Sr :1 I.

 

PERSO

 

NJ:

 

                                  

     

 

D.

 

 

‘H‘AIIANV

STUD

 

 

..:..H I

IS]

 
 

L313

 

NA

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

  

 

 

9.3:

         

 

\n. ...

.2 _ ... 1L.
..

 

3.5....»
... 4

.....

 

.u;

...r 4.5:... C 1....

 

 

 

32....
1.... 3......

....... . .35

.5 .wfi.
.. .5.

    

            
  

 

.,
l—nlov
2.7....
.0<.

  

.3... «2...... x at...
. u. ...u.....m..§....+.....

a” 5

 

  

 

          

 

 

   

4. 7.. .J v 32.1.

 

 

            

 

 

. v a.
f!!!

 

 

  

....44....
71.217.271—

 

 

ha...
7.... r. z
.3 .. ..

  

7.521:
.uv. —

 

               

a”...4H0.r‘. yrr4..
4.: I 4».v..4..
2....

  

' v 4.. .7: $745.
.; 7... :5. .2... .3
“iv. ...r.).u4...la..v1
3.1.54.9... :1.

 
   

  

  

              
      

9.4.
.....4a..e(...:.;f
. .

      

   

. . ....I «r:
,....4..4...:
..1u.....4:-I4.

   

.w).:v..“ntivfivt. .. .17: 3 rr
. 27.3.... ........(.4..4b.vxflvt:)Yl.

 
 

 

    
  

,,~.M

, 3' _. .
.57." Z ’-i' d 373’. A R Y
e f' , Mate
University

  

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
An Analysis of Student Personnel Services in
Selected Universities in Thailand
presented by

Vajiraya Buasri

has been accepted towards fulfillment
' of the requirements for

Ph . D . degree in Education

   

Major professor

s/ w.
Date 4 2 .5

0-7639

 

 

ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF STUDENT PERSONNEL SERVICES IN
SELECTED UNIVERSITIES IN THAILAND

By

Vajiraya Buasri

The Problem

 

A study was made to ascertain the current status of student
personnel services in selected universities in Thailand. The awareness
of administrators, faculty members, and students in the selected
universities as to the existence of student personnel services was
appraised; the importance and the effectiveness of the existing ser-
vices as perceived by administrators, faculty members, and students

were also investigated in the study.

Methodology

 

A sample of twelve administrators, sixty faculty members, and
one hundred twenty students was drawn from the six institutions of
higher learning in Thailand, selected for the study. A survey instru—
ment, consrsting of forty items and three parts of questions, was
developed by the researcher to gather data for the study. The number
of returned responses was one hundred eighty—six. Semi-structured
interviews were conducted by the researcher to obtain the information

on the current status of student personnel programs from student

Vajiraya Buasri
personnel workers on six campuses to compare with data obtained through
the questionnaire.

The statistical procedures used for analyzing the data collected
were the multivariate analysis of variance, the univariate analysis

of variance, and the analysis of repeated measure design.

Findings

The principal findings of the study are as follows:

1. Some elements of each of the student personnel services
mentioned in the questionnaire were found in all six institutions of
higher learning under study. Three of the universities have appointed
a vice-president for student affairs to take charge of a central office
of student affairs. The other three institutions have a dean of men
and sometimes a dean of women to be responsible for student activities.

2. With regard to the awareness of the three groups of college
population (administrators, faculty members, and students) as to the
existence of student personnel services on campus, it appears that
the administrator group rates most areas of the services except housing
and food services higher than the other two groups. This indicates
that administrators are quite aware of most services provided on campus.
The faculty group rates housing and food service the most familiar
service, while rating student activities as the least familiar service.
On the whole, the student group rates most of the services except
housing and food service very low on the familiarity scale. In
general, the mean score of the student group is much lower than those

of the other two groups. This indicates that the recipients of

Vajiraya Buasri
student personnel services are not very well acquainted with the various
services provided on campus.

3. As for the importance of the personnel services, the three
groups seem to agree in all areas except records. In the latter case,
the administrator group and the faculty group rate it higher than the
student group. on the whole, the three groups rate all areas except
student activities over four in a five—point scale. This indicates
that they consider the services very important to student development.

4. Relative to the degree of effectiveness of the student personnel
services provided on campus, there are significant differences among
the three groups of reSpondents in the area of student activities.

The student group rates this service lower than the other two groups
on the effectiveness scale. This seems to point out that the area of
student activities is in need of improvement on all campuses. The
three groups seem to agree on the effectiveness of most areas of
student services. They rate records as the most effective service,
while financial aids, job placement and student activities are con—
sidered the least effective services.

5. The type of institution does affect the degree of familiarity
with the personnel services of the respondents in commuter colleges
and those in residential colleges. Those in residential colleges
appear to rate all areas of the services higher than those in commuter
colleges, especially in the areas of housing and food service, and
health service on the familiarity scale.

On the effectiveness scale, the respondents in residential
colleges rate housing and food services, health service, and discipline

function higher than those in commuter colleges. On the other hand,

Vajiraya Buasri
they rate counseling service, student activities, financial aids,
food services, and other miscellaneous services less effective than
those in the commuter colleges. The type of college does not affect
the degree of importance that the respondents give to student personnel

services.

AN ANALYSIS OF STUDENT PERSONNEL SERVICES IN

SELECTED UNIVERSITIES IN THAILAND

By

Vajiraya Buasri

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling and Personnel Services
and Educational Psychology

1974

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer eXpresses her gratitude to all persons who contributed
in any way to the completion of this study. The direction and counsel
of Dr. Raymond N. Hatch, Chairman of the Guidance Committee, for this
study is gratefully acknowledged. Appreciation is extended to Dr.
Walter F. Johnson for his encouragement and assistance in this research.
The constructive suggestions and inspiration of Dr. David K. Heenan
and Dr. James w. Costar are greatly appreciated.

A debt of thanks is especially extended to Mr. Kowit Pravalpruk
for his assistance in preparation of the experimental design and
interpretation of the findings, and to Mrs. Lydia A. Beltran, and Mr.
Howard D. Greenwood for editing the manuscript of this research.

Appreciation is expressed to all who participated in the study
at each of the six campuses: the administrators, the faculty members,
and the students.

A special eXpression of gratitude is due Dr. Thamrong Buasri for
his encouragement, support, and understanding and to her beloved
daughters, Misses Virajada and Titiya, for their sacrifices and
forebearance in living without mother for two years at home in

Thailand.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

I

II

III

INTRODUCTION

Evidence of Need for Student Personnel Program .
Purpose of the Study

The Importance of the Study. . .
Limitations and Scope of the Study . .
Definition of Terms.

Overview of the Study.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Foundations of College Student Personnel Work.
Student Personnel Programs in the United States.
Student Personnel Programs in Some Asian Countries
India.
Japan.
The Philippines. . . . . . . . . .
Selected Studies on the Survey of Student
Personnel Services . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Review of literature.

PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY.

Background of Higher Education in Thailand
The Rationale for the Selection of the Sample of

the Population . . . . . . . . . .
Background of the Selected Colleges and Universities
lnder Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chulalongkorn University
l'hammasat .University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kasetsart University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chiengmai University . . . . . . . .
The College of Iiducation, Prasarnmit . . . . . . . . .
The College of Education, Bangsaen . . . . . . . . . .
The Population of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Instrumentation. .
The Questionnaire.

The Pilot Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Collection of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . .
Summary.

iii

ll
16
20
20
22
25

28
36

38

38

41

42
42
43
43
44
44
45
46
47
47
49
50
51
53

Chapter Page
IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Section One. The Familiarity of Administrators,
Faculty Members, and Students with the Existing
Student Personnel Services on Campus . . . . . . S6
The Importance of the Student Personnel Services
as Perceived by Administrators, Faculty
Members, and Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
The Effectiveness of the Existing Services as
Perceived by Administrators, Faculty

Members, and Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Section Two. Multivariate Analysis of Variance. . . . . . 79

Statistical Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Analysis of Repeated Measure Design. . . . . . . . . . 87

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . 99

The Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Procedure of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Findings and Conclusions of the Study. . . . . . . . 101
Suggestions for the Improvement of Personnel Services

in Thai Universities as the Outcome of the Study . . . . 105

Recommendations for Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . 106

BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

iv

Table

LIST OF TABLES
Page

The category of the questionnaire items under eight
areas of the services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Table of cell frequencies classified by status and
type of college for the total of 186 respondents . . . . . 51

Tabulation of the frequencies and percentage of the

responses, means, standard deviations, and ranks of

the means of the items in Part A——Familiarity——of the
questionnaire (N = 186). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Tabulation of the ranks and the means of the rating

of the three groups of respondents on Part A (Famili—

arity) of the questionnaire on the eight areas of

student personnel services (N = 186) . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Tabulation of the frequencies and percentage of the

responses, means, standard deviations, and ranks of

the means of the items in Part B—-Importance-—of the
questionnaire (N = 186). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6S

Tabulation of the ranks and the means of the rating

of the three groups of respondents on Part B (Impor-

tance) of the questionnaire on the eight areas of

student personnel serVJces (N = 186) . . , . . . . . . . . 69

Tabulation of the frequencies and percentage of the
responses, means, standard deviations, and ranks of
the means of the items in Part C—«Effectiveness—-of
the questionnaire (N = 186). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Tabulation of the ranks and the means of the rating

of the three groups of respondents on Part C (Effect—

iveness) of the questionnaire on the eight areas of

student personnel services (N z 186) . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Multivariate analysis of variance of rating scores
on Part A (Familiarity) of the questionnaire on
student personnel services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Table

10

11

12

13

14

Multivariate analysis of variance of rating scores
on Part B (Importance) of the questionnaire on

student personnel services . . . . . .

O I O O O

Multivariate analysis of variance of rating scores

on Part C (Effectiveness) of the questionnaire on

student personnel services . . . . . .

Multivariate repeated measure analysis
Part A of the questionnaire on student
services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Multivariate repeated measure analysis
Part B of the questionnaire on student
set-Vices O O 0 O O O O I 9 O C C O C O

Multivariate repeated measure analysis

Part C of the questionnaire on student
services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

of scores
personnel

of scores
personnel

0 O O O Q

of scores
personnel

Page

84

86

89

9O

91

Figure

LIST OF FIGURES
Page

Graph of interaction between measures and status of

the respondents on the rating scales of Part A

(Familiarity) of the eight areas of student personnel

services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Graph of interaction between measures and status of

the respondents on the rating scales of Part B

(Importance) of the eight areas of student personnel

services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Graph of interaction between measuresenuitype of
institution on the rating scale of Part A (Familiarity)
of the eight areas of student personnel services . . . . . 95

Graph of interaction between measures and type of

institution on Part C (Effectiveness) of the eight
areas of student personnel services. . . . . . . . . . . . 96

vii

Appendix
A

B

LIST OF APPENDICES

QUESTIONS FOR SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW.

SURVEY OF STUDENT PERSONNEL SERVICES IN THAI
UNIVERSITIES

SURVEY OF STUDENT PERSONNEL SERVICES IN THAI
UNIVERSITIES (THAI TRANSLATION).

viii

Page

113

114

122

ll

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Since World War II, Thailand has gone through a great number of
major changes in socio—economic, political and educational conditions.
The demands of the postwar Thai society called for an orientation that
would meet the needs of contemporary life and the goals of socio-
economic development. Although the Thai economy is basically agrarian,
the present trend is moving toward greater industrialization and
urbanisation. As a result, a great number of citizens from the rural
areas migrate to urban centers in hopes of finding employment.

In addition to the population shift to the urban areas, there has
been a growing demand for social change that is typical in most
developing countries. This demand seems to grow from two major
sources. First, the peOple of low socio—economic status seek equal
economic opportunity with other members of the society. Another
influence is that which grows from the efforts of economic planners
who are desirous of building a modern industrial economy to be
operated by Thai nationals instead of by foreigners. These two
factors have led to major shifts in the job structure of the nation
and created opportunities for individuals untrained for appropriate

employment.

As new occupations and organizations have developed, new demands
have been made on the educational institutions which are expected to
produce the kind of labor force needed in the new economy. The
requirement for increasing the number of scientists, engineers, doctors,
teachers, and skilled technicians obviously creates the necessity for
the changes in programs at all levels of education. In order to meet
these demands, the Thai educational system has gone through a series
of developmental changes during the last two decades. The changes
have indicated an awareness of the importance of profiting from the
untapped assets of human resources, but so far, the development is
still based primarily on numbers, with less regard for excellence
(23:35).

It is noteworthy that the major changes in education have usually
been started from the central educational organizations and have been
initiated by the top officials in the hierarchical structure of these
organizations. This phenomenon may be due to the fact that the educa-
tional system in Thailand is centralized, with schools at all levels
under the control of the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of
Interior and all universities are under the supervision of the Office
of State's University. The traditional Thai culture also emphasizes
a superordinate-subordinate relationship among the members of an
organization. The older members expect and usually receive the
deference and respect of the younger members.

Before World War II there was a strong tradition of European
university education for the social and intellectual elite in Thai

universities. The main objective of higher education at that time

3
was to educate and train students for government positions in the
various ministries. At present, the rapidly increasing rate of growth
and social change demand a new role for higher education in Thailand.
In 1959, the National Education Council was created to serve as an
advisory and corrdinating agency for the development of all education
in the country. In the area of higher education, the Council worked
in concerted effort with all universities toward the national goal of
development and efficient utilization of human resources (45:2).

Since 1958, great strides have been made in the improvement and
expansion of higher education in Thailand. From 1958 to 1973, the
Office of the Prime Minister assumed the responsibility of supervising
all universities, except the College of Education. In the 1960's, the
higher education effort has been directed toward the provincial areas--
Chiengmai in the North, Khonkaen in the Northeast, and Songkla in the
South. University enrollments increased rapidly during this period,
from 49,818 in 1962 to 70,700 in 1972 (23:61).

Several other factors have given impetus to the expansion of
higher education in Thailand. The introduction of educational innova—
tions into the Thai educational system by Thai educators who had been
trained abroad and by some American educators who worked as lecturers
and consultants at Thai universities during the last two decades have
been a major influence for change. The assistance of international
agencies such as UNESCO, USOM, A.I.D., the Fulbright Foundation, and
the Ford Foundation in awarding scholarships to a large number of
faculty members in Thai universities for advanced study abroad has

been a major factor in improving the quality of higher education.

4

Another significant influence for change has resulted from contracts
made between Thailand and the United States with regard to the
assistance in higher education. Such contracts brought Indiana
University into Thailand to assist in the development of the College
of Education. Michigan State University was likewise contracted to
help develop the Educational Planning Office in the Ministry of
Education and aid in the planning efforts of the National Education
Council. These contracts offered additional opportunities for Thai
administrators and faculty members to be exposed to the American
educational system and attendant new concepts of teaching and organi—
zational theory. As a matter of fact, many newly established universities
take after the American university model in organization and operation.

Since the modern concepts of organization and administration in
most Thai universities have been patterned after the American university
model, many institutions have included the student personnel function
as an integral part of the educational process. On American campuses
today, a large number of student personnel workers carry on various
personnel services, which are being done more and more by specialists
rather than by faculty members and administrators. On most Thai
campuses, the student personnel services are still performed by the
administrative and teaching staff, who consider their performance as

an extra duty and additional responsibility.

Evidence of Need for Student Personnel Program

 

Several important factors dramatize the need for a program of
student personnel services in Thai institutions of higher learning.

The major ones are herein cited: (a) the high rate of drop-outs;

5
(b) the need of college graduates for assistance in the adjustment to
the changing social structure; and (c) a growing demand of students
for increasing involvement in college administration and in the social,
economic, and political problems of the nation.

It was reported in a UNESCO publication that during the academic
year of 1962—63, only 50 per cent of the entering freshmen of 1959 at
Chulalongkorn University graduated in the fourth year as planned,
and during the academic year of 1961-62, only 62 per cent of the
entering freshmen of 1958 at Kasetsart University graduated in the
fourth year (23:69). Of all the factors that emphasize the need for
student personnel services, this is probably the most dominant. Not
only does this represent national loss, but it also poses a serious
drain on the finances of the institutions which are public—supported.
As stated by D. Arbuckle (1:4), academic difficulty, financial diffi—
culties, and personal troubles are usually responsible for the majority
of the drop—outs. Counseling services can help students with their
personal problems and academic problems while financial aids and
part-time job placement can assist them in solving financial diffi—
culties. It is the responsibility of the institution to provide
assistance to the student through the student personnel program so that
his chances of graduating will be as great as are possible.

For many reasons, students do need assistance from the universi—
ties to prepare them for future careers and for functioning success—
fully in society. In the past, much has been done to improve the
curriculum and the quality of instruction. Since academic success and
the college diploma are highly valued in Thai culture, students tend

to pursue a rigid program of study in order to get a degree which will

6
serve as the first step toward upward social mobility. So far, not
much has been done on the part of the educational institutions in the
area of personality development, socialization and training in human
relations. It is usually conceded that students should be provided
with useful experiences and an environment conducive to their personal
growth. In support of this, K. Mueller (35:110) states that the
specific tasks in personal development during the four college years
may be divided into three groups: (1) integrating and stabilizing
the "self"; (2) identifying all the different roles one may play; and
(3) practicing and evaluating the activities and attitudes necessary
for future roles. An effective student personnel program will help
students to succeed socially as well as academically.

Modern Thai college students are growing more and more independent;
they have demanded the right to exercise a major influence on campus
administration, on the direction of social changes and the nation's
politics. In the past, Thai students played a passive role in the
college community; they were there only to obtain the knowledge and
the skill needed for their future careers. After the student's
uprising in October 1973, which resulted in the overthrow of the
military government, the institutions have come to realize that they
are dealing with a new type of student. Thai students today are more
mature and more active than their older brothers and sisters of former
years. They want to be actively involved in the politics, social
issues, and economic problems of the nation. Many activists are
found on campuses; demonstrations to protest against authorities have
become part of students' activities during the year 1974. The student's

role on campus needs to be redefined. It is the right time for the

institution to make a survey of the student's needs and a survey of
the student personnel services in order to develop a better program
which could meet the needs of the student of today.

Although some form of student personnel services does exist in
all Thai universities, not much attention has been given to the
effect of the program on the recipient of the services. Thus a survey
of existing student personnel services is imperative to enhance the
development and improvement of such services. In fact, the evaluation
procedure itself, which involves all groups of the college population,
should help to increase the awareness of the importance of student
personnel programs and the consciousness towards the development of

the whole student, not only his intellectual growth.

Purpose of the Study

 

The major purpose of this study is to ascertain the current status
of student personnel programs in the institutions of higher education
in Thailand. This study is designed to appraise the awareness, on the
part of the three groups of college populations (administrators,
faculty members and students), of the existing student personnel
services.

Since a study of the existing personnel services may yield limited
information that can be used for improvement, this study is also
designed to provide an opportunity for the three groups of the popula-
tion to eXpress their personal assessment of the effectiveness of the
existing services, as well as to rate the importance of the student

personnel services listed in the questionnaire.

8

The Importance of the Study

 

Although some forms of student personnel services exist in most
Thai universities, no study has been made regarding the type of
services being offered and the effectiveness of these services. The
study may be useful to all institutions of higher education in
Thailand for the develOpment or improvement of their respective
student personnel services.

There seems to be a growing interest in the personnel concept
in Thailand as seen on campuses and as shown by the Ministry of
Education with the establishment of the Guidance Committee to initiate
pupil personnel services in secondary schools. Since personnel
services are vertical in nature, building on past services, the
study may likewise provide some direction to the programs at all
school levels.

It is reasonable to assume that, in order to plan for an
effective student personnel program, it is necessary to obtain
adequate information about the existing program, and the awareness
of the importance and effectiveness of student personnel services.

An appraisal of this nature required an evaluation by administrators,
faculty members, and students if it is to form a basis upon which the
services can be developed. This study provides such a base of

assessment .

Limitations and Scope of the Study

 

This study contains a number of limitations. The following are

considered most significant:

9

1. The population was limited to students, faculty members, and
administrators in selected universities in Thailand during one academic
year.

2. The collection of data was restricted to questionnaire
responses of students, faculty and administrators and interviews with
student personnel workers.

3. The study was limited because of the possible biases and
personal interests of the respondents and by the fact that the Thai

people tend not to express negative statements against the institution.

Definition of Terms

 

The following definitions are given for the various terms used
in the study:

University or college refers to a public—supported four—year

 

institution of higher learning which offers various programs leading
to degrees in areas of specialization. TTmzterms 'university' and
'college' are used interchangeably in this study.

Student refers to a person who registered as a full—time student
in college.

Adviser refers to a faculty member in a Thai college who is
assigned the task of counseling and academic advisement. The adviser
may not have any training in counseling or any academic background
in education.

Faculty member refers to the individual whose principal task

 

is to provide instruction in college.

Student personnel services refer to the non—academic programs and

 

activities which are arranged for students beyond their classroom

lO
instruction. Emphasis is placed upon the personal development of the

student.

Overview of the Study

 

The study contains a brief introduction to the Thai culture and
educational systems within which the study takes place, with a brief
statement of need, purpose, importance, limitation and definition of
the terms used in the study.

Subsequent sections of the study are devoted to a review of
pertinent literature, methods utilized, and an analysis of findings.
The final chapter contains the researcher's conclusions and recommenda-
tions for additional research related to student personnel services

in Thailand.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The survey of related literature deals with three areas: (1) the
foundations of college student personne1—-brief review; (2) student
personnel programs in the United States and in some Asian countries;
and (3) selected studies related to the survey and evaluation of

student personnel services.

Foundations of College Student Personnel Work
The student personnel movement is an American educational phenomenon
of the twentieth century. As stated in 1937 by the American Council
of Education (9:1), the task of the colleges and universities is to
assist the student in developing to the limits of his potentialities
and in making his contribution to the betterment of society.
. . This philosophy imposes upon educational institutions
the obligation to consider the student as a whole--his
intellectual capacity and achievement, his emotional
makeup, his physical condition, his social relationship,
his vocational aptitude and skills, his moral and religious
values, his economic resources, his aesthetic appreciations.
It puts emphasis, in brief, upon the development of the
student as a person rather than upon his intellectual
training alone.
As E. G. Williamson (1961) pointed out, student personnel services
refer to both an attitude and a program. The student-centered atti—
tude will lead the university to focus its effort on the personal—

social development of the student, the enrichment of his experiences

11

12
and the encouragement of a creative and responsible life. As an
organized program, student personnel services are assigned to help
in the student's overall development (53:8).
C. Wrenn (54ziv), in his book on student personnel work in
college, mentioned five premises in his philosophy of personnel
services:

(1) Student personnel services and instructional
services are parallel and sometimes overlapping phases
of the educational program.

(2) The college and university are concerned with
the development of persons on their contemporary social
setting and accept the psychological truism that in this
development each of those of the personality is affected
by, and in turn affects, every other phase of the total
personality.

(3) Student personnel services are in every sense
services to students and must therefore be developed in
response to a realistic analysis of student needs.

(4) Individual assistance to students, and assistance
through the development of group situations, are of equal
and interrelated significance in a student personnel
program.

(5) Although some educational functions can be
clearly accepted as student personnel functions, others
are borderline between instructional and student personnel
administration; whether they are appropriately considered
a part of the student personnel program depends upon the
manner in which they are administered.

E. M. Lyod-Jones and M. Smith (33:11), in their book on student
personnel program, 1938, stated the following:

If the student personnel program is to serve higher
education well, it must include within the scope a
concern not only for educational guidance, intelligence
testing, selection and admission of students, etc., but
also health programs, housing programs, social programs,
counseling, religious programs, extracurricular activities,
etc. . . . These various programs, set up to serve the
various aspects of the student, must be well—coordinated

13

so that they will not function separately, but rather
with a common viewpoint and in relation to each other.

Subsequently, other writers, e.g., Hopkins, Mueller, McDaniel,
Williamson and Wrenn, presented what they regarded as essential to a
sound program of student personnel services. While the number and
manner of grouping them varies, there is substantial agreement of what
they are (17:9).

The American Council on Education, in its publication, stated
the following functions as student personnel services (18:1):

Selection for Admission

Registration and Records

Counseling

Health Services

Housing and Food Services

Student Activities

Financial Aid

Placement

Discipline

Special Clinic — remedial reading

study habits
speech and hearing
Special Services — orientation
veteran advisory services
foreign student program
marriage counseling
religious activ1ties and counseling.

As observed by C. Wrenn (54:10), the character of a student
personnel program on a given campus is much more likely to be the
reflection of some strong personality in the life of that campus than
the reflection of student needs or the art of administration.

W. F. Johnson emphasized the fact that the philosophy of the
institution generally tends to influence the kind of student personnel
program at that institution (27:2). He further made an observation

that in the experimentalist or progressivist institutions which tend

to be student-centered and where the curricula are built around the

14

student, there would be more of a merging of teaching, advising and
counseling. Their personnel program emphasizes all phases of education
and an attempt would be made to integrate the personnel program and
the instructional program. In the realist or essentialist institutions
which tend to emphasize more on the field of knowledge, and the idealist
or perennialist institutions which assume that education is a matter
of learning the great truths already existing, where the courses are
prescribed and the student would have little involvement, there would
be considerable separation of teaching and the personnel program, which
would be a very limited one because they believe that home, church, and
other non-college agencies should be responsible for most personnel
and guidance areas (17:3-5).

R. E. Berdie wrote in his article, ”Student Personnel Work:
Definition and Redefinition”:

Student personnel work is the application in higher

education of knowledge and principles derived from the

social and behavioral sciences, particularly from psycho—

logy, educational psychology, and sociology. . . The

student personnel worker 1s the behav1oral scientist

whose subject matter is the student and whose socio-

psychological sphere is the college. Student personnel

work is effected by any person in the college applying

knowledge and skills derived from the behavioral and

social sciences to further the education of students.

(3:131)

W. F. Johnson wrote that the most recent conceptualization of the
student personnel worker's raison d'etre emphasizes his role as
specialist in student development whose main concern is with creating

a campus environment which is conducive to the individual's behavioral

development (17:10).

15

R. D. Brown (6:37) stated in ”Student Development in Tomorrow's
Higher Education” that, if the student personnel profession wishes to
have significant input and influence on student development patterns
of the future, student personnel workers must revise their own self-
perceptions and the perceptions that others have of them. He emphasized
the need for a new role by saying:

While student personnel workers have professed them-

selves to be educators and to be interested in the whole

student, they have served higher education essentially as

housekeepers, activities advisers, counselors, and have

even been viewed by many in higher education area as

petty administrators. . . Certainly the ultimate objective

of staffs to improve the quality of life on campus is

often achieved, but it is questionable that many students

are affected in a developmental way.

Brown also suggested some essential elements that might make up
this new role which include the following: (I) the change in attitude
that only student personnel workers are responsible for the total

student development since the 'student personnel point of view" must
permeate the whole campus and that student personnel workers function
primarily as an ally of the students and as an adversary of the faculty
and administration; (2) direct ties with the academic arena such as
teaching classes in human-relations, personal and group decision—making
processes, working with departments and 1ndiv1dual professors to
facilitate the structuring of curriculum and courses; (3) being profes-
sional behavioral scientists, understanding students in a developmental
context; and (4) some type of direct contact with every student. One
of the major weaknesses of current student development programs and
student affairs functions is that they directly affect a small minority

of students and have almost no impact on the academic aspects of

student life (6:42-43).

16
Student Personnel Programs in the United States

G. Wrenn, in the foreword of ”College Student Personnel”, 1970,
stated:

. . . Student personnel work in American colleges and
universities is a puzzling phenomenon. It is distinctly

American, having no recognizable counterpart in any other

country of the world. It is a recent arrival on the

American scene, dating as an organized function from the

period following World War I. . . (54zv)

According to L. A. Maverick (34:7), one of the earliest organized
movements in personnel services at the college level was established at
Stanford University in 1911. In the United States, the movement
developed during the early twentieth century in part as a protest
against German—born intellectualism and also as the result of the
findingscflfthe psychology of individual differences, during the 1920's.
Its evolution was stimulated also by the huge growth of American
colleges and universities following the First World War.

The period 1925-40 was the period during which the American
Council on Education was a major influence in the development of student
personnel work. The publication of the first philosophically supported
statement of student personnel work in college, The Student Personnel
Point of View in 1937 (revised in 1949) was a significant step towards
the formation of the Committee on Student Personnel Work which, under
the leadership of E. G. Williamson, produced nineteen monographs on
various phases of student personnel work during the next fifteen years
(17:403).

The first half of the twentieth century has been a formative

period of American personnel movement. The developments during the

1950's and 1960's included the establishment of counseling centers with

17
professional staff, the intergration of services under Dean of Students,
and the strengthening of financial aid, job placement, and health
services.

As G. Wrenn (l7:v) pointed out, because of the progress in the
development of student life in the residence halls, the regulation of
student conduct on campus, and the management of student organizations
has been very slow, American colleges and universities have to pay
dearly in the troubled times of student confrontations and demonstrations.

D. D. Feder, in 1958, stated:

In the last half century in the United States, edu-

cational objectives have been extended beyond education of

the intellect alone. Student personnel services have

evolved but their real purpose, their relation to the

objectives of the institution, and their efficient admin-

istration have not always been clear. (15:29)

W. F. Johnson (27:9) made an observation that many practitioners
perceive the program of student personnel services as service to
students; thus, the program emphasis is largely administrative in nature
and is not regarded as an integral educational experience for students.
The students themselves are only minimally involved in planning, develop—
ing, and executing the functions to be performed. He further added
that the future trend of American student personnel programs veers
towards more emphasis on meaningful involvement of students in the
activities and concerns which affect both their living and learning
experiences.

In the 1960's there began to emerge at Colorado State and some
midwestern universities a new concept of the counseling center. It

has been called ”the student development center" which has been viewed

by student personnel administrators as the most potent idea in student

18
personnel work. According to J. F. Penney (38:40), the effort is to
create a new model for mental health intervention where the counseling
center staff should be involved in helping prevent the causes of
mental disturbance and mobilize the total campus community as a mental
health resource.

The center would be 'proactive' as it would reach out into the
university community to reduce depersonalization, alienation, and
mechanization of college life. This would be accomplished by means
of a wide variety of group activities designed to help normal persons
to increase their awareness of self and environment, to heighten
sensitivity, and to enhance personal relationships.

In the 1970's, on most American campuses, the student personnel
workers are challenged with all kinds of problems: the black—white
problem, the problem of cultural differences between clients and staff,
drug problems, sex and trial marriage problems, the student activist
problems, etc.

American college students of the 1960's and 1970's have appeared
as a "new breed” with whom most student personnel workers are ill—
prepared to deal. . .Students know more and are intellectually more
sophisticated than in earlier decades. . .As a result, students have
become more conscious of their own power and their discontent makes
it imperative for higher education to give major attention to their
problems and to move quickly toward major reforms (38:24-25).

The drastic cultural changes of the last two decades have greatly
affected life on campus. American college students' attitudes and
values reflect a shift from American Victorianism and the current

Death-of—God movement is a symptom of the change. There is also an

l9
emerging expression of belief in the new ways of thinking and talking
about man (14:32—34).
G. Wrenn (17:411-13) projected certain developments in student
personnel work in American universities which grow out of the cultural
changes as follows:

1. The establishment of the pre-eminence of the
quality of human relationships in every phase of a
student personnel program over mere efficiency and a
rationally conceived structure.

2. With increasing size of student body and the
physical plant of the campus, it will be important to
decentralize services and locate them where students are
found.

3. With higher education a form of continuing
education over a lifetime, it will be important to
abandon the anachronism of perceiving college students
as falling into the ”normal” age range of 18-21.

4. With one's leisure life increasing in both
amount and personal significance, it seems important
that colleges accept responsibility for the education
of students for their non-work life.

5. It is important that women students on
campus be given the same academic and vocational
considerations as are given to men studcnts.

6. It is urgent that we help students to examine
value differences in our culture. changing values, and
the outcome of living—out a value conV1ction.

7. Providing orientation and adjustment services
for transfer students.

8. Counselors must be permitted to have a highly
personalized and confidential relationship with
students if they are to be effective in carrying out
their distinctive roles°

9. A college should encourage philosophy and
religion to be as important in life of those students
who choose to make them important as is science for
students who choose this direction.

20
10. Student personnel workers should be charged

with special responsibility for spotting and encouraging
students who are or can be creatively "different."

Student Personnel Programs in Some Asian Countries

 

India

In the foreword of ”The Organization of Student Services in
Indian Colleges and Universities”, W, Holmes (49:1) stated that in
1965 there were no full time deans of students in India but six years
later there are 22 Indian staff members serving as full-time deans of
student services and 14 working on a part-time basis.

The factors that greatly contributed to the growth of the student
personnel movement in India were the practices and examples of univer-
sities in other countries, the recommendation of the Education
Commission in 1966, the claimant needs of students and the increasing
recognition by Indian universities of their responsibilities in student
development and the Student SerVices Project sponsored by the United
States Educatian Foundation in India.

The USEFI involved itself in thc project, believing that student
programs would enrich the education of college students and help in
allaying frustrations and 'Ftcsf at students, and being encouraged
by the increasing recognition or the need for this development (48:3).
Sixteen seminars in student services were conducted during the years
1965-66. Each year, American Fulbright professors, professionally
engaged in psychology, counseling and guidance, or student activities,
were brought to India to assist the programs at their host universities

and also to work on the project on an all—India basis (48:1).

21

In 1966, R. Reddick (48:2), founder of the Student Services
Project of the USEFI, found that students services existed in fragments
in most Indian universities, but almost nowhere was there a well—
organized and coordinated program with clear objectives. The beginning
of the Student Services Project took place at Allahabad University
at the instance of the Head of the Department of Education, whose
interest in student counseling was expanded by his first-hand study
of American college life. He also pointed out that the development of
student personnel services in Indian colleges has been a slow growth
as a result of gradual changes in the institutions' philosophy of
education, the administrators' point of View and the college popula-
tions' frame of mind (48:6).

According to the Education Commission's report:

A major weakness of the existing system of educa-

tion is the failure to provide adequately for student

welfare, There is a new aspect of higher education

which needs to be improved on a priority basis.

Student serv1ces are not merely a welfare activity

but constitute an integral part of education. The fol-
lowing are some of the impo:tant serVices which can be
included in this programme: orientation for new students;

health services; guidance and znonseling including voca—

tional placement; student activities; and financial aid.

(11:293)

In 1971, there were over three thousand colleges in India enrolling
over three quarters of a million students, while the universities
enroll only about 86,000 students in postgraduate courses. The average
Indian college student is quite young, immature, and confronted with

the many problems of transition from impulsive adolescence to responsible

adulthood (49:13-14).

22

H. Weitz, the USEFI Consultant in Student Services, recommended
that three necessary steps be taken simultaneously to effect a transi-
tion from the present student services in indian institutions of
higher learning to coordinated, professional programs on a nation-
wide basis. These steps are: (l) the appointment of deans of
students; (2) the establishment of training centers for part-time
student personnel workers; and (3) the development of professional
training programs for full-time professional student services officers.

w. F. Johnson (28:88-90), in his article on student personnel
services in Indian universities in 1970, made the following observa-
tion about the Indian college students:

Violent demonstrations are becoming an accepted

mode of expression with the students...there is consider—

able evidence to show that students resort to violent

methods of obtaining recognition, attenticn and status

because of some deep-rooted cultural conditions and

because almost no opportunities are provided for develop-

ing group identity and a sense of belonging through

psychologically healthy activities.

He also reported that very few universities had appointed deans of
students, and m‘st of thrse that did exist were honorary appointments.
There were only four or five institutions thAt had counseling facili—
ties. lypi;a;ly, these iaxiliries were arganized by and functioned
under the superVISlCn of psychology departments. He concluded that
the problem of developing viable programs for student development in

India was greater than that of merely providing student personnel

services for students.

Japan

Education is highly prized in Japan, particularly higher education.

Graduation from a university not only opens doors to occupations which

23
in turn offer better economic opportunities, but it also brings with
it prestige so important in a socially conscious society. Higher
institutions have increased tremendously from 49 in 1947 to 486 junior
colleges and 389 universities in 1971. Enrollments have increased
correspondingly from 87,000 in 1947 to 275,256 in junior colleges and
1,468,538 in universities in 1971 (19:6—8).

Following World War II, Japanese educators, aware of needed
changes in their traditional education system, attempted to reform the
system and broaden both the opportunities for higher education and the
scope of its offerings. They were assisted by American educators in
the early years of the occupation. Prior to the year 1950 there was
no comprehensive student personnel program in Japan (32:10).

The development of student personnel services in Japan began in
1951-52 when leading Japanese educators made an official request for a
Visiting team of specialists in the field who gave academic training
to some selected faculty members of various Japanese universities and
made apprOXimately one hundred visits to campuses in many regions of
Japan (32:7). In 1954, the American COURCll on Education was requested
to send another team of specialists to provide professional training
to student personnel workers in Japanese universities.

An account of certain developments that demonstrate the efforts
of Japanese educators to improve student services during the years
1952—55 was given by w. P. Lloyd (32:9—23) after his extensive contact
with the Japanese universities. He summarized some of these develop-

ments as follows:

24

1. Training institutes for student personnel workers (90 par-
ticipants in 1953 and 43 participants in 1954).

2. Regional workshops for student personnel services (five
workshops in 1952, six in 1953, four in 1954, and four in 1955).

3. Regional athletic and cultural meetings of college students
sponsored by the Ministry of Education. (In 1954 more than 33,000
students from 267 universities participated.)

4. Model projects in student personnel services, undertaken at
12 universities to promote professional techniques and active programs.

5. Local associations for student employment to solve job
placement problems.

6. Budgets for student personnel services and for national
scholarships, provided by the Ministry of Education.

7. Nationwide survey of the student's life sponsored by the
Ministry of Education annually Since 1949.

8. An attempt to establish a system of student health insurance.

During the formation years of student personnel services in Japan,
the universities had faced many crises. (This may be so partly because
the new pattern of democracy in higher education came to a sudden
adulthood without going through a childhOod as a post-war product.)

According to C. H. Gross (19:8-13) faculty members find themselves
unprepared to meet the demand of the new patterns of campus life. They
are reluctant to accept assignments in counseling and student personnel
work when their professional advancement depends almost entirely on
research and lecturing skills. Not only have students gone on strike,

but also professors and employees went on strike for higher wages.

25

Included in the recommendations on student personnel services in
Japan by the American team of specialists in 1955 are the following
(32:92-102):

1. That the training programs for student personnel workers and
technical workshops be established;

2. That the professional status of persons engaged in student
personnel services be recognized;

3. That the student personnel unit on each campus reconsider its
relations with students and its technical ways to work with students;

4. That it should recognize the possibility that student personnel
services can attain full and appropriate status only with the substan-
tial help of national organizations that carry appropriate prestige;

5. That the reconsideration be made with regard to the admission
policy and numbers of enrollment; and

6. That greater consideration on the part of individual staff

members be given to techniques for increasing their personal efficiency.

The Philrppines

 

According to A. L. Carson (9:29), the basic structure of the
present educational system in the Philippines was formed during the
period of American control on models familiar to the early American
instructors from the United States. However, the present system
inherits many elements from the Spanish period, when higher education

was intended for the upper class males and the objective was not so

much on general enlightenment as on 'social refinement and distinction.’
Involved in the Philippine higher education are several hundred private

colleges and over 20 private universities listed under the Government

26
Bureau of Private Schools. The only state university is the University
of the Philippines, although it has a number of campuses.

Porter Butts (8:188) made a report on the state of student
services in Philippine universities which he visited in 1964 as
follows:

Of all the Asian universities I visited, the uni-

versities in Manila need facilities for student life the

most, and have done the least about it. The underlying

circumstance that all universities are private, except

the University of the Philippines, and that the private

universities function largely as diploma mills, operating

as business organizations, compelled by their nature to

meet rising costs by "increasing volume”, always with an

eye on the interests of stockholders, helps explain

why.

Both A. L. Carson (9:111) and P. Butts (8:175) pointed out that
the prestige which had become attached to a college degree and the
university name, and the tradition of higher education as a privilege
of the upper class, generates social pressures for the Filipino to
pursue college education as the path to personal and social success.
The college student's main purpose is to get a diploma in order to get
a better job.

The collegiate situation has been made more complex by the limita-
tions of the basic school system of the Philippines, which has con—
sisted of six elementary grades and a four—year high school. This
system brings students to college at so young an age and inadequately
prepared (9:2).

In 1958, a study made by the Hannah team (9:82) to determine the
role which the University of the Philippines should play during the

next ten years included a recommendation that an effort be made to

coordinate student personnel services. In 1962, the Self—Study

27

Committee of the University of the Philippines (43:57-60) reported
that President Sinco recommended the creation of the Office of Student
Affairs which coordinates the operations of the University Health
Service, the offices of the Dean of Men and Dean of Women, the Counsel-
ing and Testing Center, the Student Union, the Committee on Student
Extracurricular Activities, and the Office for Foreign Students.

Looking through the recent catalogues or bulletins of the univer—
sities in the Philippines such as Central Philippine University,
Silliman University, University of the East, the University of Santo
Tomas and the University of the Philippines, one can find all kinds of
basic student personnel services mentioned—-counse1ing and testing
center, health service, cooperative store, food service, financial
aids, housing service, campus activities and student organizations,
and athletic facilities. To illustrate, a university was described
in reference to its program for students: Silliman University claims
that it has Department of Student Personnel staffed with Director of
Admission, Registrar and Chairman of Student Aid Committee, Dean of
Men, Dean of Women, Director of Student Health, dormitory counselors
and qualified staff of the counseling center. The University provides
medical care and hospitalization as well as preventive health measures.
In short, it sounds like the services offered on an American campus
plus the emphasis on religious activities.

However, the Butts' report gave a less optimistic picture of
student personnel work in the Philippines. According to Butts (9:175),
in the Sampaloc section of Manila where five or six universities and

almost 150,000 students (in 1964) are concentrated, there is not even

28
one common student gathering place at any of the universities other than
dining halls and canteens scattered among several buildings, and there
is only a thin attempt to provide the services students need outside
the classroom. He also commented that the faculty has also been
largely indifferent to student needs because most of them are part-
time instructors. They do not have the time, the motivation to
associate with students or to work for better conditions of student
life. As a result, in 1961 the students themselves formed an intercol-
legiate organization known as the ”Institute of Student Affairs" to
meet their needs. Supported by the Asia Foundation, they managed to
construct a "Student Center” to be used as an operational base. It
houses a social-conference room, student workrooms, library, textbook
bank, a guest room and the office of the secretariat which offers
secretarial facilities to student organizations and assists in planning
and programming student projects. It sponsors regional leadership
courses for students throughout the islands, furnishes information on
student activities, promotes discussion groups at the center on topics
ranging from problems of democracy to problems of the youth movements,
and has organized a student blood bank and placement bureau. Most
significantly, it has launched a plan to build a ”Philippine University
Village” to provide housing, dining, health, and recreational facilities
to students and faculty.

Selected Studies on the Survey of
Student Personnel Services

 

 

In many aspects, student personnel work in most Thai universities

and colleges is still at the initial stage of development, compared to

29
that of the United States where the student personnel movement originated.
With regard to this fact, the writer of this study chose to review
earlier studies of student personnel services in American colleges when
student personnel work was still in the developing stage so that she
could get some idea on how the surveys of student personnel services
at the initial stage were done.

The first nationwide survey of student personnel programs in the
United States was Sponsored by the American Council on Education in
1925 under the direction of L. B. Hopkins (33:1—96). He visited
fourteen colleges and universities and rated their performance of
twenty student personnel services. In 1932, a point scale was
developed by A. J. Brumbaugh and L. C. Smith (7:230—235) to evaluate
ten student personnel services. In 1935 D. H. Gardner (18:1) was
employed by the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary
Schools to make a study of fifty-seven of its institutions. He con-
cluded that it is possible to analyze the provisions for student
personnel services as being a valuable index of overall institutional
excellence. In 1940, E, G. Williamson and T. R. Sarbin (52:1—115)
reported a survey of overall institutional effectiveness of student
personnel services at the University of Minnesota. Included in their
recommendations are: (1) the need for more detailed descriptions of
certain aspects of the program uncovered in their initial search for
facts; (2) the need for more information about the student—-how many
and what types of students have certain problems and at what period in
the course of their college life——in order to plan programs intelli—

gently; (3) the need for further studies to evaluate the effectiveness

30
of various personnel services; and (4) the need for the development of
sound, comprehensive, and acceptable policy on student personnel
services of the institution.

In 1952 E. Hanson (21) made a study to determine the trends in the
organizational structure of student personnel services in state—
supported colleges and universities with enrollments of less than
5,000 students. His findings revealed that there was a strongly sig-
nificant trend toward the coordination of student personnel services
under the responsibility of the director of student personnel services
or the dean of students. Through the questionnaires and the interviews,
he found that 90 per cent of the institutions under study provided the
following personnel services: (1) selection and admission of students,
(2) orientation, (3) part—time employment, (4) counseling, (5) social
activities, (6) testing, (7) physical health program, (8) housing,

(9) loans, (10) recreational activities, (11) student discipline,

(12) food services, and (13) cumulative personnel records. His study
showed that 70 per cent prOVlded for remedial serv1ces in speech,
reading and study habits; 60 per cent reported a follow—up program and
the continuing evaluation of the student personnel program and less
than 50 per cent provided for a mental health program.

The National Association of Student Personnel Administrators
(36:139-173), in 1953, made an attempt to develop a systematic approach
toward evaluation of student personnel programs and produced the
"Evaluation Aids" manual and instrument for the evaluation of twenty
student personnel services in both small and large institutions. In

1950, R. Kamm and C. Wrenn (29) developed an evaluation instrument and

 

 

 

31
a companion form, "An Inventory of Student Reaction to Student Personnel
Services", to be used by student personnel administrators to secure
a more comprehensive evaluation of the services.

G. E. Peterson (40:16-23) reported the uses of Kamm and Wrenn
instruments by L. G. Brailey (4) in his study of the student personnel
services of six urban universities in 1952, by J. J. Pershing (39)
in establishing criteria for evaluating the student personnel program
at Georgia Institute of Technology in 1952, by E. J. Brantley (5) to
analyze both the student and the student personnel staff perceptions
of twelve student personnel services at Clark College in 1960, and by
E. H. Shigley (46) to evaluate the student personnel services at
Marion College in 1958. Peterson also reported that a ”Student
Personnel Services Inventory" was constructed by E. Rackham (41) to
measure fifteen services which produced an ”ideal” profile in order
that an institution can visualize its comparative ratings. The inven-
tory was refined by R. S. Hage (20), who administered the instrument
to student personnel administrators at nineteen Kansas colleges in
1957.

In 1958, L. Parrott (37) used the Mooney Problem Checklist along
with a questionnaire in his study of the student personnel services
in the six liberal arts colleges of the Church of the Nazarene from
three aspects: (1) the perceptions of the administrations concerning
the student personnel services functioning in the six colleges, (2) the
awareness of faculty and students concerning the student personnel
services which the administrators perceive to be functioning in each

of the six colleges, and (3) the students' own perceptions of their

 

32

own problems in the six colleges. He also spent at least a full day
on each campus visiting the various personnel agencies and interviewing
administrative personnel, so that he could more fully understand the
philosophy of their student personnel programs. In his findings,
differences in perceptions between the student and the faculty were
found. He recommended that a positive inservice training program
designed to upgrade the services and to deepen and broaden the student
personnel point of view on each campus be developed and the services
relating to specific areas of student problems as identified by the
Mooney Problem Checklist be given special attention by the six college
administrators. He also suggested that a better orientation of faculty
and students plus improved communications concerning existing student
personnel services were needed. In 1960, O. L. Harry (22) replicated
Parrott's study to assess the student personnel services at Michigan
College of Mining and Technology. Among his conclusions based on the
findings are that (1) students and faculty disagree in their percep-
tions of the student personnel service in the area of "Finance, Living
Conditions and Employment", (2) the orientation program may be inade-
quate due to the disagreement between the freshmen and the seniors as
to the student personnel services available for assistance in the six
of eleven problem areas, (3) the student personnel staff should be
aware that "Adjustment to College" is a principal area of concern to
the students.

W. L. Scott (44), in his study to determine patterns and functions
of student personnel programs in small liberal arts colleges in the

North Central Association area in 1959, reported that (1) although most

33

of the basic student personnel services were offered at the sixteen
institutions under the study, the coordination of all student personnel
functions did not occur in a recognizable total program; (2) in most
colleges, people operating student personnel functions were teachers,
or personnel workers who taught,and the academic dean was the person
with major responsibility for student personnel services; and (3) there
was evidence of need for these institutions to evaluate the effective-
ness of their student personnel services and programs. His data were
collected by interviewing administrators and student personnel workers
and by analyzing the catalogues and other materials distributed by
the selected colleges.

In the same year, L. E. Fitzgerald (16) made a study of the teach-
ing faculty perceptions of student personnel services at Michigan
State University. She deve10ped a questionnaire which was later
validated by Tanete (1964), Ramkin (1966), and Ross (1967), in their
studies of college student personnel programs (40:20). She found that
the faculty recognized the importance of student personnel services
for the achievement of the philosophy and purposes of higher education
and the degree of importance accorded these functions was dependent
upon the nature of the service. The functions relating most directly
with the academic purposes of the institution received highest rating
of importance.

In 1959, D. Arbuckle and J. Kauffman (2) made a survey on six
areas of student personnel services in traditional four—year liberal
arts colleges by sending inquiry forms to 288 colleges. The findings

of the study indicated that all colleges which replied (186 colleges)

34
were aware of the role of student personnel services in higher education;
some forms of most of the services mentioned in the study were offered
in all colleges. The researchers concluded that these colleges were
not so anti-vocational as is sometimes assumed and counseling was the
service least effectively provided since a need for improvement in this
area was most often eXpressed.

A study of student perceptions of the student personnel services
was made by E. E. Zimmerman (56) in 1962. He used an adapted form of
Fitzgerald's questionnaire and a semi—standardized interview as
instruments. He found that students wanted to be more involved in the
areas of student activities, discipline and housing and many were not
aware of the services available for them.

G. E. Peterson (40), in 1968, made a study of the perceptions of

student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students of the
student personnel programs of the senior colleges of the American
Lutheran Church. He used a modified version of the questionnaire
developed by M. R. Raines for the Carnegie study of junior college
student personnel programs and the small—group interview technique as
instruments of the study. Included in his findings are (l) the dif-
ferences in perceptions of the three reSpondent groups with regard to
the scope and quality of some services at each of the ten colleges,
(2) the student groups of each college expressed their desire to par—
ticipate more in the decision-making process of the institution which
had significant impact on their academic and social programs, (3) the
lines of communications between the student personnel administrators

and the students and faculty needed improvement.

35

E. T. Elequin (12) made a study of the effectiveness of the
student personnel services and adequacy of guidance and related course
offerings for teacher training at Philippine Normal College in Manila
in 1954. She used four forms of questionnaire: two for students,
one for faculty members and one for the alumni to obtain the data
which were collected in the Philippines. Among her findings are:

(1) the activities rated very valuable were group conference, tours

of the neighborhood, faculty-student "get-together", orientation
program, student handbook, lectures on rules and regulations and
convocations; (2) the student and alumni groups were reluctant to

give their reactions concerning counseling service; (3) the majority
of the students and alumni favored the establishment of a placement
service but the faculty considered placement activities insignificant;
(4) the respondents expressed satisfaction in the college group life,
the coordination of student activity program, health service, discipline
measures, but they disagreed in the matters concerning financial aids,
admission procedures, maintenance of students' records, guidance,

and related course offerings.

In 1971, W. P. Emerson (13) made a study of the faculty, student,
and student personnel worker perceptions of selected personnel service
in the community colleges of North Carolina. He developed a question—
naire containing 65 descriptive statements of functional operations
based on an unpublished instrument, "Inventory of Selected College
Services", developed by Raines to be used in an appraisal of the student
personnel program at William Rainey Harper College in 1969. Some of

his conclusions from the findings are: (1) faculty rated the perceived

36
effectiveness of the services lower than did the students and student
personnel workers whose ratings of effectiveness did not differ from
one another; (2) faculty and students rated their experiences used
to evaluate the effectiveness of the services and their familiarity of
the services lower than did student personnel workers. He recommended
that there should be greater involvement of faculty in student personnel
services programs and students be made aware of what services are
available and how to utilize them, and also procedures should be
developed at each college to evaluate and enhance the quality of the

services.

Summary of Review of Literature

 

The literature reviewed consists of three areas: a brief review
of the foundations of student personnel services; student personnel
programs in the United States, India, Japan and the Philippines; and
selected studies related to the survey and evaluation of student
personnel services.

The brief review of foundations of student personnel services
served as a frame of reference for the initial search for facts about
student personnel services in Thai universities. It is evident that
student personnel services are provided in the institutions whose
basic concern and interest is the development of the individual student.
In planning effective student personnel programs, the current needs
and interests of students are the most significant factors. In the
1970's, a lot of concerns were expressed about the inexact and con-

flicting concepts of the college personnel workers' role on campus.

37

Studies of the development of student personnel programs in
various countries provided information on how a student personnel
program was started, the problems encountered, and the factors to be
considered in developing student personnel services. It seemed that
student personnel work has not yet received professional recognition
in the community of professionals on campus.

Attempts have been made by student personnel workers and scholars
to evaluate the student personnel services in American colleges and
universities during the last fifty years. Various methods and instru—
ments were developed and adapted to be used in the evaluation. Most
studies indicated that there were (l) a need for better communication
among all groups of the college population; faculty members should be
better informed and more involved in student personnel work, (2) a
need for the coordination of various student services under a student
personnel administrator, and (3) a need for continuing evaluation

of the effectiveness of the services.

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents a brief review of higher education in
Thailand and the rationale for the selection of the population for
the study. In addition, a short description of the institutions
selected for study is included. The method used to collect the
data and the instruments applied in the research are also reviewed

in this section.

Background of Higher Education in Thailand

The modernization of Thailand began in the reign of King Mongkut
or Rama IV (1851—1868) when the western influence started to flow
into the country. His son, King Chulalongkorn, continued and greatly
expanded the modernization process. The influence of western educa—
tion was strongly felt and institutions of higher learning were
established and flourished. Initially, these institutions served as
training centers for the administrative ministries of the government.
The graduates of these universities were consrdered the elite and the
privileged members of Thai society (45:2-10). In 1889, the first
institution, the Royal Medical College, was created at Siriraj
Hospital. In 1897, following the establishment of the Ministry of
Justice, the Law School was promulgated under the supervision of the
Ministry. The Royal Pages' School was Opened in 1902 to educate and

38

39
train prospective government officials. It was reorganized and
expanded to be the School of Civil Servants in 1910 during the reign
of King Rama VI.

The first of the modern institutions of higher education was
Chulalongkorn University, established in 1917. Four facilities were
in existence at the beginning: Arts and Sciences, Medicine, Engineer-
ing, and Political Science. After the Revolution of 1932, which
brought about the constitutional form of government, Thammasat Uni-
versity was established. In I933, it became the center for studies
in the social and political sciences areas. In the next decade, three
more institutions came into existence: University of Medical Sciences,
Kasetsart University, which was formed from already existing colleges
of agriculture and forestry, and Silpakorn University, which was
established to provide for academic training and research in the areas
of fine arts and culture. The College of Education, which was formed
from institutions of teacher training and advanced technology, was
established in 1954,

The Revolution of 1958 gave impetus to higher education in
Thailand because the government exerted strenuous efforts to accelerate
the pace of national economic and social dcre10pment of the country.
Great strides were made in the improvement and expansion of higher
education. The administration of the universities,iflrhfliwas formerly
fragmented among various ministries, was brought together for the first
time in 1958, through the coordination of the Office of the Prime

Minister.

40

In the 1960's the higher education effort in Thailand was directed
toward the provincial areas. Chiengmai University was established in
the North, Khonkaen University was established in the Northeast, and
Songkla University in the South.

In 1971, Ramkamhaeng University, an open university, came into
existence as the result of political pressure. It is different from
other universities because of its admission policy. Usually, high
school graduates have to pass a highly selective entrance examination
before they can enter any of the universities, but they can be enrolled
at Ramkamhaeng University without having to take an entrance examina—
tion. In the first year of its opening, more than 40,000 persons
enrolled as students.

The Thai government, in I973, created a new office-—the Office
of State's University——which has the same status as a ministry, to
deal with the development of higher education in Thailand.

All universities in Thailand are public institutions. Each is
directly governed by its own Council or Governing Board. At present,
the univerSIties operate under the supe:Vision of the Office of the
State's University headed by a Minister of the Cabinet. The rectors
or presidents of the uniJersities are responsible for the functioning
of each university and are assisted by the Deputy Rectors or the Vice-
presidents and the academic deans. All universities receive annual
budgets from the government. Permanent staff members are civil service
officials. The Thai system employs two rank orders: the civil service
rank, which determines economic reward, and the academic rank, which

reflects professional and institutional recognition of academic status.

41
As of January 1974, the total number of public degree-granting
institutions of higher learning in Thailand is thirteen. They are
presented here in the order of the date of establishment:

Chulalongkorn University
Thammasat University

Mahidol University

Kasetsart University

Silpakorn University

The College of Education
National Institute of DeveIOpment Administration
Asian Institute of Technology
Chiengmai University

Konkaen University

Songkla University

Chomklao Institute of Technology
Ramkamhaeng University

The Rationale for the Selection of
the Sample of the P0pulation

 

 

Some major characteristics of the institution such as its location,
its academic areas of emphasis, and its student body seem to have cer—
tain effects on the kind of student personnel program on its campus.
With this in mind, the researcher deCided to selEtt the institutions

which would best represent many types of universities in Thailand for

this study, using the following consideratiins:
l. (ieufigrwiptiicail lo al.10ll: tirh an (Jr [)rthiIICicil
2, Curricul.r emphasis: multi— or single-(urticular offering

3. Composition of student body: commuter or residential

USing the considerations noted above, a total of six institutions
was selected for study. They are Chulalongkorn University, Thammasart
University, The College of Education, Prasarnmit, Chiengmai University,

the College of Education at Bangsaen, and Kasetsart University.

42

The two larger universities, Chulalongkorn and Thammasat, were
chosen since they represent unique types in the list of considerations.
These two institutions are located in an urban setting, offer a broad
program of studies, and most of the students commute to the campus.

Two institutions were selected primarily because they are pro-
vincial institutions. These are Chiengmai University and the College
of Education at Bangsaen. Their curricular programs are quite different
but the fact that their student body is made up of a majority of resi—
dential students gave support to their selection.

The last two institutions chosen were Kasetsart and the College
of Education at Prasarnmit. These two were selected because of the
uniqueness of their curricular offerings. Each offers a wide range of
courses but serves a limited occupational field. Kasetsart is the
primary higher education institution in agriculture, while the College
of Education is a teacher training school.

Background of the Selected Colleges
and Universi§l§s_ghdcr Study

 

 

Chulalongkorn Universigy

 

Chulalongkorn University is the first university in Thailand,
founded in 1917 by the Royal Act of King Vajiravudh (Rama VI). The
university was formed from the Royal Pages' School established by King
Chulalongkorn in 1902 and elevated to a CiVil Service College in 1911.
The university presently consists of the following faculties: Educa-
tion, Commerce and Accountancy, Political Science, Science, Medicine,
Engineering, Architecture, Arts, Veterinary Science, Pharmacy and

Dentistry. The Department of Mass Communication and Public Relations,

43
the Computer Center, the Graduate School and the SEATO Graduate School
of Engineering are affiliated with the university.

The program leading to the Bachelor's degree usually takes four
years except for those of the Faculty of Architecture and the Faculty
of Medicine, which take five years. Master's degrees are awarded for
the completion of two years' work after the bachelor’s degree. Admis-
sion is based on entrance examination ratings. In 1973, the total

enrollment was 13,738.

Thammasat University

 

Thammasat University was founded in 1933, as the University of
Moral and Political Sciences. After the Revolution of 1932, it was
generally felt that, in keeping with democratic ideology, the study of
social sciences, particularly law and political science, should be
developed and expanded. Presently, the university consists of the
following faculties: Law, Commerce and Accountancy, Political Science,
Economics, Soc1al Administration, and Liberal Arts.

All undergraduate programs are for a period of four years followed
by two-year graduate programs. Certain fields offer doctoral programs.

In 1973 the total enrollment was 13,069.

Kasetsart University

 

Kasetsart University was established in 1943 by amalgamating the
College of Agriculture and the School of Forestry and by creating two
new faculties: the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration
and the Faculty of Fisheries. At present the university consists of

seven faculties: Agriculture, Economics and Business Administration,

44
Engineering, Fisheries, Science and Arts, Veterinary Medicine, and
Forestry.
All faculties, with the exception of the program of the Faculty
of Veterinary Medicine, offer four-year programs leading to bachelor's
degrees. The master's degree requires two years of study beyond the

bachelor's degree. In 1973 the total enrollment was 5,765.

Chiengmai University

 

Chiengmai University was established in 1964. It is the first
of Thailand's provrncial universities, located on 1,343 rai of land
at the foot of Doi Sutep Hill, west of Chiengmai in the north of
Thailand. Presently, the university is composed of the following
faculties: Humanities, Science, Socral Sciente, Agriculture, Medical
Sciences, Education, and Engineering. Chiengmai University offers
four-year bachelor's degrees except in the field of Medical Sciences,

which is six years. in 1973, the total enrollment was 6,934.

The (401138“..[1t }:,_ti_u_.-i_tl m E’r::'-,irnmi_t_

_—... . — .——2-——-——--_._.—- .—-—-

 

lhe College of Educati;n was charrercd in 1954 to grant a diploma
in educaticn and bachelor‘s, master's,doctur's degrees and education
specialist degrees in VuLiUUS areas of cdurational emphases. Unlike
other institutions of higier learning, the College had been under the
supervision of the Ministry of Education and governed by a board made
up primarily of Directors of the various departments of the Ministry of

Education until 1974, when the Office of State's University took over

the supervisory role.

45

In addition to the regular programs, many in-service programs
are offered in the form of evening classes and summer courses for
teachers and educational officials. A special two-year program lead-
ing to the M.Ed. degree in Developmental Psychology is also offered
at the Bangkok Institute for Child Study, which is affiliated with the
College.

The College of Education does not divide students into separate
faculties. However, programs of edueation emphases such as elementary
education, educational administration, and vocational education are
identified when students complete the first two years of course work.

The College of Eduuation has its main campus in Bangkok at Soi
Prasarnmit. Two of its six branches are located in Bangkok; one in
Cholburi, east of Bangkok; one an Pisnulok, north of Bangkok; one in
Songkla, south of Bangkok; and one in Mahasarakam, northeast of
Bangkok. In 1973, the total enrollment of the seven colleges numbered
19,891, while the enrollment of the College of Education, Prasarnmit,

was 4,830.

The College of Education, iangsaen

 

 

The college was established in 1955 as a branch of the College of
Education. if is the first four-year institution of higher learning
located in a province. The College of Education, Bangsaen, operates
under the same system as the main LJmPUS and is governed by the same
Board.

The College grants a diploma in education (two—year program) and
bachelor's degree in education (four-year program). Evening classes and

summer courses are also provided for teachers in service who work for

46
a bachelor's degree in education In 1973 the total enrollment was

3,417.

The Ropulation of the Study

 

The population of the study consisted of administrators, faculty
members and students of the six selected Thai institutions of higher
learning during the academic year 1973-1974.

A total of thirty—two individuals were selected at each insti-
tution to complete the survey instrument. The sample was made from
three groups of individuals in arcordance with their roles in the
university setting. Their identifications were as administrators,
faculty members and students. Their selection was done in a random
manner as follows:

Two administrators: one who performs some function of

student personnel services and another one designated
as an academic dtan.

Ten faculty members: The selection was made from the list

of is;ulty members of various departments in each
institution so as to obtain a wide range of opinion.

Twenty students: The selection was made from the list of

students of various departments in egrh institution“
five were sele;ted from the freshman classes, five
from the sophomore classes, five item the junior
classes, and five from the senior classes.
'A total of 192 individuals were surveyed and were distributed as

follows: 12 administrators, 60 faculty members and 120 students.

 

47
The type of institution--commuter and residential--was included
as a variable in this study on the assumption that the kind of services
offered would be different. It was thought that the need for student
personnel services may vary if the student body remains on campus on

a full-time basis rather than returning to their residences daily.

instrumentation

 

As stated in the purpose of the study, the researcher made an
attempt to accomplish the following:

1. To ascertain the current status of the student personnel
services in the six selected Thai universities;

2. To appraise the awareness on the part of the administrators,
faculty members, and students as to the existence of student personnel
services on campus; and

3. To determine the degree of importance and effectiveness of
the existing student personnel services as perceived by administrators,

faculty members, and students.

The Questionnaire

 

The research questionnaire, entitled ”Survey of Student Personnel
Services in Thai Universities” (Appendix B), was developed at Michigan
State University during Spring Term 1973. The original pool of state—
ments were adapted from statements of Fitzgerald's ”The Student
Personnel Services Questionnaire" (lozAppendix A) and Emerson's ”Evalu—
ation of Selected College Services” (13:Appendix A).

The questionnaire contained 40 descriptive statements of functional

operations included in most student personnel programs. The 40

 

48
statements in the questionnaire were concerned with the eight areas of
student personnel services, namely: records, counseling services,
housing and food services, health service, student activities, finan-
cial aids and job placement, discipline function, and other miscellaneous

services, as shown in Table l. The admission function which is

Table l

The category of the questionnaire items
under eight areas of the serVices

 

 

 

 

No. Areas of Student Personnel SerVices in theI::::tionnaire
1 Records (R) 1,14,33
2 Counseling Service (C) 2,3,5,6,9,12,21,28,38
3 Housing and Food Service (HF) 4,8,15,23
A Health Service (H) 7,11,22,25,34
5 Student Activities (S) 13,17,19,20,29,37,39,40
6 Financial Aid and Job Platement (F) 24,26,30,35
7 Discipline Function (D) 18,32
8 Other Miscellaneous Service (0) 10,16,27,3l,36
Total 8 40

 

 

generally included in the student personnel programs on American campuses
was not included in this questionnaire. This was deemed desirable since

admission policies and entrance examinations for all universities

 

49
(except Ramkamhaeng) are determined by the National Education Council
with the advice of university personnel.
For each statement, the respondent was requested to rate three
parts on a five—point scale.

Definition of scale for Part A — the familiarity with the service,

 

is as follows:
5 = very familiar A = rather familiar 3 = somewhat
familiar 2 = vaguely familiar l = not familiar

Definition of Scale for Part B - the importance of the service,

 

is as follows:

 

S = very important 4 = rather important 3 = somewhat
important 2 = almost unimportant l = not important

Definition of scale for Part C - the effectiveness of the service,

 

is as follows:

5 = very effective 4 = rather effective 3 = moderately
effective 2 = almost ineffective l = not effective
The questionnaire was then translated into Thai by the researcher
because all respondents are Thai and use Thai language as the medium
of communication. All the questionnaire forms were printed in Thai

(Appendix C),

The Pilot Study

 

The pilot study was conducted in July 1973 at the College of
Education, Prasarnmit, Bangkok, Thailand, by the researcher to test
the instrument. Forty respondents, randomly selected among the student

body and the faculty members, were requested to answer the questionnaire.

 

50
The researcher was present to clarify the statements when there were
difficulties in semantics.

While in Thailand, the researcher also obtained additional data
on the current status of the student personnel services through semi-
structured interviews with student personnel workers on the six campuses
(Appendix A). Some useful information from the interviews was incor-
porated into the revised statements of the questionnaire which was sent
back to the doctoral committee members for approval in August 1973.

The researcher spent two or more days on each of the six campuses
during August to meet with the persons to be interviewed and to observe
the climate of the institution and the way some services function.
Informal talks with faculty members and students were also used to
validate the revised items of the questionnaire.

The researcher also requested the permission of the President
or the Rector of the six universities to conduct research on their
respective campuses. In addition, the assistance of student personnel
workers and some faculty members at each institution was solicited by
the researcher for the distribution and collection of the questionnaire

forms.

Collection of Data

 

When the doctoral committee members approved the revised form
of the questionnaire in November 1973, it was translated into Thai and
sent to be typed and mimeographed in Bangkok. The questionnaires in
Thai were then given to the contact persons at each institution for
distribution at random to the 32 individuals at each institution as

stated earlier in this chapter.

 

51
All but six of the questionnaires were returned in the third week
of December 1973. A total of 186 forms were classified by the status
of the respondents and the type of college (Table 2).
College catalogues and student handbooks of the six institutions
were also analyzed to validate the questionnaire answers pertaining to

student personnel services on campus.

Table 2

Table of cell frequencies classified by status and type
of college for the total of l86 respondents

 

 

 

 

 

Commuter Residential
Status CU TU CE CHMU CB KU Total
Administrators 2 2 2 2 2 2 12
Faculty 10 10 10 10 10 10 60
Students 14+ 20 20 20 20 20 154

 

Six student responses were not returned.

CU = Chulalongkorn University

TU Thammasat University

CE : The College of Education, Prasanmit
CHMU = Chiengmai UniverSity

CB = The College of Education, Bangsaen
KU Kasetsart University

Methodology

 

The respondents' rating scores on the instrument were coded and
keypunched on data cards in order to be processed and analyzed on the
CDA 6500 computer at Michigan State University. Each respondent

required two data cards of 67 columns each to include all the data

52
received. Each data card repeated the first ten columns of identifying
data and included subject identification, status of respondents, type
of colleges and name card number.

The first twenty items were coded in the first card, starting
from item 1, Part A on column 11, Part B on column 12 and Part C on
column 13. This pattern was repeated through item 20. The second
card picked up item 21 and continued to item 40, following the same
pattern as the first card.

The responses were classified and summarized according to status,
type of college, and institution. The CISSR (Computer Institute for
Social Science Research) Routine ACT was employed to obtain contingency
tables with observed cell frequency, expected cell frequency, cell
proportion, means and standard deviation. A total of 363 tables were
produced for use as basic data in the analysis.

In order to compare the differences among eight areas of student
personnel services, namely: records, counseling service, housing and
food services, health service, student activities, financial aids and
job placement service, discipline function and other miscellaneous
services, the 40 items were grouped into eight categories as shown in
Table 1. Each respondent had eight sub-scale scores. The multivariate
analysis of variance was used to compare the differences among admin-
istrators, faculty members, and students on eight variables. The
difference of the responses between commuter and residential colleges
and the interaction between status of the respondents and type of
college was also tested in the same analysis. If the multivariate F

was signiricant, the univariate F would be investigated as a post-hoc

 

53
procedure to pinpoint where the difference was. In this univariate
F the total a would be broken down into eight equal individual a.

The comparison among eight areas of student personnel services
was performed by the analysis of repeated measure design. Each sub-
scale score would be weighed by the reciprocal of the number of items
in each sub—scale. The Finn program would be used both in the multi-
variate analysis and repeated measure design to obtain the F value
corresponding to the subject of interest. The level of significance

used in this study was .05.

Summary

The pOpulation for the study consisted of administrators, faculty
members, and students at six selected Thai universities during the
academic year 1973-1974. Thirty—two persons from each institution
were randomly selected for the study on the following basis: two
administrators, ten faculty members, and twenty students.

A questionnaire was developed by the researcher as an instrument
to gather the data needed from the three groups of the population.
Semi-structured interviews, campus visitation, and printed materials
containing information about student personnel services were also used
to augment gathered data. The data from the questionnaires were key—
punched on data cards and the analysis was made on a CDC 6500 computer
at Michigan State University.

The CISSR Routine ACT was used to obtain contingency tables, 363
in all. The multivariate analysis of variance was employed to compare
the differences among the three groups of respondents in eight areas

of student personnel services, the difference between the two types of

 

54
college and the interaction between status of respondents and type of
college. A post—hoc procedure would be made if the multivariate F
was significant. The analysis of repeated measure design was used to
compare the eight areas of student personnel services. The Finn

program would be used both in the multivariate analysis and repeated

measure design.

 

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

This chapter is devoted to the analysis of the data according to
the three major parts of the study: (1) the familiarity of adminis—
trators, faculty members, and students with the existing student
personnel services on campus; (2) the importance of the services as
perceived by administrators, faculty members, and students; and (3) the
effectiveness of the existing services based on the personal experiences
of the three groups of the respondents.

The study was also made to find whether the type of institution--
commuter or residential--is an important variable which may cause
differences in the personnel services provided for students. It was
thought that the Opinions expressed by the three groups of the
respondents concerning the personnel services might vary if they were
from one type of university or the other.

The analysis is divided into two sections. The first section is
devoted to a review of the responses to the questionnaire in accordance
with the three major areas of concern. In addition, observations made
by the researcher during the interviews with student personnel workers
and in the student handbooks are incorporated where appropriate. The
second section is a statistical review of the data as described in the

previous chapter.

55

 

56

Section One

 

The Familiarity of Administratorsl Faculty Members, and Students
with the Existing Student Personnel Services on Campus

 

 

The findings reported in this section are drawn from the responses
to the questionnaire Part A, a series of semi-structured interviews,
and descriptions of student personnel services found in college catalogues
and student handbooks provided by all institutions.

Information gathered during the interviews and from the college
publications indicates that some provision is made for all of the
student personnel services on all six campuses. A review of the

responses to Part A of the questionnaire, in which the respondent was

 

requested to rate the degree of his familiarity with each service,
indicates a considerable divergence of opinions as to the presence of
such services. The precise summary of the results is to be found in
Table 3, but a few of the more striking responses are noted here.

The responses to Part A of the questionnaire indicate considerable
variation in the degree of awareness of the services held by the three
groups of respondents. The respondents, however, appear to be well
aware of a number of student personnel services. For example, Item l-—
"The student handbook containing information, rules and regulations,
student personnel services, student activities, etc., is distributed
to every student" received the highest average rating while Item 4--
"Meals of reasonable price and quality are arranged for students and
staff through college facilities” was ranked second. A related
Item 8—-"Proper facilities are provided for staff and students to have

meals on campus" was also well known to the respondents as they gave

57

Table 3

Tabulation of the frequencies and percentage of the responses, means,
standard deviations, and ranks of the means of the items in
Part A-—Familiarity-—of the questionnaire (N = 186)

 

 

 

Weight
Items 5 4 3 2 l S.D. RANK
1. Student handbook 30 58 80 12 6 3.51 .95 1
16.13 31.18 43.01 6.45 3.23
2. Counseling center 9 27 52 59 39 2.51 1.12 23
4.84 14.52 27.96 31.72 20.97
3. Staff who are 16 40 74 38 18 2.99 1.08 8
assigned counseling 8.60 21.51 39.78 20.43 9.68
4. Meals of reasonable 35 63 58 17 13 3.48 1.11 2
price 18.82 33.87 31.18 9.14 6.99
5. Private rooms for
counseling 3 25 40 43 74 2.12 1.14 32
1.61 13.44 21.51 23.12 39.78
6. Students who want 2 9 37 43 95 1.82 .99 38
to withdraw 1.08 4.84 19.89 23.12 51.08
7. Contacts with 9 28 39 40 70 2.28 1.25 26
hospital 4.84 15.05 20.97 21.51 37.63
8. Proper facilities 28 48 72 22 16 3.27 1.12 5
for meals 15.05 25.81 38.71 11.83 8.60
9. Every student is 18 34 69 35 30 2.87 1.18 13
assigned an adviser 9.68 18.28 37.10 18.82 16.13
10. Contacts with alumni 8 20 49 48 61 2.28 1.16 27
4.30 10.75 26.34 25.81 32.80
11. Health center 10 40 58 45 33 2.73 1.15 19
5.38 21.51 31.18 24.19 17.74
12. Staff in counseling 6 19 58 49 54 2.32 1.10 25
teach fewer hours 3.23 10.22 31.18 26.34 29.03
13. Student Union 21 44 56 33 32 2.94 1.25 11.5
11.29 23.66 30.11 17.74 17.20

 

58

Table 3 (Continued)

 

 

 

Weight
Items 5 4 3 2 1 S.D. RANK
14. Student cumulative 15 51 62 24 33 .94 1.22 11.5
records 8.06 27.42 33.33 12.90 17.74
15. Periodical checkup 7 15 31 21 112 .84 1.19 37
on private dormitories 3.76 8.06 16.67 11.29 60.22
16. Bookstore on campus 27 44 60 34 21 .12 1.20 7
14.52 23.66 32.26 18.28 11.29
17. General student 28 60 59 29 10 .36 1.08 3
elections 15.05 32.26 31.72 15.59 5.38
18. A committee on 8 24 41 33 79 .17 1.24 30
judiciary function 4.30 12.90 22.04 17.74 42.47
19. Institutional policy 10 24 69 44 38 .58 1.13 22
5.38 12.90 37.10 23.66 20.43
20. Rules and regulations 19 35 75 31 26 .95 1.15 9
10.22 18.82 40.32 16.67 13.98
21. Evaluation and analy— 4 19 47 44 72 .13 1.11 31
sis of the services 2.15 10.22 25.27 23.66 38.71
22. Information on drugs 4 14 34 54 80 .97 1.05 36
2.15 5.91 27.96 19.89 43.55
23. Residence halls 29 42 36 24 55 .82 1.46 16
15.59 22.58 19.35 12.90 29.57
24. Information on job 4 14 34 54 80 .97 1.05 36
market 2.15 7.53 18.28 29.03 43.01
25. Physical examinations 23 27 62 32 42 .77 1.29 17
12.37 14.52 33.33 17.20 22.58
26. A job placement 6 21 39 43 75 .11 1.18 33
office 3.23 11.29 20.97 23.12 40.32
27. An orientation period 23 53 66 32 12 .23 1.08 6
12.37 28.49 35.48 17.20 6.45
28. Staff office hours 19 29 61 43 34 .76 1.22 18
20.22 15.59 32.80 23.12 18.28

 

 

 

59

Table 3 (Continued)

 

 

 

Weight
Items 5 4 3 2 1 .D. RANK
29. Assistance in 22 34 67 38 25 2.95 .18 10
student clubs 11.83 18.23 36.02 20.43 13.44
30. Facilities for job 1 13 30 48 94 1.81 .98 39
placement 0.54 6.99 16.13 25.81 50.54
31. Survey on student 4 15 44 46 77 2.05 .08 34
needs 2.15 8.06 23.66 24.73 41.40
32. Student Council 10 21 53 51 51 2.40 .16 24
5.38 11.29 28.49 27.42 27.42
33. Records to be used 22 32 59 42 31 2.85 .23 14
in counseling 11.83 17.20 31.72 22.58 16.67
34. Health insurance 4 11 27 20 124 1.66 .06 40
2.15 5.91 14.52 10.75 66.67
35. Financial aids 17 26 60 34 49 2.61 .27 21
9.14 13.98 32.26 18.28 26.34
36. Better understanding 9 20 50 40 67 2.27 .20 28
among groups on 4.84 10.75 26.88 21.51 36.02
campus
37. Student government 25 30 62 26 43 2.83 .32 15
13.44 16.13 33.33 13.98 23.12
38. Academic advisers 19 28 62 38 38 2.73 .25 20
10.22 15.05 33.33 20.43 20.43
39. Opportunity and 34 48 66 24 14 3.34 .14 4
facilities for 18.28 25.81 35.48 12.90 7.58
intramural sports
40. Seminars to promote 6 17 49 59 55 2.25 .08 29
mental and spiritual 3.23 9.14 26.34 31.72 29.57

growth

 

 

60
this service a mean score of 3.27 indicating considerable awareness of
the food services provided on various campuses.

Two other items received relatively high ratings. Item 17——"General
elections are held to elect student representatives to form a student
council which sets up policies for student activities" and Item 39--
"Opportunities and facilities are provided for students to participate
in a variety of intramural Sports" were ranked fourth and fifth,
respectively, by the three groups of respondents.

At the opposite end of the awareness scale are to be found
several items with which the respondents seem quite unaware. The
three items which are the least known are Item 34—-”Health insurance

is arranged for students', Item 30--”Necessary facilities such as
telephone, forms, etc., and personnel are provided to help students
communicate with their prospective employer", and Item 6——"Students
who want to withdraw or have to leave school or are on probation are

interviewed and assisted by advisers.‘ The mean scores for these three
items range from 1.66 to 1.82, indicating very limited knowledge of
their existence in the student personnel program as viewed by the
respondents.

Two other items are also low in the relative ratings given by the
respondents. Item 15—-"Periodica1 checkup of private dormitories is
made by college staff to see whether they maintain standards of good
living" and Item 24--”Information is communicated to staff and students
about the job market, salaries and placement trends in various fields"

with mean scores of 1.84 and 1.97, respectively, indicate that all three

groups of respondents are unaware of their existence.

61

With regard to the agreement of the respondents on the responses
to the forty items of the questionnaire, it is shown in the standard
deviation column of Table 3 that the items that most respondents
agreed upon are Item 1, concerning student handbook (S.D. = .95);
Item 30, in regard to the facilities for job placement (S.D. = .98);
and Item 24, relative to job information which has a standard deviation
of 1.05.

The items which the respondents seem to show the greatest dif—
ference of opinion on are Item 23, dealing with the residence halls

(S.D. = 1.46); Item 37, relative to student government (S.D. = 1.32);

 

and Item 25, relative to the health service, with a standard deviation
of 1.29.

For purposes of analysis, the responses to the forty items of
Part A (Familiarity) of the questionnaire are grouped according to
the three types of respondents: administrators, faculty members, and
students. In addition, the data have been grouped into eight areas of
student personnel services. The results are summarized in Table 4.

In the area of records, all three groups rated this service the
area with which they were most familiar since it is ranked first
though the mean scores of the three groups are different. 0n the other
hand, it should be noted that in the area of housing and food services

the faculty members and students rate it second while administrators

give it a relatively low evaluation.

It is noted that except for the area of housing and food services,

 

the mean scores of the student groups are the lowest of the three

groups of respondents. This seems to indicate that the recipients of

62
Table 4

Tabulation of the ranks and the means of the rating
of the three groups of respondents on Part A
(Familiarity) of the questionnaire on the
eight areas of student personnel services

 

 

 

 

(N = 186)

Administrator Faculty Student

(N=l2) member (N=60) (N=ll4)

Areas Rank K. Rank K- Rank 'K
1. Records 1 3.50 1 3.40 1 2.89
2. Counseling service 4 2.86 3 2.83 4 2.23
3. Housing and food services 6.5 2.71 2 2.95 2 2.80
4. Health service 5 2.73 5 2.61 6 2.07
5. Student activities 6.5 2.71 8 2.27 7 2.05
6. Financial aids and 8 2.46 6 2.45 8 1.91

placement service

7. Discipline function 2 3.46 7 2.39 5 2.10
8. Other miscellaneous 3 3.05 4. 2.71 3 2.48

services

 

 

63
the services were those who were the least familiar with most services
on campus. In general, the administrator group rates higher on the
familiarity scale than the other two groups. Analysis of the data
also indicates that the administrator group seems to be more aware of
the services pertaining to records, discipline functions, and other
miscellaneous services than housing and food services, student
activities, and financial aids and job placement.

The results of the questionnaire show that the faculty group is
well aware of the area of counseling services. On the other hand,
they seem to be less aware of student activities, discipline function,
and financial aids and job placement.

The student group.appears 03 be well acquainted with the areas of
records, housing and food services, and miscellaneous services but
lackSIMuLerstandingcif financial aids and job placement services,
student activities and health service.

Observations made during the interviews are consistent with
most of the findings obtained through the statistical analysis of the
responses of the questionnaire concerning the familiarity with the
eXisting services. Only three of the six institutions under study
seem to have adequately organized offices of student affairs to take
charge of the various student activities and to coordinate the student
Personnel services offered on campus. As shown in the analysis,
auhministrators are not very familiar with housing and food services,
Vdflflle students and faculty members appear well acquainted with the
servrices. This may be due to the fact that administrators usually

assijgn some faculty member to take charge of this service but do not

 

 

64
get involved themselves in the actual administration of the service.
The three groups (administrators, faculty members, and students) seem
to be less familiar with financial aids and job placement and health
service than any other areas of services.
The Importance of the Student Personnel Services

as Perceived by AdministratorsyAFaculty
Members, and Students

 

 

 

It is important that all those who are involved in student person—
nel programs on campus should be given an opportunity to contribute
their ideas on what kind of student personnel services they think are
important, based on their personal judgment. The Opinions eXpressed
by administrators, faculty members, and students should be elicited
to form the base for the continuous improvement of the total program.

The questionnaire Part B was used to obtain the data concerning
the degree of importance of various services as perceived by the three
groups Of respondents: administrators, faculty members, and students.
The information obtained from the interviews is also incorporated in
this part.

The responses to Part B of the questionnaire dealing with the
importance of the services are to be found in Table 5. The responses
indicate a wide range of Opinion expressed by the three groups of
respondents as to the importance of the student services.

The respondents give the highest degree of importance to Item
1--student handbook——which has a mean score of 4.75. Item 9—-"Every
student is assigned to an adviser who will help him with personal,

financial and career problems", Item 8-—”Proper facilities are provided

 

—

 

65

Table 5

Tabulation of the frequencies and percentage of the responses, means,
standard deviations, and ranks of the means of the items in

 

 

 

Part B--Importance--Of the questionnaire (N = 186)
Weight
Items 5 4 3 2 l X S.D. RANK
1. Student handbook 147 35 2 0 2 4.75 0.58 1
79.03 18.82 1.08 0 1.08
2. Counseling center 104 66 15 1 0 4.47 0.67 11
55.91 35.48 8.06 0.54 0
3. Staff who are 107 60 17 2 0 4.46 0.71 12
assigned to counsel— 57.53 32.26 9.14 1.08
ing
4. Meals of reasonable 121 43 18 4 0 4.15 0.76 8
price 65.05 23.12 9.68 2.15 0
5. Private rooms for 80 53 39 9 4 4.04 1.06 34.5
counseling 43.01 28.49 20.97 4.84 2.15
6. Students who want to 88 63 28 6 l 4.24 0.86 22
withdraw 47.31 33.87 15.05 3.23 0.54
7. Contacts with 114 52 17 l 2 4.48 0.77 10
hospital 61.29 27.96 9.14 0.54 1.08
8. Proper facilities 111 62 13 0 0 4.53 0.63 3.5
for meals 59.68 33.33 6.99 0 0
9. Every student is 111 66 8 l 0 4.54 0.61 2
assigned an adviser 59.68 35.48 4.30 0.54 0
10. Contacts with alumni 51 78 52 3 2 3.93 0.84 39
27.42 41.94 27.96 1.61 1.08
11. Health center 117 53 13 3 0 4.53 0.73 3.5
62.90 28.49 6.99 1.61 0
12. Staff in counseling 45 53 52 16 20 3.47 1.25 40
teacher fewer hours 24.19 28.49 27.96 8.60 10.75
13. Student Union 96 66 20 1 3 4.35 0.82 16
51.61 35.48 10.75 0.54 1.61

 

 

66

Table 5 (Continued)

 

 

 

Weight
Items 5 4 3 2 1 X S.D. RANK
14. Student cumulative 98 62 18 4 3 .32 .92 17.5
records 52.69 33.33 9.68 2.15 1.61
15. Periodical checkup 81 49 42 8 6 .03 .06 36
on private dormi- 43.55 26.34 22.58 4.30 3.23
tories
16. Bookstore on campus 106 55 21 2 0 .39 .86 14
56.99 29.57 11.29 1.08 0
17. General student 113 58 14 1 0 .52 .66 6
elections 60.75 31.18 7.53 0.54 0
18. A committee on 86 74 23 2 1 .30 .77 19.5
judiciary function 46.24 39.78 12.37 1.08 0.54
19. Institutional policy 82 73 24 6 1 .23 .84 24
44.09 39.25 12.90 3.23 0.54
20. Rules and regulations 75 71 33 6 l .15 .86 30
40.32 38.17 17.74 3.23 0.54
21. Evaluation and analy— 87 55 35 5 3 .16 .99 28.5
sis of the services 46.77 29.57 18.82 2.69 1.61
22. Information on drugs 82 61 38 2 3 .17 .90 27
44.09 32.80 20.43 1.08 1.61
23. Residence halls 117 49 16 3 l .49 .77 9
62.90 26.34 8.60 1.61 0.54
24. Information on job 98 51 30 7 0 .29 .87 21
market 52.69 27.42 16.13 3.76 0
25. Physical examination 95 61 25 4 1 .32 .83 17.5
51.08 32.80 13.44 2.15 0.54
26. A job placement 98 59 21 4 2 .30 .96 19.5
office 52.69 31.72 11.29 2.15 1.08
27. An orientation period 81 61 26 9 9 .05 .10 33
43.55 32.80 13.98 4.84 4.84 ‘

 

67

Table 5 (Continued)

 

 

 

Weight
Items 5 4 3 2 l X .D. RANK
28. Staff office hours 108 56 18 2 2 4.43 .80 13
58.06 30.11 9.68 1.08 1.08
29. Assistance in 84 63 35 l 3 4.20 .88 26
student clubs 45.16 33.87 18.82 0.54 1.61
30. Facilities for job 69 68 41 4 4 4.04 .93 34.5
placement 37.10 36.56 22.04 2.15 2.15
31. Survey on student 75 72 33 5 1 4.16 .85 28.5
needs 40.32 38.71 17.74 2.69 0.54
32. Student Council 86 61 35 3 1 4.23 .85 24
46.24 32.80 18.82 1.61 0.54
33. Records to be used 103 56 22 3 2 4.37 .84 15
in counseling 55.38 30.11 11.83 1.61 1.08
34. Health insurance 70 61 36 12 7 3.94 .08 38
37.63 32.80 19.35 6.45 3.76
35. Financial aids 119 48 16 2 1 4.52 .74 6
67.98 25.81 8.60 1.08 0.54
36. Better understanding 71 71 36 4 4 4.08 .92 31
among groups on 38.17 38.17 19.35 2.15 2.15
campus
37. Student government 78 59 37 8 4 4.07 .99 32
41.94 31.72 19.89 4.30 2.15
38. Academic advisers 119 49 14 3 1 4.52 .75 6
63.98 26.34 7.53 1.61 0.54
39. Opportunity and 88 56 39 2 l 4.23 .85 24
facilities for 47.31 30 11 20.97 1.08 0.54
intramural Sports
40. Seminars to promote 73 60 41 5 7 4.01 .03 37
mental and spiritual 39.25 32.26 22.04 2.69 3.76

growth

 

 

 

68
for staff and students to have meals on campus", and Item 11--"Health
center with necessary facilities and personnel is established to give
services to students and staff on campus” also received high ratings,
with mean scores of over 4.5.

Among the items which are ranked the least important by the
respondents are Item 12——"Staff who are assigned both counseling and
teaching functions teach fewer hours than regular instructors”,

Item 10-—"Contacts with alumni are maintained through the Alumni
Association as a means of continuing evaluation of the college

programs" and Item 34--”Health insurance is arranged for students."
However, the mean scores of these three items are relatively high on

the five-point scale and should, therefore, be considered quite important
as viewed by the respondents.

It is to be noted that all respondents agree in general with the
importance of these services as indicated by the small range of the
standard deviations. This supports the conclusion noted in the above
paragraph.

Further analysis of the responses is made by grouping the forty
items into eight areas of student services and the mean scores of the
responses are grouped according to the three types of respondents:
administrators, faculty members, and students. The results are summar—
ized in Table 6.

The areas of services which are rated high on the importance

scale by the respondents are records, housing and food services, and

 

health service. Administrators and faculty members rate records the

 

most important service, while students rate housing and food services

69
Table 6

Tabulation of the ranks and the means of the rating
of the three groups of respondents on Part B
(Importance) of the questionnaire on the
eight areas of student personnel services

 

 

 

(N = 186)
Administrator Faculty Student
(N=12) member (N=60) (N=1l4)
Areas Rank K. Rank K. Rank .—
1. Records 1 4.66 l 4.61 2 4.38
2. Counseling service 4 4.47 4 4.20 6 4.26
3. Housing and food services 3 4.48 2 4.31 l 4.43
4. Health service 2 4.53 3 4.24 5 4.29
5. Student activities 8 3.32 8 3.14 8 3.18
6. Financial aids and 7 4.10 5 4.19 3 4.36
placement service
7. Discipline function 5 5 4.33 6 4.16 4 4.31
8. Other miscellaneous 5.5 4.33 7 4.14 7 4.09

services

 

h _..,_._~________‘._ ___H _. “W---_. 4*- __ ___.._._._4_ .m

 

70
the most important service for them. Health service is ranked second
in importance by administrators, ranked third by faculty members, and
ranked fifth by students.

At the other end of the importance scale, the areas of student
activities are ranked by the three groups of respondents as the least
important service. Both faculty members and students rank "other
miscellaneous services" relatively low in importance while administra-
tors rank it slightly higher.

The three groups of respondents seem to have different opinions
concerning the importance of the financial aids and placement service.
Students rank this service third, but administrators rank it seventh
and faculty members rank it fifth. Both administrators and faculty
members consider counseling service fairly important by rating it
fourth on the list of eight services, but students rate the service
sixth.

It is shown in Table 6 that all three groups of respondents rate
the importance of mcst serv1ces quite high. All mean scores except
those for student activities are above four on the five-point scale.
The mean scores of the administrator group on the importance scale is
higher than those rated by the other two grfiups in all areas except
financial aids and placement service.

The information gathered from the semi-structured interviews
seems to support the data obtained through the questionnaire concerning
the importance of the student personnel services. The respondents
seem to give high rating on this scale; this may be due to the fact that

they considered the listed services in the questionnaire as ideal

71
services. The administrator group appears to consider financial aids
and job placement service not very important, while the student group
thinks it is; this may be due to the attitude of most administrators
who consider only academic concerns as their responsibility. Some of
the student personnel workers expressed the opinions that the
students' families should take care of their financial problems.
The Effectiveness of the Existing Services as

Perceived by Administrators, Faculty
Members, and Students

 

 

One of the major dimensions of the study is to determine the
degree of effectiveness of the existing student personnel services
held by the three groups of the population. Expressions of satisfac—
tion or dissatisfaction with the services should be elicited to form
the base for the improvement of the student personnel services.

With regard to the effectiveness of the services, the responses
to the questionnaire which are to be found in Table 7 reveal a wide
variation of Opinions eXpressed by the three groups of respondents.

item l—-”Student handbook” is rated the must effective of all
forty items in the questionnaire. Item l7--”General elections are held
to elect student representatives to form a student council which sets
up polities for Student activ1ties" and Item 39-—”Opportunities and
facilities are provided for students to participate in a variety of
intramural sports" are ranked second and third, respectively, on the
effectiveness scale.

On the other hand, dissatisfaction is indicated by the low ratings
of the respondents to Item 34-—"Health insurance is arranged for

students”, Item 30--"Necessary facilities such as telephone, forms,

72

Table 7

Tabulation of the frequencies and percentage of the responses, means,

standard deviations, and ranks of the means of the items in

 

 

 

Part C--Effectiveness—-of the questionnaire (N = 186)
Weight
Items 5 4 3 2 I 0 X .D. RANK
1. Student hand— 24 87 63 9 2 l 3.64 .85 1
book 12.90 46.77 33.87 4.84 1.08 0.54
2. Counseling 9 36 65 50 9 17 2.65 .25 22
center 4.84 19.35 34.95 36.88 4.84 9.14
3. Staff who are 11 54 76 32 9 4 3.08 .04 12
assigned to 5.91 29.09 40.86 17.20 4.84 2.15
counseling
4. Meals of reason- 13 56 74 29 7 7 3.10 .11 9.5
able price 6.99 30.11 39.78 15.59 3.76 3.76
5. Private rooms 10 35 46 29 12 54 2.14 .64 29.5
for counseling 5.38 18.82 24.73 15.59 6.45 29.03
6. Students who 4 28 57 26 14 57 1.98 .55 33
want to withdraw 2.15 15.05 30.65 13.98 7.53 30.65
7. Contacts with 15 36 61 38 7 29 2.61 .46 23.5
hospitals 8.06 19.35 32.80 20.43 3 76 15 59
8. Proper facili- ll 38 85 29 19 4 2.90 .09 17
ties for meals 5.91 20 43 45.70 15 59 10.22 2.15
9. Every student is l3 59 88 l8 4 4 3.25 .96 6
assigned an 6.99 31.72 47.31 9.68 2.15 2.15
adviser
10. Contacts With 5 23 86 38 1' 15 2.53 .16 26
alumni 2.69 12.37 46.24 20.43 10.22 8.06
11. Health center 13 57 67 36 IO 3 3.10 .07 9.5
6.99 30.65 36.02 19.35 5.38 1.61
12. Staff in coun— 4 28 65 42 10 37 2.26 .39 28
seling teach 2.15 15 05 34.95 22.58 5.38 19.89

fewer hours

73

Table 7 (Continued)

 

 

 

Weight
Items 5 4 3 2 1 0 .D. RANK
13. Student Union 17 52 67 28 6 16 .99 .31 14.5
9.14 27.96 36.02 15.05 3.23 8.60
14. Student cumula— 31 68 51 19 4 13 .34 .32 4
tive records 16.67 36.56 27.42 10.22 2.15 6.99
15. Periodical 3 21 43 34 20 65 .70 .50 37
checkup on 1.61 11.29 23.12 18.28 10.75 34.95
private dormi-
tories
l6. Bookstore on 20 41 74 34 ll 6 .04 .17 13
campus 10.75 22.04 39.78 18.28 5.91 3.23
17. General student 32 70 67 13 4 O .61 .93 2
elections 17.20 37.63 36.02 6.99 2.15 O
18. A committee on 13 50 59 17 9 38 .61 .59 23.5
judiciary 6.99 26.88 31.72 9.14 4.84 20.43
function
19. Institutional 3 32 80 41 19 11 .60 .12 25
policy 1.61 17.20 43.01 22.04 10.22 5.91
20. Rules and 10 45 98 19 12 2 .09 .95 11
regulations 5.38 24.19 52.69 10 22 6.45 1-08
21. Evaluation and 4 23 64 36 22 37 .14 .39 29.5
analysis of the 2.15 12.37 34.41 19.35 11.83 19.89
services
22. Information on 4 16 57 38 24 47 .91 .41 36
drugs 2.15 8.60 30.65 20.43 12 90 25.27
23. Residence halls 25 41 59 30 9 22 .88 .47 18
13.44 22.04 31.72 16.13 4.84 11.83
24. Information on 4 18 50 50 16 48 .92 .40 35
job market 2.15 9.68 26.88 26.88 8.60 25.81
25. Physical 24 44 57 26 7 28 .83 .54 19
examination 12.90 23.66 30.65 13.98 3.76 15.05

74

Table 7 (Continued)

 

 

 

Weight
Items 5 4 3 2 l O .D. RANK
26. A job place— 9 31 48 26 20 52 2.07 .61 31
ment office 4.84 16.67 25.81 13.98 10.75 27.96
27. An orientation 21 58 71 22 8 6 3.24 .14 7
period 11.29 31.18 38.17 11.83 4.30 3.23
28. Staff office 18 29 7O 31 17 21 2.66 .41 21
hours 9.68 15.59 37.63 16.67 9.14 11.29
29. Assistance in 19 50 74 27 12 4 3.13 .12 8
student clubs 10.22 26.88 39.78 14.52 6.45 2.15
30. Facilities for 6 16 33 40 20 71 1.58 .51 39
job placement 3.23 8.60 17.74 21.51 10.75 38.17
31. Survey on 4 13 42 46 23 58 1.68 .41 38
student needs 2.15 6.99 22.58 24.73 12.37 32.18
32. Student Council 8 29 73 34 18 24 2.48 .34 27
4.30 15.59 39.25 18.28 9.68 12.90
33. Records to be 25 55 50 26 10 20 2.99 .47 14.5
used in coun- 13.44 29.57 26.88 13.98 5.38 10.75
seling
34. Health 5 15 3O 17 8 111 1.17 .57 40
insurance 2.69 8.06 16.13 9.14 4-30 59.68
35. Financial aids 24 63 64 18 10 7 3.28 .20 5
12.90 33.87 34.41 9.68 5.38 3.76
36. Better under- 8 ll 70 35 19 43 2.06 .43 32
standing among 4.30 5.91 37.63 18.82 10.22 23.12
groups on campus
37. Student govern— 26 40 68 25 7 20 2.96 .43 16
ment 13.98 21.51 36.56 13.44 3.76 10.75
38. Academic adviser 18 38 75 19 12 24 2.78 .44 20
9.68 20.43 40.32 10.22 6.44 12.90

75

Table 7 (Continued)

 

 

 

Weight
Items 5 4 3 2 1 O X S.D. RANK
39. Opportunities 40 6O 64 14 5 3 3.58 1.09 3

40.

and facilities
for intramural
sports

Seminars to
promote mental
and spiritual
growth

21.51 32.26 34.41 7.53 2.69 1.61

3 20 55 43 18 47 1.96 1.41 34
1.61 10.75 29.57 23.12 9.68 25.27

 

76
etc., and personnel are provided to help students communicate with
their prespective employer” and Item 31--”Survey on student needs in
services is annually made to be used in the planning of student
services." These three items received the lowest mean scores, ranging
from 1.17 to 1.68.

Two other items which .are also rated low on the effectiveness
scale .are Item 15—-”Periodical checkup on private dormitories is made
by college staff to see whether they maintain standards of good
living", and Item 22——”Information on drugs, venereal diseases, and
sex education is provided for students as part of health service."

This mean indicates that there is need for improvement in the areas
of housing and health care for students.

There seems to be some disagreement as to the effectiveness of
Item 5—-"Private rooms are provided for students to discuss confidential
matters with advisers” and Item 26——”A job placement office is set up
to help students find part-time jobs while studying and suitable job
placement after graduation." The respondents also expressed differences
of opinions concerning the effectiveness of Item 18——"A committee con—
sisting of administrators, faculty members and student representatives
is set up to perform the judiciary function when the college rules and
regulations are violated" and Item 34——”Health insurance is arranged
for students." The standard deviation of these four items ranged from
1.57 to 1.69.

The responses to the questionnaire Part C have been grouped
according to the three types of respondents: administrators, faculty
members, and students, and according to eight areas of student services.

The results are summarized in Table 8.

77
Table 8

Tabulation of the ranks and the means of the rating
of the three groups of respondents on Part C
(Effectiveness) of the questionnaire on the
eight areas of student personnel services

 

 

 

(N = 186)

Administrator Faculty Student

(N=12) member (N=60) (N=114)

Areas Rank Ki Rank K- Rank 'K
1. Records 1 3.52 1 3.50 1 3.21
2. Counseling services 5 2.73 3 2.61 3 2.50
3. Housing and food services 6 2.67 2 2.71 2 2.60
4. Health service 4 2.83 6 2.44 6 2.20
5. Student activities 7 2.66 7 2.32 8 2.11
6. Financial aids and 8 2.63 8 2.20 7 2.18

placement services

7. Discipline function 2 3.37 4 2.52 4.5 2.47
8. Other miscellaneous 3 2.97 5 2.50 4.5 2.47

services

 

78

The area of records is rated the most effective by the three
groups of respondents. The area of housing and food services and the
counseling service are rated second and third, respectively, by both
faculty members and students, but administrators rate them sixth and
fifth on the effectiveness scale.

The area of student activities and the area of financial aids
and placement were rated the least effective by the three groups of
respondents. The area of health service was also rated low in effect-
iveness by both faculty members and students.

When comparing the responses of the three groups of respondents
on the effectiveness scale, the mean scores of the administrator's
group are the highest, while the student group's rating is the lowest
on all services and the faculty group's rating is in the middle range.
The faculty group and the student group seem to agree in the ranking
of most services on the effectiveness scale, while the administrator's
group ranks them higher.

The information obtained through the interviews with student
personnel workers concerning the effectiveness of the eight areas of
services seems to parallel the findings in the analysis of the data
from the questionnaire. The student personnel workers expressed the
opinion that the rising food and maintenance cost of the residence
halls made it difficult to improve the services, since students pay
only minimal fees. For example, students at the College of Education
at Bangsaen pay only 150 Baht (U.S. $7.50) for the yearly rent

of rooms in the residence halls.

79
As for the effectiveness of the job placement service, it was
found that not many part-time jobs were available to students while
in school and it was not customary for the employers to come to the

colleges to seek employees.

Section Two

 

Multivariate Analysis of Variance

 

The multivariate analysis of variance was performed to compare
the differences among administrators, faculty members, and students on
eight areas of student personnel services. Whether the responses
obtained from commuter colleges and residential colleges were different
and whether there was interaction between status of respondents
and type of college were also tested in this analysis.

The purpose of this procedure was to make statistical inference
from observed sample to the population of interest——all Thai universities.
For each particular part of the questionnaire, the null hypotheses were

tested.

Statistical Hypotheses

 

The general null hypotheses being tested in the multivariate
analysis of variance of rating scores on Part A (Familiarity) of the
questionnaire are as follows:

Hypothesis 1: There is no difference among the responses of the
three groups of the respondents (administrators, faculty members, and
students) on the rating of the familiarity with eight areas of student

personnel services.

80

Hypothesis 2: There is no difference between the responses of
the questionnaire on the familiarity scale answered by the respondents
from commuter colleges and the responses answered by respondents from
residential colleges.

Hypothesis 3: There is no interaction between the status of the
respondents and the type of college on the familiarity with eight
areas of student personnel services.

As shown in Table 9, the multivariate F ratio for testing Hypothe—
sis 1 concerning the status of the respondents was 5.082, which was
highly significant (P<.01 at 16 and 346 df.). This indicated that
there were differences among the responses of the three groups of the
respondents on the familiarity scale.

The multivariate F ratio for testing Hypothesis 2 concerning the
type of college was 4.928, which was highly significant (P<.01 at 8 and
173 df.). This indicated that there was difference between the
responses of the respondents who are in commuter colleges and those
who are in residential colleges.

The multivariate F ratio for testing Hypothesis 3 concerning the
interaction between the status of the respondents and the type of
college was 0.528, which was not significant. This indicated that
there was no interaction between the status of the respondents and
the type of college in the rating of the questionnaire——Part A
(Familiarity).

Since the multivariate F ratio for testing Hypothesis 1 was sig-,
nificant, the univariate F was made as a post—hoc procedure to pinpoint

where the difference was. The total a was broken down to eight equal

81
Table 9
Multivariate analysis of variance of rating scores on Part A

(Familiarity) of the questionnaire on
student personnel services

 

 

 

Sources df. MS. Multivariate F Univariate F
16 & 346 5.082**
R 2 6.218 12.195a
c 2 7.990 20.718a
HF 2 .487 .815
H 2 6.769 14.8753
Status 5 2 2.870 9.2273
F 2 6.126 9.0433
0 2 10.443 10.8923
0 2 2.427 5.242a
8 & 173 4.928**
R 1 .402 .789
c 1 .264 .685
HF 1 8.448 14.1453
H 1 7.915 17.3948
Type S 1 0.632 2.033
F 1 0.075 .110
0 1 1.625 1.695
0 1 0.121 0.261
16 & 346 0.528
R 2 0.160 0.313
c 2 0.161 0.416
HF 2 0.009 0.015
Inter- H 2 0.240 0.528
action S 2 0.118 0.378
F 2 0.016 0.024
0 2 0.656 0.684
0 2 0.076 0.165
R 180 0.510
c 180 0.386
HF 180 0.597
H 180 0.455
Error S 180 0.311
F 180 0.677
D 180 0.959
0 180 0.463
1

The full titles of the eight areas of student personnel services
in this table can be found in Table 1, page 48.

* **
aSignificant at .00625; Significant at .05; Significant beyond .01.

82
individual I (a = .00625). As a result, the F ratios of the following
areas were significant: records (univariate F = 12.195), counseling
service (univariate F = 20.718), health service (univariate F = 14.875),
student activities (univariate F = 9.227), financial aids and job
placement (univariate F = 9.043), discipline function (univariate F =
10.892), and other miscellaneous services (univariate F = 5.242).
This indicated that the three groups of respondents gave different
ratings in these areas of services.

Since the multivariate F for testing Hypothesis 2 was significant,
the univariate F was made as a post-hoc procedure to pinpoint where
the difference was. Again, the total a was broken down to eight equal
individual a (s = .00625). As a result, the area of housing and food
services (univariate F = 14.145) and the area of health service (uni—
variate F = 17.394) were found to show significant difference between
the responses of those who are in commuter colleges and those in resi-
dential colleges.

The general null hypotheses being tested in the multivariate
analysis of variance of the scores on the importance scale of the
questionnaire were as follows:

Hypothesis 1: There are no differences among the responses of the
three groups of the respondents (administrators, faculty members and
students) on the rating of the importance of the eight areas of student
personnel services.

Hypothesis 2: There is no difference between the responses on the
importance scale of the questionnaire answered by the respondents from
commuter colleges and the responses answered by the respondents from

residential colleges.

83

Hypothesis 3: There is no interaction between the status of the
respondents and the type of college in the rating of the importance
scale of the questionnaire.

As shown in Table 10, the multivariate F ratio for testing Hypothe-
sis 1 concerning the status of the respondents was 2.663, which was
highly significant (P<.01 at 16 and 346 df.). This indicated that
there were differences among the responses of the three groups of
respondents on the importance scale (Part B) of the questionnaire.

The univariate F was then made to find where the difference was. As
a result, the univariate F of records was found significant (univariate
F = 4.191, P<.00625).

Both the multivariate F'ratios for testing Hypothesis 2 and
Hypothesis 3 were not significant. This indicated that type of college
did not affect the responses on the importance of the services and
that there was no interaction between the status of the respondents
and the type of college in the rating of Part B of the questionnaire.

The general null hypotheses being tested in the multivariate
analysis of variance of the scores on the effectiveness scale of the
questionnaire were as follows:

Hypothesis 1: There are no differences among the responses of
the three groups of the respondents (administrators, faculty members,
and students) on the effectiveness of the eight areas of student
personnel services.

Hypothesis 2: There is no difference between the responses on the
effectiveness scale of the questionnaire answered by the respondents

from commuter colleges and those from residential colleges.

84

Table 10

Multivariate analysis of variance of rating scores on Part B
(Importance) of the questionnaire on
student personnel services

 

 

Sources df MS. Multivariate F Univariate F
16 & 346 2.663**
R 2 1.271 4.191*
C 2 0.352 1.468
HF 2 0.310 1.014
H 2 0.422 1.397
Status S 2 0.165 0.937
F 2 0.739 1.718
D 2 0.492 1.089
O 2 0.314 0.908
8 & 173 0.7191
R 2 0.116 0.383
C 2 0.290 1.210
HF 2 0.781 2.547
H 2 0.129 0.427
Type S 2 0.055 0.311
F 2 0.964 2.243
D 2 0.044 0.098
0 2 0.002 0.005
16 & 346 1.205
R 2 0.421 1.390
C 2 1.004 4.184
HF 2 0.456 1.486
Inter- H 2 0.491 1.625
action S 2 0.380 2.157
F 2 0.681 1.583
D 2 1.130 2.502
0 2 0.372 1.073
R 180 0.303
C 180 0.240
HF 180 0.307
H 180 0.302
Error S 180 0.176
F 180 0.430
D 180 0.452
O 180 0.346

 

*
Significant at .05;

**
Significant beyond 0.01.

85

Hypothesis 3: There is no interaction between the status of the
respondents and the type of college on the effectiveness scale of the
questionnaire.

As shown in Table 11, the multivariate F ratio for testing Hypothe—
sis 1 concerning the status of the respondents was 2.0268 (P<.05 at
16 and 346 df.), which was significant. This indicated that there
were differences among the responses of the three groups of the
respondents on the effectiveness scale (Part C) of the questionnaire.
The univariate F was investigated as a post-hoc procedure to locate
where the difference was. As a result, only the F ratio of student
activities was found to be significant (univariate F = 7.374,
P<.00625).

The multivariate F ratio to test Hypothesis 2 concerning the type
of college was 5.947, which was highly significant (P<.01 at 16 and
346 df.). This indicated that there were differences among the
responses of the respondents from commuter colleges and those from
residential colleges on the effectiveness scale (Part C) of the question-
naire. The univariate F was investigated to find the sources of the
difference as a post—hoc procedure, and it was revealed that the area
of housing and food services (univariate F = 5.546, P<.00625) and the
area of health service (univariate F = 6.047, P<.00625) showed signifi-
cant differences.

The multivariate F ratio to test Hypothesis 3 was found insig—
nificant. This indicated that there was no interaction between the
status of the respondents and type of college in the rating of scores

on the effectiveness scale of the questionnaire.

86
Table 11
Multivariate analysis of variance of rating scores on Part C

(Effectiveness) of the questionnaire on
student personnel services

 

 

Sources df. MS. Multivariate F Univariate F
16 & 346 2.0268*
R 2 1.871 2.626
C 2 0.475 0.731
HF 2 0.239 0.328
H 2 2.717 3.638
Status 3 2 2.110 7.3748
F 2 1.119 1.053
D 2 4.484 2.956
0 2 1.378 2.200
8 & 173 5.947**
R 1 0.948 1.330
C 1 1.760 2.708
HF 1 4.038 5.546*
H 1 4.516 6.047*
Type S 1 0.099 0.345
F 1 3.648 3.433
D 1 0.094 0.062
0 1 1.410 2.251
16 & 346 0.327
R 2 0.051 0.072
C 2 0.087 0.133
HF 2 0.143 0.196
Inter- H 2 0.022 0.029
action S 2 0.165 0.577
F 2 0.529 0.498
D 2 0.515 0.340
0 2 0.196 0.313
R 180 0.713
C 180 0.650
HF 180 0.728
H 180 0.747
Error 8 180 0.286
F 180 1.063
D 180 1.517
0 180 0.626

 

* **
aSignificant at .00625; Significant at .05; Significant
beyond 0.01.

87

Analysis of Repeated Measure Design

 

Thus far, there was no comparison among the measures of the eight
areas of student personnel services in the analysis of the data. The
analysis of repeated measure design was performed to gain more infor—
mation from the data obtained. Two groups of hypotheses were tested.
The first group of null hypotheses was concerned with the combined
scores of all eight areas. These hypotheses were as follows:

Hypothesis 1: There are no differences in the total ratings of
eight areas of services among the three groups of respondents—-
administrators, faculty members, and students.

Hypothesis 2: There is no difference in the total rating of
eight areas of services between the respondents of commuter colleges
and those of residential colleges.

Hypothesis 3: There is no interaction between the status of the
respondents and the type of college.

The second group of null hypotheses was concerned with the repeated
measure Variables: records, counseling services, student activities,
financial aids and job placement, discipline function, and other
miscellaneous services. The hypotheses were:

Hypothesis 4: There are no differences among the measures of
eight areas of student personnel services regardless of the type of
college and the status of the respondents.

Hypothesis 5: There is no interaction between repeated measures
and the status of the respondents.

Hypothesis 6: There is no interaction between repeated measures

and the type of college.

88

Hypothesis 7: There is no interaction between repeated measures
and the status of the respondents and the type of college.

The result of the analysis of repeated measure design for the
scores of Part A (Familiarity) of the questionnaire is shown in
Table 12.

The univariate F which was used to test Hypothesis 1 was 14.732
(P<.01 at 2 and 180 df.). This indicated that there were differences
in the total ratings among the three groups of respondents, as expected.
The univariate F which was used to test Hypothesis 2 was 5.082 (P<.05
at 2 and 180 df.). This indicated that there was difference in the
total rating between the respondents of commuter colleges and those of
residential colleges. The univariate F to test Hypothesis 3 was not
significant.

The multivariate F which was used to test Hypothesis 4 was found
significant (F = 79.003, P<.01 at 7 and 174 df.). This indicated that
there were differences among the measures of eight areas of student
personnel services on the familiarity stale regardless of the type of
college and the status of the respondents.

The multivariate F which was used to test Hypothesis 5 was also
significant (F = 3.72,P(.0] at 14 and 348 df.). This indicated that
there was interaction between repeated measures and the status of the
respondents on the rating of the familiarity with the eight areas of
services.

The multivariate F which was used to test Hypothesis 6 was sig-
nificant (F = 5.341, P<.01 at 7 and 174 df.). This indicated that
there was interaction between repeated measures and the type of college

on the rating of the questionnaire on the familiarity scale.

89
Table 12

Multivariate repeated measure analysis of scores on Part A
of the questionnaire on student personnel services

 

 

Sources df. MS. Multivariate F Univariate F
Status 2 33.109 14.732**
Type 1 11.421 5.082*
Type x Status 2 0.380 0.169
R:TS 180 2.247

Measures 7 & 174 79.003**

M x S 14 & 348 3.720**

M x T 7 & 174 5.341**

M x S x T 14 & 348 0.553

 

**
Significant beyond .01.

*Significant at .05.

The multivariate F to test Hypothesis 7 was not significant; there
was no interaction between repeated measures and the status of the
respondents and the type of college.

The result of the analysis of repeated measures design for the
scores of Part B (Importance) of the questionnaire is shown in Table 13.

Only the multivariate F to test Hypothesis 4 and the multivariate
F to test Hypothesis 5 were significant. The null hypotheses for
Hypothesis 1, Hypothesis 2, Hypothesis 3, Hypothesis 6, and Hypothesis
7 were not rejected. This indicated that in the rating of the importance
of eight areas of services there were differences among the measures

of eight areas of student personnel services regardless of the type of

90
Table 13

Multivariate repeated measure analysis of scores on Part B
of the questionnaire on student personnel services

 

 

Sources df. MS. Multivariate F Univariate F
Status 2 .987 .632
Type 1 1.612 1.032
Type x Status 2 4.222 2.703
RzTS 180 1.562

Measures 7 & 174 424.813**

M x S 14 & 348 2.823*

M x T 7 & 174 0.709

M x S x T 14 & 348 0.967

 

* **
Significant at .05; Significant beyond .01.

college and the status of the respondents (multivariate F = 424.813,
P<.01 at 7 and 174 df.). The multivariate F to test Hypothesis 5
was 2.823 (P<.05, at 14 and 348 df.). This indicated that there was
interaction between repeated measures and the status of the respondents.
The result of the analysis of repeated measure design for the
scores of Part C (Effectiveness) of the (pestionnaire is shown in
Table 14.
The multivariate F to test Hypothesis 4 was significant (F =
71.988, P<.01 at 7 and 174 df.). This indicated that there were
differences among the measures of eight areas of student personnel

services on the effectiveness scale regardless of the type of college

91
Table 14

Multivariate repeated measure analysis of scores on Part C
of the questionnaire on student personnel services

 

 

Sources df. MS. Multivariate F Univariate F
Status 2 10.367 3.045
Type 1 .202 .059
Type x Status 2 .855 .260
R:TS 180 3.404

Measures 7 6 174 71.988**

M x S 14 & 348 1.455

M x T 7 & 174 6.623**

M x S x T 14 6 348 .324

 

* **
Significant at .05; Significant beyond .01.

and the status of the respondents. The multivariate F to test Hypothe-
sis 6 was also significant (F = 6 623, P/.01 at 7 and 174 df.). This
indicated that there was interaction between repeated measures and the
type of college. The null hypotheses for Hypothesis 1, Hypothesis 2,
Hypothesis 3, Hypothesis 5, and Hypothesis 7 were not rejected since the
F values were found not significant.

In order to illustrate the interactions which were found signifi—
cant in the analysis, graphs were drawn to show the patterns of the
ratings (Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4).

The graph of interaction between measures and status of the

respondents on the familiarity scale of the questionnaire in Figure 1

92

.moofi>wom Hoccomsmm oampsum mo moose ucwfio ecu mo AmuflumflHflEmmv ¢ uumm mo mmamom wcwums
can so mococcoamou ecu mo mJuMum paw mowammoe :oo3uon doeuomsmuafl mo meuo .H msswflm

o o e m e me o e
. _ . _ _ _ 4 _

 

mucwmvjum 1:13"- In..-

wsmneoe xuasomm llllllll

 

muOomuuchMEc<

 

 

 

93
revealed that the administrator group tended to rate the scale on
familiarity higher than the other two groups on all areas except
housing and food services. The faculty group was in the middle
range while the student group seemed to be the least familiar with
most services.

The graph of interaction between measures and status of the
respondents on the importance scale of the questionnaire in Figure 2
indicated that the administrator group again rated the scale on
importance higher than the other two groups in all areas except
financial aids and job placement. The faculty group rated all services
excluding records and other miscellaneous the lowest among the three
groups. The student group seemed to be in the middle range; however,
the area of financial aids and job placement was rated the most
important by students.

The graph of interaction between measures and type of institution
on the familiarity scale of the questionnaire in Figure 3 showed that
the respondents of residential colleges rated the scale on familiarity
with the services higher than the respondents of commuter colleges,
especially in the areas of housing and food services and health service.

The graph of interaction between measures and type of institution
on the effectiveness scale of the questionnaire in Figure 4 indicated
that the respondents of residential colleges rated the areas of housing
and food services, health service, and discipline function higher than
those from commuter colleges with regard to the effectiveness of the

services.

94

 

.mmofi>wom Hmacomumm ocovsum mo mmoum oLwHo onu mo AmocwupanHv m uumm mo mmHMom waflums
ego co mucopcoamou ecu wo msumom cam mousmmoa comaomc coauomsousfi mo namuw .N oudwfim

mm o m
l l _

Q m m

1

a a a

mocmpsom .I.:ll..I|.:|

‘im

mwmnEoE xuasomm lllllll

 

mucomwomHCHEp<

 

 

.moofi>wmm Hmcsomuma unmpSum wo mmmum uswfio ecu mo A%ufluwflafiammv 4 uumm mo mamom
wcflumu ecu do coausuflumsfl mo mmzu was mmuammma GmmBumn cowoomumuafl mo Lamuu .m ouswwm

 

95

o a e m m mm o m
_ 7 _ _ _ T 4 _
umoDEEoo lllllll
Hmwocmewmme

 

 

 

96

 

.moofi>uom Hoccomuma ucovsum mo mmoum uzwfio can mo Ammmco>fluomwwmv
o osmm no coeoSoHomcH mo mazo cam mowsmmoe comauon coauomuouafi mo namuw .q ouswwm

a m m m mm o m .
l _ a _ _ _ H

umosasoo lllllll

 

Hmeocmewmme

 

97
Summary

On the basis of the data received from the responses to statements
of student personnel services in the questionnaire the following
information seems pertinent.

There seemed to be some provision for all eight areas of student
personnel services in the six institutions under study, but the
organization and the administration of these services were diverse in
scope and pattern. Some respondents were not aware of the existing
services, but the majority of the respondents seemed to have some
knowledge about the student personnel program of their institution.

The multivariate analysis of variance for the scores on the
familiarity scale of the questionnaire indicated that there were
differences among the response of the three groups of the respondents
on the awareness of the existing services. There was also difference
between the responses of the respondents who are in commuter college
and those who are in residential colleges in the areas of housing and
food services, and health services.

The multivariate analysis of variance for the scores on the
importance scale and on the effectiveness scale of the questionnaire
revealed that there were differences among the responses of the three
groups of respondents on the importance and effectiveness scales.

While the type of college did not affect the responses on the importance
scale, it was the source of the difference on the effectiveness scale.
The analysis of repeated measure design was performed on the

three parts of the questionnaire; the results were the following:
There were differences in the total ratings among the three groups

of respondents on the familiarity scale, on the importance scale, and

98
on the effectiveness scale regardless of the type of college and the
status of the respondents. There were interactions between the measures
and the status of the respondents and between the measures and the
type of college in the rating of the familiarity scale. There was
interaction between the measures and the status of the respondents
in the rating of the importance scale, and there was also interaction
between the measures and the type of college on the afféctiveness scale

of the questionnaire.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this chapter, the problem and the procedures of the study are
summarized. Conclusions of the study are presented and discussed in

detail. Finally, recommendations for further research are suggested.

The Problem

 

The purpose of this study was to ascertain the current status of
the student personnel services in six selected Thai institutions of
higher learning; to appraise the awareness of the three groups of the
college population (administrators, faculty members, and students) on
the existing student personnel services; and to provide the three
groups of respondents with an opportunity to rate the importance of
the services listed in the questionnaire and to express their personal
evaluation of the student personnel services provided on their campus.

The study was conducted during the summer and fall of 1973; the
analysis of the data and the report of the findings were finished in
the winter of 1974. COpies of the questionnaire were sent to 192
individuals in six colleges under study. Total returned responses for
this study included 12 administrators, 60 faculty members, and 114
students. A two-day visit to each campus was made by the researcher
in August 1973 so that semi-structured interviews were conducted by

the researcher to obtain the information on the current student

99

100
personnel workers on six campuses and to validate the data obtained

through the questionnaires.

Procedure of the Study

 

The questionnaire of student personnel services (forty items) used
in this study was developed by the researcher in the spring of 1973.
The original pool of statements was adapted from statements of
Fitzgerald's ”The Student Personnel Services Questionnaire” (16:Appendix
A) and Emerson's ”Evaluation of Selected College Services" (l3:Appendix
A). The instrument entitled ”Survey of Student Personnel Services in
Thai Universities" was designed to make a survey of eight areas of
student personnel services, namely: records, counseling services,
housing and food services, health service, student activities, financial
aids and job placement, discipline function, and other miscellaneous
services.

The respondents were requested to rate each item of the question-
naire in three parts: Part A is concerned with the familiarity with
the services, Part B is concerned with the importance of the services,
and Part C is concerned with the effectiveness of the existing services.
A five—point scale was used in the rating, except for Part C, in which
zero was added to be marked when the service was thought to be
nonexistent.

The questionnaire was translated into Thai by the researcher
since all respondents were Thai and use Thai language as the medium
of communication.

The analysis of the data was made on the CDC 6500 computer at

Michigan State University. The CISSR Routine ACT was used to obtain

101
363 contingency tables. The multivariate analysis of variance was
employed to compare the differences among the three groups of
reSpondents in the rating of the questionnaire items on eight areas of
student personnel services, the difference between the two types of
college, and the interaction between status of the respondents and
type of college. Whenever the multivariate F was found significant,
3 post-hoc procedure was made in order to find the source of the
difference.

The analysis of repeated measures design was made to compare the
measures of eight areas of student personnel services. Whenever the
multivariate F of an interaction was significant, a graph was drawn
to illustrate the interaction. The Finn program was used both in the
multivariate analysis of variance and the analysis of repeated measures
design. A minimum confidence level of .05 was used to determine the

significance.

Findings and Conclusions of the Study

 

Some elements of each of the student personnel services were
found in all six institutions of higher learning under study. However,
the organization and the administration of the services were diverse
in sc0pe and pattern. Three of the six institutions have appointed
a vice president for student affairs to take charge of the student
personnel program and have established a central office of student
affairs to coordinate various programs and activities which aim toward
student development. The service which needs more improvement than
others is the counseling service, since the concept of career counseling

and personal—social counseling has not yet been fully understood by

102
the college population. Although the majority of the respondents
seemed to be aware of the existing services provided on campus, students
were less well-informed about the services than administrators and
faculty members.

The multivariate analysis of variance revealed that there are
differences among the responses of the three groups of the respondents
on the familiarivy scale of the questionnaire. The post—hoc procedure
was made to pinpoint where the differences are. As a result, the F
ratios of the following areas were found significant: records,
counseling service, health service, student activities, financial
aids and job placement, discipline function, and the category which was
classified in this study as "other miscellaneous services." There are
also differences between the responses of those who are in commuter
colleges and those in residential colleges concerning the familiarity
with housing and food services, and health service.

With regard to the responses concerning the importance of the
services listed in the questionnaire, the three groups of respondents
seem to agree in all areas of student personnel services except
records. In the latter case, the administrator group and the faculty
group rate it higher than the student group. The type of college does
not affect the responses on the importance scale.

As for the results of the multivariate analysis of variance of
the scores on the effectiveness of the existing services, there
differences among the three groups of respondents in the area of student
activities. The student group rate this service lower than the
administrator group and the faculty group on the effectiveness scale.

There anxa also differences in the responses of those who are in

103
commuter colleges and those in residential colleges in the areas of
housing and food services, and health service. Respondents in the
residential colleges rate these areas higher than those in the
commuter colleges.

The analysis of repeated measures design was made to compare the
measures of eight areas of student personnel services rated by the
three groups of respondents. it was found that there are differences
in the total rating of the familiarity scale among the three groups
of respondents, and between those who are in commuter colleges and
those in residential colleges. There is interaction between measures
and status of the respondents, and there if; also interaction between
measures and type of college, as shown in Figures 1 and 3, respectively.

The administrator group rate all areas except housing and food
services higher than the other two groups, and also rate the discipline
function as the most familiar service. The faculty member group's
rating is in the middle range in most areas on the familiarity scale.
Housing and food service is rated the most familiar and the area of
student activities is rated the least familiar by faculty members. The
rating of the student group is much lower than that of the other two
groups in most areas except housing and food services. Students rate
financial aids and job placement as the least familiar service.

Support for this conclusion may be noted in Figure l.

The rating of the respondents in residential colleges if; generally
higher than that of the respondents in commuter colleges, especially
in the areas of housing and food services, and health service. Ratings

of the respondents are reviewed in Figure 2.

 

 

104

The differences among the measures of eight areas of student
personnel services rated by the three groups of respondents and the
interaction between measures and status of the respondents aux: revealed
in the analysis on the importance scale. The graph in Figure 2 indi-
cates that the administrator group rate all areas except financial
aids and job placement higher than the other two groups. Records and
health service anxz rated the most important services by administra—
tors. The faculty group and the student group seem to agree on the
importance of most services but the rating of students is, on the
whole, higher than that of faculty members. Both groups rate records
and housing and food services as the most important services. Students
also rate the area of financial aids and job placement higher than
administrators and faculty members.

With regard to the results of the analysis on the effectiveness
scale, there are: differences among the ratings of the three groups of
respondents and there is interaction between measures and type of
college. The differences between the rating of the respondents in
commuter colleges and that of the respondents in residential colleges
is shown in the graph in Figure 4. The three groups of respondents
in residential colleges rate housing and food services, health service,
and discipline function higher than do those in commuter colleges.
However, the respondents in residential colleges rate financial aids
and job placement the least effective service while those in commuter
colleges rate health service the least effective. Both rate records

as the most effective service.

 

105
Suggestions for the Improvement of Personnel
Services in Thai Universities as
the Outcome of the Study
1. Since the purpose and the function of student personnel
prrograms have not yet been well understood by the college population,

jgreater effort must be made to communicate what services are available

21nd how these services can be used. Orientation programs for new

EBtudents and newly appointed instructors should include the informa—
tlion about student personnel services provided on campus in detail.

2. Generally, the student personnel programs in most Thai uni-
\Jersities are not yet well-coordinated; attention needs to be given
t:o how student personnel services can function more effectively. The
(office of student affairs should be established in all universities to
take charge of various student personnel services, and a student
'personnel administrator whose full—time job is the effective operation
of all student welfare services should be appointed to be responsible
for the operation of the total student personnel program.

3. The counseling service appears to be a particular need for
Thai students at the present time. Students seem to be quite unaware
of what a counseling service might do to assist them in clarifying and

planning for their career goals as well as to gain a better self-

understanding. The universities should provide appropriate facilities

and hire full-time qualified counselors so that the counseling service
can function effectively.

4. There is some evidence that the role of the student is changing
in the Thai culture. University administrators and faculty members

Inust become more aware of what the student role is becoming and be

 

 

 

106
prepared to bring about changes in the university which will be in
keeping with the changing roles.

S. It would appear that the area of university planning for
student personnel programs must be included to a greater extent than
what might have been true in the past. Like any other department,
the office of student affairs should be assigned a basic core of

functions for which it is customarily held solely responsible.

Recommendations for Further Research

 

1. From the results of this study, one of the most important
areas for further research would be an assessment of student needs in
the various colleges which could be used as a basis for the establish-
ment of new services and the improvement or abolishment of the existing
services. The needs of any one campus group vary from year to year
under different conditions. A checklist can be devised for students
to identify their needs in different degrees of intensity.

2. Student personnel administrators at each institution should
consider a further investigation of each individual personnel service.
This would be particularly significant for the services which received a
low rating on the effectiveness scale and high rating on the importance
scale. For example, students rate financial aids and job placement
as one of the most important services but at the same time they rate
it the least familiar service and one of the least effective services.

3. Efforts should be continued to improve the instruments used
to measure the effectiveness of student personnel services. The major
weakness of the researcher's instrument was that it was based on the

concept of student personnel services on American campuses. This was

107
necessary since no real attempt has yet been made to establish the type
of student services in terms of the Thai culture and Thai institutions

of higher learning.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

lO.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arbuckle, Dugald 8. Student Personnel Services in Higher Education.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1953.

Arbuckle, Dugald S., and Joseph F. Kauffman. "Student Personnel
Services in Liberal Arts College." Personnel and Guidance
Journal, Vol. 38:296-299 (December, 1959).

Berdie, Ralph E. ”Student Personnel Work: Definition and Redefi-
nition.” The Journal of College Student Personnel, Vol. 7, No.
3:131—136 (May, 1966).

Brailey, Lester G. ”The Effectiveness of Student Personnel
Services in Certain Urban Universities." Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1952.

Brantley, Edward J. ”A Study of the Student Personnel Program at
Clark College.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University
of Colorado, 1960.

Brown, Robert D. Student Development in Tomorrow’s Higher
Education—-A Return to the Academy. Student Personnel Series
No. 16, American College Personnel Association, Washington,
1972.

Brumbaugh, A. J., and L. C. Smith. "A Point Scale for Evaluating
Personnel Work in Institutions of Higher Learning." Religious
Education, Vol. 27:230-235 (1932).

Butts, Porter. State of the College Union Around the world.
Association of College Union—International, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York, 1967.

Carson, Arthur Leroy. Higher Education in the Philippines. U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Educa—
tion, Washington, D.C., 1961.

Committee on Student Personnel Work. The Student Personnel Point

of View. American Council on Education, Series I, No. 3,
Washington: American Council on Education, 1937.

108

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

l6.

l7.

l8.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

109

Education Commission. Report of the Education 1964-66. New
Delhi: Ministry of Education, India, 1966.

Elequin, Eleanor T. ”A Study of the Effectiveness of the Student
Personnel Services and Adequacy of Guidance and Related Course
Offerings for Teacher Training at Philippine Normal College."
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State College, 1954.

Emerson, William Porter. ”Faculty, Student, and Student Personnel
Worker Perceptions of Selected Student Personnel Services in
the Community Colleges of North Carolina." Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971.

Farnworth, Dana L. "Attitudes and Values of College Students."
Paper delivered at the Institute for Administrators of Pupil
Personnel Services, Harvard University, July, 1966, pp. 32—34.

Feder, D. D., et al. The Administration of'Student Personnel
Programs in American Colleges and Universities. American
Council on Education Studies, Series VII, No. 19, Washington:
American Council on Education, 1958.

Fitzgerald, Laurine E. ”A Student of Faculty Perceptions of
Student Personnel Services.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1959.

Fitzgerald, Laurine E., Walter F. Johnson, and Norris Willa (ed.).
College Student Personnel. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston,
1970.

Gardner, Donfred H. Student Personnel Services. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1936.

Gross, Carl H. "The Agony of Japanese Higher Education." An
article, Michigan State University, 1973.

Hage, Robert S. ”A Revision of the Rackham Student Personnel
Services Inventory.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Uni-
versity of Iowa, 1957.

Hanson, Ernest Edward. "A Study of the Structural Organization
of Student Personnel Services in Certain State Colleges and
Universities." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1952.

Harry, Ormsby L. "A Study of Student Personnel Services at
Michigan College of Mining and Technology." Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1960.

Hayden, Howard. Higher Education and Development in Southeast
Asia. UNESCO and the International Association of Universities,
Paris, 1967.

 

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

110

Henderson, Algo D. Training University Administrators: A Pro-
gramme Guide. UNESCO Higher Education Series, UNESCO: Paris,
1970.

Hopkins, E. H. "The Essentials of a Student Personnel Program."
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 8, No. 3:430-
450 (Autumn, 1948).

Hopkins, L. B. ”Personnel Procedures in Education: Observations
and Conclusions from Visits to Fourteen Institutions of Higher
Learning." Educational Record Supplement, Vol. 7:1-96 (1926).

Johnson, Walter F. ”Contemporary PhiIOSOphies of Education in
Colleges and Universities and Student Personnel—-Student
Development Point of View.” Unpublished paper, Michigan State
University, September, 1973.

”India and Thailand.” Journal of College Student

Personnel:88-90 (March, 1970).

Kamm, Robert B., and C. Gilbert Wrenn. "An Inventory of Student
Reactions to Student Personnel Services.” An Inventory of
Student Reactions to Student Personnel Services, mimeographed
manual, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1950.

Kraft, Richard J. Student Background and University Admission.
Education in Thailand Series, Publication No. 6, Ministry of

Education: Bangkok, Thailand, 1968.

Lloyd, Wesley P. Student Personnel Services in Japan. American
Council on Education, Washington, D.C., 1957.

Student Counseling in Japan. Minneapolis: University

of Minnesota Press, 1953.

Lloyd-Jones, Esther M., and M. R. Smith. A Student Personnel
Program for Higher Education. New York: McGraw—Hill Book
Company, 1938.

Maverick, Lewis A. The Vocational Guidance of College Students.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926.

Mueller, Kate H. Student Personnel Work in Higher Education.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961.

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Commis-
sion of Program and Practice Evaluation. "Report of the Commission
of Program and Practice Evaluation." The Association, Washington,
D.C., 1953.

Parrott, Leslie. "A Study of Student Personnel Services in Six
Liberal Arts Church Colleges." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1958.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

111

Penny, James F. Perspective and Challenge in College Personnel
work. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1972.

Pershing, John J. "The Student Personnel Program of Georgia
Tech--An Evaluation." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Indiana University, 1952.

Peterson, Glen E. "The Perceptions of Student Personnel Administra—
tors, Faculty Members, and Students of the Student Personnel
Programs of the Senior Colleges of the American Lutheran Church."
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University,
1968.

Rackham, Eric. "The Determination of Criteria for the Evaluation
of Student Personnel Services in Institutions of Higher
Learning." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of

Michigan, 1951.

Rogers, Everett M., et al. The Diffusion of Educational Innova-
tions in the Government Secondary Schools of Thailand. Publica-
tion No. 5, Education in Thailand Series, Ministry of Education,
Bangkok, Thailand, 1966.

Self-Study Committee. The Image of the University Today. The
University of the Philippines, Quezon City, 1962.

Scott, William L. ”A Study of Student Personnel Services in
Small Liberal Arts Colleges.” Unpublished Doctoral Disserta—
tion, Michigan State University, 1959.

Shaw, Archibald B, and Thamrong Buasri. Teachers in Thailand's
Universities——An Analysis and Forecast. Education in Thailand
Series, No. 4, Ministry of Education, Bangkok, Thailand, 1968.

Shigley, E. Harold. ”An Evaluation of Student Personnel Services
at Marion College.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana
University, 1958.

Townsend, Marion E. The Administration of Student Personnel
Services in Teacher Training Institutions of the United States.
New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1932.

United States Educational Foundation in India. Student Services
for Indian Universities and Colleges. U.S. Education Founda-
tion in India, New Delhi, 1966.

Weitz, Henry. The Organization of Student Services in Indian
Colleges and Universities. U.S. Education Foundation in India,
New Delhi, 1971.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

112
Williamson, E. G., et al. The Student Personnel Point of View.
American Council on Education Studies, Series VI, No. 13,
Washington, 1949.

Student Personnel Wbrk. New York: McGraw-Hill Book

Company, 1937.

Williamson, E. G., and Sarbin, T. R. Student Personnel work in
the University of Minnesota. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Burgess
Publishing Company, 1941.

Student Personnel Services in Colleges and Universities.

New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961.

Wrenn, C. Gilbert. Student Personnel work in College. New York:
The Ronald Press Company, 1951.

Wronski, Stanley P. "Thailand: Redirecting Secondary Education.‘
In Strategies for Curriculum Change: Case From 13 Nations, ed.
by R. Murray Thomas. Scranton, Pennsylvania: International
Textbook Company, 1968.

Zimmerman, Elwyn E. "Student Perceptions of Student Personnel
Services at Michigan State University." Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONS FOR SEMI—STRUCTURED INTERVIEW

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONS FOR SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW

1. Who is responsible for the operation of the student personnel
program in this institution?

2. What kind of student personnel services are provided on this

3. How are student activities financed?

4. How are various services for students administered?

5. What are some of the problems encountered by student personnel
workers in the administration of student personnel services?

6. Do the following student personnel services exist on this
campus? If so, to what extent?

Records
Counseling services
Housing and food services
Health services
Student activities
Financial aids and job placement
Discipline function
Other miscellaneous services,
such as orientation, bookstore, etc.

113

 

APPENDIX B

SURVEY OF STUDENT PERSONNEL SERVICES IN THAI UNIVERSITIES

 

APPENDIX B

SURVEY OF STUDENT PERSONNEL SERVICES IN THAI UNIVERSITIES

Directions: This instrument contains the statements of services which
may be provided by various colleges as a part of their total
programs. Please read each statement carefully and respond to
the three questions about the service at your institution by
drawing a circle around the number which corresponds to your
choice in the rating scale. Your choice is made on the following
basis:

Part A asks you to rate your familiarity with each listed service,

based on your own opinion. Definition of scale for Part A:
5 = very familiar
4 = rather familiar
3 = somewhat familiar
2 = vaguely familiar
l = not familiar

Part B asks you to rate the degree of importance of the listed service,
based on your experience at your institution. Definition of

scale for Part B:

114

115

5 = very important

4 = rather important

3 = moderately important

2 = almost unimportant

l = not important

Part C asks you to rate the degree of effectiveness of the listed

service, based on your experience at your present institution.
Definition of scale for Part C:

5 = very effective

4 = rather effective

3 = moderately effective

2 = almost ineffective

1 = not effective

 

0 = this service is not
offered as far as
you know
Illustration
Familiarity Importance Effectiveness
Part A Part B Part C
5. Private rooms are 5 4 3 2(1) 5 4(3)2 l 5 4 3<:)1

provided for stu—

dents to discuss

confidential matters

with advisers.

Suppose you have never used or had anything to do with this
service, you circle the l in Part A.

Suppose you feel that this service is moderately important,
you circle the 3 in Part B.

Suppose you know that some rooms are provided for counseling

but you are not satisfied because 'confidential' conversation

116

can be heard through partitions, you circle the 2 in Part C
to indicate that this service is almost ineffective.
Now, please read the following statements carefully and respond to

the three parts of each statement. Thank you for your cooperation.

117

H N m q m

H N m e m H N m q m

.msmamo co mamas o>w£ ou mucmwSum can
wmmum pow woofl>oum mum moaneaflomm Homoum .w

.oocmumwmmm
woos 0:3 muaoooum How moms mum mumwsumflaohma can
.mumflamfloodm Hmoflooe .mamuwmmos £ue3 mooMueoo .m

.mummw>om xn wmumwmmm
one ooBoH>soucH mum cowumnopm co mum no HOOSUm
o>moa 0o o>m£ so 3muonoez ou mums 033 moamodum .0

.muomfl>om :ufla muouume Hmeucoowwcou mmoomfio
ou muco©3om MOw voofi>oum mum macou oum>Hum .m

.moeuflawomw
owoaaoo :wsounu wwmum one mucoosum MON wowcmuum
mum Auflamsv ocm ooeua manmcommmu mo mammz .q

.xMOB
floccowumd osmosum mam wcHHomcooo CH ooaflmuu mum
CONDUGSW wcHmecsoo ooamemm mum 0:3 wwmum .m

.mmoum
Hmfioom was mmmum oflEoomom CH :usouw .mucmodum
0o ousnfluocoo HHN3 guess moow>pom map mo
mwuwco memo 0o omcmfianmumm mum ooflwmo mmowbuom
Hoccomuoa osmosum one poucoo wowaomanoo .N

.ocoosom %uo>o Cu omusnwuu

Imwo we ..ooo .moflow>wuom ucoosum .mooe>uom
Hmccomuwa ucoosum .mdoeumaswou one moans
.aoquEp0w:H wcecfimucoo xoonoamm unwosum .H

 

wcfiumfixo
Icoz

HOCooQOoohame/

o uumm

mmwco>fiuoowwm

uoc...>um> .uoc....>uo>

m oumm < uumm
mocmupanH >ufiumfiafiemm

coeunuwuwafi snow on
woofi>oua on %me Lowna moow>umm

118

 

.moHuH>Huom
ucoosum “0w mmHoHHom a: moon £0H£3 Hfiocdoo
ucoosum m Show 00 mo>Humucomoummu unmosum

 

o H N m e m H N m S m H N m S m oooHo on onn mum maoHuomHm Hmuodmw .NH

.mmmum tam mucmodum

o H N m e m H N m q m H N m c m pow oooH>oua mH madamo so ououmxoom .oH

.wcH>HH 000w N0 moumocmum CHMuGHmE

mono moguos3 mom 0o wwmum owwHHoo %3 some wH

o H N m q m H N m S m H N m S m moHHOuHEuoo oum>Hud 00 asxoozo HmoHooHuom .mH

.muonEoE mwmum 0o oHLHmmooom 0am moHHm Hmst>chH

o H N m c m H N m a m H N m e m CH oaox mum mouooou o>HuMHsaso ucoooum .qH

.moHoH>Hoom uHoco 00m mcoHomuHamwuo .mucoosom

o H N m e m H N m q m H N m e m NON oooH>0ud mH wcHoHHsm COHCD quUSum .mH

.muouosuumcH umstou

cmcu memo: uo3ow Lomou COHuocsw wcHzomou 0cm

0 H N m e m H N m c m H N m c m wdHHmmcsoo coon oocmemm mum 0:3 wmmum .NH

.msaemo co wwmum 05m mucoosum 0o

wooH>uom o>Hw 00 ooLmHHnoumo mH Hoccomuoa 0cm

0 H N m c m H N m e m H N m q m moHuHHHomm Nummmwooc LuH3 wooaoo nuHmom .HH

.mamuwoua oonHoo one m0 GOHumsHm>w wcHscHunoo

mo momma m we aoHumHoomm< HGEDH< one stounu

o H N m c m H N m e m H N m q m oochochE mum HcesHm LuH3 muomucoo .OH

.wEoHnoud Nooumo

0cm HmHocmch .Hmcowuma cuH3 EH: aHm: HHH3 0:3

o N N m e m N N N e m H N m e m tumu>em am On museummm ma acmesum sum>m .a

wcHumeo uoc......>uo> uoc...>um> 000....xuo> COHusuHumcH usom um

Icoz o uuwm m uumm < uumm oooH>0ud on >me £0H£3 mooH>umm
mmoco>Huoowmm mocmuuoaeH zuHumHHHEmm

119

H N m c m

H N m q n

H N m q m

.mwum3umumm
New» >um>m was GOHmmHEom ecu snowma mucmwSum
m0 ooNHsvou mum mGOHumGHmem Hmonmam .mN

.meme msoHHm> CH mwcmuu puma

loode new moHumHmm .uoxume ooh onu 050nm mucoUSum

can mwmom 0o ooomoH00880o mH GOHumSNOHGH .qN

.mEo: Eouw zm3m New mum 0:3 mucoUSum sumo
I0550oom 0o wouosuumaoo mum mHHmL mosoonom .NN

.o0H>Hmm nuHmmc mo uumm
mm mucoosum pow wooH>osa mH GOHumosoo new new
.mommomHo Hmmuoso> .mwsuo co GOHHmEpomaH .NN

.mamuwoum

mDOHNm> mo >000H0wam ecu can mmmam>Huommwm

mzu o>0uQEH ou wHHmsaam some one mooH>uom
Hmccomumd ecoonom wo mHmszam odd GOHumSHm>m .HN

.Uwumum szmoHo mum mmHuH>Huom .muamonum
00 wcHCHmuumd mCOHumHsmop one moHsm .ON

.wocooSum one qusomw amo3uon aHnmCOHu

ImHou Noooon m oooeoua ou moHuH>Huom ucoooum use
ozone muonEoE muHsomw HmaoHoosuomaH wdHEuowdH
wow GOHmH>0ua mome onHoa HmGOHuSuHumCH .mH

.ooomHoH> mum mCOHumHawou ocm moHdu monHoo map

con3 ooHuocsw NumHoHosm one Epomuma ou a: mom
mH mw>Humucmmmuaou osmosum 0cm mumnEmE wuHsomw
.muoumuochHEom wo wcHumHmcoo mouuHaaoo m .wH

 

wcHumeo
Icoz

UOCoooooo%cflm>

0 news

mmoco>Hooowwm

uoc...%um>
m uumm

oocmuuanH

uoc....>uo>
e ohms
HousmNNHEme

SOHuSuHumcH Mao» um
omoH>0ua on has 50H£3 mmoH>uom

120

.wdmawo CO meH uHonu uoommm noHn3
muouume Honuo cam mmouw uaoosuw .H0H>m£on m0

moumocmum ucoosum .mCOHumHsmmu new mmHsu .onHoa

omeHoo usoam GOHCHQO muH mmmuaxm 0o huHasu

 

o H N m e m H N N e m H N m a m -Hoaao was am>Hw mH HHuasoo Hamesum use .Nm

.mooH>uom ucooSum

m0 wchcmHa mzu 0H wow: on 00 moms kHHmdacm

o H N m e m H N m c m H N m e m mH mooH>uom cH momma unmodum c0 >0>usm .Hm

.mHMAOHQEm

0>Huom0m0ua HHosu zuHB mumoHcdsaoo mucowaom

dez 0o vooH>0Hd mum Hoccomuoa 00m ..ouo .meuom

o H N m c m H N m e m H N m e m .mcocaoHou mm Loam moHuHHHomm kummmoooz .om

.nsHo

ecooSum some umHmmm 00 wocmemm mH oocoHuoaxo

o H N m c m H N m a m H N m e n so mHHme ocm>onu zuHB senses wmmum m .mN

.mocmumHmmm Now EH: 0mm

0o 0600 emu zone once on mucmnsuw 0o muson

o H N m c m H N m c m H N m e m oonwo mHz moocsocam menses mwmum wuo>m .wN

.musoosum 3oa

you wooH>0ud mum memuwoua HmHooam new Hmmmo

o H N m c m H N m e m H N m H m mouse ommoH umv ooHuom aoHumucoHuo c< .NN

.coHomsomuw Houmm ucoEoomHa n0m oHnmuHsm 00m

wconsum oHH:3 mn0m mEHuluuma UGHM mucoUSum

o H N m e m H N m e m H N N a m aHme On a: sum mH moHeeo acmemumHa HoH 4 .ON

wcHumeo uoc......>uo> ooc...%uo> uoc....%um> GOHusuHumcH H50» um

Icoz o uumm m uuwm < uumm wooH>oua on has onz3 mooH>uom
mmoco>Huoowmm mocmuuanH AuHumHHHEmm

121

.nu3ouw HmCuHHHCm oCm HmuCoE .mquosum ouoaoum ou
0H0: NHHmHCon mum moCmmH mCOHwHHmu oCm .HmHoom
o H N m e m H N m e m H N m e m .Hmuoe wmsomHo 0H meHuooe oCm mumCHaom .oe

.muuoam Hmusa
ImHuCH mo >ooHpm> m CH mumaHoHuumm ou mquwsum How
o H N N a N H N N e N H N N e N emeH>oua mum mmHHHHHumC ecm mmHuHasuuoeao .NN

.COHuomHmm mmuaoo CH

mquosum umHmmm 0o oCm uCoEuummoo ecu m0 mamuwoum

oCm monsooo ecu usonm C0HumEu0wCH m>Hw on quE

o H N m c m H N m H m H N m e m luumamo Lowe Np omuooHom mum muomH>om 0H5m0m0< .wm

.HHoCsoo quosom one Np a: new mmHoHHoa onu
N0 C0Hosooxo one now loHmCoamou mH quonmHC one
o H N m q m H N m q m H N m e m w0 CHcmCoomoH 0:0 CooCC quECuo>ou uCooCum .Nm

.mCQEmo C0 masouw

wcoam wCHoCmomHooC: Couoop ouoeoum 0o NHHmoHoo

IHCmd ooowHCm mum muCoosum oCm .mumneoe muHsomw

o H N m c m H N m q m H N m q n .muoomuomHCHEom wCoem meHHonumm HmauowCH .om

.ooCmumHmmm uCoEmomHa 30m oCm
.mCmOH .maHLmumHosom mo Chow osu CH mquoCum
o H N m c m H N m c m H N m e m NomoC CON omoH>0HC mum mon HmHoCmCHm .mm

o H N m c m H N m c m H N m c m .muCoosom HON woowun mH ooCmHDwCH LuHmmm .qm

.wCHHomCsoo HMComuoC
oCm HmCOHumoo> .0Haoomom CH 00m: on ou
moHHw CH oaox mum uCoosum some m0 moHuH>Huom wo

 

o H N m c m H N m H m H N m e m wouooou oCm .xsamquHn .mmmuwoua oHEMCMo< .mm
wCHuwao u0C......%uo> u0C...%Co> o0C....>Co> COHusuHumCH HCON um
Icoz u uuwm m oumm < uumm oooH>0CC on was C0H£3 mooH>umm

mmoC0>Huoowwm mocmuHOCEH NuHuwHHHemm

 

APPENDIX C

SURVEY OF STUDENT PERSONNEL SERVICES IN THAI UNIVERSITIES

 

(THAI TRANSLATION)

va

”one U3 1n1730u11'iv“3u3n7

N)’

4
L791;

- “Vet/0“ ‘4 V333!“ 4"
Ltszéwehgunwfqvcd wuouLit G "n1537un33 -u¢n171~afl3mun$nr1

A

‘ 1 .4i 4 J . ' A . ‘ .
.uu.32%v' “v1 ‘f::vriu1" TQLLTC3uvhdL innifinqu3~ ngfilufl lufifiTfi
“WTALSWT7ua~v3915331 t ‘"qqawqfhfi?inu15ew firLTHELN3DW

. I 4., Vf
LLDfiTlPAUTLQ

:. ' 4 - y... 4,... Va ,
3Vffih“d%firfid“ thfiDNDWTvWHTDfiTL‘tLsPHDLDH13LQ
' v Ivy I

‘ a , a 3 .. , r ,. ,‘1 “S . r. . ..- UQ-fi V v: q. or. g Mr vhq
9H fibfi‘fid” L“U'CILQ~ ghi’fif ofiwfiii 'f.LC3UD.D~3 doom 0-1vq-

M,

V

a 14 IV 1' Q q I.» ex '3‘ ~ ~ . u :N V" / O x #4- i f‘
UJ'HWCHVUW' ,. fine» 11.3. " ’7 'J [3111311373'3'3’11 l 9.1.3?" 5931"] 511’] "L11“. .' L301 WI.
6" .’.\I1 94." ’ .'. . t- ~n .0 ’N 1" V‘I'w‘ ‘lq ‘ qua’i 44I 33ml; o'
L.l..u.L.. and?! L 1.7 l .1. 1.. .37 .3 Gilt 11.7-1.” 773.3733le “1? 1L Dl.:.~i.fi .D ’1

'I .97

.LT.TN(”EOWW'UL3”13F.3'fi3fld

' ' I l ,8, 3 ' r ,’
3’331’1iv5131*fanfaiwnrntlmvpdungrwderquwaeresaqmuar'u
l I
h:.uu23fifii?fiqf n3 fl'i °33 L3*3iqw-~11I333“~WL3~ 1imwu raiqnfirLfinc

v v.

r . l
["1 A 's -v'« .-,4'N¢,~~-. 3211-. .o v- ya. [‘1 |'\ q" cx¢ wwf‘wv q“ ‘ '\ 1:
liqug1rH,H.-4..L:1 Nam ,~1H‘ia;t iii? 0H1 .W.w“idkliiuhfid.fifi

(Windifww 5393)
l N
am WTHL n3vw1©3v3.1n333n31yirewurni

122

123

V J v v v ,
HUH33713L3831?B;fiLfiUQHUfifiT?hn3h17fi33UfiflfiPflIUfi'WUQWNafiHWIvCTtLMKTWU

' ' . ‘1 4 v v 4
3333133 T‘lUL'fiz‘ 7’1???) Lt'éfi‘f'flfi’j’r.’ HWU’NWI'UEfi’W I143..'111r.§'?"3mn’61’1’~???‘3u LV'B

I I V IV I I
V " . ‘t ., . " . ,- ' 9
C3run3m31 L38‘a11Luu;1r"3q1aqh1ri“n1ffinu1 mngL3nuuH1qfixgrn 31$wa1u

V I y ‘ y ‘ ' .. ‘ .’
303773““95953?3»V93uu391133¢tvuaaqm1v WQUfifiTQQTaU“1L??3uu21W fl, 1
’ V L v (u l r _
[Lift 9 fi’WTl‘1'9‘rLl1JII‘YL; :BWJ-fiLm‘; grfiufix; 3.1]
I

r‘ V I
1"")?- fi. ”LE ,"19’111'3 QTE‘.'3")L5331L3WdftflU93’11'QuWIUWJ‘Lfifi’WTl :13..'.13 ‘301‘1’13

V
q

" o J 3 v I '
L338 «1111111111 19‘ I. 111131137733 " CALL LNW‘H’DQW‘UTGW f L 13.1131'1‘3’81'.

 

_ “a '4," 3
9:4uu : V“1H;dfififlfiw“”afitjULRUfiUPTfiWTLahLLUHBYfiQEfifi 3”
1:3uu : " " “33
1~wuu m " " waauz17
4V
?:uuu 1 n " L3w1Lfnvan
I IV

, .4 v a ' A
931L343; a, "13’3"-'Q‘VHL'.Y‘QZ'LALQUTWHUTWWTLLULL’HU
VI

.2 v v V a 4 '
uz1z a. '51“M1u1arewm1La1waflarrmum11xdfifirv1huau30131n1Twfifl113q
« 6 '
“123712“9L3NT@J“WU

11
I;

azuwx 7 q,quaqqqmqu1fiu11u3n113 w3a“0911u33111n35fimw1n3§w

QIILLUU : H II a3] ‘1‘3‘113
P‘flLUU O) N " 13./3| 3331331133233 \1
an 7' Luu I") II II 3:53 fiy‘JUU

I I ‘5 I

. t
1zuuu 9 vr1u3q11 w1uLuu11lnafififitau
1 V' V v ’1 a '
WWW 7'1. 'EJ 1. 73143313 3 Tall”) 123?] MM? HUJB’I’WHWBDL ‘3 LUV‘IEJW‘N‘K'B 3117113 T “3113.3
I y t v l . (
sLT'.fi..'3EfiflB’1‘ZfEJOM31! . 33x33 73.167137 L‘U'Llfihlfifi’] QT'OUL'G‘L'QUU
I I I
flZLLUU a 33353‘flx3’33U3T337 l'Tlum1lfi‘.‘3uafiHq°7®(1333113313313

II " 33

33LLUU

R

V

mzuuu m " " walmlw

u .. v
FXLLUU 'v) " " fYfl‘LF'l13U33T“!’E113Ufi

124

x C «‘ 9‘“ I 3.: - ’C (4“ z-l aa . '. . .f.‘
?:w\-'. C, ”L \1 3’1u4 ”'15 L... .. 21,1311 .1 “15] ""ij‘fi’l‘» L~|7i
' I
vat"‘ I. '. ~--‘ 1.1:. t-F ” 5H. ‘. Q;
'- ‘,, '.* O a L.-‘.0§I’1~4 .92.? LG '1‘?)
v..' -~f ' ,
77LUWQVWT."’JELLLU”W.M' W'

 

._—_.—_.___.—_fi — H..- — -——— ———_-__._—‘r-——_—_. - _

‘UWV’BL9P
1
m. r.

v

 

 

 

 

« u t t 0
._ . _ 4
~~< «-——9“L‘9 ‘1fié19*~——>5‘L?U ?“fifi-—~L*. .N“
‘-'.‘— C—{L- ‘ —-"' — - C—-—-'—--—
Iv V’— ‘VI‘ / ‘ O- ya 1‘ . ’
‘0 fuel.‘ .laq frfi ; a)91@ v '@.'}C p (m @9 O
‘ ' v t
Hft¢®<1u<’ f2?“’2fi3w31
I
IVN a A v. " DC A «4" at
n~ a T931? l1~w1 :~. ~
I
‘ !

 

 

 

 

 

 

_"J___F_.

 

 

\ I l .
r“. -Q/~ 'c/ Q: 0' V A “‘4 ‘1‘ 'V ’4 ‘3' ‘1 ‘ Q( :2‘ f I" i 4 -3 "3 (‘1‘ q ‘
; ?:Wwfi,. "‘, 5‘ ; . it 3L“*UPHJ?1“T;L¢V :fi.q1quJL:fl 9 LHV'QW h.
‘J

A1 al.-5. ¢ .414; x O «(\z‘ c- t a - Va 3 LQI ‘l I
.4"’3’H’W w-l L l}. T ‘a L. 4): 15w . ’11;", m .11 jgh fl.

d<~j C: Le,“
Jul 1 ( |

‘IO I la. y 4“"
“ ‘T71W73”‘ "?V .‘31’11'7C’c97§“ l?77“HM‘V‘”‘Ll,TW:fl?TJfim H L791

V - V v r V .
onf. 4‘} (:11‘ ‘ C ’- ‘ ‘ I "x | “’ ’ 'I. 9"9\’\ "’f’(‘ ""3" M"? ”HI ”V fig.“ ‘ ‘Q I" q!
A~ 7.31H;L¢ a u; 1\,~$ . ukxymz~41 nix.» L .1.ufirdd~uflWWGLfi%«:
O
”fitififlquL’” ‘” A ’-

f.
I“ | m
t.

.4,
_.

l _J

4 0
CTUW77LTVJW21S"5‘729“fi’131'fi,fi7171fl $r“?

L"UW“TE»1

' .

I
l .

gflyfiij§*fi*fiffi‘er‘

V 0

f”YTWfiiLN’3W"§VPflinfifdfi

fi“fifflflUV“j®mqqm mqfl

 

125

 

 

 

 

 

V
“a“ ' N JAN “a“, ?11V?LL?ufiflu?nwi 91wuafi?3wzqn?nwr annawzaau‘n1$(nwf)
;Tx|77qu' \'_..:’1;....1_-’1 ‘ A 3'1 9
II. , I J. I -o -. I _ I
.‘qqz‘fifiéhL§-.':‘9.rr“"f\a<‘w qoa'w‘ u at ~ fixaq ‘4' AU 5‘“ Furs 4'1"“.
LJ ..... .HH.“ -...t [9’] . . '1 —9 5- LC J .-.’W H? ——9 5 LC! r ’1“ -—9 5.... L351
3N3. 't/ "4 :‘fiucvfia \ - "s 3 ~ ./ cl
9. ‘.".-._..T:J‘ “-733.11 . . a) ‘9: a) 32 $ .0 F} 9 . m "n 9 o
:,rfi.§owcqc.t\9~« 4 CV
- D. '50 -. .‘ o ‘ - [ LL
1: a
‘ ‘v I v 4 ‘ 40 \ x {v
f". 713' LQE’L ’1' ‘. ‘
I
IV “v“rc‘c- oar :‘4 - 5
x.‘ - L\. ’7 ‘9 ’1 J UH
. l ,
at» 40: Q - .‘A 1 A Q gc. |
’lquflh ’1 ’1 fix ’\ ~ N'A'
{$5. “"311“. Am
Av n 4 . f 1
fl. 9"” "1’ ~' ‘ I ' C7 0* 3. » m I", a) {i . I" 5*.) a; 0
4V
t?w~f°”*'°Pnyfi ‘2 w
- o v 4" a,
“ngq- mum“? '2' ~
4 Av a ,' . 4.
LT?.GV’WT"W7'T°’7."W~“ L L'
: a y w
L11?) afifilax~o">lJ/\ L’:~.:".‘r»r. «II-y]
V 4
,1l9‘11‘MTLfH‘, P "Q ”
5‘,
ULM
v V ( 4
CU. ?’\ . [(Pq’ ’17? ‘U: 2' 911.1; \‘ 9: I m I!) 6‘) 3 (’7 Y‘ 6‘ f» ‘1 m m 0
v .
r ‘9’»; ‘r “q - t.’ a. 1.../I 1|
.?1;.fi’WTI~u!C~J.’W~.r ,.,.L ')
.r.-..“ 3M". '~- "~*
Lc~.7finffi..ur?wpq J: Lju
"x m ' M ,, «.A'ir:$’
“'29: ”WWW-”73." ?’1.t"H'4H
Tiffj‘ll‘u7a'1fl
'
/ ({qu ‘aafipq?mq'JIquflqhon“- f’ ; IQ] (y 1 V 9, I, ,
5. . . . ( J‘L» -. m a) I («L r 6* (s m '3 6~ 0
‘ I
517W?” 77%77M03339VIT r‘.”‘l"’""-’Wl
' fl .1 . L A
Ln9a¢ unflnwwuanvana
. I '
Pu I04 , r q ~13 r‘g
a O .2, $1 1, 1);“ '13 II J Lil “If" " a? In?‘ a I"; m :in 6;- (fi’ V: m ’50 9 (a, 3‘" ‘n "n 9 O
c
a u r4. 'v 0| r. ‘u’
Lmufihadu unwinfiummmfinvw
v‘t' " v ’ ’\ 'I’ 54"”
9n».- WUTWH’WHUO’] V13LL [J .
x. , ,2! , ,. V
..'L"§7"N\31JL'L1'!’]:"?“’3

 

 

 

 

 

126

 

' V. a -v a ‘ A r4

q . i hififlfifll?flfi?flffifif ndwrfiWflgmaqurnwi amflwwmuaninw7(awu)

UTHWTTWG“ vfifiwufihvw n. %. 4 w. . ' h. . .

g 4:3?~aia~ Efififi??--4?t?L?U uwfiw¢W-———>LVL@U fivwn -——4>LI3 Thfi
Jq uvmfi MEq I 1

0w.
IL.

V4
?°W?EL

I'

 

 

R
S
W
a
0

171’ ( '
b. @mL“aw?w7H1r?nywiawu a g m m 9 a a m m 9 a
fiifiwxufiarfih?nwwmulfiiaw-

" 4.‘ v
339 39.383? WTu?EQfinqu_

R

 

 

I ~ I
4 Q v v _
Tau Haauawtwfibu1.%“tw1e-

M 9 a I m M 9 o

P
..)
9
3
l
_n
l
W
.I
3
5
Q
Q
R
3

r¥‘ ,v ~~ we» 3~5f¢~ -M M
Cfi1+t1kflnqs l, L." . j.../’W.‘
’ O 4' “S'VQY‘, a. ’1y
dfi’fif*fidu'“g:9fi;fi H r

f n 4
E1?1TU€U?JLWUQTE

a. 5%lfifl?*i$?fiuwfimhu a : n m 9 a g m m 9 a a m w 9 o
Wv‘ I . 4,1'
LWPDWVWTU#L?EN1LWb~T

I ‘ I v
aqwtmanLufiawwfiawwafimwfi
5‘2. .3 r v.,
w01%41 an 1 %g*1WWJflWT-

4 4 4

L3u DWTLTUU fifiTLflEfififimW

. A
ifithfi

I v
‘

(' I
@o. lefl?“;um1? ‘Tawfllfifi

a
"\
3
F
a
fi
R
s
S
a
Q
h
s
[’3
o
0

' I
Ffluzw%gfluflhq?fitmflEQVfifl
I
V 4
numqaLuaafluwuflnyq flaw
I y '

fihfifinnguuwc Hfirfzujfid

V
an1Qnfidunutaa

 

 

 

 

127

 

-_VV_ v __-- y
~ . 4 91fi':tlfiv”?37nfif 91W?”3fiyifldfl?fifif :«nwvfitq33nw7(nw¢)
urhwrgw¢§ mrnwuawbfi 4 n. c. 4 m. A. a. M. .

v v 4
91??W”ULfitflaftfiaPEfi lfifi”§9-———>.YL°U Tfifihafi-——4>Liiflfl a“1fi -——a>L2$ 12¢

 

 

 

u-qu'
9». ?%L??“Edflflfirfi?
V ' 4
nau€*“7Whu11u tQIUC

tang“ : v m “A

\9
W
9 \
8
6.
8
60
p
S
.3
\9
0

:fl970
fl

vwafiwiuwaA?:zwfifi“ffifiwt

(v

Vi‘WUfiPfi? L?H5WW“MN :
‘J.’b~ ' - s—a. . x
I
o v - ‘Q
WEWUWQLELf?IALflE.'V§937
'53
v
""1 \‘2’. ‘\.q‘." lfl\Q'.«‘v;-fl‘lfi?fi“¢’]

I
V‘ v (4

V
s: .3. 99‘ s 0’13? TiJ‘L CDAWJ’Id

'r?

‘V
v— _
d
g.
I;

‘ ("4 “.I.
L Utfi317?¢?ffikfi u?31“a
V . _ Q
sautaum11b1\1iu?studaw

‘A. ‘
uv:V1atwu1

v”y4 "4
9m. iwLV“:nwu1Lgrfi~LJLau

 

’0‘

_ r
4

a v ‘

.w A I
filwfiifiz?uvfituw L*3L3L1L

i, 4 J V .' .. .
‘1 1:2'143. LL‘V' imp-$161.: 5, . _° 13.
s 1 , ‘
I
«A . , , 5‘ +f.
fiwfiifyfifid“ Hf.l.;«~.L V
I

~» an fifi 3'9
fivnyrvrqqmubq.g?'fiuhwfi

 

r r

v ”4' 4

“IQ r4. ‘1-49 I c-
95. ?W.; VrfiVjuLfilk . m m 9 5

Q
R
3
3
0

Ln) 9

fl
V
I’\
3

wzxfiuuairi? ufitffifi?zlfitfl

' 4 V V 5 V '

mwQManqnnvaflgnumfinuwwm
I V

fizfiu 5hu~tv1”w?'aum$1n

:uwufiflufilfi

 

9a. $hlu¢nwrrfiiq?“aflh 5 J m b 0 5 I m b 9 a
I
Lafimufiflimunfimawwnange
fl 4 . v
wvwiuwnqmdwvvaammumvzqmq

V

V. ¢Aq4
anum: TQUTQMQBLMVWTOLflflfi

 

v v “’4 (
flunewntanmuLaLwafliziuuu
V . i
maqfiamunfifiuwfimlqnwjuwfiag

 

 

 

128

 

 

 

——- ' 4 PdfiMngHLfi“n?nqr L11H4H€$waqn?nqi Pvmwwfia‘u?fiwr(:;”)
"‘ . 5"» ' a .1 - .- '.- L- .'
"7n1$“1qfi “fiawufian ‘ fl ‘ § . §
4 v ° ' ° *" ° “1' ‘2‘
aw7»m utmaflawunfingw uwnmga———a aJuannnvqw-———9LLLLU firmn-——e..u€ Lufl
“‘74 +0 ' .1
9b. Lwlv*:?1u‘9wwuqnvuq- & g m L 9 a 5 n h 9 ¢ ¢ m m 9 o
g"\vf\' (¢"!BAIIQIU
QBKFLHLWTLfiWakTUhLLELT~’
\' '4 v ' q
Lw.ulm1?ru9?wwwagnwtgu
Q
"itanéaq701u9npw
9r. 5%2"fi“7L%€““Q°W” C s m m 9 w o w E 9 é a m m 9 o

* :4
nffxfififut .§V%““T?V‘1t L

"”«*fi3931~“L u
/

lf "‘I’Jll‘flflMr

 

fi?h77‘w1¢m fifitfuiirir

mL ‘”"n?vH1L‘“ 1131:

R
‘K
8

6\

A
\19113’5‘17 1 1") 7‘; \1"_'51’- G’ Q m ‘u 9
v (

1..—1 9 C

v 4 o _ ’ I. ’ . r\ A

R

”‘1’"?qu 1. 1"”1‘. «3’ m .a) ~ ‘9' C '- 'f: a: C

1

1")

HQ H‘QI *I
9‘. (\LT L1

\‘1

é‘L

va-31Uhfiwwt L .Walufiv-

ETTW?1Q“ WLJ‘QMvfl“9“fiLflu

I V ; v
at ?1L12Lr~ “U"V'L ’1???A15
( V
I: u wqfilunwowxwru Ufi: WI
I

LWLWTULfiLfiqufivflinvqun

quauv

M
8
l3
\9
5V:
6
3
3
.9
O

‘\ ' r,
90. ?W1fiJT:LflHULufififflflmd a 4 m b 9 :
“HHNfiwfiT?” Lqflarflhfinww
HaznfimufimavwwunwiLKLfiu

V I

H? HTTBLIUUWQ' WlVJ

 

 

 

 

-———- ——

 

129

 

j'fi1ufihu1
?m“fiafififi

a c
“7n17r1‘fi

J

31 Qfiful L

h11y5ul°ufiiwf
D. '
.Vl ———) L}: if!”

'3)-

119-

1

g

c

fifi?

O V
P1WWT1?;i

r1fi qw-———»1ulau

aou?n1t

’ 4

fimn1wmaqu?n17(h1n

L fl. fl 4
au1n-————>.uw

4
1mm

 

V" y‘
we. ?WiflVfifiTLT:LQEF?u@:

I a v
3t?r1:vs1?r ”$11L1LJL4

r*$-
L‘

t?n1r3°

a' §' §‘ '4 '4’
"kL'jlifi‘ L

”n1Lfiu41L1 flfi

.-
anh1ufzuu LLL

quut1m1aflf‘fgqn15LKLCu

V
5

1 4.
d1uz”;rfravéf1w
v"4 ”V VI‘
am. inguun1fg”911fi Pug?
v a . A” ‘.~\ h
unhny11LL7qu1LGvm L1"-

4:- A . .-
Lifi twfififiv1 X"BL“LTC?LE’

V

. r .4 , 33...,"
‘fidl:& fiLth91 ~uq “n91—

4

. ' 4 a .
1L11L1vn5n1ivw1a

A

v1 ILL

fix1u191v1aftzvfi¢m1xanu1
5 1. 1
: a.fi on.L~1nn177 31
J, 4 7
wu1U1LLv2t1w~1u
v«"‘_vfl. v .1
mm. Lfl1a“uum «1viulru1

nua1flhuaxu amunfifly1au1a

Lfiqufl

V}, V V‘. q
'fii. Vfllvnl?1VU7éU1HUTfiWT

J
flamunfinh1tf uai11tnw1nu
“a1mu7qq1uuvza13w11q1

A . V v 4 v
twar1u1uflamunflnu1tmiunm1
. v . 4 4
L1VTMV1q1um1 ”fizlflbfitfflu
321iLvm1zavfifia1aw1.maqn1i
La. LWLvfl?mfihfinu1nnau

0 v O
WIQVQLfiWWLfiBmBULfifiqVMHfi:

Lmfln1tflnuq

 

C

H

5\

fi

1
x5

R

(7)

a

 

y
u

(N

,J
K}

R

35‘

 

&

é

(v\

R

m

h

 

 

 

130

 

V— v a . v G A V
fififi“‘LlGUfiUH7fi1T auwxgwhq?aqu:n1i j?fl1fi%fldflffi1f(fififl)
V ‘ 4 «a v “o _. ' 4 $0 (I I 4 a. \. I‘ \f "
Efi??h‘u Sn‘awnnfinpq quvqw.___+LxLau wwnmqm.__—>.yt6u fivwn -——<>L!fi sun

2?nqrrwqfi ';-qufinuw

 

5b. $h1"9u?hwiutnnvqowu

'9"

V V

a V . A
;“§3wunflnywv“twavwrwe.w
. 4 v .
Izvdfiatrnuuzruaq%wv:1tfs
V
Pfifflfikfidfi?

v

‘fl'l’o 2'39}

J

'“l ¢ Q “I ‘~ .

‘ 0’11 T: 1 Luflll?‘ t .s g) '9) a)
V I l

. ‘ I‘Iq a ‘10: r'\ .l
LiqlTULAL‘U‘ l1 ..l’]t"’1;,-’W\]

A A v v V
V | V V
QJr~-IL!ch-’:‘;L10L ,Q‘~f’lfi S‘ITA.

6‘?
g
8
{3'
\9
6‘2
9 k
8
3’
\9
O

E
V

v . I V

y a
qunv33u1mzn“Lv‘ juquwq

‘J
9‘ ‘ h I 4" c
.ufifiTLTflu 'r:.WDWT r9?“-
...r. . h ,, o 4 ‘
'.(L-2Wfi719WaITU”
\ . (‘ I ‘I
bd. ?%;“aw217njfi$fix“tuq

5!

Lffiy7:§1(office hours

 

”-‘I ‘A v
ufiztftnfifiu“tfimun?1v1Vffiu

I
TWUWUHULfiDEZLfl?WTE?11T-
I

m1ULv5071awwufi:wn17?fin

6’
unintuifiuarwan
v v (J v
kw. vaWuawvauuqtfiwg? ¢ : m m 9 a

R
8
\9
$2
R

V I
911vg hdwvzfiuwy lufi?miiv

6'
maqguquLfiuawew7ufifl?nuw
I

. - 4 .v
flizawzuquumfix%xuu Lwfiqv
I I I

fi@nifn?aqfl?mfihfiny1thflu
I

{flau1q.w0@:mgawmuaurqu

mo. §h1ufltkuuw¢ununu1 6

I"! C) K 6: m ‘ ‘j a; o

R
3

6) &'

I‘\
3
3

V I
awuwfiuuwfilfiumunawq%wma

 

 

 

 

 

131

 

' v I O V a v
hdwxjutfiunun3377 311M3W3q330u13w7 fitfififlfifldh?fifif{fififi
x 4 a no '1 0 11. J.- I ‘ “0 U1. .‘ «V "
33,9??1‘133L'131':"Lmfifikq 13’1“ le-—) L33 [21H “’1“ 131—d L‘L' L38 W‘J’Wfi -——-> L313] HELL

n3nwr3wefi 331qu3nvw

 

I v
Tzvawau1U?qq u ~33~i33h~

'1 v

3137809173341u V73.HQEP

n '4 d o (
L” 3137Y°fitflu Lvu Trifihv
(' f
m:

'.LL'I,‘ L? 'T'DQL‘; UUiT-L ti‘é‘j.‘

4 W ”n K
l'l’irUL’- 5‘3“an
v 1 '

5

m9. 971'WITWT 17????1 5 . m 1 é" ; m '93 9 K 4 cn '.z: a) o

G

V
v

mfiffieqfiamun3nxwluflwtv3—

' . a J .
H’U‘M 3°". LF‘u‘HN' T’l’) Prawn

 

Liznaufiw73vwitwdwaL-iamfin
via?‘fibzaurquuLumwu333wr
33:533331

cnb. L‘ZWT’OWW . ”3f. "9.7 51:91 T

5‘?

(D " J 9

6‘
6
\9
fl
6‘s
8
r.
\9
O

4

73MLL3331'C 'L nwrtaua

 

911 3331w1L“u L3uanI1Lu :13

4
zeqfirwu3thLuLiaqf*L39u

I
v

Sun 31wvzrewn3 317%”Q31H

abafi33 fih3fipfi ufizn?fifir-
' 4v: 4
mfiq3m333uL2eT uh3fi+w
mm. fihflvfli fih3nuwwnmu3 g

.u‘ 44
agwuizam rzLiuuazaa may

 

A 1* 4 5 I
f*~:."LU,IJ.‘L"D\1’)'/1'LLTU‘LLTT'TLNLALW ;
4. V J '1 ”H
LaL” L Lunwruu:uudhwr -
L?U“ nfitlaafiafiflw uazflmuw

I
311191?

 

 

 

 

132

 

fi?fiqféqqm 35.quahuq 3133.3ul333un3337 313L313°33133317 3333”33133317(13L)
fl. ' 7].. h. I
an ' ‘4

!

913333Ul39333333333 LfifiIEW-——91U'U%JTVHWfWL-——&LWL@U 3333 -——-».n? L19
1 \

 

 

v
“$1011 - “V " Q 1 1 j I
0;. “QL‘ 317.7-3U3331N C - m m 9 C o m - 9 C d m h 9 0

L5

33 a 4 4 '
L33ufi Pk1L14qu31TLQU-
4’ 4" -vv g
r 63;.LHW .Liffi‘VS‘IH‘TBQJI;
Isfiyl
?1L-?1UT13
I

y ’t’.‘ Q'rl‘ t 0| ‘6’4""‘fi
sci. 1?. qq3.1’.LorLI-q\]

'!
'*’\
\n

q ', _ 4
337Lquu3f; “1r.9P1 “133 M;

v (
L$~.'|’.\’\‘q Cw-c’ 1 a v“ ',..!\\1
f I. a .. H a, a .
1 w 3‘ LL 71 z 1

11:31:11“ .190 v ¢‘r{\ (‘.fi fi‘|
L\;-5L-"EJ-. f. ‘b'?7‘A-L'1T'E t4¥¢

 

- l.’ g‘u y 5| '
13L Jr-‘91711€?~L.bHLu

4. X ' v-
Ligauzn317339
V rV (
ob. 331nrui“37 31 35“
‘1

13:333fi33331.3L211:3v19
O o .6” H ‘
uufiL1'«1QL L J'WO“WTLLB
. 5 Ar 1': AQ.'
“7&3711L1333L 7.3

91”3U7:3317'L‘3L3.1J=

“333 3'; , “a, , y , . » 1
00C" . L .' 1;...7‘1ofi ' 9.125111 Q 7 v 1.9] 6, .., .13 Le: ,. 1') 9 CC m

G
8
m
\9
O

V
3337313uL31 L3UL33333333
ga 3;cv3d333333r 3133Lfiu

.331733313 ifwwxuluv3u3

_9)

3333:733373L33133333Wu3
v" V
3 1

(U;

V5 V1 (filfl
md. VflLVLUW?qTU.LTHBWMWQ K I 3 m 3 Q 3 m b 9 C C m m 9 o

'

3:333T(academic advisefl

 

 

 

 

 

133

 

—7 V
“731“LLEUHEUTfiWT “dwudfifi¥fivqurn17 fmmwwiaqn3fini(nwfi)
fl. . Y]. . ' he I I
v1 4 ~ 4 a
3’7 VW°IJL1L41TTWFY113171H3§¢ ——> g: L3H ‘_ ’11“; 2171 ____, L1! 1?“ Can/1n _) L113 Lift:

0
V?fi11?fid: 3::11flnufi

 

 

5‘4'!’7‘f.vn UL“ 1:4,1" IQA «1. :1 ’1

V 5

x 4 v ' .
m%.~ we L9n1233-1¢1cm find
4 v
Ivan _I?"°?“nfi 7

" an a‘ A. .
L‘JV’U Lr-L'fi’l‘u’i LTI'L.

V

' n H‘; H :33 131030. . rN , v 2 I
35. .QLJTHL‘J um ‘37»P , - C u c 5 , n b ¢ C s n 9 o

I I x I
o‘d qu'quq ("I (:1 a
- 411117“-.~') qJ old H- “’1

I
“Wt.3331LaT31L - ”‘61»
I
W qmvfinbwvwwm
V 1" . ..

LO. “Lf‘fifif 4*‘ L‘? : fi u fl c C d m M 9 w w m b 6 o

3? If: 93:9HII‘3"EL’IIV
_,Av ,,. ' 4
;'gfiu Vfi;11”1€“ Lf‘fiwi
- ,o 4 ' .~ 3 M
‘3“:“ LWDTJLLS‘L“ un-
fi9w13911“L??givawusfiv

q
'L’E:fi’)’13'?‘fl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

  

  

'MIC LIB

“WM"W