General agreement existed between students and staff at both universities regarding air conditioning services. Such services were perceived as very satisfactory by students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 4.39). students at King Saud (mean = 3.87). staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 4.56). and staff at King Saud (mean = 4.38). Residence hall concentration. General disagreement was found between students and staff concerning residence hall concentration. Students and staff at Umm Al-Qura (means = 2.46 and 3.33. respec- tively) perceived residence hall concentration as satisfactory. However. students and staff at King Saud (means = 4.24 and 4.35.) perceived residence hall concentration as very satisfactory. Residence hall location. Staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.67). staff at King Saud (mean = 4.08). and students at King Saud (mean = 3.90) perceived the residence hall location as very satisfactory. 62 Only students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.22) perceived the residence hall location as satisfactory. Transportation. Students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.23) and students and staff at King Saud (means = 2.73 and 2.76. respectively) perceived transportation services as satisfactory. Only staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.67) perceived transportation services as very satisfactory. Elevator availability. Students and staff at both universi- ties agreed that elevator availability was satisfactory. Students at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud (means = 2.40 and 3.48. respectively) and staff at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud (means = 3.04 and 3.66. respec- tively) perceived these services as satisfactory. Employee to student ratio. Students at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud (means = 3.20 and 2.77. respectively) agreed with staff members from both universities (Umm Al-Qura mean = 3.30: King Saud mean = 2.58) that the employee to student ratio was satisfactory. Quality of maintenance. Students at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud (means = 3.05 and 2.81. respectively) agreed with staff at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud (means = 3.44 and 3.00. respectively) in their percep- tion that quality of maintenance was satisfactory. General feeling about operation and maintenance. Students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.97) and those at King Saud (mean = 2.75) agreed with staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.22) and at King Saud (mean = 2.87) in their perception that the general operation of residence halls at their universities was satisfactory. 63 Access to parking. The perceptions of students at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud (means = 2.72 and 2.49. respectively) agreed with those of staff at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud (means = 3.15 and 2.89. respec- tively) that residence hall students' access to parking was very satisfactory. Laundry machines. Students at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud (means = 2.40 and 2.35. respectively) agreed with staff members at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud (means = 2.89 and 3.24. respectively) in per- ceiving the availability of laundry machines as satisfactory. Information and Communication Services Concerning information and communication services. students and staff at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Universities disagreed in their perceptions of student orientation. Staff members perceived student orientation as very satisfactory. whereas students perceived it as satisfactory. Students at King Saud agreed with staff at both universities that postal services were satisfactory. but students at Umm Al-Qura perceived such services as unsatisfactory. Students perceived information and communication services as unsatisfactory. whereas staff at both universities perceived those services as satisfactory. (See Tables 4.16 and 4.17.) Student orientation. Students and staff at both universities disagreed in their perceptions of student orientation. Staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 4.22) and at King Saud (mean = 4.07) perceived student orientation as very satisfactory. However. students at Umm Al-Qura 64 (mean = 3.22) and at King Saud (mean = orientation as satisfactory. 2.54) perceived student Table 4.16.--Means and standard deviations for staff members' perceptions of information and communication services. Umm Al-Qura King Saud Total Item Mean 5.0. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Student orientation 4.22 0.75 4.07 0.85 4.11 0.83 General satisfaction with 3.41 1.08 3 55 0.96 3.51 0.99 information/communication Disciplinary rules 3.56 1.89 3 36 1.05 3.41 1.08 Adequacy of information 2.56 1.22 2 92 1.23 2.83 1.24 Communication services 3.26 1.23 2 67 1.24 2.81 1.25 Postal services 2.55 1.34 2 83 1.24 2.81 1.27 Table 4.17.--Means and standard deviations for students' perceptions of information and communication services. Umm Al-Qura King Saud Total Item Mean 5.0. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Disciplinary rules 3.24 1.21 2.85 1.05 2.95 1.11 Student orientation 3.22 1.32 2.54 1.08 2.72 1.18 General satisfaction with 2.77 1.21 2.60 0.94 2.65 1.02 information/communication Postal services 2.16 1.43 2.74 1.21 2.59 1.30 Adequacy of information 1.99 1.22 2.15 0.99 2.11 1.06 Communication services 2.24 1.45 1.78 1.08 1.90 1.20 General satisfaction with information/communication. Students and staff at both universities agreed in their perceptions of 65 information/communication services. Students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.77) and at King Saud (mean = 2.60) agreed with staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.41) and at King Saud (mean = 3.55) that the information/com- munication services were satisfactory. Disciplinary rules. Students and staff also agreed in their perceptions of disciplinary rules. Students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.24) and at King Saud (mean = 2.85) agreed with staff members at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.56) and at King Saud (mean = 3.36) that disciplinary rules were satisfactory. Adequacy of information. Students and staff at both universities disagreed in their perceptions of the adequacy of information given to students. Students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 1.99) and at King Saud (mean = 2.15) perceived that the adequacy of informa- tion was unsatisfactory. However. staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.56) and at King Saud (mean = 2.92) perceived adequacy of information as satisfactory. memunication services. Students and staff at both universities disagreed in their perceptions of communication services. Students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.24) and at King Saud (mean = 1.78) perceived communication services as unsatisfactory. However. staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.26) and at King Saud (mean = 2.67) perceived such services as satisfactory. Postal services. Staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.55) and at King Saud (mean = 2.83). as well as students at King Saud (mean = 2.74). perceived postal services as satisfactory. Only students at 66 Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.16) perceived postal services as unsatisfactory. Facility Services Concerning facilities provided by the residence halls. both students and staff at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Universities agreed in their perceptions that provision of furniture was very satisfactory and that the accommodation of disabled students was unsatisfactory. Students at both universities and staff at King Saud agreed that provision of storage rooms was unsatisfactory. Staff at Umm Al-Qura differed from their counterparts at King Saud regarding the provision of rooms for parties. Space for belongings. and space for televisions. (See Tables 4.18 and 4.19.) Table 4.18.--Means and standard deviations for staff members' perceptions of facility services. Umm Al-Qura King Saud Total Item Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Provision of furniture 4.07 0.54 3.67 1.06 3.92 1.05 Rooms for parties 2.89 1.60 4.18 0.73 3.87 1.15 Space for television 2.57 1.28 4.05 0.92 3.69 1.20 General feeling about 3.41 0.93 3.17 1.00 3.23 0.99 facilities Guest rooms for visitors 2.44 1.28 3.24 1.28 3.05 1.32 General satisfaction 3.22 1.12 2.87 1.08 2.96 1.10 with buildings Quiet areas for study 2.67 1.41 3.01 1.28 2.93 1.31 Space for belongings 3.70 1.14 2.39 1.21 2.71 1.32 Storage rooms 3.56 1.12 2.25 1.25 2.57 1.34 Accommodations for disabled 2.30 1.44 2.05 1.14 2.11 1.22 67 Table 4.19.--Means and standard deviations for students' perceptions of facility services. Umm Al-Qura King Saud Total Item Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Provision of furniture 4.26 0.98 3.93 0.95 4.02 0.97 Rooms for parties 2.38 1.45 3.43 1.15 3.15 1.32 Space for television 1.99 1.36 3.37 1.17 3.01 1.37 General satisfaction 2.86 1.09 2.61 1.06 2.68 1.08 with buildings General feeling about 2.65 1.08 2.59 0.99 2.61 1.02 facilities Quiet areas for study 2.67 1.50 2.61 1.32 2.51 1.38 Space for belongings 3.00 1.35 2.03 1.18 2.29 1.30 Guest rooms for visitors 1.93 1.30 2.26 1.09 2.17 1.16 Storage rooms 2.24 1.35 1.96 1.16 2.03 1.22 Accommodations for disabled 2.12 1.41 1.92 1.10 1.97 1.19 Provision of furniture. Students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 4.26) and at King Saud (mean = 3.93) agreed with staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 4.07) and at King Saud (mean = 3.67) that provision of furniture was very satisfactory. Rooms for parties. Students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.38) and at King Saud (mean = 3.43) agreed with staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.89) that the provision of rooms for parties was satisfactory. In contrast. staff at King Saud (mean = 4.18) perceived the provision of rooms for parties as very satisfactory. Space for television. Staff and students at both universities disagreed in their perceptions of the provision of space for television. Staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.57) perceived the provision of space for television as satisfactory. whereas students at 68 Umm Al-Qura (mean = 1.99) perceived it as unsatisfactory. Staff at King Saud (mean = 4.05) perceived the provision of television space as very satisfactory. but students at that university (mean = 3.37) perceived it as satisfactory. General feeling about facilities. Students at Umn1 Al-Qura (mean = 2.65) and at King Saud (mean = 2.59) perceived that their general feelings about the facilities were satisfactory. Staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.41) and at King Saud (mean = 3.17) agreed with the students in their general feelings about the facilities. Guest rooms for visitors. Students disagreed with staff regarding the provision of guest rooms for visitors. Students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 1.93) and at King Saud (mean = 2.26) perceived that the provision of guest rooms for visitors was unsatisfactory. How- ever. staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.44) and at King Saud (mean = 3.24) perceived the provision of guest rooms for visitors as satisfactory. Ggpgral satisfaction with buildipgp. Students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.86) and at King Saud (mean = 2.61) agreed with staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.22) and at King Saud (mean = 2.87) in perceiving their general satisfaction with residence hall buildings as satisfactory. Quiet areas for study. Students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.67) and at King Saud (mean = 2.61) agreed with staff at Umm Al-Qura and at King Saud (means = 2.67 and 3.01. respectively) that provision of quiet areas for study was satisfactory. 69 Space for belongings. Staff at King Saud (mean = 2.39) perceived the provision of space for belongings as satisfactory. whereas students at the same university (mean = 2.03) perceived such space as unsatisfactory. Staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.70) perceived the provision of space for belongings as very satisfactory. but students at the same university (mean = 3.00) perceived that space as satisfactory. Storage rooms. Staff and students at King Saud (means = 2.25 and 1.96. respectively) and students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.24) perceived the provision of storage rooms as unsatisfactory. Only staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.56) perceived the provision of storage rooms as satisfactory. Accommodations for disabled. Students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.12) and at King Saud (mean = 1.92). as well as staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.30) and at King Saud (mean = 2.05). perceived accommodations for the disabled as unsatisfactory. Safety Services With respect to safety services. students at Umm Al-Qura and staff at both universities perceived that the lighting of rooms was very satisfactory: only students at King Saud disagreed. The provi- sion of fire extinguishers was perceived as satisfactory by students at King Saud and staff at both universities: students at Umm Al-Qura disagreed. Staff at King Saud disagreed with students and staff at Umm Al-Qura on ambulance services. The provision of emergency exits was perceived as unsatisfactory by all groups except staff at Umm 7O Al-Qura. Staff and students at both universities perceived safety orientation as unsatisfactory. (See Tables 4.20 and 4.21.) Table 4.20.--Means and standard deviations for staff members' perceptions of safety services. Umm Al-Qura King Saud Total Item Mean 5.0. Mean S.D. Mean 5.0. Room lighting 4.22 0.80 3.95 0.85 4.02 0.84 Fire extinguishers 2.74 1.46 3.56 1.09 3.36 1.23 Safety and security 3.67 1.11 3.16 1.17 3.28 1.17 First-aid availability 2.56 1.48 3.31 1.23 3.13 1.33 Ambulance services 2.22 1.53 3.24 1.28 2.99 1.41 General satis. with safety 2.89 1.42 2.92 1.03 2.91 1.13 and security measures Emergency exits 2.74 1.61 1.87 1.19 2.08 1.35 Safety orientation 2.15 1.35 1.85 1.09 1.92 1.16 Table 4.21.--Means and standard deviations for students' perceptions of safety services. Umm Al-Qura King Saud Total Item Mean 5.0. Mean 5.0. Mean S.D. Room lighting 3.90 1.04 3.63 1.03 3.70 1.04 Safety and security 3.38 1.30 2.76 1.18 2.92 1.24 Fire extinguishers 1.99 1.36 2.72 1.14 2.53 1.24 General satis. with safety 2.43 1.23 2.41 1.07 2.41 1.11 and security measures First-aid availability 2.26 1.49 2.25 1.15 2.25 1.25 Ambulance services 1.10 1.39 2.21 1.18 2.13 1.25 Emergency exits 2.08 1.36 1.47 0.94 1.63 1.09 Safety orientation 1.81 1.24 1.44 0.93 1.53 1.02 Room lighting. Staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 4.22). staff at King Saud (mean = 3.95). and students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.90) 71 perceived room lighting as very satisfactory. Only students at King Saud (mean = 3.63) perceived room lighting as satisfactory. Fire extinguishers. Staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.74). staff at King Saud (mean = 3.56). and students at King Saud (mean = 2.72) perceived the provision of fire extinguishers as satisfactory. Only students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 1.99) perceived the provision of fire extinguishers as unsatisfactory. Safety ppg_security. Students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.38) and at King Saud (mean = 2.76) perceived safety and security as satisfactory. Staff at Umm Al-Qura and at King Saud (means = 3.67 and 3.16. respectively) agreed with students' perceptions in this area. First-aid availability. Students and staff at both universities agreed on the availability of first-aid services. Stu- dents at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.26) and at King Saud (mean = 2.25) agreed with staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.56) and at King Saud (mean = 3.31) that the availability of first aid was satisfactory. Ambulance services. Students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 1.10) and those at King Saud (mean = 2.21) agreed with staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.22) that ambulance services were unsatisfactory. Only staff from King Saud (mean = 3.24) perceived ambulance services as satisfactory. General satisfaction with safety and security measures. Stu- dents at staff at both universities agreed in their perceptions of satisfaction with safety. Students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.43) and at King Saud (mean = 2.41) agreed with staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 72 2.89) and at King Saud (mean = 2.92) that satisfaction with safety was satisfactory. Emergency exits. Staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.74) perceived the provision of emergency exits as satisfactory. On the other hand. staff at King Saud (mean = 1.87). students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.08). and those at King Saud (mean = 1.47) all perceived the provision of emergency exits as unsatisfactory. Safety orientation. Students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 1.81) and at King Saud (mean = 1.44) agreed with staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.15) and at King Saud (mean = 1.85) that safety orientation was unsatisfactory. Food Services Concerning food services. staff at both universities perceived the provision of economical meals. daily food services. and opportu- nity for suggestions as very satisfactory: they viewed cooking facilities in married housing as satisfactory. However. staff at Umm Al-Qura disagreed with staff at King Saud about students preparing their own meals. variety of food. eating outside the residence hall. and general satisfaction with food services. Students at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud agreed in their perceptions of food services but disagreed with staff about cooking facilities in married housing. opportunities to make suggestions. daily meal services. and provision of economical meals. Students also disagreed with staff at King Saud on the preparation of their own meals. variety of food. eating outside the residence halls. and general satisfaction with food services. (See Table 4.22 and 4.23.) 73 Table 4.22.--Means and standard deviations for staff members' perceptions of food services. Umm Al-Qura King Saud Total Item Mean 5.0. Mean 5.0. Mean S.D. Students not preparing 3.33 1.18 4.07 0.89 3.89 1.01 own meals Economical meals 4.00 0.78 3.86 1.01 3.89 0.96 Daily meal services 3.74 1.10 3.93 1.10 3.83 1.09 Opportunities to make 3.78 1.09 3.70 0.97 3.72 0.99 suggestions Variety of food 3.52 1.05 3.70 1.03 3.66 1.03 Students not eating out- 3.30 1.14 3.73 0.99 3.66 1.04 side the residence hall General satisfaction with 3.44 0.97 3.93 0.93 3.41 0.94 food services Cooking facilities in 2.59 1.42 2.71 1.28 2.69 1.31 married housing Table 4.23.--Means and standard deviations for students' perceptions of food services. Umm Al-Qura King Saud Total Item Mean 5.0. Mean 5.0. Mean S.D. Economical meals 3.58 1.21 3.45 1.14 3.49 1.16 Daily meal services 3.00 1.41 3.56 1.14 3.41 1.24 Students not preparing 2.88 1.29 3.45 1.18 3.30 1.24 own meals Variety of food 2.61 1.42 2.62 1.22 2.62 1.28 Students not eating out- 2.58 1.46 2.55 1.29 2.55 1.34 side the residence hall Opportunities to make 2.75 1.39 2.39 1.19 2.49 1.25 suggestions General satisfaction 2.41 1.17 2.43 1.14 2.47 1.15 with food services Cooking facilities in 2.29 1.44 2.29 1.21 2.29 1.27 married housing 74 Students not preparing own meals. Staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.33) and students at both universities (means = 2.88 for Umm Al- Qura and 3.45 for King Saud) perceived the tendency for not preparing one's own meals as satisfactory. Only staff at King Saud (mean = 4.07) perceived the tendency for not preparing one's own meals as very satisfactory. Economical meals. Staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 4.00) and at King Saud (mean = 3.86) perceived the provision of economical meals as very satisfactory. However. students at both universities (means = 3.58 for Umm Al-Qura and 3.45 for King Saud) perceived such provision as satisfactory. Variety of food. Staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.52) and students at both universities (means = 2.61 for Umm Al-Qura and 2.62 for King Saud) agreed that the variety of food was satisfactory. Only staff at King Saud (mean = 3.70) perceived the variety of food as very satisfactory. Students not eating outside the residence hall. Staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.30) and students at both universities (means = 2.58 for Umm Al-Qura and 2.55 for King Saud) perceived the tendency not to eat outside the residence hall as satisfactory. Only staff at King Saud (mean = 3.73) perceived this tendency as very satisfactory. Daily meal services. Staff at both universities disagreed Mfith students concerning daily meal services. Staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.74) agreed with staff at King Saud (mean = 3.93) that the daily meal services were very satisfactory. However. students at both 75 universities (means = 3.00 for Umm Al-Qura and 3.56 for King Saud) perceived daily meal services as satisfactory. Opportunities to mgke suggestions. Staff disagreed with students at both universities on opportunities to make suggestions regarding food services. Staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.78) and staff at King Saud (mean = 3.70) perceived such opportunities as very satisfactory. 0n the other hand. students at both universities (means = 2.75 for Umm Al-Qura and 2.39 for King Saud) perceived the opportu- nities to make suggestions as satisfactory. General satisfaction. Staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.44) and students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.41) and King Saud (mean = 2.43) perceived general satisfaction with food services as satisfactory. Only staff at King Saud (mean = 3.93) perceived general satisfaction with food services as very satisfactory. Cooking facilities in married housing. Staff and students from both universities disagreed in their perceptions of the cooking facilities in married housing. Staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.59) and at King Saud (mean = 2.71) perceived these facilities as satisfactory. whereas students at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud (both with means = 2.29) perceived them as unsatisfactory. Social Interaction Staff at both Umm Al-Qura and King Saud agreed on the provision of facilities for social interaction; they differed on the provision of athletic facilities. Students at Umm Al-Qura and King 76 Saud agreed on provision of facilities for social interaction but disagreed on the provision of athletic facilities and mosque availability. Both staff and students at Umm Al-Qura perceived the athletic facilities as unsatisfactory: students and staff at King Saud viewed them as satisfactory. Only the athletic facilities at Umm Al- Qura were perceived as unsatisfactory. All other services were perceived as satisfactory or very satisfactory. (See Tables 4.24 and 4.25.) Table 4.24.--Means and standard deviations for staff members' perceptions of social interaction. Umm Al-Qura King Saud Total Item Mean 5.0. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mosque availability 3.82 1.15 4.42 0.66 4.27 0.84 Promotion of religious 4.26 0.71 4.10 0.77 4 14 0.76 values & environment Brotherhood & friendship 4.19 0.88 3.93 0.80 3.99 0.83 Cultural exchange 4.11 0.89 3.76 1.06 3.85 1.03 Self-discipline 3.85 0.95 3.75 0.89 3.78 0.90 Flexibility of rules 4.00 0.96 3.67 1.07 3.75 1.05 Provision of religious 3.70 1 17 3.73 0.97 3.72 1.02 activities Athletic facilities 2.00 1.24 2 83 1.18 2.63 1.24 77 Table 4.25.--Means and standard deviations for students' perceptions of social interaction. Umm Al-Qura King Saud Total Item Mean 3.0. Mean 5.0. Mean S.D. Mosque availability 3.30 1.55 4.15 0.93 3.93 1.19 Brotherhood & friendship 3.55 1.17 3.49 1.01 3.51 1.05 Promotion of religious 3.42 1.28 3.29 1.09 3.33 1.15 values & environment Cultural exchange 3.24 1.38 3.08 1.11 3.13 1.19 Self-discipline 3.04 1.32 3.09 1.14 3.08 1.19 Provision of religious 2.65 1.45 3.16 1.14 3.03 1.25 activities Athletic facilities 1.17 1.34 3.31 1.21 2.90 1.40 Flexibility of rules 2.94 1.29 2.62 1.07 2.70 1.14 Mosqueyayailability. Staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.82). staff at King Saud (mean = 4.42). and students at King Saud (mean = 4.15) perceived mosque availability as very satisfactory. In contrast. students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.30) perceived mosque availability as satisfactory. Promptjon of religious values ppd environment. At both universities. staff and students disagreed on the promotion of religious values and environment. Staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 4.26) and at King Saud (mean = 4.10) perceived the promotion of religious values as very satisfactory. However. students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.42) and at King Saud (mean = 3.29) perceived the promotion of religious values as satisfactory. Brotherhood and friendship. At both universities. staff and students disagreed in their perceptions of brotherhood and friendship. 78 Staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 4.19) and at King Saud (mean = 4.10) perceived brotherhood and friendship as very satisfactory. whereas students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.55) and at King Saud (mean = 3.49) perceived brotherhood and friendship as satisfactory. Cultgral exchange. Staff and students at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud disagreed on cultural exchange. Staff at lhmn Al-Qura (mean = 4.11) and at King Saud (mean = 3.76) perceived cultural exchange as very satisfactory. However. students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.24) and at King Saud (mean = 3.08) perceived cultural exchange as satisfactory. Self-discipline. Staff and students at the two universities disagreed in their perceptions of self-discipline. Staff at Umm Al- Qura (mean = 3.85) and at King Saud (mean = 3.75) perceived exercise of self-discipline as very satisfactory. However. students at Umm Al- Qura (mean = 3.04) and at King Saud (mean = 3.09) saw the exercise of self-discipline as satisfactory. Flexibility of rules. Staff and students at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud disagreed on flexibility of rules. Staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 4.00) and at King Saud (mean = 3.67) perceived flexibility of rules as very satisfactory. Students at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 2.94) and at King Saud (mean = 2.62) perceived flexibility of rules as satisfactory. Provision of religjousyactivities. Staff and students at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud disagreed on the provision of religious activities. Staff at Umm Al-Qura (mean = 3.70) and at King Saud (mean 79 = 3.73) perceived the provision of religious activities as very satisfactory. whereas students at Umm lU-Qura (mean = 2.65) and at King Saud (mean = 3.16) perceived such provision as satisfactory. Athletic facilities. Students and staff at King Saud (means = 3.31 and 2.83. respectively) perceived the athletic facilities as satisfactory. Conversely. staff and students at Umm Al-Qura (means = 2.00 and 1.17. respectively) perceived them as unsatisfactory. Findings Pertaining to Research Question 2 and Hypotheses l and 2 Research Question 2; What similarities and differences exist between residence hall students and staff at Umm Al-Qura Univer- sity and between residence hall students and staff at King Saud University concerning their perceptions of the types of services and programs available to students in the dormitories? Hypothesis-l: There is no statistically significant difference between residence hall students and staff at Umm Al-Qura Univer- sity concerning their perceptions of the types of services and programs available to students in the dormitories. Hypothesis 2: There is no statistically significant difference between residence hall students and staff at King Saud University concerning their perceptions of the types of services and pro- grams available to students in the dormitories. General Services The ANOVA results for the general services category are presented in Table 4.26. The results indicated the following statistically significances in respondents' perceptions of the quality of general services. The means for staff and students are given in parentheses. Staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived a significantly higher quality than students in the following areas of general services: (a) 8C) ..o>o_ _oo. ozu um ucmo___:o_mama ._o>o. .0. ocu um “cmo___co_mae ._o>o. mo. ecu um acmo_b_cc_ma m. m. _o._ mm.~ :m “boom N. N._ mm._ m_.m mm gamum monocouc_oa new J 0 mm. wN.N _mm mucmfinum Q m mO.— N®.N wm— mucmvaum C0_um..®QO uDODm CPI—0nd; —m._mv:wu :z: . . m... NN.m aw bomum . . ow._ mw.N AN ammum 444000 0: mm c~._ om.~ .mm mucoeaum N. mm N mm.. 0:.N mm. mucoosum moc_;om5 >Loczmo :: . . m... ww.~ :m eumum . . NM._ m_.m KN himum ..moo m. A m~._ om.~ .mm mucoeaom m. N. N :e.. NN.~ mm. mocmeacm a:_xcaa ob amoeba m.. _o.~ mo._ mm.~ :w bumum o_. N.~ NN._ ::.m KN bhmum mo.. .m.m .mm mucooaum w m... mo.m mm. mucovnum oocmcouc_ms .0 >u__m:o o_. om.~ m~._ mm.~ am mumum .m. _. m~.. 0m.~ mm aumum o... mN.~ .mm mucovzum : _~._ o~.m mm_ muconaum o_umc ucoosom o. oo>o_aam . . 0m.. mo.m aw uumum : . . mo._ :o.m RN abmum _m mo _ mm.. m:.m .mm moeoesum .No No m mm._ o:.~ mm. mucoescm >D___nm__a>a Losa>a_m . . mm._ :N.N cm aboum . . .N._ me.m RN bumum mm 8 :N; MTN .mm 3:233 NN. S N 3.. mm.m mm. 3:233 533535: :_. m_.~ mN. mo.: :w Cumum a... mm.~ No.. mm.m mm Lumum mo._ om.m .mm mucovaum o:._ -.m mm. mucovnum co_umoo_ __mc mocoo_mox . . i. a: .3 tax . . 2.. A: R at; mm mm om. m~.: .mm mucopaum eemoo m: m .:.. w:.N mm. mucovaum co_umcucoocoo __m£ oocoo_mom :;: . . aw. hm.: aw Cumum . . mN. mm.: mm ammum .........000 Nm N— mOo— ”mom —mm mucofivaum mm m“ mm. mm.: mm— WHCUUJUW mC_CO_u_UCOU L_< a u .o.w com: .02 asocu a u .o.m :mo: .02 quote Emu. vamm m:_x mcaou_< SE: .moo_>com .mcocom we mco_uaoocoa .mconaoa mumum pcm .muconaum Low mu_:moc <>ozo_ _oo. ecu um acmo_b_:m_mmaa ._o>o_ _o. ozu um ucmo_._cm_maa ._o>o_ mo. ogu um acmo_._cm_ma ::: . . mm. mm.m :w manum :: . . mo._ _:.m RN humum co_umo_c:EEoU\co_uoELo&:_ a..ooo .o mm mm. .o.m .mm mucousom .._o MN 8 _N._ NA.~ mm. mocoeaom ;u_3 :o_uoacm_cam _mcacao mm. . :~._ mm.~ em Lamom A_. mm._ :M._ om.~ AN ccmum om _~._ m~.~ .mm mueaeacm m:._ e_.~ mm. mocacaum moo_>com .asm0a . . -._ ae.~ em ocmom . - . . m~._ 8N.m KN Lcmom «aeooo .N m: wo._ m~._ .mm mucoonum +«4_oo _N N. m:.. :N.~ wa. mucovzum moo_>com co_umo_c:EEoQ -z- . . -._ mw.~ :m Lamom . . . -._ om._ RN Lemom ...ooo Am om oo._ m_.~ .mm mucoeaom .No A. m N~._ mm._ mm. mocaezom co_umecocc_ co somscae< --- . . :o._ am.m em ccmum .. . m... om.m AN Locum ...ooo .N m. 80.. mm.~ .mm mueoeaom _a .m _ _~._ :~.m mm. mucaeaum ma_ac >55.385 --- . . mm. wo.: am Lcaom --- . . mN. -.: KN Lamum I..ooo mm Na. mo._ mm.~ .mm augmenom I..ooo No m. ~m._ N~.m mm. mucouaom co_omoeo_co Deonzcm a a .o.m com: .02 anocu a a .o.m coo: .oz azocu Emu. v:Mm oc_x mesoi_< Es: .moo_>com co_umo_c:EEOO ocm co_umELouc_ go m:o_uaoocoa .mconEoE mumum new .mucocsum Loo mu_:moc <>oza. _oo. ago ._o>a_ .o. was ._o>o_ mo. ch um ucmo_m_:m_wz 84 m_.m cw caaam _:.m NN mm.N .mm mueaegcm mm.N mm. ma_o___oaa uaoaa oc__aac .mcoeoo m. .o.N em Camcm NM. om.N NN N Nm._ .mm mucoesum N_.N mm. ea_nam_e Doc meo_smeoeaooo< . NN.N em Lemcm . Gm.m NN N: m wm._ .mm mucouaum m: MN :N.N mm. mEOOL ocmLon 0:.N :m camom 0N.m NN :o.N .mm mucaeacm oo.m mm. mmc_meo_an LoL macaw N. mm.N am acaum oN._ NG.N NN : w om.N .mm mucaeaam NN.N mm. Nazca to. matte ba_=o E 22 .a :2m m. NNN NN _ .N mm mucovaum .N m. mmc_v .35 “.3 :o_uum m.umm .mcocoo N a _ a N 8 N ._. E. . c. . NN.N :m Nemam . ::.N NN mm Nm 0N.N Rm mucouzum A: m mm; mm. mLou_m_> Low 9.50.. Hmong . :0... .3 33m . mm.N N o. :N mm.m .mm mucousom m. : mm._ mm. co_m_>o_oa Loo aocam . N_.: :N Lamcm . mN.N NN mo Nm m:.m .mm mucouauw mm N mm.N mm. mo_uLma Lo; mEOOx mo.m em Lcmum .m on.: NN mm.m .mm macaeaum .N wN.: mm. acgo_ccsc co co_m_>oca L coo: .02 asoLu a :mo: .02 Boy. oc_x meso|_< EE: .woo_>Lom >u___omu No m:o_unooLoa .mcogEoE mumum ocm .mucovaum Lou mu_3moc <>oz<--.wN.: o_amp 85 facilities (staff 3.15. students 2.59). Staff perceived a: signifi- cantly lower quality than students regarding provision of forniture (staff 3.65. students 3.93). Safety Services The ANOVA results for the safety services category are presented in Table 4.29. The results indicated the following statisticalTy significant differences iri respondents' perceptions of the quality of safety services. The means for staff and students are given in parentheses. The staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived a significantly higher quality than students in the following areas of safety services: (a) fire extinguishers (staff 2.74. students 1.99) and (b) emergency exits (staff 2.74. students 2.08). Staff at King Saud perceived a significantly higher quality than students in the following areas of safety services: (a) room lighting (staff 3.94. students 3.63). (b) fire extinguishers (staff 3.54. students 2.72). (c) safety and security (staff 3.13. students 2.76). (d) first-aid availability (staff 3.29. students 2.25). (e) ambulance services (staff 3.22. students 2.22). (f) emergency exits (staff 1.83. students 1.47). (9) safety orientation (staff 1.83. students 1.44). and (h) general satisfaction with safety and security measures (staff 2.90. students 2.41). €36 ..0>o. .oo. ozu um Ncmo...co.memm ..o>0. .o. ozu um ucmo.._:c.mam ..o>o. mo. ofiu um “coo...cm.m« :::_oo. on.m. mo.. om.N :w .umum mo. m..m m:.. mm.N RN mumum mocammos >N.L:oom ocm >.o.mm 444 No.. .:.N .mm muconzum MN.. m:.N mm. muconzum cu.3 c0_uom.m.umw .mcocoo :z: . . mo.. mm.. :m ..mum . . mm.. m..N NN ..mum .eeooo mo N. Nm. ::.. .mm muconaum m. cm . :N.. .m.. mm. mucoezum co_umoco_co >No.mm . . m... mm._ am .emam - . . .m._ :N.N NN ccmom fififl—Oo MO 0— :m. N:.— —mm mucmtaum {No @J m QM-— ”OoN mm— Wucwnaum Wumxm >UC®OLQEM . . NN.. NN.m aw .mmum . . mm._ NN.N NN ..mum ¥%¥ooo mm om m—o— NNON —mm WUCQVJUW ”N N— — mm.- —m.— wm— WUCMUDHW WQUm>L0W wucm—SDE< :z: . . MN.. mN.m :m .wmum . . w:.. om.N NN ..mum ...ooo :N Nm m... mN.N .mm mucoeaam em Nm m:.. SN.N mm. mucousom >u__.nm__m>m u_a-omc_a ::.o. m..~ w... m_.m :m ..mum NN. .N.. ._.. no.m NN ..mum .. N... GN.N .mm mecaeacm oM._ mm.m mm. mscanaam >c_csoom new ssocmm ::: . . mo.. :m.m cm wwmum :: . . m:.. :N.N NN ..mum ...ooo om NM a... NN.N .mm mucauacm .._o m. N em._ mm._ mm. macaoaum acmsmmamc.uxa ac_a ::.o. .m. mm. 4m.m am wumum m.. mm.N om. NN.: NN ..mum .. a mo._ m¢.m .mm mueaeacm :o.. om.m mm. accaeaom ac.o;m__ good a u .o.m coo: .02 aaocw a a .o.m :mo: .02 anoLo sou. 03mm mc.x mdei.< SE: .moo.>Lom >uommm .0 mc0_uaoocoa .mconsoa ..mum new .mucooaum L0. mu.:moc <>oz0. .oo. 020 um Ncmo_ ._o>0. .0. egg 0m Scoo...cm.m ..o>0. mo. 020 um ucmo.._cm.m¢ mN.m Nm. mm.m am ..mum mm. 2:.m RN 02mum moo.>com 000. 2..3 : :... m:.N .mm mpcouzum m... .:.N mm. mucooaum c0.uom.m.umm .mcocou :: . . mN.. Nm.N :m ..mum . . N:.. mm.N KN ..mum ..Noo NN m ON._ mN.N .mm maeaesom om No _ ::._ mN.N mm. mucousbm me_m=o; aa_ccme.: ma_c_ _oa. ac_xooU om. mm.m 4w ..m~m m .m. mo.. mN.N NN ..mum m... 0:.N .mm mucmvzuw 0 mm._ mN.N mm. mucwtaum mc0_um0am:m oxms 0H m0.u.c:NLOan o... Nm.m :w ..oum o... :N.m KN uhmum a... om.m .mm mucousum .:._ oo.m mm. muconsum m00_>c0m .mpE >..mo . mm. MN.N em .cmum - . . a... cm.m NN camow _.me aocae_mac we“ mm ow mN.. mm.N .mm muconzum 4N0 mo w w:.. mm.N mm. mucouaum on.mu:0 mc.cmo No: mucovzum w~.mm No.. me.m :w ..mum 0:.0. mo.. Nm.m NN .wmum MN.. mo.N .mm mucovzum N:.. .m.N mm. mucovsum 000. .0 >00.Lm> .o.. am.m :m mumum o. o.m mo.. Nm.m NN .mMum . c... o:.m .mm mucwvzum w m .N.. mm.m mm. mucwvsum m_m0E .m0.50c00m m.._N mm. No.: :m .Lmum mo. oo.m m_._ mm.m NN ..mcm m_mos :30 w... Tim .3 3:253 mN._ mmN mm. 2:253 9:533 No: Scots; a u .o.w. com: .02 ascec a u .o.m coo: .02 anoLu E00. v:Mm ac.2 mczd-.< EE: .moo.>com too. .0 mc0.uaoocma .mconEoE camom Gem .mocaeaum 20. mc_=mmc <>oz<--.om.: p.2a. 89 Social Interaction The ANOVA results for the social interaction category are presented in Table 4.31. The results indicated the following statistically significant differences in respondents' perceptions of social interaction. The means for staff and students are given in parentheses. Staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived a significantly higher quality than Students in the following areas of social interaction: (a) promotion of religious values and environment (staff 4.26. students 3.42). (b) brotherhood and friendship (staff 4.19. students 3.55). (c) cultural exchange (staff 4.11. students 3.24). (d) self-discipline (staff 3.85. students 3.04). (e) flexibility of rules (staff 4.00. students 2.94). and (f) provision of religious activities (staff 3.70. students 2.65). Staff at King Saud perceived a significantly higher quality than students in the following areas of social interaction: (a) mosque availability (staff 4.41. students 4.16). (b) promotion of religious values and environment (staff 4.08. students 3.30). (c) brotherhood and friendship (staff 3.92. students 3.50). (d) cultural exchange (staff 3.75. students 3.09). (e) self-discipline (staff 3.74. students 3.10). (f) flexibility of rules (staff 3.65. students 2.62). and (g) provision of religious activities (staff 3.71. students 3.16). Staff perceived the athletic facilities to be of significantly lower quality than did students (staff 2.81. students 3.31). 90 ..0>o. .oo. 020 um Ncmo...cm.m ..o>a. .o. 853 Ca ceao_._cm_m ..o>o. mo. 020 um 0cmo_._cm.ma mm.N. w... .m.N :m .mmum .z. mw. :N.. oo.N RN .2muw m... .m.m .mm mocmnaom :m._ NN._ wm_ maemeaum mo_.___om. o_ot_;c< om.N. mm. .N.m :w ..mum RN 22mum 2... w..m .mm mucouzum mm. mucovzum mo.u.>.uom m30.m..oc .0 c0.m.>oLa m..m wo.. mo.m :m ..mum NN .Lmum 0 mo.. Nm.N .mm mucopauw mm. mucoozum mo.:c .0 >0...a.xo.a Nm.mN mm. :N.m :m .umum .oN.m mm. mm.m NN .umum :... o..m .mm mucouaum , Nm.. :o.m mm. mucovsum oc..a.0m.n:..om : . . mo.. mm.m cm .umum :: . . mm. ...: NN .wmum 4000 Nw mN ..._ mo.m .mm mucovaum aeNoo N. 0. mm.. :N.m mm. mucoesum omcmcoxo .mc:N_:u :ooo. MN.m. ow. Nm.m 4m .LMNm mm. m..: NN ..m0m a .o.. om.m .mm muconsum m... mm.m mm. mucopzum n.2moco.L. ncm vooccocuoLm :ooo. 00.0: mm. wo.: 2m ..muw .N. mN.: NN .2mum 0coEcoL.>co 0cm no; Om.m .mm mucmvsum w~.. N:.m mm. mucousuw m0:_m> «30.37: .0 cotoeoca : . . we. .:.: :m mwmum . . m... Nm.m RN ..mum .w_o mN m mm. o..: .mm mucouaam o. NN N mm.. em.m mm. mucaezcw >s___nm__m>m magma: a u .n.m cap: .02 aneco a u .o.m com: .02 QDOLw Emu. 03mm mc.2 acaci_< EE: .co.uomcouc. .m.00m .0 mc0.uaoocoa .mcoceos wwmum 0cm .mucovsum Lo. mu.:moc <>cz<--._m.q 0.2m. 91 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Statistically significant differences were found between staff and students at Umm Al-Qura University concerning their perceptions of 25 (50%) of the residence hall services examined in this study. Statistically significant differences were found between staff and students at King Saud University concerning their perceptions of 40 (80%) of the residence hall services examined in this study. Findin s Pertainin to Research uestion 3 and Hypothesis 3 Research Question 3: What similarities and differences exist between residence hall students and staff at Umm Al-Qura Univer- sity and between residence hall students and staff at King Saud University concerning their perceptions of the types of services and programs available to students in the dormitories? Hypothesis 3: There is no statistically significant difference between students/staff at Umm Al-Qura University and students/ staff at King Saud University concerning their perceptions of the types of services and programs available to students in the dor- mitories. General Services The ANOVA results for the general services category are presented in Table 4.32. The results indicated the following statistically Significant differences in perceptions of the quality of general services between students and staff at Umm Al-Qura and their counterparts at King Saud. The means for the two groups are given in parentheses. Table 4.32.--ANOVA results for perceptions of general services: students/staff at Umm Al-Qura and students/staff at 92 King Saud. Item Group No. Mean 8.0. F p 11.19.1353... :2: 2:2: 1:3: assassin 11:93:33.. :2: 2:22 1:2: 1:223:22: 1mg. 2:: 3:2: 1:3: 51.2mm. :3: 5:2: 1:2 Arms... 2:: 2:2; 1:3; more Areas. :2: 5:2: 1:1: .. m. as 1:12 " '° ”'1'” 51.19.1383... 233 3:33 1:33, 5-25 «12* Laundry machines King Saud 635 2.47 1.23 Umm Al-Qura 225 2.46 1.53 '01 '93 General feeling about UmggATfigSra 2%: 3:33 1:33 8.39 .004** operation & maint. *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. ***Significant at the .001 level. 93 Students and staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived a significantly higher quality than students and staff at King Saud in the following areas of general services: (a) air conditioning (Umm Al-Qura 4.41. King Saud 3.94). (b) transportation (Umm Al-Qura 3.28. King Saud 2.73). (c) employee to student ratio (Umm Al-Qura 3.21. King Saud 2.75). (d) quality of maintenance (Umm Al-Qura 3.10. King Saud 2.84). (e) general feeling about operation and maintenance (Umm Al-Qura 3.00. King Saud 2.77). and (f) access to parking (Umm Al-Qura 2.77. King Saud 2.55). Students and staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived a significantly lower quality than students and staff at King Saud in the following areas: (a) residence hall concentration (Umm Al-Qura 2.56. King Saud 4.26). (b) residence hall location (Umm Al-Qura 3.28. King Saud 3.92). and (c) elevator availability (Umm Al-Qura 2.48. King Saud 3.51). Information and Communication Services The ANOVA results for the information and communication services category are presented in Table 4.33. The results indicated the following statistically significant differences in perceptions of the quality of information and communication services between students and staff at Umm Al-Qura and their counterparts at King Saud. The means for the two groups are given in parentheses. Students and staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived a significantly higher quality than students and staff at King Saud in the following 94 areas of information and communication services: (a) student orienta- tion (Umm Al-Qura 3.34. King Saud 2.75). (b) disciplinary rules (Umm Al-Qura 3.28. King Saud 2.92). and (c) communication services (Umm Al- Qura 2.36. King Saud 1.90). Respondents from Umm Al-Qura perceived a significantly lower quality than those at King Saud in the following areas: (a) adequacy of information (Umm Al-Qura 2.05. King Saud 2.25) and (b) postal services (Umm Al-Qura 2.20. King Saud 2.76). Table 4.33.--ANOVA results for perceptions of information and students/staff at Umm Al-Qura communication services: and students/staff at King Saud. Item Group No. Mean 5.0. F p Student orientation King Saud 635 2.75 1.17 Umm Al-Qura 225 3.34 1.30 39-85 ~0°°** Disciplinary rules King Saud 635 2.92 1.07 Umm Al-Qura 225 3.28 1.29 18-00 -000** Adequacy of infor- King Saud 635 2.25 1.06 5 35 02* mation Umm Al-Qura 225 2.05 1.23 ° ‘ Communication King Saud 635 1.90 1.14 services Umm Al-Oura 225 2.36 1.45 23°47 °°°°** Postal services King Saud 635 2.76 1.22 Umm Al-Qura 225 2.20 1.42 32°05 ~°°°** General satisfaction King Saud 635 2.73 1.00 2 08 15 with information/ Umm Al-Qura 225 2.85 1.21 ° ‘ communication *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .001 level. 95 Facility Services The ANOVA results for the facility services category are presented in Table 4.34. The results indicated the following statistically Significant differences in perceptions of the quality of facility services between students and staff from Umm Al-Qura and those from King Saud. The means for the two groups are given in parentheses. Students and staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived a significantly higher quality than students and staff at King Saud in the following areas of facility services: (a) provision of furniture (Umm Al-Qura 4.32. King Saud 3.90). (b) general satisfaction with buildings (Umm Al-Qura 2.91. King Saud 2.64). (c) space for belongings (Umm Al-Qura 3.08. King Saud 2.09). (d) storage rooms (Umm Al-Qura 2.40. King Saud 2.00). and (e) accommodations for disabled (Umm Al-Qura 2.14. King Saud 1.93). Umm Al-Qura respondents perceived a significantly lower quality than the King Saud group in the following areas: (a) rooms for parties (Umm Al-Qura 2.44. King Saud 3.53). (b) space for television (Umm Al-Qura 2.06. King Saud 3.46). (c) guest rooms for visitors (Umm Al-Qura 1.99. King Saud 2.39). and (d) quiet areas for study (Umm Al-Qura 2.32. King Saud 2.65). 96 Table 4.34.--ANOVA results for perceptions of facility services: students/staff at Umm Al-Qura and students/staff at King Saud. Item Group No. Mean S.D. F p Provision of King Saud 635 3.90 .97 furniture Umm Al-Qura 225 4.32 .95 31-37 -0°°*** Rooms for parties King Saud 635 3.53 1.13 Umm Al-Qura 225 2.44 1.48 129-15 -0°°*** Space for television King Saud 635 3.46 1.17 Umm Al-Qura 225 2.06 1.36 220-73 ~00°*** Guest rooms for King Saud 635 2.39 1.16 visitors Umm Al-Qura 225 1.99 1.30 17-93 ~°°°*** General satisfaction King Saud 635 2.64 1.07 with buildings Umm Al-Qura 225 2.91 1.10 9-85 ~°°2** Quiet areas for study King Saud 635 2.65 1.32 Umm Al-Qura 225 2.32 1.50 10-05 -0°2** Space for belongings King Saud 635 2.09 1.19 Umm Al-Qura 225 3.08 1.34 108-38 ~0°0*** Storage rooms King Saud 635 2.00 1.17 Umm Al-Qura 225 2.40 1.39 17-92 °°°°*** Accommodations for King Saud 635 1.93 1.10 5 28 02* disabled Umm Al-Qura 225 2.14 1.41 ‘ ' General feeling King Saud 635 2.67 1.01 94 33 about facilities Umm Al-Qura 225 2.74 1.09 ‘ ' *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. ***Significant at the .001 level. 97 Safety Services The ANOVA results for the safety services category are pre- sented in Table 4.35. The results indicated the following statisti- cally significant differences in perceptions of the quality of safety services between students and staff at Umm Al-Qura and their counter- parts at King Saud. The means for the two groups are given in paren- theses. Table 4.35.--ANOVA results for perceptions of safety services: students/staff at Umm Al-Qura and students/staff at King Saud. Item Group No. Mean S.D. F p Room lighting King Saud 635 3.67 1.01 Umm Al-Qura 225 3.94 1.02 11-92 ~0°1* Fire extinguishers King Saud 635 2.83 1.16 Umm Al-Qura 225 2.08 1.39 62-04 °°°°* Safety & security King Saud 635 2.81 1.19 Umm Al-Qura 225 3.41 1.28 41-37 ~00°* First-aid availa- King Saud 635 2.39 1.21 83 36 bility Umm Al-Qura 225 2.30 1.49 ' ' Ambulance services King Saud 635 2.35 1.24 Umm Al-Qura 225 1.95 1.41 15-95 ~°°°* Emergency exits King Saud 635 1.52 .98 Umm Al-Qura 225 1.16 1.40 55-54 -000* Safety orientation King Saud 635 1.49 .95 Umm Al-Qura 225 1.85 1.25 20°08 ~°°°* General satis. with King Saud 635 2.47 1.08 04 84 safety & security Umm Al-Qura 225 2.49 1.26 ' ° measures *Significant at the .001 level. 98 Students and staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived a significantly higher quality than those from King Saud in the following areas of safety services: (a) room lighting (Umm Al-Qura 3.94. King Saud 3.67). (b) safety and security (Umm Al-Qura 3.41. King Saud 2.8l). and (c) safety orientation (Umm Al-Qura l.85. King Saud 1.49). Umm Al- Qura respondents perceived a significantly lower quality than the King Saud group in the following areas: (a) fire extinguishers (Umm Al- Qura 2.08. King Saud 2.83). (b) ambulance services (Umm Al-Qura l.95. King Saud 2.35). and (c) emergency exits (Umm Al-Qura l.l6. King Saud 1.52). Food Services The ANOVA results for the food services category are presented in Table 4.36. The results indicated the following statistically significant differences in perceptions of the quality of food services between students and staff from Umm Al-Qura and students and staff from King Saud. The means for the two groups are given in parentheses. Students and staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived a significantly higher quality than students and staff at King Saud regarding opportu- nities to make suggestions (Umm Al-Qura 2.87. King Saud 2.57). Students and staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived a significantly lower quality than those at King Saud in daily meal services (Umm Al-Qura 3.08. King Saud 3.6l); they perceived a lower tendency for students not preparing own meals (Umm al-Qura 2.93. King Saud 3.53). Table 4.36.--ANOVA results for perceptions of food services: students/staff at Umm Al-Qura and students/staff at King Saud. 99 Item Group No. 5.0. p Students not prepr- King Saud 635 3.53 l.l7 000** ing own meals Umm Al-Qura 225 2.93 1.29 ' Economical meals King Saud 635 3.5l l.l3 6 Umm Al-Qura 225 3.63 1.17 -‘ Variety of food King Saud 635 2.77 l.25 6l Umm Al-Qura 225 2.72 l.4l ° Students not eating King Saud 635 2.7l l.32 66 outside the residence Umm Al-Qura 225 2.66 l.45 ' hall Daily meal services King Saud 635 3.6l l.l4 000** Umm Al-Qura 225 3.08 l.39 ° Opportunities to King Saud 635 2.57 l.24 002* make suggestions Umm Al-Qura 225 2.87 l.40 ' Cooking facilities King Saud 635 2.35 l.22 8 in married housing Umm Al-Qura 225 2.32 l.44 ° 4 General satisfaction King Saud 635 2.6l l.l6 46 with food services Umm Al-Qura 225 2.54 l.l9 ° *Significant at the .Ol level. **Significant at the .OOl level. Social Interaction The ANOVA results for the social interaction category are presented in Table 4.37. statistically significant differences The results indicated the following in the perceptions of social interaction between students and staff from Umm Al-Qura and their 100 counterparts from King Saud. The means for the two groups are given in parentheses. 'Table 4.37.--ANOVA results for perceptions of social interaction: students/staff at Umm Al-Qura and students/staff at King Saud. Item Group No. Mean 5.0. F p 90 Mosque availability Klng Saud 635 1:52 95.l8 .000* Umm Al-Qura 225 l9 36 Promotion of religious King Saud 635 40 l.09 1 86 17 values & environment Umm Al-Qura 225 52 l.25 ° ° Brotherhood and King Saud 635 .55 .99 8] 37 friendship Umm Al-Qura 225 .62 l.l6 ° ' Cultural exchange King Saud 635 8 l.lB 5 Umm A'I-Qura 225 1.36 3.46 .05 l.l3 Self-diSCipline King Saud 635 1.30 .29 .59 Umm Al-Qura 225 ‘00 NOD DON (1000 0000 0000 0000 00% O O O O O O O O O O O _.n_a 00...; 0000 Flexibility of rules King Saud 635 75 l.l2 Umm Al-Qura 225 .07 l.30 ‘1-83 ~001* Provision of King Saud 635 23 l.l3 religious activities Umm Al-Qura 225 78 l.46 23°05 '000* Athletic facilities King Saud 635 24 l.20 Umm Al-Qura 225 80 1.33 227-76 -000* *Significant at the .001 level. Students and staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived a significantly higheriquality than students and staff at King Saud in the flexibility of rules (Umm Al-Qura 3.07. King Saud 2.75). The Umm Al-Qura group perceived a significantly lower quality than did King Saud respondents 101 in the following areas of social interaction: (a) mosque availability (Umm Al-Qura 3.36. King Saud 4.l9). (b) provision of religious activities (Umm Al—Qura 2.78. King Saud 3.23). and (c) athletic facilities (Umm Al-Qura 1.80. King Saud 3.24). Summarygof Hypothesis Tests Statistically significant differences were found between students/staff at Umm Al-Qura University and students/staff at King Saud University concerning their perceptions of 36 (72%) of the residence hall services examined in this study. Findings Pertaining to Research Question 4 and Hypotheses 4 Through 7 Research Question 4: What similarities and differences exist in the perceptions of residence hall students at both Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Universities according to their nationality. gender. age. and size of residence hall? Hypothesis 4: There is rui statistically significant difference among students of different nationalities concerning their per- ceptions of the types of services and programs available to stu- dents in the dormitories. Hypothesis 5: There is no statistically significant difference between male and female students concerning their perceptions of the types of services and programs available to students in the dormitories. Hypothesis 6: There is no statistically significant difference among students in different age groups concerning their percep- tions of the types of services and programs available to students in the dormitories. Hypothesis 7: There is no statistically significant difference among students living in various sizes of residence halls con- cerning their perceptions of the types of services and programs available to students in the dormitories. In the analysis of the data. the ages of students were cate- gorized into two classes (l9-24 and 25-30 years old). and size of 102 residence halls was also categorized into two classes (200 or less and more than 200). These classes were chosen for the purpose of having a reasonable number of subjects in each group. General Services The differences in the means of students' perceptions of general services according to nationality. gender. age. and size of residence hall were compared by using ANOVA. The results of that analysis (F and p values) are shown in Table 4.38. In the following paragraphs. only those specific areas are discussed in which statistically significant differences between groups were found. Air conditioning. As shown in Table 4.39. students' percep- tions of air conditioning services differed significantly according to age group. Students in the 25-30 year group (mean = 4.2l) perceived the air conditioning services to be significantly better than did stu- dents in the l9-24 year group (mean = 3.97). Residence hall concentration. Students' perceptions of resi- dence hall concentration differed significantly according to national- ity. gender. age. and size of residence hall. (See Table 4.39). Residence hall concentration was perceived a significantly better by 3.56). Saudi students (mean = 3.87) than by non-Saudi students (mean by male students (mean = 3.92) than by female students (mean 3.33). by students l9-24 years old (mean = 3.82) than by students 25-30 years old (mean = 3.56). and by students who lived in residence halls with more than 200 people (mean = 4.l2) than by students who lived in resi- dence halls with 200 or fewer people (mean = 3.39). 103 ._o>o_ ._m>m_ _oo. ecu um ucmu_m_cm_m::: .0. as“ “a pcmu_c_ca.mxx ._o>o_ mo. ocu um ucmu_m_cm_m« aaeooo. NN.N_ emo. .m.¢ _m.m__ m_. mm.~ moc_;ume >cecsm4 amo. mm.m :N. _:._ mm. mac. :m. :m. m:_xcma Ou mmouu< oucmcouc_me vcm :o_u no. mm.m o_. w~.~ om. N00. 0.. Nn.~ ImLoao u:Onm mc__m0m .mcmcmw _m. No._ 0m. mo._ om. mm._ o_. mm._ mucmcouc_me wo >u__m:d mo. m:.m _m. m:. o_. :m.~ o_. mo.~ o_umc ucmvsum Ow mm>o_aEm aaaooo. am._c_ mm. No. aaaooo. mm.~m~ «No. m:.m >u___nm__m>m Leum>w_m awe. mm.m amo. wo.m :«aooo. Nm.mo mm. «0. co_um~coamCMcH aaaooo. _N.mm mu. _N._ :kaooo. 0m.No m_. 0N.N co_umuo_ __m; mucon_mmm «««ooo. Nm.No aJO. ou.: mm.mm aamoo. oo.m co_umcucoucoo __mc mucvn_mox __. :o.N aNo. mm.m Nm. mo. _m.N m:_co_u_ucou L_< a a a a a a a a Eab_ o~_m om< concoo >u__mco_umz .>u__mcomum: op m:_vcouum mou_>com .__m£ oucon_moc wo oN_m vcm .omm .Lovcom _mLocom we mco_uaoocoa .mucousum Lo» mu_:moc <>ozcncamg m:.~ mo.~ No.~ mm.~ :m.~ om.~ Nw.N ma.~ mc_xcma ob amouu< mN.N mm.~ mm.~ m~.~ Nw.~ .w.~ .m.~ NR.~ -mcmao “MMMMCMWNMMmcuNMLMMWW :m.~ mm.~ om.~ mm.~ om.~ mm.~ om.~ :w.~ mocmcmu:_me co >p__m:o .m.~ um.~ mm.~ om.~ _o.m mm.~ Rm.~ mm.~ o_bmc “seesaw ob om>o_a2u mN.m om.~ m_.m o~.m Rm._ om.m .o.m w~.m >p___am__m>m cobm>m_m mm.~ mm.~ mm.~ .m.~ .m.m mo.~ Kw.~ ow.~ co_pmucoamcmch _m.m om.m .m.m am.m ~_.m .m.m No.m mm.m :o_umuo_ __m; mucmu_mmm ~_.: mm.m om.m Nm.m mm.m Nm.m om.m mm.m co_umcucoocou __m: mucou_mmm mm.m mo.: .N.: mm.m Rm.m No.: __.: Rm.m m=_co_u_ecou c_< fiw “w o~_m om< concoo >u__mco_umz .__m; mucmv_mmc to mw_m vcm .omm .coucmm .>u__mco_umc .mucovsum o“ m:_ncooom mou_>com .mcocom we mco_uao6coa co» mcom_cmaeou ucmu_m_cm_m mo mcmmzii.mm.q m_nmh 105 Residence hall location. .As shown iri Table 4.39. students' perceptions of residence hall location differed significantly according to gender and size of residence hall. Residence hall location was perceived as significantly better by male students (mean = 3.91) as compared to female students (mean = 3.12) and by students who lived in residence halls with more than 200 people (mean = 3.91) as compared to students who lived in residence halls with 200 or fewer people (mean = 3.50). Transportation. The results shown in Table 4.39 indicate that students' perceptions of transportation services differed signifi- cantly according to gender. age. and size of residence hall. Trans- portation services were perceived as significantly better by female students (mean = 3.5l) as compared to male students (mean = 2.65). by students in the l9-24 year age group (mean = 2.91) as compared to those in the 25-30 year age group (mean = 2.63). and by students who lived in residence halls with 200 or fewer people (mean == 2.98) as compared to those who lived in residence halls with more than 200 people (mean = 2.75). Elevatoriavailability. Students' perceptions of elevator availability differed significantly according to nationality. gender. and size of residence hall. (See Table 4.39). Elevator services were perceived as significantly better by Saudi students (mean = 3.28) than by non-Saudi students (mean = 3.01). by male students (mean = 3.60) than by female students (mean = 1.97). and by students who lived in residence halls with more than 200 people (mean = 3.78) than by 106 students who lived in residence halls with 200 or fewer people (mean = 2.56). Access to_parking. As shown in Table 4.39. students' perceptions of access to parking differed significantly according to size of residence hall. Access to parking was perceived as signifi- cantly better by students who lived in residence halls with 200 or fewer people (mean = 2.65) than by students who lived in residence halls with more than 200 people (mean = 2.46). Laundry machines. Students' perceptions of laundry machines differed significantly according to gender. age. and size of residence hall. Laundry machines were perceived as significantly better by female students (mean = 3.18) as compared to male students (mean = 2.10). by students in the l9-24 year age group (mean = 2.41) as compared to those in the 25-30 year age group (mean = 2.15). and by students who lived in residence halls with 200 or fewer people (mean = 2.57) as compared to those who lived in residence halls with more than 200 people (mean = 2.l8). Information and Communication Services The differences in means of students' perceptions of information and communication services according to nationality. gender. age. and size of residence hall were compared by using ANOVA. The results of that analysis (F and p values) are shown in Table 4.40. Smmdent orientation. Students' perceptions of student orientation differed significantly according to age. (See Table 4.41). Student orientation was perceived as significantly better by 107 ._o>o_ _oo. osu um ucmo_m_cm_m«a« ._o>o_ .o. ozu um “cmo_m_cm_m«a ._a>m_ mo. 6;“ pm acmu_cmcm_ma m_. mN.N mn. N_. tea—co. 00.x mm. :00. mou_>com _mum0m «aaooo. mm.mN mN. o_. «eaooo. om.m: maNoo. _o.m mou_>com co_umu_c:EEOU mm. No. mm. :o. GN. cm._ 4N0. o_.m co_umEcocc_ to >umscou< aaaooo. :qoou mm. mo. mo. wN.m om. om. mo_:c >me__a_Um_o comumo_::EEOU\:o_umELOmc_ ma. mm. mu. o_._ mm. mm. 4N0. mm.m cu_3 co_uummm_umm _mcmcoo mo. N:.m aa_o. om.m mm. N:._ NJ. mo. co_umuco_co ucouzum a .._ a u. a h. a .._ Eou_ o~_m om< concoo >u__m:o_umz .__m; oucov_moc mo m~_m ncm .Omm .covcom .>u__mco_umc cu mcmucouom mou_>com co_umo_czeeoo new co_umELo$c_ to mco_ua00coa .mucouzum cot mu_:moc <>ozcam _mum0a mo._ m_.N mm._ om._ o:.N :N._ o_.N _w._ mmo_>cmm co_bmu_cseeoU o_.N __.N mo.N __.N m_.N wo.N :N.N mo.N co_umec0cc_ co >um=cmn< mN.N :_.m em.N om.N wo.m .m.N mm.N mm.N mo_=c >cmc__a_um_o . . . . . . . . co_umu_::EEOU\:o_umELOmc_ No N no N :N N mm N mm N N@ N mN N mm N ;c_3 co_pumcm_umm _mcmcmo m¢.N _w.N mm.N No.N m¢.N mN.N wN.N ON.N co_pmuco_co “seesaw ocN cozom memo> memo> .uzmm 0 MEG O m . . 3m cm;pacoz to OON om-mN :N-m_ _ a _ z -coz .n m sou. 0N_w om< cmvcmw >u__mco_umz .__m; mucou_moc mo v~_m vcm .omm .covcom .>u__mco_umc .mucovsum Ou m:_vcouum mou_>com co_umu_c:EEou ucm co_umEL0mc_ to mco_uao0coa Lo» mcom_cmaeou ucmo_w_cm_m mo mcmmz:n._q.¢ m_nmh 109 students in the 25-30 year age group (mean = 2.98) than by students in the 19-24 year age group (mean = 2.67). General satisfaction with information/commmmication. As shown in Table 4.41. students' general satisfaction with information/commu- nication differed significantly according to nationality. This gen- eral satisfaction was perceived as significantly better by non-Saudi students (mean = 2.78) than by Saudi students (mean = 2.59). Disciplinary rules. The results shown in Table 4.41 indicate that students' perceptions of disciplinary rules differed signifi- cantly according to size of residence hall. Disciplinary rules were perceived as significantly better by students who lived in residence halls with 200 or fewer people (mean = 3.14) as compared to those who lived in residence halls more than 200 people (mean = 2.78). Communication services. As shown iri Table 4.41. students' perceptions of communication services differed significantly according to nationality. gender. and size of residence hall. Communication services were perceived as significantly better by non-Saudi students (mean = 2.10) as compared to Saudi students (mean = 1.81). by female students (mean = 2.40) as compared to male students (mean = 1.74). and by students who lived in residence halls with 200 or fewer people (mean = 2.l3) as compared to those who lived in residence halls with more than 200 people (mean = l.69). Postal services. Students' perceptions of postal services differed significantly according to gender. (See Table 4.41.) Postal services were perceived as significantly better by female students (mean = 2.82) than by male students (mean = 2.51). 110 Facility Services The differences in means of students' perceptions of facility services according to nationality. gender. age. and size of residence hall were compared by using ANOVA. The results of that analysis (F and p values) are shown in Table 4.42. Provision of furniture. The results shown in Table 4.43 indicate that students' perceptions of provision of furniture differed significantly according to gender and size of residence hall. Provision of furniture was perceived as significantly better by female students (mean = 4.18) as compared to male students (mean = 3.97) and by students who lived in residence halls with 200 or fewer people (mean = 4.17) as compared to students who lived in residence halls with more than 200 people (mean = 3.89). Rooms for parties. Students' perceptions of rooms for parties differed significantly according to gender and age. (See Table 4.43.) The provision of rooms for parties was perceived as significantly better by female students (mean = 3.78) as compared to male students (mean = 2.94) and by students in the l9-24 year age group (mean = 3.23) as compared to those in the 25-30 year age group (mean = 2.78). Space for television. The results shown in Table 4.43 indicate that students' perceptions of space for television differed significantly according to gender. age. and size of residence hall. Space for televisiori was perceived as significantly better by male students (mean = 3.08) as compared to female students (mean = 2.77). by students in the l9-24 year age group (mean = 3.05) as compared to 111 ._o>o_ _oo. mzu um ucmu_$_cm_m««« ._o>m_ .o. ozu um ucmu_m_cm_m«« ._o>m_ mo. ozu um ucmu_w_:m_m« . . . . . . . . mo_u___omw om mm _ _N :m _ ow mo «aqoo .m w uaonm mc__oom .mcocou mm. :o. mN. mm._ «mo. em.m .m. _o. no_nmm_v cow mcomumeoeeouo< «««_oo. mm.__ ma. mm. «aaooo. 0:.0N om. mq. mace; ommLOHm «aaooo. o_._m mm. mm._ «aaooo. m:.:m «aqoo. NN.m mmc_mco_on LOm oomam «No. mo.m ON. mm._ __. :0.N mo. N_. >u=um cot mmmcm po_:o . . . . . . . . mmc_u__=n ;u_z «amoo mm m _m m: «ea—co w: __ mm m: _ co_uommm_umm .mcocoo «No. :m.m om. mN. a«_o. N0.@ 0.. 0N.N mc06_m_> cot meooc Hmong «aaooo. mm.~: «:0. m_.: ««_o. m~.m n_. mm._ co_m_>m_mu Lem oomam mm. mmo %%%OOO. w©.N— %%%OOO. Nwo—w mm. 000. mmmugma LO$ mEOOm aaaooo. ww.m_ mm. «0. ««_o. o_.m on. m_. oc:u_:c:m mo co_m_>0cm a a a a a a a a so“. o~_m om< covcoo >u__mco_umz .>u__mco_umc cu mc_ucouom mou_>cmm .__mz mucou_mmc mo mN_m Ucm .omm .covcom >u___omw mo m:o_uaoocoa .mucousum cot mu_:moc <>ozuzum co; mmmcm uo_:o Nm.N ow.N NQ.N mm.N _m.N ow.N mN.N mo.N ;._3 co_pumcm_cmmmfime“mm NN.N mo.N N_.N m_.N mm._ MN._ NN.N N_.N mcop_m_> toe meoo. “mung .m.m N¢.N mN.N mo.m NN.N wo.m _m.N mo.m co_m_>o_ob Lac mumam N_.m m_.m mN.N MN.m mN.m :m.N m_.m m_.m mo_pcma cot mecca mm.m N_.: mo.¢ No.q m_.: Nm.m #0.: .o.: ac:u_cc=. co co_m_>oca gm NM» NM» a...“ o~_m om< coucmo >u__mco_umz .__m£ oucmc_moc wo o~_m ucm .omm .concmm .>u__mco_umc .mucouaum Cu mc_ucouum mmu_>com >u___om$ to mco_uaouLmq com mcom_chEoU acmo_m_cm_m mo mcmozni.mq.: o_nmh 113 those in the 25-30 year age group (mean = 2.79). and by students who lived in residence halls with more than 200 people (mean = 3.31) as compared to those who lived in residence halls with 200 or fewer people (mean = 2.67). Guest rooms for visitors. Students' perceptions of provision of guest rooms differed significantly according to gender and size of residence hall. (See Table 4.43.) Guest rooms for visitors were perceived as significantly better by female students (mean = 1.99) as compared to male students (mean = 1.23) and by students who lived in residence halls with more than 200 people (mean = 2.27) as compared to those who lived in residence halls with 200 or fewer people (mean = 2.06). fiamaral satisfaction with buildings. As shown in Table 4.43. students' perceptions of general satisfaction with residence hall buildings differed significantly according to gender and size of residence hall. Such satisfaction was perceived as significantly better by female students (mean = 2.91) as compared to male students (mean = 2.60) and by students who lived in residence halls with 200 or fewer people (mean = 2.80) as compared to those who lived in residence halls with more than 200 people (mean = 2.57). Quiet areas for stugy. Students' perceptions of the provision of quiet areas for study differed significantly according to size of residence hall. (See Table 4.43.) The provision of quiet areas for study was perceived as significantly better by students who lived in residence halls with 200 or fewer people (mean = 3.39) than by 114 students who lived in residence halls with more than 200 people (mean = 2.62). Space for belongings. As shown in Table 4.43. students' perceptions of provision of space for belongings differed signifi- cantly according to nationality. gender. and size of residence hall. Provision of space for belongings was perceived as significantly better by non-Saudi students (mean = 2.49) as compared to Saudi students (mean = 2.20). by female students (mean = 2.88) as compared to male students (mean = 2.10). and by students who lived in residence halls with 200 or fewer people (mean = 2.67) as compared to students who lived in residence halls with more than 200 people (mean = 1.95). Storage rooms. Students' perceptions of provision of storage rooms differed significantly according to gender and size of residence hall. (See Table 4.43.) Provision of storage rooms was perceived as significantly better by female students (mean = 3.38) as compared to male students (mean = 1.92) and by students who lived in residence halls with 200 or fewer people (mean = 2.19) as compared to those who lived in residence halls with more than 200 people (mean = 1.89). Accommodations for disabled. Students' perceptions of the availability of accommodations for disabled differed significantly according to gender. Accommodations for disabled were perceived as significantly better by male students (mean = 2.02) than by female students (mean = l.82). General feelimg_a§9ut facilities. The results shown in Table 4.43 indicate that students' perceptions of their general feeling 115 about facilities differed significantly according to nationality. General feelings about facilities \vere perceived as significantly better by non-Saudi students (mean = 2.77) than by Saudi students (mean = 2.53). §ajety Services Differences in means of students' perceptions of safety serv- ices according to nationality. gender. age. and size of residence hall were compared by using ANOVA. The results of the analysis (F and p values) are shown in Table 4.44. Fire extinguishers. Table 4.45 shows that students' percep- tions of the provision of fire extinguishers differed significantly according to size of residence hall. Provision of fire extinguishers was perceived as significantly better by students who lived in resi- dence halls with more than 200 people (mean = 2.63) than by students who lived in residence halls with 200 or fewer people (mean = 2.41). Safety amd security. Students' perceptions cfl’ provision of safety and security differed significantly according to gender and size of residence hall. (See Table 4.45.) Provision of safety and security was perceived as significantly better by female students (mean = 3.18) as compared to male students (mean = 2.84) and by students who lived in residence halls with 200 or fewer people (mean = 3.16) as compared to those who lived in residence halls with more than 200 people (mean = 2.71). First-aid availability. Students' perceptions of first-aid availability differed significantly according to gender. (See Table 116 ..0>a. .00. 0:. .0 0:00...00_me«e ._o>o_ _o. ocu um ucmu_m_cm_m«+ ._o>o_ mo. ozu um ucmu_$_:m_m« aa«.00. 0.... Nm. 00.. m.. 0m.N m0. .N. 00.00.06..0 >um.mm aeaooo. 00.0N 0:. 0N. 04.000. 00..m 0N. m... 00.xa >ucomcoeN . . . . . . . . mocsmmme >u_czoom vcm >ummmm N0 .m m m. :m N m. .m N 0. 00 N ...; co..om.m..mm .mcwcoo 00. .0.N 0N. NN.. mN. ... .0. .0. mau.>com mucm.=ne< NM. 00. :0. 00. amo. mm.m 00. m0. >0:30:96 0.0-0.... aaeooo. mm.mN N0. N0. eta.00. N.... 0.. 0N.N ...csumm 0:0 >ummmm ee.0. 0N.0 00. 00.. N.. mm.. N0. Nm.m teem.=0:..xN 0.. mN.N ... N0.N 0:. 0m. NN. .m.. 0:...0.. zoom 0 a a a a a a . Emu_ oN.m om< Lovcoo >u__mco_umz .__mz oocov_moc mo oN_m new .mmm .cmncom .>u__m:o_umc Cu m:_ucouom moo_>com >uommm mo m:0.ua®0coq .mucousum Lew mu.:moc <>ozummmm m... 00.. 0N.. .0.. .0.N 0m.. 00.. 00.. 00.x0 >000000Em :m.N m:.N mm.N 0m.N Nm.N mm.N .m.N Nm.N 00.:mmee>0.00000 000.00.00 ;u_3 :o_uummm_umm .mcocoo 0N.N m0.N 0N.N ...N 0..N N..N :..N N..N mmo.>cmm 0000.005< 0N.N .N.N NN.N mN.N .0.N 0N.N 0N.N 0N.N >0.._00..m>m 0.0-00... .N.N 0..m mm.N .0.N 0..m 00.N 00.0 N0.N >0.00000 0:0 >00.mm m0.N .0.N N..N mm.N N:.N 0m.N 00.N 0m.N 0.000.000.0x0 00.. 00.m NN.M m0.m N0.m mo.m NN.m NN.m N0.m 00.000.. E8.. oom Luzon mcmo> mcmo> o mew o m .nsmm _ :m 00:00.0: 00 00N 0m-mN 0N-m. . a . z .002 .0 0 amp. o~_w om< concou >u__mco_umz .__m; muco0_moc mo oN_m vcm .omm .Lovcmm .>u__mco_um: .mucovzum cu m:_vcouum mmu_>com >uommm mo mco_uaouLoa co. mcom_cmanu ucmu_w_cm_m mo mcmoz:i.m¢.q o_£mp 118 4.45.) First-aid availability was perceived as significantly better by female students (mean = 2.41) than by male students (mean = 2.20). Emergency exits. The results shown in Table 4.45 indicate that students' perceptions of the provision of emergency exits differed significantly according to gender and size of residence hall. Provision of emergency exits was perceived as significantly better by female students (mean = 2.01) as compared to male students (mean = 1.50) and by students who lived in residence halls with 200 or fewer people (mean = 1.84) as compared to students who lived in residence halls with more than 200 people (mean = 1.43). Safety orientation. As shown in Table 4.45. students' perceptions of staff orientation differed significantly according to size of residence hall. Staff orientation was perceived as signifi- cantly better by students who lived in residence halls with 200 or fewer people (mean = 1.66) as compared to those who lived in residence halls with more than 200 people (mean = 1.42). Food Services Differences in means of students' perceptions of food services according to nationality. gender. age. and size of residence hall were compared by using ANOVA. The results of the analysis (F and p values) are shown in Table 4.46. Students not preparing own meals. As shown in Table 4.47. students' perceptions of tendency not to prepare one‘s own meals dif- fered significantly according to gender. Such a tendency was 119 ..0>0. .00. 000 00 0000...:0.m000 . 0 ... ..m>o. .0. ecu um acme...cm.m0 ..w>m. m0. ocu um ucmu.m.c0.m0 mc_m:o; 00.00mE mm. 00.. mm. N0. 0m. mm. :m. «0. c. mo.u...um. mc_x000 . n o . . m®U_>.._®m U00”. 000.00. N..N. 0N. we . 000000 mm 0. 00.0 mm 0 50.3 co_uom0m_umm .memcmw m:o_umwmm:m 000000. NM.MN 00. M00. 000000. N0.N0 ... mm.N 0.05 00 00.0.00000000 mN. Nm.. mN. mm.. 000000. mm.m. 0N0. m..m 000.>000 .002 >:00 ..m: mo:ov.mmL 0m. :w. 0N. m0.. N.. N...N no. mm.m ecu ov.mu:o mc.umo no: mucmuzum 000.00. NN... 0m. 00. 000000. m...N mm. N0. 0000 .0 >00_Lm> .0. 0N. 0N0. mm.m 000000. mm.m. mm. 0.. 0.005 .mu.EOcoum . . . . . . . . m _ 00.: C30 0. 00 . 0N .0 . 000 .0 0 mm mm 00.00000. 00: 00000000 0 0 a 0 a 0 a . 000. mN.m wm< Lmvcmo >u..mco.umz ...m; mucov.moL .0 oN_m Ucm .omm ..oncmm .>u..m:o_umc Cu 0c.ULooum mou_>Lom 0000 .0 mco.uawoLmQ .mucovsum Lo. mu.:moL <>0z.._0m UOOW mm N N0 N mm N 00 N 0m N 5m N N0 N 0: N 50.2 co.uom.m_umm .memcou . . . . mco_umpmmzm 0N.N NN.N 00.N 00.N 00 0 N0 N 00 N 00 N 0000 00 00.0.00000000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0N.0 00.0 00.0 000.>000 .000 >..00 . . . . . . . . m mucmu.moL .m N 00 N 00 N N0 N 00 N .0 N 00 N 00 N 00000.000000.0MWhw000000000 N0.N mN.N 00.N .0.N 00.N 0m.N 00.N 00.N 0000 .0 >00_L0> 00.0 .0.0 00.0 00.0 NN.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.000 .00.000000 . . . . . . . . . m.on :30 00 0 MN 0 N0 0 RN 0 0. 0 mm m 00 0 RN 0 00.000000 00: 00000000 00N 00300 mLmo> memo> .0smm :00..0coz .0 00N 00-0N 0N-0. 0.0200 0.0: .002 .0000 E00. m~.m om< Lmucou >u..mco.umz ...m; 00:00.000 .0 oN_m new .000 .0ovcom .>u_.mco.umc .mucousum cu m:_ngouum mou_>me 0000 00 mco_uaooLoa Lo. mcom.Lmaeoo acmo_0.:m_m 0o mammzii.m¢.0 0.0m0 121 perceived as significantly lower by female students (mean = 3.l4) than by male students (mean = 3.35). Economical meals. Students' perceptions of economical meals differed significantly according to gender and age. (See Table 4.47.) Meals were perceived as significantly more economical by male students (mean = 3.58) than by female students (mean = 3.22) and by students in the 25-30 year age group (mean = 3.70) than by those in the l9-24 year age group (mean = 3.44). Variety of food. The results shown in Table 4.47 indicate that students' perceptions of variety of food differed significantly according to gender and size of residence hall. Variety of food was perceived as significantly better by female students (mean = 2.99) as compared to male students (mean = 2.50) and by students who lived in residence halls with 200 or fewer people (mean = 2.79) as compared to those who lived in residence halls with more than 200 people (mean = 2.47). Daily meal services. Students' perceptions of daily meal services differed significantly according to nationality and gender. (See Table 4.47.) Daily meal services were perceived as significantly better by non-Saudi students (mean = 3.56) than by Saudi students (mean = 3.34) and by female students (mean = 3.76) than by male students (mean = 3.28). Opportunities to make suggestions. Table 4.47 shows that students' perceptions of opportunities to make suggestions differed significantly according to gender and size of residence hall. 122 Opportunities to make suggestions were perceived as significantly better by female students (mean = 3.00) as compared to male students (mean = 2.32) and by students who lived in residence halls with 200 or fewer people (mean = 2.72) as compared to those who lived in residence halls with more than 200 people (mean = 2.28). general satisfaction with food services. Students' percep- tions of general satisfaction with food services differed signifi— cantly according to nationality. gender. and size of residence hall. (See Table 4.47.) General satisfaction with food services was per- ceived as significantly better by non-Saudi students (mean = 2.62) as compared to Saudi students (mean = 2.40). by female students (mean = 2.76) as compared to male students (mean = 2.37). and by students who lived in residence halls with 200 or fewer people (mean = 2.62) as compared to those who lived in residence halls with more than 200 people (mean = 2.33). Social Interaction Differences in means of students' perceptions of social interactions according to nationality. gender. age. and size of residence hall were compared by using ANOVA. The results of the analysis (F and p values) are shown in Table 4.48. Mosque availability. Students' perceptions of mosque availability differed significantly according to age and size of residence hall. (See Table 4.49.) Mosque availability was perceived as significantly better by students in the l9-24 year age group (mean = 4.00) as compared to those in the 25-30 year age group (mean = 3.59) 123 ._o>o_ .oo. ecu um ucmu_m_:m_m%ek ._o>o_ _o. mgu um ucmu_m_co.mee ._o>o_ mo. osu um ucmu_m_cm_m« «««ooo. mm.mm :0. MN. «e0ooo. .w.wm «so. _:.: mo_u___omm o_uo_cu< mo.u_>_uom oo._ oo. N_. m:.N e:o. mN.: MN. m:._ m:o_m__o. mo co_m_>o.m Nm. oo._ 0«e_oo. mm... eeeooo. om.o_ am. No. mm_:. 00 >u._.n.xo_m mm. N_. m_. mN.N e«_o. m:.m No. mN. oc__a_om_oim_om om. moo. «No. _:.m .m. _o. eqo. mm.: omcmcoxo .m.:u_3o 4N._ __. 0No. mm.m Nm. oo._ oN. No._ n.5muco.em w noescocuoLm acoEco..>co w mo:_m> «No. m:.m Nm. _o. mm. mo. mo. oN. m:0.o__oL mo co.uoeo.m «eeooo. mm._N «aaooo. N_.m_ mm. om. am. _m. >u___nm__m>m oscmoz a a a a a a. a . Emu— wN.m om< Lmucmo >u__m:o_umz .__m; oocmo_mo. mo oN_m ncm .omm .Lovcmm .>u__m:o_umc o» mc_u.0uom :o.uum.ou:_ _m.UOm mo mco.uaoocoa .muconsum Lem mu_:moc <>oz_uom 00.0 00.0 N0.N 00.0 0..0 N0.N :0.N 0o.0 03o.0..0. .o co.m.>o.a m_.m mm.N mw.N _m.N mm.N wo.m :N.N mm.N mm_u___umw u_u®_cu< JN.N ow.N _o.m :m.N _:.N ow.N _N.N om.N mo_:L mo >u___n_xm_m mo.m mo.m :m.N __.m NN.M _o.m mo.m o_.m v:__a_0m_vum_®m m_.m m_.m _m.N N_.m :_.m N—.m mm.N m_.m mmcmcuxm _mL:u_:u m¢.m Nm.m _m.m mm.m mm.m w:.m m:.m :m.m Q_Lmvcm_Lm w vooncmsuoLm 0N.0 0:.0 N0.0 00.0 00.0 N0.0 00.0 N0.0 mgwqmflflwu.wm0cw_mwmwmm N_.: NN.0 00.0 00.: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 >0...n0..0>0 0:000: NM. NM. oN_m om< Loocoo >u__m:o_umz .__m; oocon_mo. mo mN_m ucm .omm Cu o:_veouom co_uom.ouc. .Loocmm .>u__mco_umc .muconsum _w_o0m mo mco_uaoo.oa Lo» mcom_emaeoo ucmo_w_:m.m mo mcmoz::.m¢.q o_nmh 125 and by students who lived in residence halls with more than 200 stu- dents (mean = 4.l2) as compared to those who lived in residence halls with 200 or fewer students (mean = 3.72). Promotion of religious values and environment. As shown in Table 4.49. students' perceptions of promotion of religious values and environment differed significantly according to size of residence hall. Promotion of religious values and environment was perceived as significantly better by students who lived in residence halls with 200 or fewer people (mean = 3.43) than by students who lived in residence halls with more than 200 people (mean = 3.23). Brotherhood and friendship. Students' perceptions of feelings of brotherhood and friendship differed significantly according to age. (See Table 4.49.) Such feelings were perceived as significantly better by students in the l9-24 year age group (mean = 3.55) than by students in the 25-30 year age group (mean = 3.3l). Cultural exchange. The results in Table 4.49 show that students' perceptions of opportunities for cultural exchange differed significantly according to nationality and age. Such opportunities were perceived as significantly better by Saudi students (mean = 3.l9) as compared to non-Saudi students (mean = 2.99) and by students in the l9-24 year age group (mean = 3.l7) as compared to those in the 25-30 year age group (mean = 2.9l). Self-discipline. Students' perceptions of opportunities for self-discipline differed significantly according to gender. as shown in Table 4.49. Self-discipline was perceived as significantly better by female students (mean = 3.27) than by male students (mean = 3.0l). 126 Flexibility of rules. Students' perceptions of flexibility of rules differed significantly according to gender and age. (See Table 4.49.) Flexibility of rules was perceived as significantly better by male students (mean = 2.80) as compared to female students (mean = 2.4l) and by students in the 25-30 year age group (mean = 3.0l) as compared to those in the l9-24 year age group (mean = 2.64). Athletic facilities. As shown in Table 4.49. students' perceptions of athletic facilities differed significantly according to nationality. gender. and size of residence hall. Athletic facilities were perceived as significantly better by Saudi students (mean = 2.97) as compared to non-Saudi students (mean = 2.74). by male students (mean = 3.08) as compared to female students (mean = 2.36). and by students who lived in residence halls with more than 200 people (mean = 3.l9) as compared to those who lived in residence halls with 200 or fewer people (mean = 2.58). Provision of religious activities. Students perceptions of provision of religious activities differed significantly according to gender. (See Table 4.49.) Provision of religious activities was perceived as significantly better by female students (mean = 3.l9) than by male students (mean = 2.97). Summary of Hypothesis Tests Statistically significant differences were found between Saudi and non-Saudi students concerning their perceptions of ll (22%) services available to students in the residence halls. 127 Statistically significant differences were found between male and female students concerning their perceptions of 28 (56%) services available to students in the residence halls. Statistically significant differences were found among students in various age groups concerning their perceptions of l2 (24%) services available to students in the residence halls. Statistically significant differences were found between students living in residence halls with 200 or fewer people and those living in residence halls with more than 200 people concerning their perceptions of 25 (50%) services available to students in the residence halls. Chapter V contains a summary of the study. major findings. conclusions based on the study findings. and recommendations for practice and for further research. CHAPTER V SUMMARY. FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS. RECOMMENDATIONS. AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Summary The purpose of this study was to discover the similarities and differences in the perceptions of students and staff members in university housing programs at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Universities in Saudi Arabia. More specifically. the study was designed to answer the following research questions: 1. What are the perceptions of residence hall students and staff at Umm Al-Oura and King Saud Universities concerning the kinds of services students are now experiencing in their dormitories? 2. What similarities and differences exist between residence hall students and staff at Umm Al-Qura University and between residence hall students and staff at King Saud University concerning their perceptions of the types of services and programs available to students in the dormitories? 3. What similarities and differences exist between students/ staff at Umm Al-Qura University and students/staff at King Saud University concerning their perceptions of the types of services and programs available to students in the dormitories? 4. What similarities and differences exist in the perceptions of residence hall students at both Umm Al-Qura and King Saud 128 129 Universities according to their nationality. gender. age. and size of residence hall? Study Population The target population for the study comprised 1.817 fourth- year male and female residence hall students and l39 residence hall staff at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Universities in Saudi Arabia. All residence hall staff from both universities. all fourth-year students from Umm Al-Qura. and all fourth-year female students from King Saud were included in the study. To obtain a more proportionate representation from the two universities. one-third (487) of the l.46l fourth-year male students at King Saud were randomly selected for the study. A total of 860 individuals (l98 students and 27 staff from Umm Al-Qura University; 55l students and 84 staff from King Saud University) responded to the questionnaire. Characteristics of Respondents Sixty—nine percent of the students were Saudis and 3l% were non-Saudis; 75% were male and 25% were female. Single students constituted 91% of the sample; only 9% were married. Eighty-two percent of the students were between l8 and 24 years old. and 18% were between 25 and 42 years old. The distribution of students according to college major was as follows: Sixteen percent were from the College of Business. l5.9% from the College of Arabic Language and Arts. l3.6% from the College of Education. 8.7% from the College of Sharia and Islamic Studies. 130 6.9% from the College of Agriculture. 6.6% from the College of Science. 6.4% from the College of Engineering. 4.4% from the College of Dawa and Usul-Al-Dean. 3.9% from the College of Medicine. 3.4% from the College of Social Science. 3.3% from the College of Applied Engineering and Science. 2.9% from the College of Pharmacy. 2.4% from the College of Dentistry. l.6% from the College of Associate Medicine. l.6% from the College of Computer Science. and only 0.9% from the Center of Teaching Arabic Language. Sixty-three percent of the students lived in on-campus residence halls. whereas 37% lived in off-campus residence halls. Sixty-six percent of the students had lived in residence halls four years or less. and 34% had lived in residence halls more than four years. Seventy-one percent of the residence hall staff were male and 29% were female; 68.5% were non-Saudis and 3l.5% were Saudis. Eighty- three percent of the residence hall staff were married. and l7% were single. Seventy-four percent of the staff were residence hall super- visors. 14.4% were residence hall managers. 9.9% were residence hall staff. and l.8% were residence hall managers' assistants. Twenty-six percent of the residence hall staff were between l9 and 30 years old. 24% were between 3l and 36. 3l% were between 37 and 42. and l9% were over 43. Fourteen percent of the residence hall staff had completed either secondary or high school education. 7l% had a bachelor's degree. 5.4% had a master's degree. and 3.6% held a doctorate degree. 131 Methodology Frequency distribution and percentage were used to describe the personal characteristics of the respondents. Means and standard deviations were used to indicate the average responses and variations in responses on each item in the descriptive analysis of the data. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to determine whether there were statistically significant differences in respondents' perceptions concerning the dormitory services and programs according to their institution. status. nationality. gender. age. and size of residence hall. Tukey's test was used to determine pairwise differences when the ANOVA showed significant differences in the means. Major Findings In this section. the study findings regarding specific dormitory services and programs are reported. The results of the descriptive and inferential analyses are included. Six major types of services and programs were examined in this research: (a) general services. (b) information and communication services. (c) facility services. (d) safety services. (e) food services. and (f) social interaction. General Services Ten services were classified under general services. These are: (a) air conditioning. (b) residence hall concentration. (c) residence hall location. (d) elevator availability. (e) laundry 132 machines. (f) quality of maintenance. (9) transportation. (h) access to parking. (i) general feeling about operation and maintenance. and (j) employee to student ratio. Air conditioning. All respondents perceived the provision of air conditioning in dormitory rooms as very satisfactory. However. students and staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived provision of air conditioning to be relatively better than did their counterparts at King Saud University. Also. at King Saud University. the staff perceived provision of air conditioning to be relatively better than did students at that university. Residence hall concentration. Residence hall concentration was perceived as satisfactory by students and staff at Umm Al-Oura University and as very satisfactory by students and staff at King Saud University. At Umm Al-Qura. staff were more satisfied than students with residence hall concentration. The overall perception of residence hall concentration was relatively better for male than for female students and for students living in residence halls with more than 200 people as compared to those living in residence halls with 200 or fewer people. Residence hall location. Students and staff at King Saud University perceived the residence hall location as very satisfactory in terms of convenience of movement. whereas students and staff at Umm Al-Qura University perceived the location as satisfactory. The location was also perceived to be relatively better by male as compared to female students and by students living in residence halls 133 with more than 200 people as compared to those living in residence halls with 200 or fewer people. Transportation. Although the overall perception of the availability of transportation services was satisfactory at both universities. students and staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived the availability of such services to be relatively better than did students and staff at King Saud. Also. transportation services were perceived to be relatively better by female than by male students and by students living in residence halls with 200 or fewer people as compared to those living in residence halls with more than 200 people. Elevator availability. All respondents perceived the provision of elevators in residence halls as satisfactory. However. students and staff at King Saud perceived provision of elevators to be relatively better than did students and staff at Umm Al-Qura. Also. staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived such provision to be relatively better than did students from that university. Elevator availability was also perceived to be relatively better by male as compared to female students and by students living in residence halls with more than 200 people as compared to those living in residence halls with 200 or fewer people. Employee to student ratio. All respondents perceived that the ratio of employees to students in residence halls was satisfactory. However. this ratio was perceived to be relatively better by students and staff at Umm Al-Qura as compared to their counterparts at King Saud. 134 _g_ajity offlaintenance. All respondents perceived that the provision of immediate maintenance was satisfactory at both universities. However. the quality of maintenance was perceived to be relatively better at Umm Al-Qura University as compared to King Saud University. Access to parking. All respondents perceived students' access to parking spaces as satisfactory. However. access to parking was perceived to be relatively better at Umm Al-Qura as compared to King Saud. Also. staff at King Saud perceived access to parking to be relatively better than did students at that lnfiversity. Access to parking was also perceived to be relatively better by students living in residence halls with 200 or fewer people as compared to those liv- ing in residence halls with more than 200 people. Laundry machines. All respondents perceived the provision of laundry machines in residence halls as satisfactory. However. staff at King Saud perceived the provision of laundry machines to be relatively better than did students at that Lufiversity. Also. the provision of laundry machines was perceived to be relatively better by female than by male students and by students living in residence halls with more than 200 people as compared to those living in residence halls with 200 or fewer people. General feeling about operation and maintenance. All respond- ents perceived the overall quality of operation and maintenance of residence halls as satisfactory. However. students and staff at Umm 135 Al-Qura perceived the quality of overall operation and maintenance to be relatively better than did students at staff at King Saud. Information and Communication Services Six services were classified under the information and communication services category. These are: (a) adequacy of informa- tion. (b) communication services. (c) postal services. (d) disciplin- ary rules. (e) student orientation. and (f) general satisfaction with information and communication. Adequacy of information. Students at both universities perceived the adequacy of information services as unsatisfactory. whereas staff at both universities perceived such adequacy as satisfactory. Also. students and staff at King Saud perceived the information services to be relatively better than did students and staff at Umm Al-Qura. Staff at Umm Al-Oura perceived the adequacy of information services to be relatively lower than did students at that university. However. staff at King Saud perceived the information services to be relatively better than did students at that university. Non-Saudi students perceived the information services to be relatively better than did Saudi students. Communication services. Students at both universities per- ceived the availability of communication services as unsatisfactory. whereas staff at both universities perceived the availability of such services as satisfactory. Students and staff at Umm Al-Qura. however. perceived the availability of communication services to be relatively better than did students and staff at King Saud. Staff at both Umm 136 Al—Qura and King Saud Universities perceived such services to be rela- tively better than did students at each respective university. Also. the availability of communication services was perceived to be rela- tively better by non-Saudi as compared to Saudi students. by female as compared to male students. and by students living in residence halls with 200 or fewer people as compared to those living in residence halls with more than 200 people. Postal services. Students and staff at King Saud University and staff at Umm Al-Qura University perceived the postal services as satisfactory. whereas students at Umm Al-Qura perceived such services as unsatisfactory. Overall. students and staff at King Saud perceived postal services to be relatively better than did their counterparts at Umm Al-Qura. Also. postal services were perceived to be relatively better by female as compared to male students. Disciplinary rules. All respondents perceived the communi- cation of disciplinary rules and regulations to students as satisfactory. However. students and staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived such communication to be relatively better than did their counterparts at King Saud. Staff at King Saud perceived such communication to be relatively better than did students at that university. The communication of disciplinary rules and regulations was also perceived to be relatively better by students living in residence halls with 200 or fewer people as compared to those living in residence halls with more than 200 people. 137 Student orientation. Staff at both universities perceived the provision of orientation to new students as very satisfactory. whereas students at both universities perceived such provision as satisfactory. Overall. students and staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived the provision of orientation to new students to be relatively better than did their counterparts at King Saud. Also. staff at both universities perceived the provision of such orientation to be relatively more satisfactory than did students at each respective university. General satisfaction with information/communication. All respondents indicated their general satisfaction with information and communication services was satisfactory. Staff at Umm Al-Qura indicated higher general satisfaction as compared to students. whereas students at King Saud indicated relatively higher general satisfaction than did staff at that university. Also. non—Saudi students indicated relatively higher general satisfaction with information and communica- tion than did Saudi students. Facility Services Ten services were classified under facility services. These are: (a) general satisfaction with buildings. (b) provision of furni- ture. (c) space for television. (d) guest rooms for visitors. (e) quiet areas for study. (f) space for belongings. (g) storage rooms. (h) rooms for parties. (i) accommodations for disabled. and (j) gen- eral feeling about facilities. 137 Student orientation. Staff at both universities perceived the provision of orientation to new students as very satisfactory. whereas students at both universities perceived such provision as satisfactory. Overall. students and staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived the provision of orientation to new students to be relatively better than did their counterparts at King Saud. Also. staff at both universities perceived the provision of such orientation to be relatively more satisfactory than did students at each respective university. General satisfaction with information/communication. All respondents indicated their general satisfaction with information and communication services was satisfactory. Staff at Umm Al-Oura indicated higher general satisfaction as compared to students. whereas students at King Saud indicated relatively higher general satisfaction than did staff at that university. Also. non-Saudi students indicated relatively higher general satisfaction with information and communica- tion than did Saudi students. Facility Services Ten services were classified under facility services. These are: (a) general satisfaction with buildings. (b) provision of furni- ture. (c) space for television. (d) guest rooms for visitors. (e) quiet areas for study. (f) space for belongings. (9) storage rooms. (h) rooms for parties. (i) accommodations for disabled. and (j) gen- eral feeling about facilities. 138 Ggpgral satisfaction with buildipg_. All respondents per- ceived the quality of residence hall buildings as satisfactory. However. students and staff at Umm Al-Oura perceived the quality of buildings to be relatively better than did their counterparts at King Saud. Staff at King Saud perceived the quality of buildings to be relatively better than did students at that university. The quality of residence hall buildings was perceived to be relatively better by female as compared to male students and by students living in resi- dence halls with 200 or fewer people as compared to those living in residence halls with more than 200 people. Provision of furniture. All respondents indicated that the provision of furniture was very satisfactory. However. students and staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived such provision to be relatively better than did their counterparts at King Saud. Also. staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived the provision of furniture to be relatively better than did students at that university. Conversely. staff at King Saud perceived such provision to be relatively less satisfactory than did students at that university. Female students perceived the provision of furniture to be relatively better than did male students. Also. students living in residence halls with 200 or fewer people perceived provision of furniture to be relatively better than did those who lived in resi~ dence halls with more than 200 people. Space for television. Staff at King Saud perceived the provi- sion of space for television as very satisfactory. but students at that university perceived such provision as satisfactory. Staff at 139 Umm Al-Qura perceived the provision of space for television as satis- factory. whereas students at that (”fiversity perceived it: as unsatisfactory. Overall. staff and students at King Saud perceived the provision of space for television to be relatively better than did their counterparts at Umm Al-Qura. Also. the provision of space for television was perceived to be relatively better by male than by female students. by students living in residence halls with more than 200 people as compared to those living in residence halls with 200 or fewer people. and by students l9 to 24 years old as compared to those 25 to 30 years old. Guest rooms for visitors. Staff at both universities per- ceived the provision of guest rooms as satisfactory. whereas students at both universities perceived such provision as unsatisfactory. How- ever. staff and students at King Saud perceived the provision of guest rooms to be relatively better than did their counterparts at Umm Al- Qura. Also. the provision of guest rooms was perceived to be rel a- tively better by female than by male students and by students living in residence halls with more than 200 people as compared to those living in residence halls with 200 or fewer people. Quiet greas for study. All respondents perceived the provi- sion of quiet study areas as satisfactory. However. staff and stu- dents at King Saud perceived such provision to be relatively better than did their counterparts at Umm Al-Qura. At King Saud. staff per- ceived the provision of quiet areas to be relatively better than did students at that university. Also. the provision of such areas was 140 perceived to be relatively better by students living in residence halls with 200 or fewer people as compared to those living in resi- dence halls with more than 200 people. Space for belongings. Staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived the pro- vision of space for belongings as very satisfactory. whereas students at that university perceived such provision as satisfactory. Staff at King Saud perceived the provision as satisfactory. but students per- ceived it as unsatisfactory. Overall. staff and students at Umm Al- Qura perceived the provision of space for belongings to be relatively better than did staff and students at King Saud. Such provision was also perceived to be relatively better by female than by male students and by students living in residence halls with 200 or fewer people as compared to those living in residence halls with more than 200 people. Storage rooms. Only staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived the provi- sion of storage rooms as satisfactory; staff and students at King Saud and students at Umm Al-Qura perceived such provision as unsatisfac- tory. Overall. staff and students at Umm Al-Qura perceived the provi- sion of storage rooms to be relatively better than did staff and students at King Saud. The provision of storage rooms was perceived to be relatively better by female than by male students and by stu- dents living in residence halls with 200 or fewer people as compared to those living in residence halls with more than 200 people. Rooms for parties. Students at both universities and staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived the provision of rooms for parties as satisfac- tory. but staff at King Saud perceived such provision as very 3i 141 satisfactory. Overall. staff and students at King Saud perceived the provision of rooms for parties to be relatively better than did their counterparts at Umm Al-Qura. Also. staff at King Saud perceived such provision to be relatively better than did students at that univer- sity. The provision of rooms for parties was perceived to be rela- tively better by female than by male students and by students 19 to 24 years old as compared to those 25 to 30 years old. Accommpgations for disabled. All respondents at both univer- sities perceived the provision of accommodations for the disabled as unsatisfactory. However. staff and students at Umm Al-Qura perceived such provision to be relatively better than did their counterparts at King Saud. Also. the provision of accommodations for the disabled was perceived to be relatively better by male than by female students. General feelipg about facilities. All respondents agreed that their general feeling about facilities was satisfactory. However. staff at both universities indicated relatively higher satisfaction than did students. The general feeling of satisfaction was perceived to be relatively higher by non-Saudi as compared to Saudi students. Safety Services Eight services were classified under safety services. These are: (a) room lighting. (b) safety and security. (c) first-aid avail- ability. (d) ambulance services. (e) fire extinguishers. (f) emergency exits. (9) safety orientation. and (h) general satisfaction with safety and security measures. 142 Room lighting. Staff and students at Umm Al-Qura and staff at King Saud perceived the room lighting as very satisfactory: students at King Saud perceived it as satisfactory. CWerall. staff and stu- dents at Umm Al-Qura perceived the room lighting to be relatively better than did their counterparts at King Saud. Safety and security. All respondents perceived the safety and security in residence halls as satisfactory. However. staff and students at Umm Al-Qura perceived the safety and security to be rela- tively better than did staff and students at King Saud. At King Saud. staff perceived the safety and security to be relatively better than did students at that university. Safety and security were perceived to be relatively better by female than by male students and by stu- dents living in residence halls with 200 or fewer people as compared to those living in residence halls with more than 200 people. First-aid availability. All respondents perceived the availa- bility of first-aid as satisfactory. However. staff at King Saud per- ceived such availability to be relatively better than did students at that university. First-aid availability was also perceived to be relatively better by female than by male students. Ambulance services. Staff and students at lhmn al-Qura and students and King Saud perceived the ambulance services as unsatisfac- tory. On the other hand. staff at King Saud perceived such services as satisfactory. Fire extingpjshers. Staff and students at King Saud and staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived the provision of fire extinguishers as 143 satisfactory. whereas students at Umm Al-Qura perceived such provision as unsatisfactory. Overall. staff and students at King Saud perceived the provision of fire extinguishers to be relatively better than did their counterparts at Umm Al-Qura. Staff at both universities per- ceived such provision to be relatively better than did students at those universities. Also. the provision of fire extinguishers was perceived to be relatively better by students living in residence halls with more than 200 people as compared to those living in resi- dence halls with 200 or fewer people. Emergency exits. Staff and students at King Saud and students at Umm Al-Qura perceived the provision of emergency exits in residence halls as unsatisfactory. whereas staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived such provision as satisfactory. Overall. staff and students at King Saud perceived the provision of emergency exits to be relatively better than did their counterparts at Umm Al-Qura University. Staff at both universities perceived such provision to be relatively better than did students at those universities. Also. the provision of emergency exits was perceived to be relatively better by female than by male students and by students living in residence halls with 200 or fewer people as compared to those living in residence halls with more than 200 people. Safety orientation. All respondents perceived the safety orientation on first-aid and fire extinguishers for staff and students as unsatisfactory. However. students and staff at Umm Al -Qura per- ceived such orientation to be relatively better than did their 144 counterparts at King Saud. Also. staff at King Saud perceived the safety orientation to be relatively better than did students at that university. Safety orientation was also perceived to be relatively better by students living in residence halls with 200 or fewer people than by students living in residence halls with more than 200 people. Genepp] satisfaction with safety and security measures. All respondents perceived their general satisfaction with safety and secu- rity measures as satisfactory. However. staff at King Saud perceived such satisfaction to be relatively better than did students at that university. Food Services Eight services were classified under food services. These are: (a) daily meal services. (b) variety of food. (c) economical meals. (d) students not preparing own meals. (e) opportunities to make suggestions. (f) students not eating outside the residence hall. (9) cooking facilities in married housing. and (h) general satisfaction with food services. Daily meal services. Staff at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud per- ceived the provision of daily meals as very satisfactory. whereas students at those universities perceived such provision as satisfac- tory. Overall. staff and students at King Saud perceived the provi- sion of daily meal services to be relatively better than did their counterparts at Umm Al-Oura. Also. the provision of daily meals was perceived to be relatively better by non-Saudi than by Saudi students and by female as compared to male students. 145 Variety of food. Staff and students at Umm Al-Qura and stu- dents at King Saud perceived the variety of food as satisfactory. whereas staff at King Saud perceived the variety of food as very satisfactory. Staff at both universities perceived the variety of food to be relatively better than did students at those universities. Also. the variety of food was perceived to be relatively better by female than by male students and by students living in residence halls with 200 or fewer people as compared to those living in residence halls with more than 200 people. I Economipal meals. Staff at both universities perceived the provision of economical meals as very satisfactory. whereas students at those universities viewed such provision as satisfactory. The meals were perceived to be relatively more economical by male as com- pared to female students and by students 25 to 30 years old as com- pared to those l9 to 24 years old. Students not preparing own meals. Staff and students at Umm Al-Oura and students at King Saud perceived the tendency for students not to prepare their own meals as satisfactory. whereas staff at King Saud perceived such a tendency as very satisfactory. Overall. staff and students at King Saud perceived this tendency to be relatively greater than did their counterparts at Umm Al-Qura. Staff at King Saud perceived the tendency to be relatively greater than did students at that university. Also. male students perceived this tendency to be relatively greater than did female students. 146 Opportunities to BEE? suggestions. Staff at both universities perceived the opportunities to make suggestions related to food serv- ices as very satisfactory. but students at those universities per- ceived such opportunities as satisfactory. Overall. staff and students at Umm Al-Qura perceived the opportunities to be relatively better than did those at King Saud. Also. opportunities to make suggestions were perceived to be relatively better by female than by male students and by students living in residence halls with 200 or fewer people as compared to those living in residence halls with more than 200 people. Students not eating outside the residence hall. Staff and students at Umm Al-Qura and students at King Saud perceived the tendency for students not to eat outside the residence halls as satis- factory. whereas staff at King Saud perceived such tendency as very satisfactory. Staff at both universities perceived this tendency to be relatively greater than did students at those universities. Cookipg facilities in married housing. Staff at both univer- sities perceived the provision of cooking facilities in married hous- ing as satisfactory. On the other hand. students at the two universities perceived such provision as unsatisfactory. General sptisfaction with food services. Staff and students at Umm Al-Qura and students at King Saud perceived their general satisfaction with food services as satisfactory. whereas staff at King Saud perceived such satisfaction as very satisfactory. However. staff at both universities perceived their general satisfaction with food 147 services to be relatively better than did students at those universities. General satisfaction with food services was perceived to be relatively better by non-Saudi than by Saudi students. by female as compared to male students. and by students living in residence halls with 200 or fewer people as compared to those living in resi- dence halls with more than 200 people. Social Interaction Eight services or programs were classified under social inter- action among residence hall students. ‘These are: (a) promotion of religious values and environment. (b) provision of religious activi- ties. (c) mosque availability. (d) self-discipline. (e) flexibility of rules. (f) brotherhood and friendship. (g) athletic facilities. and (h) cultural exchange. Promgtion of religious values and environment. Staff at both universities perceived the promotion of religious values and environ- ment as very satisfactory. whereas students at the two universities perceived it as satisfactory. Also. the promotion of religious values and environment was perceived to be relatively better by students living in residence halls with 200 or fewer people as compared to those living in residence halls with more than 200 people. Provision of religjpus_pctivities. Staff at both universities perceived the provision of religious activities as very satisfactory. but students at the two universities perceived such provision as satisfactory. Overall. staff and students at King Saud perceived the provision of religious activities to be relatively better than did 148 their counterparts at Umm Al-Qura. This provision was perceived to be relatively better by female than by male students. Mosque_gygilability. Staff and students at King Saud and staff at Umm Al-Qura perceived the mosque availability for each resi- dence hall as very satisfactory. whereas students at Umm Al-Qura perceived such provision as satisfactory. Overall. staff and students at King Saud perceived the mosque availability to be relatively better than did their counterparts at Umm Al-Qura. At King Saud. staff per- ceived such availability to be relatively better than did students at that university. Mosque availability was perceived to be relatively better by students l9 to 24 years old as compared to those 25 to 30 years old and by students living in residence halls with more than 200 people as compared to those living in residence halls with 200 or fewer people. Self-discipline. Staff’ at both universities perceived ‘the opportunities for self-discipline and maturity as very satisfactory. whereas students at the two universities perceived such opportunities as satisfactory. Also. female students perceived such opportunities to be relatively better than did male students. Flexibility of rules and pggplations. Staff at both univer- sities perceived the flexibility of rules and regulations as very satisfactory. whereas students at the two universities perceived such flexibility as satisfactory. Students and staff at Umm Al-Qura per- ceived the flexibility of rules and regulations to be relatively better than did their counterparts at King Saud. Overall. the 149 flexibility of rules and regulations was perceived in) be relatively better by male as compared to female students and by students 25 to 30 years old as compared to those l9 to 24 years old. Brotherhood gnd friendsh;p. Staff at both universities per- ceived the promotion of brotherhood and friendship among students as very satisfactory. but students at the two universities perceived such promotion as satisfactory. The promotion of brotherhood and friend- ship was perceived to be relatively better by students l9 to 24 years old as compared to those 25 to 30 years old. Athletic farcilities. Staff and students at King Saud per- ceived the provision of athletic facilities as satisfactory; their counterparts at Umm Al-Qura perceived such provision as unsatisfac- tory. At King Saud. students perceived the provision of athletic facilities to be relatively better than did staff at that university. Overall. the provision of athletic facilities was perceived to be relatively better by Saudi than by non-Saudi students. by male than by female students. and by students living in residence halls with more than 200 people than by those living in residence halls with 200 or fewer people. Cultural exchapg_. Staff at both universities perceived the promotion of cultural exchange as very satisfactory. whereas students at the two universities perceived such promotion as satisfactory. The promotion of cultural exchange was perceived to be relatively better by Saudi as compared to non-Saudi students and by students l9 to 24 years old as compared to those 25 to 30 years old. 150 Conclusions The following conclusions were drawn from the study findings. The results may be generalized to residence hall staff and students at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Universities. l. The quality of most dormitory services and programs was perceived as satisfactory by residence hall staff and students at both Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Universities. However. respondents indi- cated high satisfaction with the provision of furniture. room light- ing. air conditioning. and mosque availability. They showed dissatisfaction \vith (accommodations for the disabled. safety orientation for residence hall staff and students. provision of storage rooms. emergency exits. and emergency ambulance services. These results contradict the findings of the study conducted by Al- Haider (l986) at King Faisal University in Saudi Arabia. In his study. housing. health. and food services received higher ratings of effectiveness by faculty members. student personnel staff. and students than they did in the present study. 2. Residence hall location and concentration at King Saud University were perceived as very satisfactory. whereas at Umm Al-Qura University they were perceived as satisfactory. Also. at Umm Al-Qura the provision of athletic facilities in residence halls was perceived as unsatisfactory. but such provision was perceived as satisfactory at King Saud University. Residence hall staff at both universities indicated the dormitory food services and social programs were very satisfactory. whereas students indicated those services and programs 151 were only satisfactory. Residence hall students at both universities also showed dissatisfaction with information. communication. and postal services. 3. Residence hall staff and students at Umm Al-Qura Univer- sity perceived relatively higher satisfaction than those at King Saud University with flexibility of residence hall rules and regulations. orientation for new students. communication of disciplinary rules. employee to student ratio. provision of space for belongings. safety and security. operation and maintenance. residence hall buildings. transportation. and access to parking. 4. Residence hall staff and students at King Saud University perceived relatively higher satisfaction than those at Umm Al-Qura University with the provision of religious activities. quiet areas for study. rooms for parties. space for television. fire extinguishers. and elevators. They also perceived less of a tendency for students to prepare their own meals than did residence hall staff and students at Umm Al-Oura University. 5. Residence hall staff at both Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Universities perceived relatively higher satisfaction than students at those universities with the flexibility of rules and regulations. provision of religious activities. promotion of religious values and environment. self-discipline. brotherhood and friendship. cultural exchange. student orientation. and communication services. daily meal services. variety of food. opportunities to make suggestions about food services. provision of storage rooms and space for belongings. 152 space for television. and guest rooms for visitors. They also perceived a greater tendency for students not to prepare their own meals. Similar perceptions were reported by Al-Haider (l986). Pinsky (l978). and Pinsky and Mark (T980). In those studies. students per- ceived the overall quality of student personnel services to be lower than did faculty members or student personnel staff. 6. Non-Saudi residence hall students were more satisfied with their general feeling about food. information and communication services. and the provision of furniture. and were less satisfied with the provision of athletic activities and the promotion of cultural exchange as compared to Saudi students. 73 Older residence hall students were less satisfied with mosque availability. promotion of tmotherhood and friendship. religious values and environment. and cultural exchange. but were more satisfied with the flexibility of rules and regulations and the provision of economical meals than were younger students. Duval (T969) had similar results in his study on residence hall environment. He concluded. "as students approach the end of their academic careers. they become increasingly unhappy with the shelter provided by their residence environment." 8. Female students were generally more satisfied with residence hall services and programs than were male students. They were more satisfied with regard to the promotion of self-discipline; the provision (Hi religious activities; food services: the general feeling of safety and security; the provision of furniture and rooms 153 for parties. visitors. and storage; communication and postal services; and the availability of laundry machines and transportation. However. female students were less satisfied than male students with residence hall location and concentration. availability of elevators. the provision of space for television. the availability of accommodations for the disabled. the provision of athletic facilities. and the flexibility of rules and regulations. 9. Students living in smaller residence halls (200 or fewer people) were generally more satisfied than those living in larger residence halls (more than 200 people) with regard to dormitory services and programs. They perceived relatively higher satisfaction with the availability of transportation. access to parking. communi- cation services. the provision of furniture. the availability of quiet areas for study. the provision of space for belongings and storage rooms. the general feeling of security and safety. food services. and the promotion of religious values and environment. However. students living in smaller residence halls were less satisfied than those living in larger halls with respect to residence hall location and concentration. the availability of elevators and washing machines. the provision of rooms for visitors. and the availability of mosque and athletic facilities. Recommendations Based on the findings of this study. the following recommenda- tions are brought to the attention of residence hall staff members at 154 Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Universities in particular. and to those at other universities in general. l. A majority of the dormitory services and programs at Umm Al-Qura and King Saud Universities that were perceived by staff and students as unsatisfactory need improvement. Special attention should be given to improving the provision of accommodations for the disabled. guest rooms for visitors. emergency ambulance services. safety orientation for staff and students. emergency exits in residence-hall buildings. storage rooms. athletic 'facilities. information and communication services. and postal services. These services are of central importance if residence halls are to facilitate students' learning experience. 2. Residence hall students should provide input into decision making regarding the overall dormitory services and programs. especially with regard to food services. the provision of furniture and rooms for various activities. safety and emergency services. and programs promoting socialization. self-discipline. and religious values. This study found that students were not encouraged to participate in decision making. which is an important process for every student to experience. 3. It was found that the cultural exchange between Saudi students and students frmn other countries was limited. Perhaps. through more integration and interaction between Saudi and foreign students. cultural exchange could be expanded. 155 4. Residence hall location and concentration were perceived as least satisfactory by female students and by students at Umm Al- Qura University. where the residence halls are rented. To achieve better location and concentration. it is recommended that the university build residence halls to meet the needs of students. 5. This study found that the provision of a majority of dormitory services was perceived as better in small residence halls. Therefore. it is recommended that smaller residence halls should be preferred over larger ones in terms of meeting various needs of residence hall students. 6. The ratio of staff members to students in residence halls was found to be unsatisfactory. This ratio should be increased. Staff members should proportionately represent the two genders and various nationalities of students. This recommendation is based on a need for staff to understand and extend help to both male and female students and those of different nationalities. Spggestions for Further Research Based on the study findings and the review of literature. the following suggestions are made for further research. l. Further research on the suitability of academic/profes- sional qualifications for various staff members in different capaci- ties should be carried out to ensure that residence hall students are offered a high quality of services. 156 2. Further research on the appropriate number of various staff members should be carried out to ensure that residence hall students receive efficient service. 3. Further study should be conducted on university campuses throughout Saudi Arabia regarding the strengths and *weaknesses of services and programs and to suggest suitable solutions to these problems. 4. A more thorough study should be conducted to determine the factors that contribute to the differences in perceptions of the quality of dormitory services and programs between staff members and students. between male and female students. between Saudi and non- Saudi students. between younger and older students. and between stu- dents living in smaller residence halls and those living in larger residence halls. 5. Research should be dedicated to investigating other programs in detail. especially such programs as students' suggestions for and participation in planning dormitory programs/services and student activities. APPENDICES APPENDIX A ENGLISH AND ARABIC VERSIONS OF THE COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE 157 Dear participants. This study is designed to inquire into the attitudes. opinions. and perceptions of students and staff members concerning the university housing programs and services at King Saud and Umm Al-Oura Universi- ties. Your participation is voluntary. and there will be no penalty for not participating or any adverse influence on your study program. The research is purely academic and not political. All the informa- tion you provide will be kept confidential. You do not have to write your name anywhere on the questionnaire. and your name will not appear in the manuscript. You can eliminate any individual questions you find objectionable. To answer all the questions will take a maximum of 45 minutes of your time. The questionnaire consists of two sections. In section I. you are asked to provide some general information. In section 11. there are 50 statements regarding the activities and services the university residence halls provide their students. You are asked to select one answer from five options: . Strongly disagree . Disagree . Moderately agree . Agree . Strongly agree (DAWN-d There are no right or wrong answers. An honest expression of your perception or judgment is the correct answer. a. Read each statement as many times as you wish. b. Decide which one of the given choices will best answer the question. c. Indicate your choice by placing a check mark ( ). d. Indicate your answer for each item. e. Double check to see if you have answered all the questions. f. Do not write your name anywhere on the item. 9. Your return of the completed questionnaire constitutes your informed consent. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION IN THIS STUDY. Sincerely. Ali Al-Zahrani Ph.D. candidate at Michigan State University 158 SECTION I: GENERALTINFORMATION Directions: Items l through 6 are for students and residence hall staff. Please put a check mark beside the appropriate answer. l. Your university: a. King Saud University ( ) b. Umm Al-Oura University ( 2. Your nationality: a. Saudi ( ) b. Non-Saudi ( ) 3. Your sex: a. Male ( ) b. Female ( ) 4. Your marital status: a. Single ( ) b. Married ( ) 5. Your age: a. Under l8 ( ) b. l9-24 ( ) c. 25-30 ( ) d. 3l-36 ( ) e. 37-42 ( ) f. 43-48 ( ) 9. Over 48 ( ) 6. Are you: a. A student ( ) b. A staff member ( ) NOTE: 7. 10. 159 Questions 7-lO are for students only. If you are a staff member. pleaseygo to Questions ll and 12. Your collegg: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. o. p. q. College College College College College College College College College College College College College College College College Other. please specify: of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of Agriculture Arabic Language Business Education Engineering Pharmacy Asst. Medicine Architecture & Planning Computer Science Religion Applied Engineering Social Science Medicine Islamic Law Science Dentistry AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV In which university_residence hall do you live: a. b. Off-campus rented residence hall On-campus university residence hall ( ) ( ) What is the number of students in your residence hall: a. 100 or less ( ) b. lOl-lSO ( ) c. lSl-ZOO ( ) d. 201-249 ( ) e. 250 or more ( ) For how logg have you lived in the residence hall: a. 1 year or less ( ) b. l-2 years ( ) c. 2-3 years ( ) d. 3-4 years ( ) e. Over 4 years ( ) 160 NOTE: Questions 11 and lzygge for staff members only. 11. What is your highest degree? a . Elementary school b. Secondary school c. High school d. Bachelor's degree e. Master's degree f. Doctor's degree AAA/\AA 12. What is your position in the residence hall: a. Residence hall staff b. Residence hall supervisor c. Residence hall manager's assistant d. Residence hall manager e. Other. please specify: 161 W The following statements describe activities and services the univer- sity residence hall provides its students. For each statement. num- bers from T to 5 are given at the right. Number 1 represents STRONGLY DISAGREE. and number 5 STRONGLY AGREE. Please read each statement carefully and indicate the level of your agreement or disagreement by making a circle around the appropriate number. KEY: Strongly Disagree (SD) Disagree (D) Moderately Agree (MA) Agree (A) Strongly Agree (SA) m-hWNA II II II II II EXAMPLE SD D MA A SA Every student should stay in a residence hall for at least two years: 1 2 3 (4) 5 The respondent in this example selected scale number 4 (Agree) to represent his opinion of the statement. SD D MA A SA 1. The location of the residence hall is convenient to the library. classrooms. administration building and bookstores. etc. 1 2 3 4 5 2. The residence halls are located in one area rather than scattered all over the campus. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Residence hall students always have access to a parking space. 1 2 3 4 5 4. There is a mosque in each residence hall to practice prayers. l 2 3 4 5 5. Studentsl rooms have adequate furniture. including bed. reading table. etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6. In the residence halls there are adequate quiet areas to study. 1 2 3 4 5 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 162 Residence halls have guest room units to accommodate visitors and relatives of the resident students. The residence hall has storage rooms avail- able for students to store extra personal property items. The residence hall students have adequate space to watch TV programs. news and sports. etc. The students have adequate room space for their belongings. Air conditioning is available in every residence hall room. The residence hall has special rooms for parties and entertainment functions. Residence halls provide plenty of light day and night. There is a general feeling of satisfaction about the buildings that fit the students' needs and circumstances. In residence halls various athletic facili- ties are available for physical exercise at various levels. Transportation services are always avail- able to the resident students. The residence halls have a good number of coin-operated laundry machines for resi— dents' usage. Communication services are available in the residence halls and are of a good standard. Good postal services are available at the residence halls for mailing and receiving letters. SD MA SA 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 163 First-aid facilities are made available to the students in the halls. In case of emergency. ambulances are avail- able at all times for students in the university residence halls. Elevators are available at every level in residence halls. Housing is available to accommodate the disabled individuals. There is a general feeling of satisfaction regarding the facilities and services of university housing. Immediate maintenance is available and of a good quality. An appropriate number of employees in manage- ment. security. etc.. is in proportion to the number and size of lodging units in residence halls. There is a general feeling of satisfaction regarding operation and maintenance of residence halls. Residence hall staff. janitors. and students are provided annual orientation to get acquainted with first-aid equipment and use of fire extinguishers. The residence halls are designed with emergency exits in case of fire. There is a feeling of safety and security in the residence halls. Fire extinguishers are readily available at every residence hall. There is general satisfaction about safety and security measures in the residence halls. SD MA SA 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 164 The residence hall staff provide orienta- tion services to help new students become acquainted with university rules and regulations. The residence halls have adequate informa- tion and reception centers. The students know the disciplinary rules and regulations well in the residence halls. The rules and regulations are flexible for the students at the residence halls. There is general satisfaction about the information needed for the student living in the university housing. International students are encouraged to live with Saudi students in residence units to facilitate cultural exchange. The residence hall environment teaches religious values. Islamic laws. and their practical application. Residence halls provide an opportunity for self-discipline and maturity. Religious activity programs such as prayer meetings. guest speakers. etc.. help resident students learn more about Islamic cultural values. The residence hall environment helps to standardize the relationship of brotherhood and friendship between students in residence. There are restaurants that provide the students with daily meals in the residence halls. Every university cafeteria serves a variety of food and a good. substantial meal for the students. SD MA SA 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 165 Because of the type of food provided in the university restaurant/cafeteria. students usually prefer not to eat in surrounding public restaurants. Because there are restaurants in the residence halls. most students do not prepare their own meals. Resident students prefer to eat at the university restaurant/cafeteria because it is cheaper. Married students' apartments are available and have cooking facilities to prepare food. Students are given opportunities to make suggestions. comments. and recommendations related to food services in the residence hall cafeterias. There is general satisfaction about the food services provided in the residence halls. SD MA SA 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 166 .mmw._m Mn“.- o... N- “- N N H H rem-’1 09.241 9.11 r--r MA“_AALMAAAMAA‘A.AMMAM4AJMA# “A P—-.U5-" «:51 1 Me: ‘5st LL" 193: r5-..-'-‘ r>'--“ 0.131.319.5313 cJJE-b '14-?) Jae-.4 u—U Jed-e 4104-, o—..-.- 6591 39.-AM“ 14» 1.____+...1.i,, L,:.J1 3.1.1.3541, 9.1,...“ 9.039.: 1.115).. ,1 9.1159351 ”'13.. 13.3 5.91. 05 1+...» ...... L,:..11 313,133.11, ”0.9.11 9311a.“ ol-S-J' J———-:-'-’ H4" ‘-.' 0,319.1. 99,3331 rwa 34.2- QPQHQ‘" QL._.aJ—’L,,u 3.3.13 341419.33 .5399le £9,215.31) 3J1311Q 61J3353J1 Zia-J3 H} 2.11,... QU 1.3.1 . lgsflyil KMIeLgYJJL-y Michigan J_....3.. L3,315.11 ...-31.241 $13.11 3.1.1.353 an}; .331le 853-“ 0.6 313:3 . 3:911 133 (.1339 3.0L») '9..1...‘1 o——-‘ OJ! 4541-“: Giro-H 09213-1" ...-Ls 34mm. pas—H .J-ol 1;..1 - O ( ‘3 - f 0...): 9.111.,1 19.111.03.591 01.1 0.9.1.3.. ”3,... 5.3-H c—s-J'uJ... gm... 93:11:." g6...“ v.5 93,3331 99,3995 ;_,1 93311.11 $15.31 3J1.” J93. {9,10 13.—4.1093133159w3200 331, {33.1 $6901.15 P311122“ 03,9941 9113.11 3.1.9.133.“ tun)... 931.?) Cf Q933311 3.31.33 35!).3 ¢L39~30Y1 Q30 9.1391 Kain-ll u-P 343M1¢W| 3’1} _\ . Lem ..J 0911.1...- 34.-st»; ._ L.391 11503.5 01.9.3311 03.1,91 33.119: 33.3,...“ 9....3.11 59.31 ..x 39111., 9.11. 9......“ 0... 9,119.15 2.1..6—1 (59.31.939.11, 11.13.91-1 1.9.1.. 19911 93311.41 ¢Lsd1 1.0-5 fin, H9931 391110.11, 9.11.11. 3.01.; 13-7 .3) 0..-39,3941, 2.13.511-.. .musw Us .‘.~_—.- - -u—._ ——.-.‘.., 'u ...... H3...“ “" HUHW3¢0 'u. . 167 ————v "Tu" gab—5'" u-J-‘L‘J 1:55” 101-5 1d-111fi-‘5JQl—6‘9J4AJIJ 3.9.91-3 .33.. wwi ..4‘ 09.11 .105 09.3.91 0» 0:43-11 we“ u—‘v 33,;,...11.:.L.._,.1..~..11 3‘1»? -1' 3.43.1 2*” ...-1s ©9113—13st ”10.0.41 J13...” U." 119.3331, 213911 o—e-Jx-w :1 ...-nay. oer-1A“ @94le L45 ) ‘L-i-‘v-‘w'. 634-: ‘39-“ ““3 .( U.......1.e...11 W3110.11 913.91 U: 9.9... .9... 04s ...... 03m. 15233 302 0.1 ...-.... .... 21.—.1).le 11:» (1.3.31: 91.03193 99.11;?1 3.1.11 5:93.... 4.! Q35... 5.3.113 whee-7*" ”nu-L6 Lat-a?! u-i 9333.5u1dy1‘, 9.41 #15931: e0 . ‘ «$30413: use»: .3514 .1033 e0 ...—.5331 041091100... a-U!» 445 tr” 013.325.1139.. v.1; J40...» C3,. 9.111. 3W' “Lab-1' / ”93.2.9... 34:?) Hub-e Luis-sf” w iiiiié’m 168 nu D LDQ‘ " l .. nu . ¢l_,._.__.:..1|I.'uL-.L~.a.ao.. M5193 W94: em, _,‘I cum ..LX (y) . 3___.,.L?¥1u.'o u...!1._1__..‘i zywfii ¢>I3Jl JV)...“ 1le (x) WW‘oL—‘n-AU pm: 83-“ o5 J—I- Le-UT 6.2-7 uI—H LL”! Jail (r) oL‘L—Aulaub Pgi( 1/)'iu)l.: caywsjduydsm 3.3M) LL“ ,3: (z) . MM: JI‘ngquw L916): Us.“ 3);...“ ‘53—...ng liq—‘5.“ UJ Egan!) 3.9.4.3;11 LLUL. LEE! 9L3)?! (a) Lg..|.~.'>.~;..1( wilww1 ) 9M1 9%,...wa fuwflmuna, . Q94... all 1:» Lg...3...>._.. ULJI QLA9-L'J-H J—.-b-i u-i’ 1H 2.1.2.1., ”xi WL‘U ALhJuJI gww‘JeLafmJu a?“ (1) . 9%..»11 . 3.1.2.9! {dug—Ls”? AJL‘Jdi “JSUJngQI 8'J (v) og’LaJL—IJJ IJSZ: I n l 169 LJLS 1:.qu Lu1_\ 9J0... a._..1L--..11.;L.,.J.a...11 fibnggdlwlj WI Larisa-Ad qubdlL'LIJJJJMJUSJI 34,1..qu J1 "5.4.1541 ,LJ (/) 2.31; ea _,Lg_"..11 9......0241 b.1441 ..AJML'LLaJI'LnaL.._;_-1 “$4.119? Lug... 2 (’1) JWI o 64H _ 1 . gdeé -2 (2) ‘J—§—Sé_/l .g,__.__-‘.-.i_2 43.—#5ny Ubw o yP—S-l _1 (4) l...o"L.‘n 3...... 1A _ Yi —- 1‘1 T” — Yo I ii‘s‘i‘i' I \‘IOWUWPNNJ (5) (Y) ’10 170 ’1’1 ’12 ’15 14 .. w; W LAB-1‘ Lawe-h"~.-e.-e~=11o_v 93.) o-o LAB-J! c'aLaJ-lu-I' '9‘,“ $1.5...“ gab}; ”mg—'5 1.31 .WQHJLEJI‘, . n_n ...—.3) LF.__.11 J1____J.':.'.Y1 ..-, Lg..J1 Ugh: L,'.°..11 21.95.11 (7) ....1.191 ,1 “J...” 34111-2 . 21.—mam- 4 .3 mm —4 . Lew->11 w—L'J‘— 3 .2 4W1-6 . 3._......g.11_ 5 .b__.,1a5..';.J1J EJL...J1-8 JuL......11°a___..b.11”.L.J1_ 7 oQ—qu‘in‘g 3yd1_qo .g,_.1m...1.a.11 ”.1... 9 . gym-211 ”.1...“ —12 oLy-qu‘ ”1.11- M .Luwm L~-.L..1J..11_, 2......)le -44 . 1:41.. ’15 . gag—1...?! L—___b_r16 . f.)____|_._11_ .15 . wlme11J55‘1mwsJy-/17 , 2......1Js1 ,1 OS...J1 ‘36.. (8) .mw1ywfluflég _ q .L‘awdHuQJouj _ 2 1L4... Hug.“ WI 3¢_.>)J1L,.3...31b.11.1.u (9) .Jsth. 1191.. _ ’1 __\ \11 L) .I 171 -‘E W. U.- °Yao wfiS1_ 5 -.Ww1W1QWW1W13m1 (10) .gLJLaz»1_,a.-.. _’1 oY—1Q——nJ—‘:S1 .. .v_10_.oJ.".51_ o £_"",—_O HSA.‘ — \fl PWIU 0&1PIHJ351_ . 5 na- W ~——.:?~.:1‘1_111“3Jo-° °-..~'l3-“ .2.le .J._.3.ag-,1..s..y1 13.515ng.,.1. -sz—o-b-H Hg...“ (11) . U.__.¢.1..1;:..1 -1 .J._.__...J_.. -2 . U.______..n.nL-? —L1' 061JJ—o—JJ q—6 _~,¢;L‘_.s;.111¢.a._,.‘o.,,.BJJ1 363-" — (12) o @131») J1 34331.5» ...2 . QL...S...YI b13134... ..uL...‘ -2 ° 1% $41 151.11,... -4 13"}. ‘L’J‘MC‘JWH’J-Jéfl ..C? ..L__.bL3.;J1..a..,J.-.1J1..sJJ..._aJ$£J.1.s 9).—411;» miwm . 9W1agw1‘, www1 135.111 1.9.3.9.11guw1‘, (1.1.331 2131.51,...“ ‘aa-Jaosw Lg..J 1.1.1.3.... JAa-Uuédm 5L... J54, 13.51,...“ ...:J3...:.Ju‘....l1J.".._....g_,.1..(1).?J 3.1....115 251......" 9.1; m1)...” - W 1 23.51,... Jw‘ “ (5)1113. Lb». ' ...... Hail-0:4 ”...-nLafi $6.11 J14»... UJ wmbegwj 1.9.121.“ a...» on Nev—11 L031; 5635.31.15, LPJJ1UJIJA—J1debnbfiJM 3Jl...£JS 3’1} .1_.L.1...3.5331Ju..31UJL.5.J.,1Jg-,.J..3U3313...15.J1w3(/) 21.—.1331 CL33... (j... L..1.= . 3.311;.» 7.2.19.1. 11.15.119.11 1......11 J_.‘6 '. uJu-J‘ 1.15-34‘ Lr-J‘ 0.33- .L JUL. 5.6131 3 = 1 19.—3, ° 6——-’" ".91 y = 2 P-JJ .3—2...‘,.. 3...)... 5.11)? = 5 9.46,. ° C? 4".)1 = 1"“ P-JJ . 3.3..__..’.‘_.. (5......in = 5 ...—'6) ’1 2 5 4 5 6“" y ..y. . 533'. 331.1 9'"? u——->-°..':~ J14“... 1...».1h." e—‘U‘ 3.5.5.. ‘4'“‘3 ********* \/ g,__.a 3.1.3.11 “5.41. 31.415 J5 g,.1.. .ijgrh- $1.33... 3...: 9......” Q5...“ 3).)...11, <4)yJqu1cw J3... 2.3.1...." 3J1...” wuszuAJ 11.931... o(/1ML~. Lerhfisd‘gliJH-d‘ .4: wean-15L 21...». draw-aquuHh-Isa. u 1.21—....» 0.0 ”313.11:3..J1a.15..1.n1..11. 33.971 UJL’JJLSafi 53.9.: u—Lg Lang-5.3 .1...1(\/) 3.31. 83-! .13st a...” 1.91 J13.» J1 :11 3.3.1..) QHHLL-YI uu—I1Q'JL-‘I-LJ‘O-fl 3J9; ,JS 1 ’\ 0 .A [U 1r ‘1 LBJIJI Lg-BI‘,‘ Y - é—J‘IJI FIJI n _\ £45);ij 9.1.1..." 01.5.11 JigsJJ-1 ~35.” byjslf‘, QIJAJI dei-JIJ [U l\) 3.1:” ""1 1:35 "may! _2 .33.... 6.“qu @3me 94.1191.” JJa91Jw1JJ1J.-5 ° 4.915 3?.)4-3 3.2-33“" m m p v1 “'ou ...1... Ww1JLJ1UJJJJ3.- 4 .5NAJI ‘10-? 3m .1391uuw1JL5d1aJ. Us» JJJ... - 5 LJJLBQUU Q5...“ E»JUJJJJL_6 .BJJIM R) I\) \‘l m 2...». -11.. 9.1.1....11J1sn11 1,1 JJJs. _ 7 «41.—u; 1 JW. :1 [\3 CI) 3).?le QUQfiA—A-HJ QJ‘J‘. a" a”); _8 06%” .. c534 a... ..-, .15 . 31391wa1st L—lb-J-J 3.:1JJ1 ‘w5 .214.) 9 fl ‘o_..1s QULJ WWI Os..." 1.3 ’5"; __ 9 5.1,...“ 3.1.1.1..ng.. 3.0.1.31 3.13.1 gfl—M-J' due 3".)53 “ha-w‘ . Lo)...“ Ml} \N 0 DJ... 34...!) 3....33141 .5331 a»... -10 915.13....11Jy1J391 lab-.1 8.3.. 1...? 2.9.11 21 I uJ. Js U...1...11.a...s..11JJJ-—M . Ww1JsJ1. R) 5 1 7~ A1 5 7% 1; 171 “3» .51 :1 5. 27:1 :1 1 WJJULEHJQM 3.1.1141 3313.33 .EJJLQJl \N \N 3.1.1.5;le9. 334115 Z‘Lbil 3.3).) . @3241 4.45.41 U___3.L__..oJ13..3.)Lay 1111.: Us) .55).. 34 ...—J ......11 .41le JJJBJaLela—“DY . L,......L?..11 J5...” 2 1.9.131 JJ LJam...“ 06...:1' 0;. JJJ33 .15 .5 LJMI.W1J 5.534.“) 1.4931 'a_.__...a1.._.J.11 21.33511 a... LJLMJ 4.1.3ng 2,113.11, ...LII stJ 21.945 \N I L—nLfiJl QMIr—H) 9L5...“ ,J—‘vLuJ ¢l¢__))UJ1)Q.n 1.15—‘11..) 344).}.4 'UMl-FJ‘ 93.5.5.“ 91.5.1! 416 \N G 1.....96 1.1.55 UnaLa-Jl QLSuYI )3). .21...." le) wind—1b....)w .3796: 'M-ua? 3%.. 3,133.1: k_,.-1.1..>.11 J_<..41 U. 1,13...“ J1...y1 up... _ \N \O dg—Jé-lg dL-JY he? Mtg-.1 . 2...»..11 J31...J.11 31.—.3» L,.11..Lg~.11 J1_<..yl 1,5 JJJ33; -19 1E °1:-“l-?-‘| .541 9W1 J.<..1 3J3}... '3..._1JS11.--.La1....:11.-;1_.¢,... -20 1: _\ 131311931 J5 1:49 BJJJ3.41_a.11.--.1Jg,. J._<...11UJJ_,....L..11 3.31.11 21......1 .‘JJ1J231equJ 3.13 _2’[ ..X 13.—“)1 Y 1 éJl)| bJ-HéJ'JI PI)‘ J4”. 3.4L.J1_<.31 ....41J.J.. U...1.?..11¢,L.<...:11 J. LU... 3.35. z..J _22 I .L...» HW‘ .13.th Gal—9L9) -25 cloak“) 39W! 0‘ 9L: 9.6) 131;.) . WWI oléuflJ LyLJJl —24; \JT Iflfl M)...“ LLJAJI) :50" 9L0...) H41 J. a... 3.51-hr 3J3J3. 'u-MLN‘ -25‘ a OW 0......qu mix-«J1 .1... ...... 21.—.3.le 3J1.1:11 1:5 0.4..L41J ¢|3_>)J| 3.3.5) 1"?" a. Llle) .Ww1 Q1.4.111 J. 2.4.31 ...-.541 fl \1 l.."""' 15 .. 0‘ 1°” “J13... . WWI’QLA U. 1.13,...11J -27 H (I) 13.—5 WI) 06"! 1%); 0.9—L1... ...—39.1331 wU-‘J' tau.“ 11.1... 31.51.11.111 331?." 91.5.3.1...u531 “3114.).” uLgUb) 3.51—l)?! -28 H \O .. . 9 034- u-t-oW‘ 35*" ...... 1.4 15“,.) ‘35?! L..L¢.n_. fLJI-BJ‘ )1 4.24 CJJSJI .sJJIJhJI J‘I L3.‘11J.a-.11 3:11.. 1.59 -29 15.—.3 '21..le 0.9L... JJaa .31... -50 ’J. 32.-M 1?»! s'BI-rfJ’J-IgLfiu‘b Jay-“J . L,....1..31 J15...“ J. 5’1 2 \J‘I A O 533—4: 3435' 3?.24 0" 1°” 1:53 ““4“ Q-S...“ UJ 3.13).:J1 loin-J!) com ‘u-‘Ul-N‘ (A) 7‘ "' '3 '7. ‘7'. .5 "5 :1], .1 :1 1.]. 2'1; a. ..3 = = ., :3. . . ¢L_<..yl IJ:.BJ.J 9"..th 9.9-L: -33 vL-b-H deg-I5; dean-d 3+2 {ya-M C_51J.JJ 2.2..L. 94:... ...aJI 2.L'>J J‘s-LYJSJ‘ 9.,me ¢l5~¥| 1:3 31.—e —54 L-aJN-ll eLnAi-JI Hall—1+, Jijfll :__.1J1J1J5.1.L.91.JILJIP.L;-55 ...—Jun.“ dJJ... ...N L,:_JI 2.21:.SHJ . W941 ¢1_<...yu 451. _ 2 ¢L_<...y1 .mJjJ 2.21.19 UMJ. -36 wN——.bJLI hW'JJJEJIJ LJJ-Afi o le (JS..JI 0.5 MI EJ_La.JI JJ. 2.”. Q. ..L: waJ on... -57 HM! ,Jlb.“ Le._>|_'.)_. ULJI 343M! Q...J...JIJ.2.,..M1G1...1 2...!qu 8*- —38 58 Hal—adl Q5...“ 1:3 fiJPJILJbJIC‘ . L.51....“ 4.9.41 _. ~ 6.....sz leoanl 2:.___.._. 4.1.4-39 LEWJ 2.93.11 3.3;.ou ...:UI . A,..a_3._..—H 5L“! UJ A—a—LAJJI MLfiWWIWIf&k—4O owl—9,2)YIJ Umm-LLJI EJéJlJ USIAJ‘ _ 1' sc—alfllwwlédigpflg_41 3 u—J-H 34.-WI MW‘J 32.-6L” . MLmJ... bLLJ 9,415.1 ..L... . % .anLYI 2J1...” 2......1 i ( ‘1 ) 177 62 4. 2 5 4 6 7‘ 7" is V I? -1 u '73 '7» ‘2} 1 3 i ‘ .... . r. . g - . :Q1 :1 =3 . =1 - 1.9.4 J“ m 41....11‘, ouJIJ 3J591 1.1.33. 4.19,: “MA-“J1 W' ire—J 65 v-r —.uvwv__. 1.1.4,“ ....3. US,” 9.14.41 JJJ:3.3_45 o ”L‘s.” 3...... my? “31.5.11 Pit-b4 .4: .. 44 64 i E (53,353.94)... 3,..5‘5—54‘ 9934! 04 E W |e4-3L?L»J~.3w1 E 96.11 2.41:4 ......J" 1 '14-'41 14y_45 65 1' aflwm ~,y.>1..1:._.1. .11». a L...“ 9. 2.31.5." Lu." .4144 1 E o 05...." _...:_ .M1gw1gw1gp1fi 46 66 ‘ - .. . E ”141946;? .1491. (LJsJ‘ 0M3 _. E oLS-«YI ,4». U. .1591 .3154 .1...'°" ._ A17 67 !L read! Q... 544$. " JJ? 4.}? UMLeJI . 1 WJJMI 1.441145. 21......11JJJ. __ 48 T AIL—:7 '54le aIJJYI .JS L. 1 .2...J..J1 2.41;...” .14.”. 1 1 .0 g 4.1,? 91.1.1 3.441 21.4.1 ”1......" _ 49 69 9.391.231; .44wa 145%)“: .34! 71......“ 91...... 54.... L... mks-\- ...... ‘l 4.— S2. .I-J' 2......16J44Q. I.1. UéJcJLJ-n- 5 ¢L_S..YI 1.1931214! 2.1.1.41 1...... . u—ut-aJ' 1Wdr4. .- —v ——v ——— (9.9341 4514.4 #43134!) JSLJI J4)» C") (‘° \ / APPENDIX B CORRESPONDENCE AND LETTERS OF APPROVAL I78 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSE” COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING EAST {ANSING ' MICHIGAN 0 «IN-l6“ HUMAN SUBJECTS (UCRIHS) Ill ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ””‘”’““ September 8, 1986 Mr. Ali A. Al-Zahrani 2311-1 E. Jolly Road Lansing. Michigan 48910 Dear Mr. Al—Zahrani: Subject: Proposal Entitled, "Attitudes. Opinions and Perceptions of Students and University Housing Staff Towards the Residence Hall Services at Two Universities in Saudi Arabia" I am pleased to advise that I concur with your evaluation that this project is exempt from full UCRIHS review, and approval is herewith granted for conduct of the project. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval prior to September 8, 1987. Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by the UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to my attention. If I can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely, K (4 Henry E. Bredeck Chairman, UCRIHS HEB/jms cc: Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker MSU is ‘- AI/irmhw Action/Equal Oppoflunl'ty Ivuututm I79 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION t \ST LANSING ’ MICHIGAN ' 48814-1054 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION ERICKSON HALL May 29, 1986 Department of Education College of Education UmmAl-Qura University Makkah, Saudi Arabia Dear Sirs: Mr. Ali A. Al-Zahrani has passed his comprehensive examinations for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in higher education at Michigan State University. His doctoral guidance committee has also approved the research topic for his doctoral dissertation. The title of his dissertation is "Attitudes, Opinions, and Perceptions of Students and University Staff Towards the Residence Hall Services at Two Universities in Saudi Arabia. Mr. Al—Zahrani plans to collect his research data during the Fall term, 1986-87 academic year. Any assistance you can provide him in this endeavor will be appreciated. Sincerely your? [2,.(/ 4;,vurtmr All/fl// Eldon R. Nonnamaker Professor and Chair of the Guidance Committee "M'n .m If/Inndm-e tum. Equal Uppurrumn (nmrulmn 335;;‘54/1 i/IZLW Afllplmh z.,__m L5. 1.3-0 V‘ 9.4-3‘ his. . KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION mm Inn-QM “Infill? MAKKAH ALMUKARRAMAH College of Social Sciences unanimolath kayYIfluhr.J _ r-JJ' CPLm 5.53 94’)“ .9U9L4I To Whom It May Concern This is a notification of the authenticity of the translation of the questionnaire prepared by Mr. Ali Al--Zahrani and as a witness, this letter was accorded to Mr. Al- Zahrani upon his request . Dr. Jamal Sheshsha Chairman, English Department v.0. BOX715 I [ ozovn: J 0,31: ocvt‘tt Tl. 5572444 ' LNLI stun ...-$1: ' I 5574644 I T“ I “'3" CABLE JAMEAT UMM AL - QU'RA MAKKAII TELBX “0026 JAMMKA SJ ‘IJJI .i_‘.|J °J - Mu.“ totqi «Juries ' 6"er “Mldlw‘” tvF'JLpJJSUA-II) I954, 182 A?) ,..'J. Dglwl awrtxwm KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCAC’I'ION 3““ Mr lefi 314”th mums ALMUKARBAMAK FACULTY OF EDUCATION Dean’s office an teach“ nan 55L,“ .3le -: ...—.4- LJ4::IS,.., tun...” ‘54,)...” as: ‘u-LeJ'c—ba': emu .... 1.;ng cab-1“ L».- 0- wk! Jgfliluu'mw Jaw-«s ,5 h-fi-J'if-elw-‘J'Ua HIQLWIW wt... 1.4“.- .Jt}. «L9,... dig-,1: run... a}. g———‘-L’.~JI JaY‘CWaL‘JJI 9‘34”?) "354-U “UL-fl til-‘55 . 6,1.” I ......um 53.1.9“ Hymn) IJL.___I . ulglehfi, H.419. eL,J..JI...sC..._1L, L44,“ ~21 .__. a... ..., ...... 9L»- .- etw-c-s .6 ways-w.» .4... ”A 4...», may». webmiwmmow CN—JJ‘: p6” 9' “er-5" ‘JJ‘ 2555 m glee-Sad“ [SJ-533 .bl_,Lf..J.-..J 3)... o \ cw / .. r”//Qé<"/ (’va ’/I__) ' -— // ,,. 3 \ . \Q‘Jc‘ uk‘r/V\Z://—J.~J'=-:+3-« J~1-~ Jib-,S-JHS-qkafi'k-fig- HIQLWIréJ UL; 2.9:... 91...}. ..L_.;,..; Jury." mu; Jig g————-‘-L?~J‘ JuY'ELéJgp'J") L64?) "JFS-LU ML“)! oh: - 6:1“ (I) WE‘LL-H 51“" J( JOIN!) lib—J .. aways, ,LJI J..:.L,_L..J1 4.5:...ng 6.3.1:,51 :— {Lu ‘~. Mafia ¢L>J~ J‘ 91;...1I..y J ext-«pivU-z-fl QLrLe-“b 9)“ Jaw—~73 WW JJ...-.-.;.L:L_..,I..~.L_.:L‘..I,Ic.h,.,.k. leg-'1“ 1,5 74...:- .bl—prlpa-J-aao J . mf’ v.r~mvvv_1 -,--t .72“ _~_ . -.- .r-n a.“ J A" ...r._ . .. . A P.0. BOX 3711 CABLE JAMEA’I' UMM AL - QURA MAE TILE! «ooze JAMMKA 81 ‘( 47 ( oncu- ). W CMBW‘Q “cu—N'd” as, an Qty-"5 fiJL" 515-3) vr f‘ as .- ‘4'” Vi: ‘ g (_ ... L ”1" u’i’iu‘xm \‘V\\ .99.; 5.3-9*" 2:. wan '11..ng 93,, agar ££~-£'\ up: u-S-L‘ ( ~1' ( aauvv. ) .. Jui- Tel. : 02 — 5565540 Operator 5564770 I85 KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA- MINISTBY OF HIGHER EDUCACTION » :3 7t“ d???" mm M' QM 3&8”th 51mm AIMUKARRAMAH FACULTY OF EDUCATION Dean's office Jul .4, m‘aJLJJYIw Liz), uw’b')J|,h-I‘Jbr éjyIQMIJ‘ I -dSIMme La-JI ”1;wa qr...“ 3.1L... .; 90.6-66” LUIAAb),rS-H.k,)‘L-«JI L. gwIJ,L.;III¢.JG)LL;I JL____.-...~7Ia...L,.JI;...-..a.,. 3.... ,gpngplwfl, J-_.JI.-.L,J...JI:..~ Lab: 1.4.... . L}. ..L. >~ ,_,;IJa-)JI 41!... J2 J____..L,J| JLIIELJILJJ, M, .I,,.-.S.L.u an... Jug 623—” 3: JW WI E-I> L5H 9:113“) I.L__.I . . LA.I’~JI\_.L_,£: fl .3 J. LL,_L....JI .4... .43.. J...” ,. i1 J—A...‘ rS¢uLI IA. 045)...) QLLLA. J. Osth. 5",. j CSJBL..... {15'1“ ,..>.)‘ ...;L..L_.:..I, 9,1 J-..-+--a 419...»)-03... .....-LLMInguyfigkya. :MEFLJI U Hy..." LI.“ 09 Ht th-I-J daJLfi- W}, 9,291.5 4...; 6* / .. bL-qa- J59:- JAa.‘ . J 3).... ill! a" '7 . ...;— 3.3.:“15. ;: ...:gaj333v. T" A .. .-- ~ * V {l.le'fiflEPTLW' . 9.0.301: 3711 ('Y ( “W" ) - 0*“ W“ 4a..» 6.35“ manna" UMM AL - cm W ('Y ( “‘"V' )- J‘J‘“ 1:. 53m .1 but. Lg), ram «om mm 3: m- i 02 — 555m ' ’ . . ”.sr. Operator 5564770 “L949 it H ”'5’" I86 GLEMMW‘}: AflIAIE-MLT- KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA MINISTRY OI" EIG- BDUCAC’I'ION “H“ M‘ Q35“ “NW“IW _ mu ALMUKARBAMAE MASJA 11.. FACULTY OF EDUCATION y/vgb’ Dean’s office 4‘? '1'" M RIF can" out. an ,1: abfidl -; 4...”- 65).. LUIL-b)’ erQI 2L.” a...L..JIL.IJJI,L--.IJL. J. 1...:qu ”Lu." 1.... J. L312.” JL____--?m-w_---..a+ .J--1-~ gap'agylm... HIQLWI}... ..Ls. 1.1.1,. .JLJ. ..LQP&IJ_.}JI._1JIU UL. HI?“ Jfi-YIEL’D‘IPUJ I Lr‘r‘é-a ”Jr's-LU “UL-'74 91A: dfl'rI: ”......Lu! 51*"- J( wm') ILL—1.. Llylgw, ,LJI .J.L.L,.L..JL .3ng. ...-JuarII a——- {Sud l... ”of: ¢L>l~ ‘2- ‘?L‘NL t”- J’ “JV-v. (JS-UIPUI “Le-I93“: 9)“ Jrr-J: WW Mgbtsflc—LJWUIGW ~ Quark” 1...; CM!) ”5..” ...; Luv..." .1)! J.‘, m ijdLs. 5.1.5:, 1.,2JLLJS 4.... c/e’ \" LL—fi‘LJéh-J 3}... ((l‘ _- - -.. .. .--—..-...“ W .... , . v w 4 . - ' r. 3\-,"'-- w ._ - - _ - , -1.‘V.2* .2 ..-, 3‘ >-‘.-.-....-L‘:-'- . 4 ‘. -..1‘2..-~.2- no. BOX 3711 (°“ ( °°‘°°" )- W W“ a»: LBJ-i” murmur UMM AL - cm W ("r ( th' )- J'a‘w- is. 15.3“ 111.4, Lg). mmumxmsr m. ”2‘55“” 1.49;], u..g\u.._,.-.J.1r. Operator 5564770 187 :7?) ’94 {:4le I dwguflufij: Eng-Fm AAA-“AIME KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCACTION mm filr mum BNWEIIW mu ALMUKARRAMAB LAM .- , I FACULTY OF EDUCATION yylg Dean’s office 44,4" 1")“ up - teat-1‘ mm: 5,5! ,1: guys—II .ul ..1. aux-1', «.-._.L-.J', ”12.-213,111,“. 3 fl -: -'-—~a- “5n «UH-w: pie-krDL-J‘ 1.4"» 2L"*-L’~—"'-'—'J~": MJL‘ J" Ia-‘Hw'wL-JJ'I-Le-ur 5155' JL——_:~§'a—~L’.JI:-.~...Lp M ,iA-A-J'asqwluw ,_;__..II~:.L,1...J!:..~ “’1"- 19'+-- 9L}. “UP-J d'x'r" ‘-U'~'-e‘ ck g—J-LaJ‘ g‘iw‘l'tLé9‘w‘r’) 96-5” "”54“ UL.” o1"- ° Uri-1' r‘: well-1' '53-" J( 9:15”) 1.1—1 .. uiwggfi, ,LJI 9.91.9.1: ”c9455: 531,9! J'— r-(H'U L! ”65‘! 9‘94“ Sr “PL“VLC" a‘ “’L“! rJS-U'MJI QLe-‘eb': 9)“ er-‘é WW ail-29L‘Leefl9k-3W'3‘GW - «Quark-U w . CLAJBfii-J' ...-5 Ugo-51' 4" 66 m 9:94-31“- 54.53 1,92th {—95 62’ Jal_,.'. Jr: 4;... . .a 35.... '- ' v ' ‘1: 3;: 3:243; ' ' 5:24) 1.9,. JIWWH’uW ‘~ "7": qur‘iwgn.‘af":'-1r.j_‘T-'1.x 1' Wfi‘vfi‘fiafiu".":3.-e‘-~."¢'a’:-’.. I no. BOX 3711 ( 'V ( “‘m' )- 63‘!“ W“ 4a...» 5:5” mxman UMM AL - QUBA mm (°\' ( “‘"V' )- 41;... 1:. 5,1" ,1 1.1, 1,3,, nmumummu m. ‘02—5555540 1.4.93.1? u.-¢\u.._,c.u.$|: Operator 5564770 I88 KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA MINISTRY OI" HIGHER BDUCAC’I'ION III“ M‘ GEMS HNWEIESIW mucus ALMUKARRAMAE FACULTY OF EDUCATION Dean’s office DATE g/JfiJJIéJMIL/Q’ (353‘ MB»): Wm J91, 9.4M 34: ...; 34L... -; .:._._3. 65,9 «MIL.» ékfkdl 1.5,, algal)», gnu J... Lgrzwl J,L.c.JI 1.... J. must JL__.-_..§Ia_..L..JI.;..;,.a.1_. M 34.,54135..3._..J;JI;._.5J. HIQLMI3~ UL; 1914,. up}. “9,... (3%)” mm, 0k Hw| J15...‘JI:L.L,§4..IJJ) M: ")3-54“ “IL-r: 1.3-l": ' diu'r‘) WW' 51“" J( 9,)U3JI) 1%.: .. “wags, ,LJI JCLWI 438.41.... wU'x‘?‘ a—- (314-1 ‘-r ”#5:: ~:.L,.L~ .‘r 9t-NL3-z- .3 cJL—epS-U‘Hu‘ GEL-4": 9.9-I M “W web‘s-{fl °UWUI°W - «DI-53M w ' CN—‘U‘: ”fl' 9 Her-5" 4“ 65: m .jL-‘J'JL‘ 5L1") @JsJLkfi.-a—es [/9 5gb“. J I‘ll P.0. BOX 3711 CABLE JAMEAT UMM AL - QUBA W mm «m JAMMKA SJ w. r .r- r." “’*_Y _ Jv~ K ivy r; . ‘ _ . ; v - -.. - ._ .,._ . . . . . - I - I' LLA‘V ‘1 A; ._ - - _J-~L-I 4“ (.1 ( onootv )- (any; (a ( oauvv- )— J‘jfid Tel. : 02 — 5565540 Operator 5564770 TV\\ 4.3).:ij IS. 531" I“ ML. L33)... 189 KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA @flab £4,911 gym/6'“ / / h" dLE-HVLJ. ‘ ' \Sfij) MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCACTION mm filr quim ENWihSIW MAKKAH ALMUKARRAMAB FACULTY OF EDUCATION Dean‘s omcc r32“ nu but“ DATE on,“ ahfié.“ 4]ng- gL‘l‘gLflAJ‘, LBJ—LJ‘LJS “Zeb... _; M- as” mu...” ,2;pr "4.2,, ‘u-w'aw, am a! x... aw cub-1“ h.- o- 511m JL_.-..\7Ia...L,.JI_-...-.,a.,. J"... gzplagpIu-J J———“~>L:J--J‘:‘~ wu- Rah-:- 91»): “L994 db—hfl‘ 4“» ab g—_-L>J' gfi-‘J'1Léa‘7L—‘JJ ) Lam «Wm r—JL-r. ob: 'de'r‘: “AU-fl sin-5 .H film“) I.\___J .. aways, ,I__;1J..-.L,J...JI ‘bcu-vflfia 0.1.15.1?! .— Au 1., was; ¢LrL~ .- .-.-.4... .3 wL-wmm‘ warm, a» M may mthxflwu-mwy—a . ..XL, ,Lgu L.._..._:.: ~:>‘—-AJ51#J‘9 UCF'FJ' dJ' .55 ... J-L,..-.J.JL. 5.1.3:, 1..le 4.» C) Jpl_,_.5 ”LL. 4.)... . a 2).. .... 10. Box 3711 (‘Y ( °°‘°°" )- we“ VV“ a): in“ CABLEIAMEAT UMM Al. - QURA W (-Y ( ““VV‘ )—J‘.F“ is. “Jan 1.11.4.9 L_.3J, mum «om mm s: Tel-opgr‘fior— 55553457530 3“be u--:\ up: 9.31: 190 HJ/Hr/ COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 9.8%" 4—45 7km? 3 (wow!!! (Fmflamdm) D u Date: . \z/Z/o :C'EUL‘J‘ No.: ..................................... :PJJ‘H '. peas-M 93' 1419: “5.2-3: °-U' 3”» 95v” (“'4‘ $5.1! on gab» by)». 21.1.3.4: aULLLYI EPW' 4.3) 9.4.»... J13?) .5353 P"”‘ W fm‘ a‘ . 6.;3-H (L, 4:4- .94..“ era-“L? u-5 u-be-J' ’u-t u-L‘ ~=U3 d4 at: ”has 00.: 7’4““: w‘ 0‘ u“ fies-ma! Ln u—h cat-'4'»! UM»: LL." JLJ . ul—LIJ' WU PJ‘J‘ L...»L., 9.5.3.11 .L'.L»....I 9.1.» J... L.»Lb . WU WI wt-PuJuLLrbéaJJ-J' Jae-gab . fidsJ-zJ-EU d U__L: L..»!L, wJJsz» lynL» a...“ L...lb.J1 3,511J5JGJ53 $3.1 3J1 L.s . (Lam, 59.5,..." .13.; L..»».LJ L..._..:.» . JJSLQI $9.311 ‘n__.5J..>I ”41,1541 .5»)... LUIQUJ» OJIJJJSJJI 'bJéuJfiJy’JJ {.3wi ”9.5.9.2.“ Labia—“J 3J‘Jy1u.’ %J.m zwILLVJLO L..»...» Li, ,. XS Rx Riyadh 11451 P.O. Box 2458 Y£OA ...»,dp-\\2o\ «L3H BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY "About the Student Housing Services and Programs at Umm Al-Qura University.‘I Makkah. Saudi Arabia: Umm Al-Qura University. 1986. (In Arabic.) “About the Student Housing Services and Programs at King Saud University.“ Riyadh. Saudi Arabia: King Saud University. 1986. (In Arabic.) "About the Student Housing Services and Program at Saudi Universities in General.“ Jeddah. Saudi Arabia: King Abdullaziz University. 1980. (In Arabic.) Adams. D. V. 'Intellectual and Academic Facilitation in Student Residences." In Current Issues in Student Housing. pp. 22-35. Edited by H. R. Marguard. Report of Commission III. Student Resident Programs. ACPA. 1968. Alfert. E. "Housing Selection. Need Satisfaction. and Drop Out." College Psychological Report (l966). Alhaider. Khalid Abdulrahman. “A Study of Quality. Importance. Provisions. and Effectiveness of Student Personnel Services at King Faisal University. Saudi Arabia." Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State University. 1986. Ankele. C.. and Sommer. P. "The Cheapest Apartments in Town." Environment and Behavior 5 (l973): 505-l3. Astin. A. w. The College Environment. Washington. D.C.: Annual Council on Education. l968. . Four Critical Years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1977. . “The Impact of Dormitory Living on Students.“ Educational Record 54 (I973): 204-l0. . Minorities in American Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. l982. I9I 192 Ballou. Roger A. I'An Analysis of Freshmen Students' Perceptions of the Living Environment. Behavior. and Academic Achievement in the Residence Hall System of Twelve Colleges and Universities.“ Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Portland. Oregon. March 3l- April 3. l985. (ED 260 323) Bashshur. Munir. 'Education and Politics: Hypotheses and Research Themes for the Arab Middle East." Paper presented at the International Conference on Education and Politics. Freiburg. Germany. l973. Bourassa. Donna. and Wilson. K. "An Evaluation of Life in the Residence Halls at Indiana University From an Ecosystem Perspective." 1985. (Ed 253 806: ED 2l7 302: ED 200 884) Brady. M. V. nStudent Counselor Selection." Personnel Guidance Journal 33 (l955): 289-92. Brown. Charles I. “Residence Hall Environment." Journal of Social Issues. July 23. l967. pp. 92-l07. Brown. R. D. l'Manipulation of the Environmental Press in a College Residence Hall.“ Personnel and Guidance Journal 46 (l968): 555- 60. Brown. W. F.. and Zunker. V. G. "Student Counselor Utilization at Four-Year Institutions of Higher Learning.“ Journal of College Student Personnel 7 (January l966): 4l-46. Brownell. B. "Residence Hall Living-Learning Theories." Journal of College Student Personnel l0 (January l969): 202-204. Centra. J. A. I'Student Perceptions of Residence Hall Environments: Living-Learning vs. Conventional Units." Journal of College Student Personnel 9 (July l968): pp. 266—72. Chick. Robert W. "How Residence. Residence Hall Officers. and Residence Hall Staff Living in University Housing Perceive the Functioning of Residence Hall Government." Ph.D. dissertation. University of Denver. l960. Chickering. Arthur W. Commuting Versus Resident Students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1974. Clark. B. R.. and Trow. R. I'The Organizational Context.“ In College Peer Groups. Edited by T. M. Newcomb and E. K. Wilson. Chicago: Aldine. l978. 193 Davie. J. S. "Satisfaction and the College Experience." In Psycho- logical Problem§,of College Me . Edited by B. Wedge. New Haven. Conn.: Yale University Press. 1958. DeCoster. David A. "Coeducational Housing in Colleges and Universi- ties--l967 to l978.‘l The Journal of College and University Hous- igg 9 (Summer l969): 6-9. Dollar. Robert J. lStudent Characteristics and Choice of Housing.“ Journal of College Student Personnel 7 (May 1966): 147—50. Dressel. P. L. Handbook of Academic Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. l978. . and Lehman. I. J. “The Impact of Higher Education on Student Attitudes. Values and Critical Thinking Abilities." Educational Record 46 (l965): 248-58. Duvall. W. H. "Student-Staff Evaluation of Residence Hall Environ- ment.“ Journal of College Student Personnel l0 (January l969): 2— 8 Freed. M. N. "A Comprehensive Study Among Undergraduate Students of the Carbondale Campus of Southern Illinois University According to Types of Residence in Terms of Academic Performance and Other Selected Characteristics." Ph.D. dissertation. Southern Illinois University. T965. Frierman. H. S.. and Frierman. D. G. "The Managing Resident Assistant." Journal of Student Personnel 22 (l981): 2l6-l9. George. Rickey L. "Resident and Commuter: A Study of Personality Differences.’l Journal of College Student Personnel l2 (May l97l): 2l6—19. Gifford. Brian M. "Effects of Various Residence Hall Administrative Structures on Students.“ Journal of College Student Personnel l5 (March l974): l33-36. Gonyea. George G.. and Warman. Roy E. "Differential Perceptions of the Student Dormitory Counselor's Role.“ Personnel and Guidance Journal 4l (l962): 350-55. Gordon. S. S. “Living and Learning in College.ll Journal of General Education 25 (l974): 235-45. Graff. Robert W.. and Cooley. Gary R. "Adjustment of Commuter and Resident Students.‘ Journal of College Student Personnel ll (January 1970): 54-58. 194 Jan. Najmudein Abdul Gafour. "Between Islamic and Western Education: A Case Study of Umm Al-Oura University. Makkah. Saudi Arabia." Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State University. 1983. Jennings. G. F. "Free or Low-Cost Residence Hall Programs." In Programming and Activities in College and University Residence Halls. Edited by J. H. Schuh. Princeton: l977. Johnson. Jo Anne. llResidence Hall Goals and Objectives: Perception of Students and Staff.‘I Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State University. l965. Jones. C.: McMichael. P.: and McPherson. T. “Residence and the First Year Students.II University Quarterly 28 (1973): lll-22. Katz. Joseph. "Four Years of Growth. Conflict and Compliance." In N_ Time for Youth--Growth and Constraint in College Students. Edited by Joseph Katz and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. 1968. Keller. Michael J. "Student Satisfaction With Residence Hall Life at Miami.“ Oxford. Ohio: Office of the Dean of Student Life. Miami University. l979. Korn. Harold A. I‘Personality Scale Changes From the Freshman Year to the Senior Year.’I In No Time for Youth--Growth and Constraint in College Students. Edited by Joseph Katz and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. l968. Kuh. G. D. "Evaluation in Student Affairs.“ Cincinnati: American College Personnel Association. l979. Langley. D. “Student Performance and Student Residence." Australian University 3 (l965). Latta. William J. "The Residence Hall Environment Questionnaire." Journal of College Student Personnel 25 (July l984): 370-72. Lozier. G. Gregory. "Compatibility of Roommates Assigned Alphabeti- cally Versus Those Assigned According to Educational Goals or Extracurricular Plans.“ Journal of College Student Personnel ll (July l970): 256-60. Ludeman. W. W. "Effect of Housing on College Scholarship.I School and Society 52 (l940): 268-69. Mable. Phyllis. "Book Review: Residence Hall Assistant in College: A Guide to Selection. Training. and Supervision.“ Journal of Higher Education 55 (January/February. l984): 109-ll. 195 Magnarella. Paul J. The University of Vermont's Living-Learning Center: A First Year Appraisal.“ Journg] of College Student Personnel l6 (July l975): 300-305. Maslow. A. H. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Brothers. 1954. Matson. R. E. 'A Study of the Influence of Fraternity. Residence Hall. and Off Campus Living on Students of High. Average. and Low Potential.“ Jourggl of the Ngtiongl Association for Women Degns. Agmjnistrgtors. and Counselors 26 (l963): 24-29. McCullough. Philip N.. and Stoner. Kenneth L. "A Survey of Student Opinion Concerning the Residence Halls Living Environment at the University of Tennessee. Knoxville. l977. (Ed l46 868) Ministry of Higher Education. Saudi Arabia. Higher Education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabig. Riyadh: Ministry of Higher Education. l980. . The 1984 Report of the Ministry of Higher Education. Riyadh: Ministry of Higher Education. l984. Miser. K. M. "Specialized Programs: Developing an Educational Environment.“ In Progggmming and Activities in College and University Residence Hells. pp. 62-65. Edited by J. H. Schuh. Princeton. l977. Moos. Rudolf H. "Social Environments of University Student Living Groups.“ Environment and Behgyiors l0 (1978): 109-26. Mueller. K. H. Student Personnel Work in Higher Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. l96l. “Student Physical Symptoms and the Social Climate of College Living Groups." American Journal of Communitnysychology 7 (l979): 31-43. Newcomb. T. M. The Acgggjntance Process. New York: Holt. l96l. . nStudent Peer-Group Influence and Intellectual Outcomes of College Experience.“ Personality Factors on the College Camgu . pp. 69-9l. Austin. Texas. l962. . and Feldman. A. K. “The Impact of Colleges Upon Their Students.‘ Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advance- ment of Teaching. 1968. 196 Nosow. Sigmund. l'An Attitudinal Comparison of Residential College Seniors With Other Seniors.‘ Journgl of College Student Personnel l6 (January l975): l7-22. Orme. R. Counselinggin Residence Halls. New York: Bureau of Publications. Teachers College. Columbia University. l950. Parrott. Leslie. ''A Study of Student Personnel Services in Six Liberal Arts Church Colleges.‘ Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State University. l958. Pascarella. E. T.. and Chapman. d. W. 'A Multi-International. Path Analytic Validation of Tinto's Model of College Withdrawal." American Educgtional Reseggch Journal 20 (l983): 87-l02. Pascarella. E.. and Terenzini. P. "Student-Faculty and Student-Peer Relationships as Mediators of the Structural Effects of Under- graduate Residence Arrangement." Journal of Educgtjongl Research 73 (l980): 344-53. Pemberton. C. ''An Evaluation of the l967-l967 Living-Learning Experiment at the University of Delaware." University Impact Study. Newark: University of Delaware. l968. Perkins. Laurence B. “Residence Halls Program for Southern Illinois University.“ Carbondale: Southern Illinois University. l953. Peterson. 8. H. "The Scholarship of Students Housed in Various Living Quarters.‘' School and Society 37 (l943): 22l-24. Pinsky. Sheldon. “Perceptions of Student Personnel Services at Iowa State University.ll Ph.D. dissertation. Iowa State University. 1978.. . and Marks. 0. “Perceptions of Student Personnel Services at a Major Land Grant University.“ Journal of College Student Personnel 21l (March l980): 99-l04. Potter. Ralph. I'A Septuagenarian in the Sequestered Halls of Higher Learning.‘I Journal of College Student Personnel l9 (September l978): 423-26. Pulley. Charles. "A Residence Halls Program for Southern Illinois." Carbondale: Southern Illinois University. 1953. Rand. L. P.. and Carew. D. K. “Comparison of T-Group and Didactic Approaches to Training Undergraduate Resident Assistants.“ Journal of College Student Personnel ll (November l970): 432-39. 197 Ricker. Harold C. “The Challenging Role of Student Housing." In College Stugegt Personnel Work in the Yeg;§_Ahegg. Edited by G. Klopt. Student Personnel Series No. 7. Washington. D.C.: American College Personnel Association. 1966. . College Housing as Learning Centers. Student Association Series No. 3. Washington. D.C.: American College Personnel Association. l965. . College Students Live Here--A Study of College Housing. New York: l96l. . Planning Functiongl College Housing. New York: Teachers College. Columbia University. 1956. Rork. John B. "How Well Are Colleges and Universities Equipped to Provide Residential Accommodations?" Educational Record 43 (January l962): 57-6l. Ruthenberg. Donald Burton. "Differences in Staff Perceptions of Rules. Regulations. Policies. and Procedures in Residence Halls at the University of Denver l960-l96l.“ Ph.D. dissertation. University of Denver. l960. Saleh. Mahmoud Abdullah. “Development of Higher Education in Saudi Arabia.“ Interngtioggl Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning l5 (l986): l7-23. Sank. Lawrence 1.: Smrekar. Mary Jo: and Debeal. M. Kirke. “Student Description of a Residence Hall Environment: A Methodological Innovation.“ Journal of College Student Personnel 16 (September 1975): 405-407. Schleman. Helen B. "Women's Housing.“ Journal of the Ngtjonal Association of Deans of Women ll (October l974): 3l-39. Scott. Stephen H. “Impact of Residence Hall Living on College Student Development.“ Journal of College Student Personnel l6 (May l975): 2l4-l9. Sefferd. C. S. “Evaluating a Residence Hall Counseling Program." School and Society 69 (l949): 452-57. Shaker. Sami Sabri. “Anatomy of University Campus Planning and Student Housing: With an Emphasis on Students' Concept of Ideal Dormitory.“ Ph.D. dissertation. Texas A & M University. l984. 198 Smail. M. M. Penny: DeYoung. Alan J.: and Moose. Rudolf H. The University Residence Environment Scale: A Method for Describing University Student Living Groups.“ Journal of College Student Personnel l5 (September l974): 357-65. Smallwood. F. 0.. and Klas. L. D. I'A Comparison of the Academic. Personal and Social Effects of Four Different Types of College and University Residence Environments.“ Journal of College and University Student Housing 3 (l974): l3-l9. Sommers. Robert. “Student Reactions to Four Types of Residence Halls.“ Journal of College Student Personnel 9 (July 1968): 232- 38. Stark. M. “Community and Residence Hall Students Compared." Personnel and Guidance Journal 44 (I965): 277-8l. Stickler. W. H. “Yes Freshmen Do Better in Dorms.“ College and University Business 24 (1958): 39-40. Stoner. Kenneth L.. and Moss. Pamela E. “Resident Student Satisfac- tion and Quality of Life Survey.“ Southern College Personnel Association Jourgel 4 (l982): 24-29. Stoner. Kenneth L.. and Yokie. J. A. "Residence Halls and the Future.“ NASPA Journal 7 (October l969): 72-75. Strozier. Robert M. "Housing of Students." American Council on Education Series 6. l950. Tamate. James A. “How Faculty. Student Personnel Workers. and Students Perceive Student Personnel Services at the University of Denver.“ Ph.D. dissertation. University of Denver. l964. Tinto. V. “Dropouts From Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research.“ Review of Educationel Research 45 (l975): 89-l25. Triplet. Rodney G.: Cohn. Ellen 8.: and White. Susan 0. "The Effects of Residence Hall Judicial Policies on Attitudes Towards Rule Violating Behaviors. l984. (ED 246 3l8) Upcraft. M. L. Residence Hall Assistegts in College: A Guide to Selection. Treining and Sggervision. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. l982. Wallace. W. L. Student Culture: Socie] Structure and Continuity inye Liberal Arts College. Chicago: Aldine. l966. 199 Welty. J. D. “The Impact of the Residence Hall. Off-Campus. and Commuter Living Situations on College Freshmen.“ Journal of University Housigg 5 (1974): 30-3l. White. R. H. .Liying in Progress: A Studyyof the Natural Growth of Personality. New York: Dryden. l958. Williams. 0. E.. and Reilley. R. R. “The Impact of Residence Halls on Students.“ Journal of College Stugent Personnel l3 (September l972): 402-407. Williamson. E. G. “Symposium: Residence Halls in Higher Education.“ Personnel and Guidance Journal 36 (February l958): 392-98. Wise. W. Max. Residence Halls and Higher Learning.“ Personnel and Guidance Jourgel 36 (l958): 398-40l. ““0 -'. M1|1111111l111|111111111111111111111111113 3 1293 03082 0769 V J _ h.