THE CONSTRUCTION DEAN EXPERIMENTAL. f_ INVENTORY REELECTANCTHE CHARACTER . _ ‘ :f'i OF STUDENT ACADEMIC EXPERIENCES A ' Thesis for the: Degree .of PhD. 2» __-; j .7,- MICHEGA'N STATE‘UNNERSNN __ ’ ~ THOMAS ROBERT ELCCCNQ * ’ 1971 ’ ; J u! _ {I s ‘3‘“ fl: 3 :3“; Date 0-7839 1533‘? t; w—T ‘ LIBRARY Ambigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXPERIMENTAL INVENTORY REFLECTING THE CHARACTER OF STUDENT ACADEMIC EXPERIENCES presented by Thomas Robert Plough has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph-D- degree in.E.duca.tion_ @Mizrw hhmnpnmuun 9/22/71 ABSTRACT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXPERIMENTAL INVENTORY REFLECTING THE CHARACTER OF STUDENT ACADEMIC EXPERIENCES BY Thomas Robert Plough The objective of this study was to construct a research in- strument which would reflect the character of student academic experi- ences. Four continuums based on certain polarities of academic ex- periences serve as the base from which this experimental inventory was developed. These four continuums are: l. Emphasis on the individual student - Emphasis on disciplines 2. Emphasis on problems, policies and action - Emphasis on abstractions, theories and ideas 3. Emphasis on flexibility of academic experiences - Emphasis on regidity of academic experiences 4. Emphasis on integration of academic experiences - Emphasis on compartmentalization of academic experiences In addition to this conceptual base of four continuums, the research instrument reflects a subset of the potential kinds of experiences Nencountered by students in an academic community. This subset focuses exclusively on the more traditional academic experiences of students, such as classroom activities, curricular choices, and faculty-student relationships. An intensive consultation, writing and editing procedure Thomas Robert Plough resulted in an initial questionnaire of 100 statements or 25 items for each of the four continuums or dimensions. A field test was held in the Winter of 1971 at Alma College, in.Alma, Michigan; General Motors Institute in Flint, Michigan; and Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. Analysis of field test re- sults and further conceptual work resulted in a second phase question- naire. This second questionnaire contained 60 items, or 15 items for each of the four continuums or dimensions. The second phase questionnaire was given a field testing in the Spring of 1971 at seven institutions: Alma College in Alma, Mich- igan; Hope College in Holland, Michigan; Mercy College in Detroit, Mich- igan; Montcalm Comnity College Vocational and Academic Programs in Sidney, Michigan; Northwood Institute in Grand Rapids, Michigan; Re- formed Bible Institute in Grand Rapids, Michigan; and St. Mary's College in Winona , Minnesota . Biserial correlations were run on all sixty items. All items produced higher biserials with their own dimension than with any of the other dimensions. Out of 60 items, 43 produced biserials with their own dimension greater than .500. Even the items with the lowest biser- ials for each dimension produced good mean percentage spreads across samples. Reliability coefficients for the four dimensions ranged from .850 to .930. Dimension intercorrelations produced correlations ranging from .040 to .550. Content validity was established through a rigorous item sampling procedure. Construct validity was approached in the study by an examination of mean percentage scores of samples on dimensions Thomas Robert Plough and a comparison of high and low scores with general characteristics of these institutions which were conceptually related to the defini- tions of the four dimensions. The analysis produced a related discovery that while institutional samples from different types of colleges pro- duce different scores, the differences are a matter of degree rather than kind. That is, students have simdlar experiences, however, the degree to which they encounter these experiences varies from.institu- tion to institution. The norm or comparison group made up of the eight samples in the study can be used to evaluate scores from church-related, private, liberal arts colleges, community colleges, both vocational and academic programs, Bible colleges, and business and technical colleges. In this study a conceptual base was constructed and an em- pirical instrument developed yeilding measurements of student academic experiences. This instrument is identified as the D-P Questionnaire of Student Academic Experiences. In the sense that the D-P Questionnaire is able to produce new and differently focused information on the lives and experiences of college students, it stands as a contribution toward the understanding of those young adults who are college students. THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXPERIMENTAL INVENTORY REFLECTING THE CHARACTER OF STUDENT ACADEMIC EXPERIENCES By Thomas Robert Plough A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1971 Copyright by THOMAS ROBERT PLOUGH 1971 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to acknowledge the assistance rendered by several persons, without which this dissertation would have been much longer in its completion. For official encouragement and special considera- tion at.Alma College, I thank Robert Swanson, John Kimball and Ronald Rapp. I am grateful to my secretary, Denise Wootton for careful and tedious clerical and typist responsibilities in the first draft stages, and for the professional task of typing and editing a final capy. Additional clerical assistance and advice was provided by Edie Acton, a friend. Computer consultation and programming assistance from Thomas Bailey was most helpful. I am especially thankful for the long-term and consistently superior advice about policies and procedures in the College of Educa- tion immediately available from Virginia Wiseman. Finally, I wish to note with appreciation the counsel, patience and confidence in my ability expressed in many ways by my *wife, Monty Plough, and my adviser, Paul Dressel. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I Statement of the Problem and Review of the Literature Statement of the Research Problem Review of the Literature The Four Continuums Academic Press Summary Chapter II The Research Design An Overview of the Research Design Definitions of Continuums The Item Pool Samples Item and Answer Scale Format The.Academic Press Instrument Summary Chapter III Analysis of Results Introduction Biserial Correlations Coefficients of Internal Consistency Dimension Intercorrelations Validity Statements and Examples Suggested Norms Summary Chapter IV Summary and Conclusions Summary Conclusion and Discussion Bibliography General References iii NbuNt-I v-u-i 20 21 24 27 31 38 40 41 51 51 56 65 73 76 81 86 89 Appendices Appendix A 100 Item - First Phase Questionnaire and Answer Sheet Appendix B Summary of Critical Comments and Sample Mean Percentages - First Field Test Appendix C 60 Item - Second Phase and Final Questionnaire Appendix D Individual Mean Percentages: Range Within Samples - Second Field Test Appendix E Sample Mean Percentages By Item, Combined Mean Percentages, and Standard Deviations: Second Phase and Final Questionnaire iv 92 99 118 123 127 Table 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 LIST OF TABLES Sumary of Institutional Characteristics - Phase One Summary of Sample Characteristics - Phase One Smary of Institutional Characteristics - Phase Two Summary of Sample Characteristics - Phase No Characteristics of the Answer Scale - Phase One Item/Scale Biserial Correlations: Items from the Individual - Disciplines Dimension Item/Scale Biserial Correlations: Items from the Problems - Abstractions Dimension Item/Scale Biserial Correlations: Items from the Flexibility - Rigidity Dimension Item/Scale Biserial Correlations: Items from the Integration - Compartmentalisation Dimension Item/Scale Biserial Correlations: Low Correlates Split-Half Reliability of Dimensions Dimension Intercorrelations High and Low Mean Percentage Scores of Samples on Dimension ID High and Low Mean Percentage Scores of Samples on Dimension PA High and Low Mean Percentage Scores for Samples on Dimension FR High and Low Mean Percentage Scores for Samples on Dimension 10 Distribution of Sauple Mean Percentages by Dimension - Norm Data Biserial Correlations: Range and General Magnitude V Page 28 28 29 30 33 42 45 47 49 53 55 55 57 59 61 67 73 Table B-2 B-3 B-7 B-8 B-9 B-lO B-ll B-12 B-13 B-14 B-15 B-16 B-17 vi Sub-Sample Mean Percentages by Dimension Item Mean Percentages - Selected Sub-Samples Individual - Discipline Dimension Item Mean Percentages - Selected Sub-Samples Problem - Abstraction Dimension Item Mean Percentages - Selected Sub-Samples Flexibility - Rigidity Dimension Item Mean Percentages - Selected Sub-Samples Integration - Compartmentalization Dimension Item Mean Percentages - Selected Sub-Samples Individual - Discipline Dimension Item Mean Percentages - Selected Sub-Samples Problem - Abstraction Dimension Item Mean Percentages - Selected Sub-Samples Flexibility - Rigidity Dimension Item Mean Percentages - Selected Sub-Samples Integration - Compartmentalization Dimension Item Mean Percentages - Selected Sub-Samples Individual - Discipline Dimension Item Mean Percentages - Selected Sub-Samples Problem - Abstraction Dimension Item Mean Percentages - Selected Sub-Samples Flexibility - Rigidity Dimension Item Mean Percentages - Selected Sub-Samples Integration - Conpartmentalization Dimension Item Mean Percentages - Selected Sub-Samples Individual - Discipline Dimension Item Mean Percentages - Selected Sub-Sample Problem - Abstraction Dimension Itan Mean Percentages - Selected Sub-Samples Flexibility - Rigidity Dimension Item Mean Percentages - Selected Sub-Samples Integration - Compartmentalization Page 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 Table D-l D-2 D-3 vii Individual Mean Percentages: Ranges Within Samples Individual - Discipline Dimension Individual Mean Percentages: Ranges Within Samples Problem - Abstraction Dimension Individual Mean Percentages: Ranges Within Samples Flexibility - Rigidity Dimension Individual Mean Percentages: Ranges Within Samples Integration - Compartmentalization Dimension Sample Mean Percentages By Item Individual - Discipline Dimension Sample Mean Percentages By Item Problem - Abstraction Dimension Sample Mean Percentages By Item Flexibility - Rigidity Dimension Sample Mean Percentages By Item Integration - Compartmentalization Dimension Page 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 Figure 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 LIST OF FIGURES Mean Percentage Score Profiles: Alma College, Hepe College Mean Percentage Score Profiles: Northwood Insti- tute, Montcalm Community College-Vocational Mean Percentage Score Profiles: St. Mary's College, Mercy College Mean Percentage Score Profiles: Reformed Bible Institute, Alma College Mean Percentage Score Profiles: Montcalm Comm:- nity College, Vocational and Academic Mean Percentage Score Profiles: All Samples viii Page 69 69 70 71 71 72 ID PA IC LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Individual - Discipline Dimension Problems - Abstractions Dimension Flexibility - Rigidity Dimension Integration - Compartmentalization Dimension ix CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE ROBLEM AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The objective of this study is to construct a research instrument which will reflect the character of student academic expe- riences. Dr. Paul Dressel's four continuums based on certain polari- ties of academic experiences serve as the base from which this experi- mental inventory will be develOped.1 Many research instruments are currently in use which provide various profiles of student experiences, needs, attitudes, values, and general characteristics. None of these instruments focus exclusively on the‘more traditional academic experiences of students. This study starts from.realization of a need for a research instrument which uniquely assesses the experiences of students with faculty members, classroom activities, and curriculum matters. Such a research tool would produce data which would comple- ment and highlight research results from other instruments. The kind of institutional profile which would emerge from the application of an academically focused instrument would prove helpful in generating additional data on which to draw for intelligent institutional 1Paul L. Dressel, College and University Curriculum, McCutchan, 1968, pp. 16-18. 2 decisiondmaking. Data which is not cast primarily in terms of peer group pressure, social activities, or pre-college characteristics would be more readily acceptable and usable to faculty members. This study aims at the creation of an instrument for asess- ing academic press. The underlying assumption of this research en- deavor is that the traditional academic experiences of students are developmental in nature and worthy of closer study. The research problem entails a number of tasks. Dressel's conceptualization of four continuums will be defined operationally to facilitate the generation of an item pool. The item.pool'will be compiled in light of the academic press focus of the projected instru- ment. Through several procedures, items selected from the item pool will be field tested and analyzed to produce a satisfactory testing instrument. Both the feasibility of Dressel's four continuums and the need for an academically focused instrument are supported in the literature of higher education. mum 9.1: as. ____LImAm One objective of this section is to determine whether or not there is some rationale for the use of Dressel's four continuums in studying an academdc community. These four continuums are: l) Emphasis on the individual student - Emphasis on disciplines 2) Emphasis on problems, policies and action - Emphasis on abstractions, theories, and ideas 3) Emphasis on flexibility of academic experiences - Emphasis on rigidity of academic experiences 4) Emphasis on integration of academic experiences - Emphasis on compartmentalization of academic experiences Selected literature in higher education which indicates the fruitful- ness of further delineating and refining these conceptual continuums will be presented. Another objective of this section will be to present supporting literature for the institutional focus of the research instrument based on the four conceptual continuums. Three related questions are answered in this section. Does the concept of these four particular continuums have merit? Does it seem worthwhile to move from.these conceptual continuums to an empirical study? Does it appear that an empirical study resulting in a measurement of aca- demic press would contribute to a better understanding of college students? THE FOUR OONTINUUMS The first continuum ranges from experiences which are focused upon the individual learner, to those experiences which emphasize the discipline to be learned. The attempt here would be to study the kinds of experiences which impinge upon the students of an academic community . and to place a composite of these experiences on this continuum. A brief exposure to selected literature justifies attention toward this particular continuum and those aspects of college life it polarizes. Graham Blaine writes about the situation wherein the criteria used in cur- riculum planning is applicable only to educators, scholars and teachers. The implication in much of the literature, such as Chickering3, Feldmana York: Harper and Row, 1966. IArthur W. Chickering, Education and Identity, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969. AKenneth A. Feldman, and Theodore M. Newcomb, The Impact of College 23 Students, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969. 4 and Heaths, is that the curriculum is constructed on the basis of scholarly ideas and theories current in the various academdc disci- plines which do not usually take into account the needs of the stu- dents. The criticism of this kind of curriculum is that it is not consonant with the needs of students as individual learners, and is therefore impersonalized. Nevitt Sanford writes that "educational history may well be made by the first college that reduces the amount of material offered in its curriculum in order to give the faculty time to reach the student."6 A somewhat different perspective on the same problem is raised in a later section of Sanford's book when he maintains that teachers must be catalysts for change by revealing themselves as humans with emotions and feelings. He also writes, "I was struck by how easy it was to avoid establishing any relation- ships with a student."7 Graham Blaine offers the observation that, "students feel rejected and cast aside. They are still at the age when they need a considerable degree of personal appreciation. Distinctness and singularity in the ways he is dealt with by others are important to the late adolescent."8 Occasionally, upperclass students are advised in such a way that they begin their exposure to a more individually tailored course of study. Dana Farnsworth relates the following perception, "the contrast between the aimless, frustra- ted, bewildered, perhaps cynical sophomore and the same student one or two years later, when he has found a cause in which he is willing to 5Douglas H. Heath, Growing 22.13.6011ege, San Francisco: Joasey-Bass, 1967. 6Nevitt Sanford, Where Colleges Fail, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1967, p. 8. 71bid., p. 181. 8Blaine, Youth and The Hazards g£_Affluence, p. 91. enlist his efforts, is often almost unbelievable."9 In speaking about innovative behavior, Richard Evans concludes that it is the subjective rather than the objective evaluations which seem to be the key to indi- vidual acceptance of an innovation.10 Evans and his researchers found that the "myself" component in innovation was important. That is, when a faculty member was asked to project himself into a teaching situation with a new technique (Instructional Television) his evalu- ation of the proposed innovation rose. In an extremely interesting article by Zelda Gamson various faculty behaviors toward students were seen to range from the personalism of the social scientists to the performance emphasis of the natural scientists.ll These differing styles lead to various consequences in terms of curriculum change, respect for authority and grading practices. Mayhew has also talked about the impact on students of faculty attitudes and behavior. Faculty members who place institutional loyalty above disciplinary loyalty could be expected to feel one way about students, while their colleagues whose satisfactions come chiefly from national professional recognition certainly feel another. Axelrod, Freedman, Hatch, Katz and Sanford argue at length for further movement away from a discipline oriented academic experience at the undergraduate level. 9Dana L. Farnsworth, Psychiatry, Education and the Young ‘Adult, Springfield: Thomas, 1966, p. 133. 10Richard I. Evans, Resistance £2_Innovation i2 Higher Edu- cation, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1967. 11Zelda Gamson, "Performance and Personalism in Student- Faculty Relations," Sociology 2; Education, 1967, 40, 279-301. 12Lewis B. Mayhew, "Institutional Factors and the Learning Environment," in L. E. Dennis and J. F. Kauffman (Eds.), 222 College and the Student, Washington, D. 0.: American Council on Education, 1966, p. 212. 6 Today most college teachers are interested in recruiting undergraduates into their disciplines as early as possible and in professionalizing them thoroughly. This professional training, unless it is carried on in a way that is today exceptional, conflicts with education, and iti postponement until graduate school seems warranted. 3 These same authors see a functional relationship between individuali- zation and the develOpment of creativity. The student, eager to progress in his training, must learn the customary way of doing things, where- as creativity, by definition, requires novelty--a way of looking at things that 'nobody ever thought of before.‘1 Premature specialisation may harm not only the developing individual but the discipline in.which he works. In the study of human life or society, pre- cocity in the use of concepts and methods may easily serve as a substitute for experience and even as a defense against it, thus blocking creativity at its source. There seems to be a large amount of interest in the indivi- dualizing aspects of the academic environment. The recent Hazen.Rgport certainly stresses this continuum of individual--disciplines throughout its pages and especially in its recommendations.16 The second experiential continuumrdeals with the range of experiences between problemncentered and practical action-oriented academic experiences and academic experiences mostly tied to theore- tical exposition or systems of ideas. 13Joseph Axelrod, Mervin Freedman,'Winslow Hatch, Joseph Rats, and Nevitt Sanford, Search for Relevance, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969’ p. 30. 141bid., pp. 30-31. 151bid., p. 34. 16Committee On The Student In Higher Education, The Student Igffligher Education, New Haven: The Hazen Foundation, 1968. 7 In the literature of higher education, many writers comment on the need for student action as an integral part of any effective learning environment. This theme of participation is presented by Joseph Califano. The students must be given a greater measure of real control over their own lives and the things which affect their lives - in their words, 'a piece of the action.‘ Harold Taylor criticizes traditional educational theory for its failure to move beyond academic experiences which are tied solely to theoretical exposition. Where the traditionalists are wrong is in not making a distinction between experiencing history and learning about it. The theory of the educational tra- dition bases itself on the psychological mistake of thinking that being presented with historical accounts of past events is the same thing as gaining a sense of history, that a knowledge of what has been thought, said, and done is the same thing as knowing ideas by thinking them, that knowledge of the good leads to a concern for the good, either in action or in thought. It is only by acting upon knowledge, literally making it, or acting upon life, shaping it, learning from it, creating a life and knowledge of one's own, that the individual can gain the values of education. That is why it is false to separate educational methods from educational content, and to assume, with the traditional educators, that the educational end has been reached when a body of accredited knowledge has been assembled in a curriculum.and commupgcated to the student by the conventional devices. Charles Reich, widely read and discussed by college students, sketches his educational theme for a new way of life or "consciousness III." Seeking an education for an unknowable future, the new generation rejects the idea that a school or college is the only possible institution to supply it. The new consciousness uses many other 'institutions' for its education. It founds 'free schools' as alter- natives to high schools or colleges. It seeks job 17Califano, Joseph A. Jr., £25,8tudent Revolution: A.Global Confrontation, New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1970, p. 71. 18Taylor, Harold, Students Without Teachers: The Crisis in the University, New York: ‘McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1969, pp. 209-210. experiences such as work in a ghetto school, or mi- grant labor, or the Peace Corps. It takes part in political activism and radical politics with educa- tion in mind. It uses underground newspapers, work in theatre or film, summers in the wilderness, or a rock festival, as institutions of education. Just as an earlier school of hard knocks gave the front- iersman his practicality and adaptability, so today's efforts to transcend the terms of society make pos- sible an open consciousness for a frontier far more unknown than that of the pioneers.19 In a related area, social counseling programs furnish some justification for a research interest in this second continuum. Mervin Freedman indicates that students draw the line in sexual behavior be- cause of personal or interpersonal reasons and not because of abstract moral concepts. He offers a humorous example of what happens when theories or ideas are quite unrealistically related to practical life situations. In talking with female students about "feminism” as a theory and the fact that these women were not willing to accept subor- dination to the male, he asked them about some of their future goals. They responded that they wanted a ten room house, two acres of land, two cars, a summer cabin and expect to have these things with a family income of $10,000. Their lack of practical life goals and realistic ' future expectations seemed to correlate positively with a high degree of verbal sOphistication about certain feminist theories current in the female academic world. The whole theme of relevance seems to be im- plied in this continuum. Freedman states, "the things that are most im- portant to many young Americans are not being discussed in academic life.... The interest in drug experience informs us, however, that American Society and education are doing little to contribute to the richness of life that 19Reich, Charles A., The Greening 2: America, New York: Random House, 1970, pp. 362-363. 9 students sense can be theirs."20 Blaine observes that students cannot find areas in which to test endurance, and frustration tolerance. Seem- ingly, more than intellectual probes of ideas are needed for young adults. Stretching a point somewhat, there seems to be a slight tendency for a new saphisticated version of "sound mind, sound body" to be sneaking into these writers' observations. Blaine offers the suggestion that sex education programs must be presented in terms of harmfulness to the individual's 225 success or happiness. Moral codes in the abstract sense and general theories of personality and culture will not suffice as ef- fective guidelines for student behavior.21 All of the authors read offer the observation, either direc- tly or indirectly, that theories and ideas are not very amenable to the learning process unless they are couched in terms of problems or em- bodied in action programs which are reasonably consonant with the indi- vidual's interests, background experiences and present difficulties or needs. Certainly, the whole question of the definition of a college or university and its role in the world at large is related to this partic- ular continuums The third conceptualized continuum deals with the range of experiences between the polar types of flexibility and rigidity. Ob- servations offered by researchers in the areas of innovation and insti- tutional rules and regulations are instructive. In his discussion of innovation in higher education Richard Evans observes that, social institutions rarely include mechanisms for facilitating change. For instance, the change agent is normally perceived as a deviant and must 20Mervin B. Freedman, The College Experience, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1967, pp. 171-172. 21 10 endure this status if he continues to support change. Evans also talks about the reversion effect, in.which adopting something experimentally makes later abandonment so easy that it is almost inevitable. Rigid standards and inhibitions to change may be quite understandable in terms of personal security. A specific case is presented by Evans. "We might cautiously add that our respondents seemed to feel that Instructional Television would require knowledge of teaching methods or might pos- sibly expose inadequate methods to a viewing audience -- an audience which might include fellow faculty members and administrators."22 Nevitt Sanford relates that, "if one trys to change the system he is suspected of trying to lower standards. If one tries to suggest that students have problems, he is accused of coddling them. This is due either to unhappy faculty members or to an unquestioned belief system."23 The whole reward system of an academic community probably thwarts change. For example, Sanford raised the question, "Why not give rewards for the best piece of historical work by a psychologist?" Other similar ques- tions could be raised about the rewards for good teaching and good ad- ‘vising as opposed to articulateness in the faculty coffee lounge or pub- lications. Graham Blaine speaks to the point of encouraging dropouts to break the rut of the academic life-style if and when it seems desirable to do so for the individual student. He maintains that dropping out is often excellent therapy. Blaine also cautions educators about rigidity in responding to student misbehavior. "Rebellion serves as a means of attracting attention and often at this age a reaction of any kind, whether positive or negative, punitive or rewarding is a welcome 22Evans, Resistance 52 Innovation 32 Higher Education, p. 55. 23Sanford, Where Colleges Fail, p. 16. 11 response."24 Flexibility in keying administrative responses to student hostility seems to be implied in the above discussion. Rigid rules may force educators into a corner. Farnsworth maintains that rules which are not and cannot be enforced are worse than none at all.25 Freedman writes that the naivete of many freshmen has certain implications for institu- tional regulations.26 There is a need for structure the first, and per- haps, the second year. Experimentation should be encouraged, but in an atmosphere of support. Rigidity may be related to "impersonal" factors also. Probably one of the most extensive treatments of the concept of the flexibility-rigidity continuum was the Office of Education's 1:135- ibilitz $2,5hg‘0ndergraduate Curriculum published in 1962. On the jacket of this monograph, Charles Cole indicated how the concept of curriculum flexibility and/or rigidity was amenable to specific and in-depth study. In the final analysis, the success of practices which result in curricular flexibility depends not upon artificial devices but upon the atmosphere of the campus, the quality of instruction and of the student body, the personality of the faculty and their interests in plan- ning and implementing program.arrangem5nts best suited to their particular student clientele. 7 There seems to be a good deal of evidence in the literature of higher education to suggest the possible usefulness in a research continuum.of experiences ranging from flexibility to rigidity. The last and fourth continuum concerns the range of experi- ences which either lead to a coherent or integrated effect or to an 24Blaine, Youth and The Hazards g£_Affluence, p. 85. 25Farnsworth, Psychiatgy, Education and £hg_Young Adult, p. 133. 26Freedman, IE2 College Experience, pp. 171-172. 27 Charles C. Cole, Flexibility $3 the Undergraduate Curriculum, Washington, D. 0.: Office of Education, 1962, book cover. 12 incoherent or compartmentalized impact. It is not difficult to find il- lustrations of this continuum.in the literature. In fact, much of the past and current research on values and attitudes deals with this conti- nuum. It also can be found in the literature on administration of large academic enterprise. It is vivid in the press accounts of multiversity student activism. In discussing peer groups, Sanford holds that "insti- tutional coherence relates inversely with the strength of the peer cul- ture."28 It is one of Sanford's hypotheses that the entering freshman is a natural generalist thereby implying that the institution must some- how take these generalist tendencies and nourish them while fostering some cumulative results which are reasonably interrelated. ‘Mervin Freedman suggests, as do many others, that personality is made up of both cognitive and affective factors and all learning situations should be structured with this combination in mind. From a quite different per- spective, Freedman indicates that, "the key to social change is com- pounded out of slight shifts in individual attitudes and beliefs."29 Newcomb visualizes the final characteristics of the student as an end- product which results from the initial characteristics of both the indi- vidual and the college, plus the particular experiences the individual has while in residency at the college.30 Pace and Baird's research, which is discussed in Newcomb's book, suggests that, "...the more mas- sive, the more cumulative, and the more congruent are the stimuli, the 28Sanford, Where Colleges Fail, p. 178. 29Freedman, Th5 College Experience, p. 5. 30Theodore‘M. Newcomb, "Research on Student Characteristics: Current Approaches," in L. E. Dennis and J. F. Rauffman (Eds.) The Col- lege and the Student, Washington, D. 0.: American Council on Education, 1966. 13 greater is the impact they have upon the students."31 It is the totality of campus experiences, if they tend to reinforce one another, that has the influence on student attitudes and values. If there is conflict be- tween the various segments of the college the total impact of the campus experience becomes diluted. Two other articles supply statements which amplify the above contention. The probability of peer group influence is in- creased as the influence of other agents of change is diminished .32 Research on peer groups suggests that loyalty to individualistic academic excellence, favored by many faculty members, may be at odds with loyalty to She group, to the college, or to any larger entity.3 The great potential for some integration of these various change agents seems quite formidable in relating to the impact which would be possible on the individual. In the sample of literature presented there seems to be a sub- stantial rationale for the continuum integration--compartmentalization. There is a good deal of discussion in higher education and other disci- plines about segmented experiences, apathy, and cynicismlon our campuses. Throughout much of this discussion a theme of disorganization seems ap- parent. Not only are students suffering from the separation of the affec- tive and the cognitive, but the faculty and the administration confuse students by seeming to appear defensive about their own bailiwicks and 31C. Robert Pace and Leonard Baird, "Attainment Patterns in the Environmental Press of College Subcultures," in Theodore Newcomb and Everett Wilson's, College Peer Groups, Chicago: Aldine, 1966, p. 241. 32Everett R.‘Wilson, "The Entering Student; Attributes and .Agents of Change," in Theodore Newcomb and Everett Wilson (Eds.), College Peer Grou s, Chicago: Aldine, 1966, p. 86. 33David Reisman, ”Comment," in T. M; Newcomb and E. R. Wilson (Eds.), College Peer Groups, Chicago: Aldine, 1966, p. 282. l4 unconcerned or not knowledgeable about other areas of the campus and how these areas affect what they are attempting to do. In summary, many current writers in the broad field of higher education address themselves to the issues of personalized instruction, increasing relevance in teaching, adaptability of policies and struc- tures, and institutional coherence. Dressel's four continuums are sup- ported by an inspection of the literature in higher education and can be reasonably expected to provide a conceptual base for the construction of a research instrument. ACADEMIC ggggg Whatever the conceptual base, any attempt to collect informa- tion on the behavior of students confronts the dilemma of which areas to designate as the most apprOpriate source points for tapping the experi- ences of students within an institution. It is quite apparent that there exists an inexhaustible supply of experiential source points from which items might be constructed as probes into the experiences of the indivi- dual student. Instruments such as the College Characteristics Index and the College and University Environmental Scales draw items from a broad spectrum.of campus experiences. Some instruments like the College Student Questionnaire compile pre-college experiences and/or characteristics as Awell. For a good overview of source points, appendix 2 in Allan H. Bar- ton's Qgganizational‘Measurement summarizes a wide array of empirical measures of college characteristics.“ The prOposed research instrument (questionnaire) will reflect a subset of this total pool of campus 3AAllen H. Barton, Qgganizational Measurement and $25 Bearing O__t_|._ £115 Study 93 College Environments, New York: College-Eatrance Exami- nation Board, 1961. 15 experiences. This subset will focus exclusively on the more traditional academic experiences of the student. The classroom, the curriculum and student-faculty relationships will constitute the areas of analysis in this research effort. 2: Twenty-One Egggg Adults reminded educators once again of the potent impact of the peer group. ‘More importantly, from.the perspective of this study, Blackburn also suggests the need for closer looks at curri- culum.hmpact. He suggests further that this research on the academic experiences of students should include a broader perspective generally. We also know from studies by Brown, Freedman, Curin, Ratz, Newcomb, Sanford, Wilson and others that peers have a greater impact upon one another than any other element in the collegiate environ- ment. What remains unclear, however, is the degree to which some of the formal structures, processes, and individuals of the campus interact with the students, enter his space and impinge uponhim.35 Pace addresses himself to the need for instruments which are more readily acceptable to the academic community due to their focus and their speci- ficity.36 The selection of the subset of academic experiences seems to relate to Pace's advice. Pace goes on to say that it might be wise to develOp instruments which enlarge upon a single scale from a larger in- strument like the CCI, or which sharpen emphasis identifiable in current instruments. In the 1969 Encyc10pedia 22 Educational Research, Pace writes about the early deve10pment of the CCI and ultimately, the CUES.37 35 Robert T. Blackburn, A Week I}; The Life _o_f_ Nenty-Qgg lgggg Adults, Ann.Arbor: Center for the Study of Higher Education, 1968, p. 3. 36C. Robert Pace, "Methods of Describing College Cultures," in Raoru Yamamota (Ed.), The College Student 2_n_d_ I_l_i_s_ Culture: An Analysis, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968. 37C. Robert Pace, "College Environments," in R. L. Ebel (Ed.), EncyclOpedia.g£_Educational Research, Toronto: ‘MacMillan, 1969. 16 In his analysis, three categories of press were delineated. There were administrative sources of press encompassing rules, regulations and general policies. Academic or faculty sources of press referred to characteristics of faculty members, courses, curriculum, instructional practices and demands. The last source of press was from the students, entailing extracurricular life and student characteristics. This re- search project will focus upon and enlarge the faculty or academic sources of press. As a further indication of the usefulness of this academic focus, the current work of Pace is helpful. ‘Writing in a re- cent issue of the Journal g£_§ighgg_Education, he relates that some of the analysis of his data is resulting in attempts to specify new foci for study.38 Some of these new or consolidated categories of press are campus morality, quality of teaching and faculty-student relations, style of learning or academic effort, and institutional stance regarding student freedoms and discipline. His movement in analyzing data confers some credence to the preposed research study. One further consideration relating to the focus of this study is an assumption that further research may indicate that students' experi- ences in the traditional academic areas of the college may generate a sig- nificant part of the anxiety and hostility that comes to the surface in extracurricular or co-curricular confrontations. At the very least, the kind of institutional profile which might emerge from.the application of an academically focused instrument, could prove helpful in generating additional data on which to draw for intelligent understandings of stu- dent behavior. It might more readily be acceptable to faculty due to 8 C. Robert Pace, “An Evaluation of Higher Education: Plans and Perspectives," Thg Journal g£.Higher Education, 1969, 40, 673-681. 17 its special focus. It might well be more useful to administrators due to its ability to complement other instruments currently available in the field. This project offers professional carry-over value in that companion instruments for faculty and administrators, as well as trus- tees, might be deve10ped at a later date. Also, the data from such a prOposed instrument could serve as a basis for a fairly intensive in- terview follow-up on specifics within the profile for a future profes- sional study. This latter aspect for long-range consideration could produce the kinds of insights into a particular institution and its stu- dents well-being as those produced regarding emotional well-being by Westley and Epstein in _T_l_tg_ _S_i_l£_t}£ Majority.39 This study is based on a long-standing educational assumption, most recently restated in m 1195 Relevance, that "the right curriculum 92g make a difference. An un- dergraduate college exists for the sake of its educational program."40 SIHMARY A review of selected literature in higher education produced ample justification for a research interest in Dressel's four concep- tual continuums of academic experience. The first continuum which ranges from an emphasis on the individual learner to an emphasis on the discipline or content to be learned is much akin to discussions concerning personalized curriculum, specialization, and professional- ization. The second continuum which ranges from an emphasis on ex- periences which are problem-oriented to an emphasis on experiences which are primarily focused on theoretical expositions, embodies the 39William A. Westley, and Nathan B. Epstein, _T_l_1_g_ Silent Majority, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969. hoAxelrod, Freedman, Hatch, Rats and Sanford, Search 29}; Relevance, p. 52 . 18 same contrasting notions as are evident in publications dealing with the relevance of instruction, and the relative impact of ideas. The third continuum which ranges from an emphasis on flexibility of aca- demic experiences to an emphasis on rigidity of academic experiences is closely associated with written commentaries on the adaptability of policies and structures as well as on the nature of systems which foster creativity. The fourth continuum concerns the range of exper- iences which lead to either integrated or compartmentalized impact on individuals within the academic community. This continuum is probably the most amply illustrated by the themes found in higher education literature. The entire concept of institutional coherence as it im- pinges upon its members in terms of value or behavior change is re- lated to this fourth continuums While much of the research in the past has tended to narrow its interest towards the power of the peer group, concern is now surfacing for some readjustment in this overemphasis on the peer and extracurricular sources of impact. Some sense of this need for balance in research on college impact is implied by Katz. The college curriculum.can be a uniquely potent instrument for the development of per- sonality. Currently the curriculum fulfills its promise very inadequately because it does not incorporate a sophisticated attempt to make contact with the impulses and present situation of the student. The student is whatever he is: career-oriented, rebellious, indifferent."l In addition to the rationale for Dressel's four continuums found in a selected review of literature, there is also considerable justification for a research project which is sensitive to the tradi- tional areas of academic experiences encountered by students. These 41Joseph Katz and Associates, N2 Time for Youth, San Fran— cisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968, p. 243. 19 traditional areas include faculty-student relationships, curriculum choices, advising contacts, and classroom activities. Pace has been the most persuasive in delineating categories of press on students. In his analysis, administrative, peer, and faculty or academic press are postulated.42 Academic press refers to characteristics of faculty members, courses, curriculum, instructional practices and demands. Donald Brown's studies of student deve10pment indicate that academic press is a substantial factor in such develOpment. In general, three main dimensions of stu- dent development are greatly influenced by the curriculum, the available peer cultures, and the nature of the residential structure of the institution.43 Astin also concludes that the academic experiences of students are a fundamental substance of the college experience. Although the undergraduate student gen- erally spends less time attending class than he does engaging in other campus activities, the stimuli provided by the classroom experi- nece are probably among the most significant sources of influence during the undergraduate years. The literature of higher education certifies both an interest in Dressel's four continuums, and the need for a research instrument which would focus uniquely on the traditional academic experiences of students. In Chapter II, the problems of operationalizing the defi- nitions of these four continuums, generating an item pool and designing a research instrument with an academic focus will be presented in detail. 42C. Robert Pace, Encyclopedia gbeducational Research. 43Donald R. Brown, "Student Stress and Student Development," Memo _t_g the Faculty, Ann Arbor: Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, 1968, 2, p. 5. aéAlexander W. Astin, The College Environment, Washington, D. C.: The American Council on Education, 1968, p. 50. CHAPTER II THE RESEARCH DESIGN AN OVERVIEW 9: THE RESEARCH DESIGN This research project was designed to produce a new experi- mental instrument which would yield a measurement or measurements of student academic experiences or academic press. The conceptual base for this research instrument was Dressel's four continuums of academic experience. Several research tasks were undertaken as a part of this experimental study. The four conceptual continuums were operationally defined to provide a source of potential items. An item pool was assembled from various sources. Items were collected which reflected the academic focus of the proposed instrument or questionnaire. An initial item.se1ection was carried out to allow for a field testing at three contrasting academic institutions; Alma College, General Motors Institute and Oakland University. Analysis of the field test results, expecially the critical comments of respondents, produced a second phase instrument which was field tested at Alma College, Hope College, Mercy College, Montcalm Community College (Regular and Vocational classes), Northwood Institute, Reformed Bible Institute, and Saint Mary‘s College. Analysis of the results of this second field testing produced a viable testing instrument. 20 21 This study was of an experimental nature designed to produce a new research instrument. .Although some discussion of the field testing results is essential to demonstrating the utility of the instrument, this study in itself is not an exploration of the institutional differences whiCh may be revealed nor of the extent to which these differences may have significance for academic planning. Such studies can be undertaken once the instrument is available. DEFINITIONS Q§.CONTINUUMS The first presentation of the four continuums was prOposed by Dressel in.his book, College and University Curriculum.45 He introduced the four continuums within the framework of approaches to curriculum analysis. Briefly, each of these continuums were suggestive of possible curricular emphasis, identified as two polarities. The first contrasts concern for the individual student with concern for the discipline.46 The second continuum contrasts a practical with an "ivory tower" conception of education. 7 The third continuum contrasts highly flex- ible, adaptable pzograms with rigid, uniformly imposed patterns. 8 The fourth continuum contrasts programs which seek integration, coherence, 88d unity with those which ignore these qualities. Based on Dressel's early exposition of these four continuums, definitions were expanded and/or modified to include such things as 45Dresse1, College and University Curriculum. 4612$§., pp. 16-17. 47l§$§., p. 17. ‘§;§;g.. p. 17. 493233., p. 18. 22 faculty-student relationships, off-campus learning facilities, student control of programs, and goal orientations. An objective of the con- tinuums' definitions was to facilitate the writing of an item pool which reflected various aspects of academic press including, but not limited to the curriculum. Numerous conferences were held with Paul Dressel during which various definitions of continuums were discussed, edited and rewritten. Several sessions were held at Alma College where a professor from each of the academic divisions; natural sciences, humanities and social sciences, reacted to various definitions. A similar procedure was undertaken with a group of upperclass students who were members of the Dean of Students Advisory Committee. A set of operational definitions was developed for future work. Continuum I Individual Disciplines One end of Continuum I stresses the importance of teaching in relation to personal development. The emphasis would be on the unique combination of academic experiences which would be most likely to achieve both cognitive and affective growth for each individual student. Faculty-student contact would include subjective appraisals of academic materials. A key goal would be an understanding of the discipline. The other end of Continuum I stresses the intellectual impor- tance of the subject matter itself. The emphasis would be on the con- tent taught. Faculty-student contact would focus on objective apprais- als of materials from.the particular academic discipline being taught. Mastery of the knowledge and skills of the discipline would be the primary goal. 23 Continuum II Problems, Policies, Actions ——Abstractions, Theories, Ideas One end of Continuum II stresses the application of knowledge. Emphasis here would be on that which is practical. The competency of utilizing information to reach decisions would be critical. Learning would be outwardly oriented toward actual situations in the world and the management of their concomitant issues. The time perspective would include the present and the future. The primary quality of thought and behavior would be concreteness. The other end of Continuum II stresses the theoretical nature of knowledge. The emphasis here would be on that which is abstract. The ability to analyze systems of ideas, concepts, and constructs would be important. Verbal facility in rendering hypotheses and appraising theoretical schemes would be cultivated. Learning would be inwardly directed, and the time perspective would be the past. In terms of involvement in the world, the posture would be passive. Continuum III Flexibility’ *Rigidity One end of Continuum III stresses individual control over pro- grams and policies. Learning experiences are structured by the indivi— dual himself or by the advisor in consultation with the individual. The concept of an academic community with shared participation and power by all members is primary. The individual is autonomous in class and directs his own academic experiences. The other end of Continuum III stresses institutional prescrip- tion of programs and policies. Learning experiences are structured for 24 the individual. All individuals in a college or university are to pro- grass through explicit steps and clearly delineated programs in the same manner. The individual is closely controlled in the classroom by the faculty. Continuum IV Integration ‘<:Compartmentalization One end of ContinuumLIV stresses unity in and from learning experiences. Key concept here is coherence. Central to this perspec- tive would be the clear delineation of relationships within and between academic learning experiences. Cooperation would characterize the inter- action between members of the academic community. Personal, institu- tional, and societal goals would be related to each other. The other end of Continuum IV stresses the separation of learning experiences, one from the other. Key concept here is gagg- herence. Central to this perspective would be the clear separation within and between academic learning experiences. Competition would characterize the interaction between members of the academic community. Differences in goals of various groups in the college would be apparent. THE ITEM POOL This research project aims at the creation of an instrument for assessing academic press. The parameters of academic press will be finally determined by the items developed for this questionnaire. Items, however, were sought which reflected the four continuums suggestive of curricular emphasis. Within this general framework of four continuums, ideas for items came from.the following main sources; the literature of higher education, sample catalogs from colleges, institutional 25 studies carried out at Alma College, perusals of various questionnaires now available, analysis of open-ended sections of student evaluations of faculty at Alma College, student feedback at housing staff conferences, freshman luncheons, senior exit interviews, senior women dinners, student advisory boards, and personal involvement in faculty in-service training sessions, faculty meetings, coffees and committees. Many sources elicited ideas for items as well as some notion of core academic areas which would serve as the focus of the research instrument. Core academic areas included educational goals, curriculum, classroom activities, student-faculty relationships including advising, and forms of individualization in the entire academic program. Joseph Axelrod's fifteen major questions from his model for curriculum analysis served as an overall guide.50 Various sources produced ideas for items which generated ap- proximately 50 items for each of the four continuums. An attemt was made to include items for each continuum which covered the core academic areas. These items were subjected to an intensive writing-editing pro- cess to sharpen their individual emphasis towards one or the other poles of the continuums. These ZOO-plus items were then reviewed on several occasions by Paul Dressel, Director of Institutional Research at Michi- gan State University. At Alma College, a sociology methods class and a sociology theory class examined these items. One professor each in the fields of history, religion, philosOphy, education, biology, chemistry, psychology, mthematics and business administration reacted to these items. At various points, conversations were held at some length with soJoseph Axelrod, "Curricular Change: A Model for Analysis," 1h_e Research Reporter, Berkeley: The Center for Research and DeveIOp- ment in Higher Education, 1968, 3, 1-4. 26 Myron R. Utech, a sociologist, concerning these items and their relation- 51 On the ship both to the four continuums and to core academic areas. basis of a great deal of feedback from various sources on the item pool, 25 items were selected for each continuum constituting a first phase instrument of 100 items. The first phase instrument is illustrated in This 100 item first phase questionnaire was field tested at Alma College in Alma, Michigan; General Motors Institute in Flint, Michi- gan; and Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. A primary result of this field test was the section on critical consents from the respondents. Critical coments were obtained from 424 students at these colleges. In addition to these critical consents, each of the 100 items was subjected to analysis. Particular attention was directed towards items with very high or very low endorsement across samples and towards itans which pro- duced a good mean spread across samples, especially between upperclass groups. Items which were redundant in that they probed the same core area, such as advising contact, were examined to determine which produced better mean spreads and fewer critical consents. Some items were re- worked to shorten them or to alleviate a troublesome word or phrase. Ap- pendix B illustrates examples of critical consents and mean spread data. On the merit of critical comments from respondents, an analysis of endorsement and mean spreads, and further conceptual evaluation of statements or items as they pertained to particular continuum, a second phase questionnaire was produced comprising 60 items or 15 items for each continuum, plus two items indicating sex and class categories. Sl‘Myrcm R. Utech, Student Attitudes: A Study__ In Alienation, Washington, D. C., U. 8. Office of Education, 1971. 27 Appendix C illustrates this second phase instrument. This procedure for producing the second phase questionnaire is a bit more sophisticated, but related to the review procedure advocated by Robert Ebel. Ebel in- dicated, in a comment pertaining to programs in national assessment, his preference for an early examination of items for a test rather than a painstaking inquiry into the relation between the general objectives of a test and specific items. Might it not be simpler, and just as effective in the long run, to focus on particular test items from the start, asking only whether an item.like that belongs in a test for this area of achieve~ ‘ment. The second phase instrument was then given a larger field testing than in phase one at seven different and contrasting colleges. This second field testing was subjected to a rigorous statistical analysis which re- sulted in the establishment of a satisfactory testing instrument, the merit of which will be established in Chapter III. Shamans The first field test of 100 items had several research objec- tives. One objective was to determine whether different types of col- leges produced different profiles based on the 25 item continuum scales. .Another objective was to collect critical comments on these items from a substantial number of students. Three institutions agreed to participate in this field test during the‘Winter of 1971. .Alma College in4A1ma, Michigan; General Motors Institute in Flint, Michigan; and Oakland Uni- versity in.Rochester, Michigan. Table 2.1 and 2.2 respectively show the characteristics of the three institutions and of their group samples. 52Robert L. Ebel, "Assessing National Assessment," Caps Capsule, 1970, 3, lO-12. 28 Table 2.1 Summary of Institutional Characteristics - Phase One Institution Approximate Size Approximate Type. Alma College 1300 Private, Liberal Arts, Coed General Motors Institute 2900 Private, Engineering and Management, Male Oakland University 6000 Public, University, Coed Table 2.2 Summary of Sample Characteristics - Phase One Sample Fresh- Sopho- Institution Size Male Female man more Junior Senior Alma College 219 104 115 123 59 23 14 General Motors Institute 71 71 -- 71 -- -- -- Oakland Univer- my L33 .9; .12. .42 ._s_6. 9.2 :1 Total 424 237 167 237 115 58 14 The students who made up each of these samples were tested by identi- fying large elective classes at each of the institutions and adminis- tering the questionnaire to them. The resulting samples allowed for a number of reasonably viable categories or sub-samples for comparison, such as freshman males at Alma, G. M. I. and Oakland, freshmen at Alma and Oakland and upperclassmen at Alma and Oakland. While these samples ‘were neither random nor stratified, they were appropriate for assessing the relative merits of items, especially in the sense of collecting 424 sets of student critical reactions to 100 test items. These 29 samples also allowed for an analysis of mean spreads and endorsement rates between similar sub-samples at different schools. As a result of the data procured from the first three sam- ples, a second and shorter test instrument of 60 items was prepared for a larger field sampling. From critical comments of respondents, it was decided to test only upperclassmen whose academic experiences would be broad enough to respond knowledgeably to the majority, if not all of the 60 items. In the Spring of 1971, seven institutions agreed to participate in this second phase field test. These insti- tutions were: Alma College in Alma, Michigan; HOpe College in Hol- land, Michigan; Mercy College in Detroit, Michigan; Montcalm Community College in Sidney, Michigan; Northwood Institute in Midland, Michigan; Reformed Bible Institute in Grand Rapids, Michigan; and Saint Mary‘s College in Winona, Minnesota. Tables 2.3 and 2.4 respectively show the characteristics of these institutions and of their group samples. Table 2.3 Summary of Institutional Characteristics - Phase Two Institution Approximate Size Approximate Typg Alma College 1300 Private, Liberal Arts, Coed Hope College 2000 Private, Liberal Arts, Coed Mercy College 1300 Private, Liberal Arts, Female Upper Division Montcalm Community College 600 Public, Community Col- lege, Coed Northwood Institute 1000 Private, Business Educa- tion, Male Upper Di- vision Reformed Bible Institute 73 Private, Bible College, Coed Saint Mary's College 1100 Private, Liberal Arts, Male Upper Division 30 Table 2.4 Summary of Sample Characteristics - Phase Two Sample Sopho- Ipstitution Size Male Female more Junior Senior Alma College 84 40 44 8 43 33 Hape College 89 47 42 27 30 32 Mercy College 55 S 50 2 3 SO Montcalm Commity College (Academic) 49 28 21 49 -- -- Montcalm Community College (Vocational- Technical) 36 24 12 36 -- -- Northwood Institute 118 112 6 2 24 92 Reformed Bible In- stitute 33 23 10 16 10 7 Saint Mary's College _22 _§_]_. __2 __1_7 _5‘1 __1_9_ Total 554 360 194 157 164 233 Several characteristics should be noted about these samples. Each sample was procured as in phase one by testing large elective classes. Freshmen were eliminated, as earlier mentioned, due to their critical consents about their inability to respond to many it. due to lack of experience in the academic environment. Discussions with Mont- calm Comnity College officials led to a decision to split their sample into two samples, one composed of students in a regular academic pro- gram, and one composed of students in a vocational-technical program. Reformed Bible Institute's sample is small, but includes all of the up- perclassmen in that institution. Saint Mary's College is primarily male in the upper division, and Mercy College is primarily female in its upper division. These samples produced 554 students to respond to the 31 new 60 item.questionnaire. Various kinds of statistical Operations were performed on the data amassed by this second field test, producing outputs of biserial correlations, split-half reliabilities, and dimension inter- correlation to be reported in Chapter III. In the early conceptual phases of this research project, vari- ous testing instruments currently available in the field were studied. One of the early conclusions reached concerning the nature of a unique academic press instrument was that the items or questions constituting such a testing tool would require that the student be a respondent as contrasted with an informant. That is, this study will be of the survey type as contrasted with the anthrOpological type. The questions in this prOposed instrument will tap private attitudes rather than public atti- tudes. James Coleman writes in College gggg_§5222§_that the anthropo- logic approach entails a student reporting about his environment, as in research by Pace, and that the survey approach involves the student re- porting as a part of his environment, as in research byRossi.53 In the former approach, statements take the form of, "there is little studying at this college over the weekend." In the latter approach, statements take the form, "how much studying do you do over the weekend?" The choice of the survey method is primarily based on past experience at Alma College as‘well as comments by researchers such as Coleman, that private estimates of public attitudes are often a compilation of, "pluralistic ignorance." This is not to diminish the fact that the discrepancy between the two kinds of data (survey and anthrOpological) might be important. 53James 8. Coleman, "Peer Cultures and Education in Modern Society," in T.'M. Newcomb and E. R. Wilson (Eds.) College Peer Groups, Chicago: Aldine, 1966. 32 MeDill, Meyers and Rigsby opted for the informant approach due to their main interest in preceptions of the environment which were independent of personality needs.54 While reports of private experiences do tend to "contaminate" data from this perspective, it is an assumption in this proposal that this so called contamination may be the substance of academic press as defined in this study. The individual's report of his own experiences when placed beside the self reports of his colleagues may be much more informative and useful than an evaluation report by each student regarding his perceptions of other students' experiences within the college. Frederick de W. Bolman states that, "the task here for institutional research is to penetrate further into the ecology of the students' and the faculties' lives."55 It would appear that useful data about student and faculty ecology and curricu- lum.impact on personality might more probably emerge out of an analysis of private as contrasted with public perceptions of the academic situa- tion. At any rate, the departure from anthropological type question- naires seems viable in and of itself. The fullest advancement of understanding about college cultures and their impact on students will come not only from applying the most rigorous methods but from using a variety of methods to explore the wisest questions we can formulate.56 The use of the survey approach might help to avoid the situation where- in the respondent to a testing instrument gives the kind of response 54Edward L. MeDill, Edmund D. Meyers, and Leo C. Rigsby, ”Institutional Effects on the Academic Behavior of High School Stu- dents," Sociology 2; Education, 1967, 40, 181-199. 55Frederick de W. Bolman, "University Reform and Institu- tional Research," The Journal p£_Higher Education, 1970, 41, p. 93. 56C. Robert Pace, The College Student and His Culture: Ag Analysis, p. 203. 33 that he thinks the tester wants because the statements, in the main, are of no real concern to him. The possibility exists that state- ments which are specific and demand personal responses could actually be exciting or at least interesting to the student. Items on this academic press instrument will be of the survey variety. Another objective related to item construction was that of specificity of reference. Each item was constructed and finally adop- ted partially in terms of its specificity in order to allow for ease on the part of the respondent in selecting and marking an answer category. Concern for item format was paralleled by a concern for an effective answer scale. On the first phase questionnaire of 100 items an answer scale of four choices was selected. Table 2.5 illustrates the answer scale. Table 2.5 Characteristics of the Answer Scale - Phase One Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree (SA) (A) (D) (SD) If you strongly If you mildly If you mildly If you strongly agree with the agree with the disagree with disagree with the statement as ap- statement as the statement statement as it plied to your applied to your as applied to applies to your experiences. experiences. your experi- experiences. ences. It was thought that the finer discriminations possible with more response categories on the answer scale would be helpful to respondents and fruit- ful in analysis. It was assumed that specificity in items and a four category response scale, as compared with general questions of the 34 true-false or yes-no varieties, would inhibit the usual test anxiety of college students concerning too narrow response categories and vagueness in statements. Such proved not to be the case. The critical consent from respondents in the first field test produced a new answer scale of agree-disagree. Students found the strongly disagree and strongly agree categories confusing, and generally not useful. The item format of the survey type generated no critical cements. The phase two questionnaire continued to use the original item format and the modified agree- disagree answer scale. E2 ACADEMIC PRESS INSTRUMENT In this section the 60 items which constitute the final aca- danic press instrument will be presented. The 60 items are actually four groups of 15 items each representing one of the four continuums. The four continuums are also referred to as dimensions or scales. Dimension I Individual - Disciplines (ID) 1. My class reading lists do not allow for personal selection of materials. 2. My professors seem interested in demonstrating how their courses relate to my personal needs. 3. My classes don't seem to relate to me as an individual human being. 4. My academic advisor seems to be a good listener as well as a good source of advice on academic matters. 5. In class, I can undertake a project of real interest to me. 6. My professors are warm individuals. 7. My academic advisor does not express his personal Opinions about the courses in the curriculum. 8. My professors seem to subscribe to the belief that what I know is more important than what I am. 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. 10. 35 I visit with professors in their homes. My classroom experience leads me to conclude that my professors are more interested in their subject matter than in teaching students. My academic advisor helps me to see how my program of studies related to those things which are important to me. My professors seem more interested in going to coffee with their colleagues than in talking with me. I have opportunities in the classroom to express my own feelings about course materials. Faculty members encourage me to attempt courses which are of special interest to me. I have found that it is acceptable to inject my personal philos- ophy into term papers written for my classes. Dimension II Problems - Abstractions (PA) In my classes, paperback books dealing with the current social scene are assigned. My course work does not deal with possible applications of theory to real problems. My academic advisor doesn't ask me about how I plan to use my education. I have participated in field trips off-campus. My professors advocate the active interest of the college com- munity in developing an awareness of social problems. My professors encourage me to deal with specific problems and their solutions. I have never attended any kind of special seminar or program on current social problems. I can see the relationship between what I am studying and the kinds of situations I will meet when I leave college. My college attempts to provide some kind of off-campus experi- ence as a part of my education. My classes deal primarily‘with past events and findings. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 10. ll. 12. 13. 36 My professors are not interested in what impact their field might have on our world in the future. I participate in an academic program here where I come face-to- face with a real life situation as an assignment. I am not asked to relate what I am learning in class to the con- temporary scene. I do not have assignments which require reading a newspaper, news magazine, or current journal. My classes are concerned with abstract theories and ideas. Dimension III Flexibility - Rigidity (FR) I find that my professors insist on prerequisites for their courses. My academic advisor makes the decisions about my academic pro- gram. I am not able to decide upon the nature of my classroom activi- ties. Outside of my major, I can take a course pass-fail when I want to. I can get excused from class if a speaker or program of interest to me conflicts with class time. My conversations with my academic advisor are all prearranged appointments rather than drop-in sessions. I participate in decisions that affect my academic life here at the college. My grades are determined by class curves. I am able to make quite a few choices of electives in my academic schedule. ‘My classroom assignments consist of reading textbooks and studying lecture notes. There is no one for me to go to in order to formally complain about grades which I feel are unfair. I have the opportunity to evaluate my courses and professors. My courses are graded on the basis of one or two mid-terms and one final exam. 14. 15. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 37 I have not made presentations, outside of asking questions, in my classes. I find that in labs and on tests, I have to stop at the end of the period even if my work is not completed. Dimension IV Integration - Compartmentalization (IC) In courses outside my major, I find it difficult to understand class discussions, course materials and lectures. I can see the relationship in my academic program between the Humanities, the Social Sciences, and the Natural Sciences. I find that scheduled social activities conflict with class times and lecture programs. My academic advisor helps me to find academic goals we both agree on. I am.not involved in academic assignments which require work with another student on a joint project. My advanced level courses do not make use of what I learned in introductory courses. I can take courses where an interdisciplinary approach on term papers and in assignments is encouraged. I get the feeling that all I'm.getting out of college is a lot of "loose ends" which I can't pull together. My professors' grading systems help me understand where I am weak and how I can improve. I think that my professors attempt to relate the objectives of their courses to the objectives of the college. I don't see professors from one department talking and working with professors from other departments. My academic advisor helps me to relate my out—of-class and off- campus experiences to my academic studies. My professors bring in materials from.ather subjects and relate them to their own particular subject. I find no real conflict between my goals and those of the college. I have academic requirements to fulfill which seem to bear no relationship to my program of study. 38 These 60 items are analyzed in detail, both as individual items and as items within a dimension, in Chapter III. SUMMARY The objective of this study was to construct a new and unique research instrument which would measure academic press. The conceptual origin and base for this project was Dressel's four continuums sugges- tive of curricular emphasis, each identified as two polarities. These continuums through a procedure involving Paul Dressel, faculty members from.Alma College's division of humanities, social sciences, and natu- ral sciences, and upperclass students at Alma College were edited and reworked until a set of operational definitions for each continuumwwas established. The operational guidelines for each of the continuums along with a concept of core academic experiences served as guidelines for the development of an item pool. Selected literature in higher educa- tion, sample catalogs, Alma College senior exit interviews, and various other sources of information also generated ideas resulting in contri- butions to the item.pool. A final group of 100 items was selected for a field test after an intensive writing-editing process involving Paul Dressel, undergraduate sociology classes at Alma College, faculty mem- bers from a number of different subject matter fields, and discussions with Myron R. Utech, a sociologist, working in the area of student alienation. Another outcome of this consultation, literature review and rewriting phase was the decision to use a survey format for test items. It was concluded that the individual's report of his own experi— ences (respondent) when placed beside the self reports of his collea- gues may be much more informative and useful than an evaluation report 39 by each student regarding his perceptions of other students' experiences (informant) within the college. A field test was held in the Winter of 1971 at Alma College in Alma, Michigan; General Motors Institute in Flint, Michigan; and Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. Samples at these institutions were procured by administering the first phase questionnaire to large elective classes. On the merit of critical comments from respondents, analysis of mean percentage spreads and endorsement percentages, and further con- ceptual evaluation of items as they pertained to particular continuums, a second phase questionnaire was produced. This questionnaire was made up of 60 items, or 15 items for each continuum or dimension. It was also decided on the basis of critical comments from the first field test respondents to employ an agree - disagree answer scale format, and to aiminister the questionnaire only to upperclassmen. This second instrument or questionnaire was given a field testing in the Spring of 1971 at seven institutions; Alma College in Alma, Michigan; Hope College in Holland, Michigan; Mercy College in Detroit, Michigan; Montcalm Community College in Sidney, Michigan; Northwood Institute in Midland, Michigan; Reformed Bible Institute in Grand Rapids, Michigan; and Saint Mary's College in Winona, Minnesota. On the merit of the data from this field test, including outputs of biserial correlations, split-half reliabilities and dimension inter- correlations, a final instrument was produced. CHAPTER III ANALXSIS OF RESULTS INTRODUCTION Presentation of data in this research report is designed to es- tablish the merits of a newly develOped academic press instrument. Pri- ‘mary attention will be directed towards an item.analysis, with the biserial correlation serving as the central statistic. Additional areas of in- terest include the internal consistency coefficients for each of the four dimensions comprising the instrument, dimension intercorrelations, va- lidity statements and examples including illustrations of‘mean percentage scores on dimensions for samples, and suggested norms. One aspect of the analysis of results entails the kinds of pro- files produced by different samples frem.contrasting and snmilar academic institutions. This profile data will be presented in order to introduce the institutional self-study possibilities of this instrument for assessing the academic experience of students. In this presentation of results section the scoring format used in this study for responses to the test instrument, summarized as mean percentage scores, should be reviewed. Items in the questionnaire ‘were keyed so that one of the response Options, agree or disagree, was the "correct" answer. The "correct" answer was the response category, agree or disagree, which moved the respondent towards the left pole of 40 41 the continuums. That is, in analyzing the data, research interest was focused on the responses which indicated academic experiences which were characterized by an emphasis on the individual learner rather than an emphasis on the discipline to be learned, by an emphasis on problems rath- er than an emphasis on abstract thought, by an emphasis on flexibility as contrasted with rigidity, and by an emphasis on integrative experi- ences as apposed to an emphasis on compartmentalized experiences. In summary, the presentation of research findings is composed of an item analysis, scale reliabilities and intercorrelations, sample profiles, suggested norms, and validity statements, based on a second phase field test at seven academic institutions, totaling 554 student respondents. BISERIAL CORRELATIONS A major objective of data analysis on the academic press in- strument was to establish high itempdimension relationships. Each item within a dimension should correlate more highly'with its own dimension than with any other dimension of the instrument. Table 3.1 presents the biserial correlations for items from.the individual-discipline di- mensien with each of the four dimensions or scales on the instrument. (See Table 3.1) As Table 3.1 indicates, the responses from 554 respon- dents across seven institutions produce biserial correlations between items from.the individual-discipline dimension which are in all cases higher than the correlations between these individual items and any of the other dimensions. T-tests run on the biserials between items and their own dimension indicated significance at beyond the .001 level for all such correlations. 42 awn. «He. mee. «an. ace. con. awe. Mme. awn. «me. wmm. Hem. «an. own. NNN. mus. Nae. own. can. fine. flan. can. mom. mam. med. use. Nun. oqe. new. mom. mm flu. monmznan H09. «#0. mac. cue. new. ode. «no. How. was. man. .ea ou umeueusw uses no uuemoum m escapees: use H .oemHe ea .06 some magmas» ea eons seaweeaaoo name» any: eemuoe ou modem cw voueeueuoa sues Bees mueseeuoum a: .eoees ascouuom as ou ensues noowsoo «ween so: wsausuuosoaeo sq oeuooweuou some suoeoououm 5: .ea ou masseuse Heavens me one node: ooousoo unaeuue on «a swansooee cheeses huasosm .eusoesue woweoeeu on use» nausea oceans. passe ea possesses“ ewes ous ouoaoemouo as use» emsaeeoo on ma nosed eoeeauoexe Boouoesae at .5 H use: menu unsung—Ea euoa we soex H use: uses usages ecu ou enauoeoso on soon auooueuowm a: .03 on asses—one: one £0.33 omega—u uses... on oeuoaeu newness mo aouwoum as so: use on as seas: woowpoe cascades h: .weaeo amass amsmu>qooa so as as ou meadow 0» Ease u.coo message a: .oumuaeuea eeusoo noose omeqaeeu use as oneness ou aoouoemue one :4 sequeasuuoeeo e>me H .uaeso«>«oe« awe: ous euoeoemoue bx SEEM seasons—.3 seeaamaeaaugmeofrgou use Beau use”; "esoausuowuoo Hugues; saunas—3H 1m man—ma. 43 moo. sou. «mo. eHH. onH. «NH. com. HeH. omN. won. weH. mum. «an. Hmm. men. oH as «M monmZMZHn wan. swe. Hue. can. Hnm. .eeaon uHesu sH euoooemoue :uHs uHoH> H .asHsoHuuse was s« eoousoe enu moons oeoHeHmo Homespun pH: omeumxe uoo meow wooH>om eHaeomom h: .eHsHueuea Ho eoHuooHoe Hueoeuee you soHHm see on ouoHH wsHooen oemHe a: .nusuuea uHaeooeo so euH>ms mo season moon o as HHsa es pesoueHH meow s so ou eases wooHpom ouauoeom a: .eeeesHe a! wow oeuuHua summon aheu ouoH hsmooo uHHne Hmoouuue as uooaoH ou «Hesumsees o« u« uses meson use: H ZNHH Hemaaauaouv a.« usage 44 Table 3.2 presents the biserial correlations for items from the problems-abstractions dimension with each of the four dimensions on the instrument. (See Table 3.2) As Table 3.2 indicates, data analysis produces biserial correlations between items from the problem- abstractions dimension which are in all cases higher than the correla- tions between these individual items and any of the other dimensions. T-tests run on the biserials between items and their own dimension indicated significance at beyond the.001 level. Table 3.3 presents the biserial correlations for items from the flexibility-rigidity dimension with each of the four dimensions on the instrument. (See Table 3.3) As Table 3.3 indicates, data analysis produces biserial correlations between items from the flex- ibility-rigidity dimension which are in all cases higher than the correlations between these individual items and any of the other dimen- sions. T-tests run on the biserials between items and their own dimen- sion indicated significance at beyond the.001 level. Table 3.4 presents the biserial correlations for items from the integration-compartmentalization dimension with each of the four dimensions of the instrument. (See Table 3.4) As Table 3.4 indicates, data analysis produces biserial correlations between items from the integration-compartmentalization dimension which are in all cases higher than the correlation bwtween these individual items and any of the other dimensions. T-tests run on the biserials between items and their own dimension indicated significance at beyond the .001 level. 45 Cum. Hon. nee. cum. nee. owe. «en. coo. awe. How. eon. cow. sun. mum. 5H0. 0mm. owe. wwH. mmo. NwN. Geo. emH. one. mom. mac. mom. mus. nun. mes. fie. fl. monmzqun Hwn. mNM. can. ewe. 00¢. Nme. men. mmn. one. Hue. .uoeaemeou so as eoHumsuHe «HHH Hoes o nuHs oosmnouueusu eaoo H sues: one: aeuwoue eHaeoseo on :H suseHoHuuse H .coHusesoe he no uses s so mooeHueexe sensuouuuo Ho oeHx «Bow eoH>owe ou mumaeuum eweHHoo a: .oususm use :H mHuos woo so e>we names oHeHH wHosu uoseEH use: eH veneeuoueH no: one euosoemoum m: .oweHocHu one aueo>o some :uHs hHHumanm Hose oesoeHo a: .oooHusHoo uHonu mam maeHoowm oHHHoeeo nuHs Home on ma owmusooce ouooeomoum a: .aaeHeouo HoHooe Ho summonses so weHeoHo>oo eH muHenaaoo eonHoo one no unououeH e>Huom one ousoo>om ouosoeuoue a: .Hmsuson assumes no .eeHuewsa use: .ueommese: m wcHomeu uuHsoeu neHnsvouoeauwHuom e>me uoc on H .eaeHooum Hues ou snooze Ho osoHumoHHmos eHoHoeom :uH3_Hmeo you seem sues eeueoe a: .eweHHoo e>meH H can: some HHH3.H aeoHumsuHe Ho moeHx use one meHhosuo as H use: consume mHseeoHumHeu emu use use H .eosoo awoken usoueoo one on oeoHo :H onsumeH am H uses_eumHeu ou oozes uoe_as H ZHHH aoHeneaHo eeoHuomuuoom u maeHeoum one sown useuH “maOHusHewwoo HsHuuon oHsemxaeuH N.m eHan 46 05H. don. mmN. ham. emu. one. mom. st. «we. see. ans. sma. “an. ass. «an. _mm .«m zoamzuzun oHH. mum. MHH. oHN. onN. .eaeHnoue HsHuoo seen name so asuwoue no useHaeo HmHoeoo mo von has venomous uo>ee e>se H .ooHusosoo he so: on emHe H see seems we use u.seeoo nonH>om evacuees a: .osmaouummo umHuu oHeHH eH oeueeHUHuumm e>ss H .emooH one eeHuoonu meanness squ possesses one oenesHo h: .oesteoe use cases HsHooe uoeuweo enu nuHa weHHeeo exoon Homeuemom .eoeomHo as oH ZMHH Heoaaauaoov ~.m cease 47 NHH. eoH. oHN. New. mam. HwN. wmo. omH. wnm. wan. «as. moo. has. NNN. son. «as. can. has. amn. «on. can. nme. «on. one. man. new. mom. ws~. mas. on. mm. «H zoamzmzaa HNN. HmH. «mm. mom. Hem. oeu. weH. mam. mom. nme. .ooousoo uHoeu you oeuHoHseouewe so uoHosH ouoeoemoue he uses oeHu H .oooosHo as :H .eooHuoeeo meere Ho eonuao .osoHusuoeoeum some so: e>sn H .oeoHuoeo cHoeouo use» assume oucoaueHoeme newemuumoua HHm one womH>mo seaweeds ma nuHs oeoHuseuo>eoo a: .oouoHaaoo no: mH sto as HH eo>o ooHuea on» «0 one use us noun 0» e>ma H .ouoou no use mosH oH uses oeHw H .eweHHoo one no one: omHH oHeoosoo as assume umsu sooHeHoeo :H ousmHoHuuoe H .eHsoesoo oHaeomuo as oH oe>HuooHo Ho meoHeao 3mm m euHso mama ou oHem as H .Eeuwoum oHaeosoo ma uaoem sooHeHoeo ecu sexes wooH>om oHaeouom h: .oeuoo oueuoeH maH uhmsuo one oxooouxeu moHoeou Ho uoHosoo eueeaemHoem aoouoomHo a: .saHu eeoHo euHs ouoHHHeoe «8 cu uooueueH Ho amumoue so someone a HH oemHo Beam possess new one H .osHuH>Huee aoouommHe me we ensue: one some eoHoeo Ou eHnm uo: as H ZMHH coaaaosan assesses n auHHHoneHm sen sown maeuH "oeoHusHeuuoU HsHuesHm eHsom\aeuH m.m oHan 48 0H0. mmN. Hoe. com. men. mom. moo. cos. aON. one. moo. one. sou. Nae. aa~. .mm «m zoamzmzon BNO. an. moo. new. me. QH .ue>u=o nomHo he osaHausueo ous oeomum e: .asxo HmeHm moo one ushouuoHE one no moo Ho onoo one so oeomww ous ooousoo m: .0» some H can: HHmmnnomm eousoo u uses coo H .uonmfi as no ooHouso .ouoeueuoum one monsoon be euosHo>o cu huHssuuoemo use o>mn H .uHchn one Heem H SOHna moomww usoeo :HmHeEOo hHHmEMoH ou usowo eH on em on as new eoo o: eH muons ZMHH AooacHucOOV m.m ermB 49 eon. men. men. «an. awn. owe. one. woo. woo. mmo. mum. moo. mmH. «we. mum. woo. woo. mom. eoo. mam. wHH. men. men. one. nmm. nae. coo. awe. own. own. MM <|m onmzqua fine. «NH. 0mm. eon. mum. mne. one. «an. new. use. OH .eo seams suon ea mHmow oHEeomow oon on as emHe: hoeH>om oHEeooem m: .uoenowo ueHon o co uaeoaue nesuocm :uHa xuoa euHseou :ean muachmHeme OHBeomem cH oe>Ho>oH uoc as H .meousoe huouoeoouuaH oH oeouseH H use: no so: axes no: oo esousoo He>eH ouuem>oo m: .oonHoe ecu Ho eeonu one oHsow he ceesueo uoHHmooo Hmeu o: ooHH H .oonHoo sou mo oo>Hueeneo one ou oesusoo “Hues Ho oo>Huoeneo one ousHou ou neaeuum euoeoemoum as umnu ersu H .e>oueaH emu H so; one xmea.em H when: oesuouooc: ea mHe; assumes wcHosuw .uuoouomowe a: .eueeauummeo wesuo sown ouoeeemowm nuHs onxuos one weHmeu unassumeoo use Bonn sneeeeuoue use u.ooo H .uesuewou HHso u.:mo H £UH£3 :mooe esooH: mo uoH m mH eweHHoo we use weHuuuw 8.H HHm umsu wcHHeoH u:u as» H .ouHosuo eHEuomos he Ou emceeHuoexu madame-uuo ous ummHonmouuso as euoHeu on as omHee wooHeom eHEeosos a: .uoefioao umHeoHuuum see uHosu ea Esau ouoHeu oem uncommon woeuo Beam eHoHuouma :H weHue ouoooemoum a: ZuHH eoHocuEHo eoHumAHHmueuauumeaoo u :oHumuweuaH sea seam maeuH "esoHuoHeuuoo HusoeHm eHmem\asuH ¢.n oHan 50 can. wNN. owo. owe. .oamuwoum ousuoeH one meEHu mmuHo :UHS uoHchou meHuH>Huem HoHoOo oeHeoeeoo omen oon H one. mNN. com. oH~. .muusuooH one onHuouma emusoo .eeoHeeeueHo momHo oomumueoco ou uHsoHHHHo UH oeHH H .uohma he eoHeuao seeusoe eH one. mom. Hon. own. .oewmusooee eH ouomaowHeem :H one museum anon so nomoumem mueeHHoHooHoueuoH am when: menusoe oxen one H hoe. an. com. mmH. .hosuo Ho Summons be on mHse -coHumHou on some 0» Boom :oan HHHHHnH ou oueuaeuHsoou oHEeomom o>me H «mm. HHN. mmm. men. .oooceHom Hsunumc use one .oeoaeHoo HmHuoo one .moHuHcoEsn emu consume amuwoua OHEoomum 55 :H mHnocoHumHeu use use one H UH as «M aH zmaa onmZMZHa Homogeneouv e.n uHoaH 51 The biserials obtained through item analysis clearly estab- lish the fact that items are correctly placed within their own dimen— sion or scale. The 60 items on the final instrument are all usable. Even items with the lowest biserials within each of the dimensions produce respectable differences between samples in terms of the per- centage of respondents making the correct response. Table 3.5 illus- trates the ability of low correlates to produce substantial response differences between samples. (See Table 3.5) COEFFICIENTS Q: INTERNAL CONSISTENCY Another objective of analysis was to determine the reliabil- ity of the four dimensions or scales of this new instrument. Split- half reliability coefficients, or coefficients of internal consistency were run on each of the four dimensions. Table 3.6 presents the co- efficients of internal consistency for each of the four dimensions on the research instrument. (See Table 3.6) As the data in Table 3.6 indicates, the dimensions are quite reliably defined in terms of inter- nal consistency coefficients based on the responses on all 554 respon- dents tested in the major field test. DIMENSION INTERCORRELATIONS In addition to the findings that the four dimensions of this academic press instrument were reliable, and that individual items correlated highest within their own dimension, the relationships be- tween dimensions themselves was of research interest. Table 3.7 pre- sents the dimension intercorrelation data, based on all 554 respondents in the study. (See Table 3.7) As Table 3.7 indicates, the reliability of each dimension is substantially higher than the correlation between 52 that dimension and any other dimension. The one negative correlation between the dimensions of individual-disciplines (ID) and problems- abstractions (PA) is rather striking. In order to determine whether this negative correlation was an artifact of the total sample, cor- relations between dimensions ID and PA were calculated by individual samples. Six of the eight samples in this study produced negative intercorrelations. The general negative correlation between dimensions ID and PA is consistent across the sample institutions represented in this research project. The data analyzed clearly establishes the fact that the four dimensions can be thought of as separate and non-redundant. Conceptual differences resulting in the definitions of four dimensions were transmitted empirically to this research instrument. 53 Ha.ao - a.anv omens o.mn o.om n.5c H.~m o.mn c.5n H.Ho w.ns omeHHoo mmuHHoo oHaeoooHmonHoo ousuHueaH eunuHuaeH oueHHou eueHHoo «no: hows: huHonaaoo aHsouaoz muHenano EHmoueo: oooszuuoz eHeHm oeauomem o.huez .um eaH< “oeHmaso he someones» uueuwoo Ho ewsuoeouum Amen. HsHueaHmv .oEeHnoum HeHooo ueouwse so amuwoue no umcHBee HmHoeeo me oon has oeoeeuum ue>os e>sn H mm «Hmom Aa.mm u oo.v mused o.H~ ¢.on m.oH oo. N.oH «.mm m.mH m.on ouoHHou mmeHoo oHaeosednmonHoo HmooHumuo>uemuHHoo ousuHueoH eunuHuoeH emeHHoo eueHHoo one: Home: huHesaaooaaHmeueoz huHesano aHsoueoz oooszuuoz oHnHm oeauouex a.husz .um mBH< "ooHeamo he summonses soouuoo mo emouoeouem wam. HsHueonv .ueaoe uHeAu sH ouoooeuouo nuHsquoH> H OH onum oeumHeuuoo seq "eeoHuoHeuuoo HsHueon «Hmom\aeuH m.n eHan S4 Ha.mm - a.mov amuse s.mo n.5c m.ns H.no o.- w.om ¢.en H.nw ouoHHoo mmeHHoo oHaoouoummmHHoo ousuHuoeH ousuHuoeH eueHHoo eueHHoo seem sous: huHcsaaoo aHmeuaoz, muHcsaBoo BHueuooz oooanuuoz eHoHn ooauouem o.humz .um maH< "aeHeama an «uncommon uoouuoo mo eweucoouem Aemm. HmHueeHmv .oamuwouo ousuueH ous ouaHu mmoHe nuHa uUHHueou oeHuH>Huum HmHeOo ooHsoezue menu ocHu H UH onum Ha.~o - e.o~v amuse o.H~ H.mo ¢.om m.~o H.mm m.me «.me w.me omoHHoo mwuHHoo oHEeomouemeHHoo ousuHumcH ousuHuooH oueHHoo emeHHou one: some: huHesaaoo EHoouooz huHesaaoo aHeouooz oooszuuoz eHon oeauomex o.hum: .um maH< "uoHeamo he neocomoeu ueeuuoe Ho eweuoeuuem Heow. HmHueonv .e>uso ausHo u so oeeHaueueo one moose» as am oaaom Homogeneouv n.m oHaaa 55 Table 3.6 Split-Half Reliability of Dimensions DIMENSIONS COEFFICIENTS Individual - Disciplines (ID) .8548 Problems - Abstractions (PA) .9388 Flexibility - Rigidity (FR) .9094 Integration - Compartmentalization (IC) .9365 Table 3.7 Dimension Intercorrelations ID PA FR IC ID (.8548) -- -- -- PA -.3034 (.9388) -- -- FR .0599 .2986 (.9094) -- IC .0652 .5527 .0407 (.9365) 56 VALIDITY STATEMENTS AND EXAMPLES Earlier in this paper a procedure for the selection of items was described which involved a substantial suggestion and review pro- cess with faculty members and students, an intensive writing-editing process with Paul Dressel, and two field tests, the first at three contrasting academic institutions and the second at seven contrasting colleges. An initial item pool of 200 was pared to a group of 60 items on the final research instrument. This careful selection or sampling of items is enough to establish content validity. Within the general parameters of this study construct valid— ity is difficult to establish. A perusal of college catalogs and student handbooks did not produce any meaningful categories which would seem to relate conceptually to high or low scores on particular dimen- sions. Some general impressions and assumptions generated by the perusal of these materials along with certain characteristics of in- stitutions separated by type and reported in the literature of higher education suggest construct validity for the dimensions of this instru- ment. An inspection of sample mean percentages on dimensions compared to a mean percentage for the combined samples on the same dimensions illustrates a kind of construct validity for the instrument. Table 3.8 summarizes the college sample scores which fall above and below the mean for combined samples on the individual-disciplines dimension. (See Table 3.8) Dimension ID ranges from an emphasis on the individual student taught to an emphasis on the content to be taught. The high score for Reformed Bible Institute probably reflects the very small size of the institution and the clearly humanitarian emphasis of such an institution. The high scores for the two samples from Montcalm 57 Community College reflect the emphasis of the community college on teaching all types of students and the consequent type of faculty normally recruited to such an institution. The high score for Mercy College may be explained by its former tradition as a girls school with its attendant concern for the students and perhaps to the high visibility of its nursing program in the upper division with its em- phasis on a people-oriented profession. Table 3.8 High and Low Mean Percentage Scores of Samples on Dimension ID Mean for Combined Samples 65.8 11.1mm Leakage: Reformed Bible Institute 84.6 Hope College 65.8 Montcalm Community College (Vocational) 73.7 St. Mary's College 65.1 Mercy College 71.5 Northwood Institute 63.3 Montcalm Community College (Academic) 67.6 Alma College 58.3 The low scores of Alma, St. Mary's and Hope may be explained by their positions as aspiring liberal arts institutions. The emphasis of de- veloping liberal arts colleges is generally an excellent academic pro- gramAwith an increasing percentage of Ph.D's on the staff. It has been made clear in much of the literature that the Ph.D. level pro- fessional tends to be more discipline-oriented than student or local issue oriented. In a related manner, the sample from Northwood may have produced a low score on this dimension due to strong business education emphasis with its concern for preparing the student for a 58 career, rather than necessarily developing the horizons of its students and the fact that its curriculum might not allow for as much indivi- dualization, as say a liberal arts college would. While there appear to be differences of considerable magni- tude between colleges, defined by their mean scores on the individual - disciplines dimension, the nature of these differences appears to be in the intensity of the students' academic experiences in similar areas rather than from different kinds of academic experiences. A summary of this situation will be presented in Chapter Four, however, an example will be presented here. Most of the student respondents across all samples concurred at different but relatively high levels that their "professors were warm individuals." (modified ID item) However, most of the students tested indicated at different but low levels that they did have occasion to, "visit with professors in their homes." (modi- fied ID item) This research is then consistent with other research indicating that students tend to have fairly similar kinds of academic experiences across all types of colleges. Selected examples of such research would include Utech,S7 Wallace58 and Axelrod.59 Table 3.9 summarizes the college sample scores which fall above and below the mean for combined samples on the problems - ab- stractions dimension. (See Table 3.9) Dimension PA ranges from an emphasis on academic experiences which are problem-oriented and/or S7Myron R. Utech, Student Attitudes: A Study i2 Alienation, 58Walter L. Wallace, Student Culture, Chicago: Aldine, 1966, pp. 4-5 a 59Joseph Axelrod, Mervin Freedman, Winslow Hatch, Joseph Katz and Nevitt Sanford, Search for Relevance, p. 54. 59 practical to an emphasis on academic experiences based primarily on abstract thinking and the analysis of systems of ideas and concepts. The high score for Reformed Bible Institute may reflect both the small size of the institution and its clearly articulated aim to apply bib— lical concepts to modern day living. Even if some of the study of biblical passages is fairly abstract, the small size of classes allows for excellent opportunities to facilitate for individual students linkages of abstract sections of biblical literature to current soci- etal problems. The high scores for Northwood Institute and Montcalm Community College's vocational samples indicate the close linkages between their programs and the world of work. Mastering practical skills, as contrasted with pure cognitive functioning, is a charac- teristic of their study programs. The high score of Mercy College reflects both the metropolitan location of the college and the strong nursing program there. At Mercy, the student body physically encoun- ters the problems of the city on a day to day basis. One of Marcy's central programs is the nursing course of study. In addition, Mercy offers a law enforcement program, runs a Montessori School, a teacher training institute and an adult education program, all of which have strong practical directions. Table 3.9 High and Low Mean Percentage Scores of Samples on Dimension PA Mean for Combined Samples 68.8 High Means Lg! Means Reformed Bible Institute 80.4 Montcalm Community College (Academic) 65.4 Mercy 77.3 St. Mary's College 65.0 Northwood Institute 74.3 Hope College 64.8 Montcalm,Community College (Vocational) 69.9 Alma College 59.6 60 The relatively low scores on the PA dimension for Alma College, St. Mary's College, Hope College and Montcalm Community College academic sample reflect an ever-present characteristic of so-called academic (as contrasted with vocational) programs. In general, traditional academic programs tend to emphasize the development of abstract rea- soning abilities and articulateness in discussing systems of ideas. These programs usually are preparatory in nature concerning practical problems as compared with actual participation in the solution of problems. Again, it does not appear that different scores by college samples necessarily indicates wide differentials in the type of aca— demic experiences encountered by students, but rather indicates that the intensity of such experiences produces a different emphasis. In this case, some colleges such as Northwood Institute offer more ex- periences which allow a student "to see the relationship between what he is studying and the kinds of situations he will meet when he leaves college." (modified PA item) Some colleges, such as Alma College, offer fewer Opportunities for students to connect-up with current social problems, but nevertheless, have many students who can dis- agree with the statement "I have never attended any kind of special seminar or program on current social problems." (PA item) Table 3.10 summarizes the college sample scores which fall above and below the mean for combined samples on the flexibility - rigidity dimension. (See Table 3.10) Dimension FR ranges from aca- demic experiences which emphasize individual student control and many decision options to academic experiences which are highly structured 61 and controlled by faculty. The high score of Reformed Bible Institute may reflect the very small size of the college allowing for enough contact time between students and staff to work out tailored programs. The high scores of St. Mary's College and Alma College reflect the fact that both of these institutions are‘moving away from their close religious ties (Catholic and Presbyterian respectively), generally de- creasing graduation requirements, have a form of community government and scrutinizing their curricular programs with relevant changes in mind. Both institutions also have well defined avenues for students to use in relation to faculty evaluation, advisor changes, and grade com- plaints. Montcalm Community College academic sample has a high score due to its community college emphasis on teaching the student "where he is" and its counseling emphasis on preparing a student for several eptiens at the point of transfer to a four year college. The high score by“Mercy College probably reflects the emphasis of the college in relating to its students individually, by its late tradition as a girl's school, by the relative lack of control over many of its stu- dents due to commuter status within a metrOpolitan environment. Table 3.10 High and Lew'Mean Percentage Scores for Samples on Dimension FR ‘Mean for Combined Samples 62.6 High Means _Lel Means Reformed Bible Institute 69.3 Montcalm Community College-Vocational 61.4 St. Mary's College 67.6 Hepe College 58.2 Mercy College 66.8 Northwood Institute 54.7 Alma College 65.5 Montcalm Community Collegqucademic 65.4 62 The lower scores for Northwood Institute and Montcalm Com- munity College vocational sample may reflect the increased control generally characteristic of skill or job training courses and curric- ulum.and the fewer options available to a student once entered in a particular training program. The low score by Hope College indicates close ties with the Reformed Church in America, a conservative force, and a core curriculum experience for all students including some religion courses. The range of mean percentage scores on dimension FR are not as great as those discussed for dimensions ID and PA, and perhaps these institutional differences are not too significant. Interpretations based on general impressions and assumptions about particular institu- tions remain intuitive in nature. As stated in the discussion of sample mean scores for dimen- sion ID and PA, the differences in sample scores on dimension FR are a matter of degree, in that student experiences across all samples are somewhat similar, differing only in the intensity of the experiences. For example, most of the students tested indicate that they "have the opportunity to evaluate courses and professors," (modified FR item), and that their "academic advisers do not make all of the decisions about their academic programs." (modified FR item) Nevertheless, most of the students tested agree that "their classroom assignments consist of reading textbooks and studying lecture notes." (modified FR item) Table 3.11 summarizes college sample scores which fall above or below the mean for combined samples on the integration - 63 compartmentalization dimension. (See Table 3.11) It is important to recall that of all the dimensions, the only intercorrelation of any magnitude (.5527) was between PA and IC. Precisely the same institutions are high and low scorers on these two dimensions. Dimension IC ranges from those academic experiences which are integrative in nature to those academic experiences which are com- partmentalizing in their impact. The high score by Reformed Bible Institute reflects the small size of the institution which allows for a clear goal orientation shared by a majority of members. Further, the aim of all study experiences is to translate biblical teachings and related materials into an effective witness within the current society. High scores by Northwood and Montcalm Community College vocational sample indicates the close linkages between the academic experiences of the students and a work experience. The goal of job training is the clear focus of all curricular and advising activities. In many cases, faculty’msmbers and students have had experience in similar work situations, however different in level of sophistication. Mercy College produces a high score on the IC dimension due to its highly visible program in nursing and related areas of medicine which directs every learning experience towards the one end of a competent nursing professional. In none of the four colleges with high scores on dimension IC are a large number of students or faculty focused on goals which involve education at another level of educational institution without some work experience period intervening in.which learning and training have to be pulled together. 64 Table 3.11 High and Low Mean Percentage Scores for Samples on Dimension IC Mean for Combined Samples 65.3 High Means ng_Means Reformed Bible Institute 75.4 Montcalm Community College - Academic 63.0 Northwood Institute 70.9 Saint Mary's College 61.2 Montcalm Community College - Vocational 70.3 Hope College 59.4 Mercy College 69.0 Alma College 57.5 The low scores produced by samples from Alma College, Hope College, St. Mary's College and Montcalm Community College academic sample results from some characteristics of the traditional academic program. Normally, in a liberal arts college or the academic track of a community college, there is a good deal of room to search for courses of interest. Even when the academic program has a core element, such as at Hope College, students can still sample various areas within the curriculum. While there is great merit in the ability to "shop around" within the curriculum, one normal consequence of such "course mobility" is lack of synthesis. Another contributing factor to a lack of integration of academic experiences in these institutions is the competition between departments for able students, and the general goal orientation towards further schooling without practical experience where knowledge gained is integrated into a specifically goal-oriented situation such as a job. On dimension IC, scores of sample colleges depict emphasis within their academic environments rather than different academic 65 environments. The academic experience of students which are related to either an integrative or incoherent educational program differ in degree rather than kind. For example, most students indicate dis- agreement with the statement that "my advanced level courses do not make use of what I learned in introductory courses." (IC item) Some integrative effect is evident at least at that level. However, many students also disagree with the statement that "my professors' grading systems help me to understand where I am weak and how I can improve." (IC item) An inspection of mean scores by samples for each of the instrument's four dimensions does result in an estimate of construct validity. Colleges scoring high or low on the various dimensions do possess other characteristics which would conceptually relate to the same dimension definitions. SUGGESTED 50.3.3”. The norms suggested in this section are based on a sample of seven colleges. It should be noted that this sample does not in- clude any universities or independent liberal arts colleges and is primarily a Michigan sample with the exception of one Minnesota col- lege. Reference can be made back to Tables 2.1 and 2.2 for general characteristics of institutions and their samples. It does appear reasonable however to suggest some norms for this instrument which would be applicable to private, church-related liberal arts colleges, community and junior colleges, business management, technical training institutes and Bible colleges. Samples of the comparison group are also based on upperclassman scores and cannot be used to compare 66 sample scores of freshman students. Two methods for comparing future institutions' scores on this instrument include a dimension and item mean distribution table and a profile presentation. Table 3.12 illustrates the spread of sample mean percentages on each dimension, the mean percentages for combined samples and the standard deviation. (See Table 3.12) The information in Table 3.12 serves as a basis for determining a college sample's relative standing on the dimension of the instrument. For example, a sample which pro- duced a mean percentage score of 73 on the ID dimension would indicate considerably more emphasis on academic experiences which are focused on the individual learner than most students report from the compari- son group samples. Researchers interested in the kind of individual percentage score range within each of the comparison samples by di- mension should refer to Appendix D. 67 Table 3.12 Distribution of Sample Mean Percentages by Dimension - Norm Data Sample Mean Percentages 22 as us 12 84.6 80.4 69.3 79.4 73.7 77.3 67.6 70.9 71.5 74.3 66.8 70.3 67.6 69.9 65.5 69.7 65.1 65.4 65.4 63.0 63.3 65.0 61.4 61.2 60.4 64.8 58.2 59.4 i842 22-2 221 57.5 Combined Mean Percentage 65.8 68.8 62.6 65.3 Standard Deviation 7.9 6.7 4.7 6.9 68 Any researcher would be interested in his student sample's score on the four dimensions of this instrument. However, in terms of collecting clues about why a dimension score is high or low, or simply in terms of highlighting aspects of an institution's academic environment in terms of student experiences for in-depth discussion, a perusal of item scores would prove beneficial. Appendix B provides normative data for interpreting mean percentage scores of samples on items. Each item is presented with its distribution of mean scores, ‘mean for combined samples and standard deviation. Use of this normative data should proceed with care since high or low mean percentage scores by student samples cannot be regarded as value judgments regarding the merit of academic press of a particular institution. The evaluation of the dimension scores for any student sample should be made in light of the objectives and re- sources of the institution tested. There is no implication in this research that it is necessarily bad to be either high on individual emphasis or discipline emphasis, problem focus or abstract focus, flexibility or rigidity, integration impact or compartmentalized im- pact. There are numerous relationships (profiles) which can obtain for any institution based on the four continuums, all of which may be fruitful for a particular kind of academic program. Some sample profiles are offered as examples which might be used to initially compare the scores on dimensions by particular types or combinations of institutions. Figure 3.1 illustrates sample profiles of the two church-related, private liberal arts colleges, Alma College at Alma, Michigan, and Hepe College at Holland, Michigan. 69 Figure 3.1 Mean Percentage Score Profiles: Alma College, Hope College W 12 fi 1% E to g 100 3 95 m 90 0 85 fg" so 5 75 g 70 a: 65 :::::::::::::::::::="::::::f‘\\\\\ p C 11 60 ' v;; i_: ”-‘-- ope o ege' 5 55 ‘\\“ ----- ilma College 3 so Figure 3.2 illustrates sample profiles from Northwood Institute at Midland, Michigan, a business education institute, and Montcalm Com- munity College vocational sample at Sidney, Michigan. Figure 3.2 Mean Percentage Score Profiles: Northwood Institute, Montcalm.Community College-Vocational DIMENSIONS 1.9. a. an; Ic 100 95 90 85 80 No thwood 75 ----- In titute 70 ----- Mo tcalm 65 (V cational) 60 55 50 Mean Percentage Scores 70 Figure 3.3 illustrates sample profiles from Saint Mary's College at Winona, Minnesota, primarily men in the upper division, and Mercy College at Detroit, Michigan, primarily women in the upper division. Figure 3.3 Mean Percentage Score Profiles: Saint Mary's College, Mercy College DIMENSIONS .12 2a m m 100 95 90 85 80 75 z: t A ----- rcy College 60 v< ----- 3 int Mary' s 55 College 50 Mean Percentage Scores Figure 3.4 illustrates an institution very high on the left hand side of each continuum (dimension), that is, scores which indicate high emphasis on individual learners, problem orientation, flexibility and integration impact. The profile is of the sample from Reformed Bible Institute at Grand Rapids, Michigan. Compared to this profile is an institution scoring lower on all these dimensions. This profile is from Alma College in Alma, Michigan. 71 Figure 3.4 Mean Percentage Score Profiles: Reformed Bible Institute, Alma College DIMENSIONS 12 EA, £5. £2 § 100 4‘ 3 95 a: 90 85 2" so N """ R “we" a 75 B ble 3 70 I stitute H 0 65 /\ “‘ 60 at g 55 . ----- A ma College 3'! so Figure 3.5 illustrates sample profiles from Montcalm Community College's vocational-technical and academic samples. Figure 3.5 Mean Percentage Score Profiles: Montcalm Community College, Vocational and Academic DIMENSIONS .1}; EA EB. 10 100 l 95 90 85 so 75 __g ..... nonpcalm Comm. :0 o~-__.—.e__.____:::::::::><:::::::::—<::::::a College-VOC- 5 60 . ----- Montcalm Comm. 55 Colfege-Aca- 50 Mean Percentage Scores 72 Concluding this section of profiles for possible comparison work with future samples from other institutions, is a composite profile figure. Figure 3.6 illustrates the profiles of mean percentage scores from the eight samples represented in the comparison group. Figure 3.6 Mean Percentage Score Profiles: All Samples DIMENSIONS 1.1). EA .133. IS 100 95 90 O 8 85 o 3: 80 ----- Reformed Bible 0 Institute 9.” u 75 5 o 70 ------ Northwood Inst. 3 .— ‘ ------ Mont alm C.C.-Voc. 5 65 7g “\‘./1 ------ Mer College g ~ ------ Mon alm C.C.-Aca. 60 ------ Sai Mary's Col. ------ Hop College 55 ------ Al College 50 73 SUMMARY An analysis of data on the second phase test instrument revealed a number of findings which lead to a conclusion that this instrument for testing the academic experiences of students is a vi- able research tool. All 60 items produced a higher biserial with their own di- mension than with any of the other dimensions. Table 3.13 summarizes the results of the biserial analysis. Table 3.13 Biserial Correlations: Range and General Magnitude Dimension Rgpgg Magnitude ID (.723 - .388) 12/15 above .500 PA (.797 - .368) 12/15 above .500 FR (.613 - .269) 8/15 above .500 IC (.658 - .336) 11/15 above .500 Even the items with the lowest biserials for each dimension produce good mean percentage spreads across samples. On dimension ID the item with a biserial of .388 still produces a spread on sample mean percentage scores from .00 to 36.9. On dimension PA the itemnwith a biserial of .368 still produces a spread of 37.1 to 91.1. On dimension FR the item with a biserial of .269 still produces a spread of 20.4 to 62.9. On dimension IC the item with a biserial of .336 still produces a spread of 65.7 to 85.7. T-tests run on all of the biserials indicate signi- ficance at beyond the .001 level. Coefficients of internal consistency using the split-half method produced very satisfactory results. Reliability coefficients 74 for the four dimensions ranged from .850 to .930. Dimension intercor- relations produced correlations ranging from .040 to .550 which are sub- stantially lower than the internal consistency reliabilities for each dimension. Content validity was established through the rigorous item sampling procedure described fully in Chapter II. Construct validity is approached in this study by an examination of mean percentage scores of samples on dimensions and a comparison of high and low scores with general characteristics of these institutions which are conceptually related to the definitions of the four dimensions. The analysis pro- duced a related discovery that while institutional samples from dif- ferent types of colleges produce different scores, the differences are a matter of degree rather than kind. That is, students respond in the same direction on items, however, the magnitude of these responses is of varying size. Norms are suggested for comparing future institutional scores on this research instrument. Taking into account the non-representa- tiveness of our eight samples in terms of geography and in terms of the exclusion of universities and independent liberal arts colleges; a comparison group made up of the eight samples can be used to eval- uate scores from church-related, private, liberal arts colleges, com- munity colleges, both vocational-technical and academic programs, Bible colleges, and business training and technical colleges. Distributions of mean percentage scores of samples with mean percentages for combined samples and a standard deviation are charted for each dimension. A college sample score can be compared to this chart for some general 75 notion of whether the college sample scores high or low on the parti- cular dimension compared to our comparison group. Sample of related college profiles, a set of contrasting college profiles and a combined profile of all colleges are offered as further comparative data. The item/scale biserial analysis, dimension intercorrelations, internal consistency coefficients for dimensions, content and construct validity statements, and normative data produced by analysis of the general field tests results strongly suggest the future merit of this instrument constructed for the purpose of yielding measurements of student academic experiences. CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS SUMMARY In Chapter I a review of selected literature in higher education produced ample justification for a research interest in Dressel's four conceptual continuums of academic experience.60 The first continuumxwhich ranges from.an emphasis on the individual learner to an emphasis on the discipline or content to be learned is much akin to discussions concerning personalized curriculum, specialization, and professionalization. The second continuum*which ranges from an emphasis on experiences which are problemsoriented to an emphasis on experiences which are primarily focused on theoretical expositions, embodies the same contrasting notions as are evident in publications dealing with the relevance of instruction, and the relative impact of ideas. The third continuum which ranges from.an empha- sis on flexibility of academic experiences to an emphasis on rigidity of academic experiences is closely associated with written commentaries on the adaptability of policies and structures as well as on the nature of systems which foster creativity. The fourth continuum concerns the range of experiences which lead to either integrated or compartmentalized impact on individuals within the academic community. This continuum is probably the most amply illustrated by the themes found in higher educa- tion literature. The entire concept of institutional coherence as it impinges upon its‘members in terms of value or behavior change is related to this fourth continuums While much of the research in the past 60Dressel, College and Universipy Curriculum. 76 77 has tended to narrow its interest towards the power of the peer group, concern is new surfacing for some readjustment in this ever-emphasis on the peer and extracurricular sources of impact. In addition to the rationale for Dressel's four continuums found in a selected review of literature, there is also considerable justification for a research project which is sensitive to the tradi- tional areas of academic experiences encountered by students. These traditional areas include faculty-student relationships, curriculum choices, advising contacts, and classroom activities. Pace has been the most persuasive in delineating categories of press on students. In his analysis, administrative, peer, and faculty or academic press are pos- tulated. Academic press refers to characteristics of faculty members, courses, curriculum, instructional practices and demands.61 The literature of higher education certifies both an inter- est in Dressel's four continuums, and the need for a research instru- ment which would focus uniquely on the traditional academic experiences of students. In Chapter II, the problems of operationalizing the defi- nitions of these four continuums, generating an item pool and designing a research instrument with an academic focus were presented in detail. The objective of this study was to construct a new and unique research instrument which would measure academic press. The conceptual origin and base for this project was Dressel's four continuums sugges- tive of curricular emphasis, each identified as two polarities. In Chapter II it‘was explained how these continuums,through a procedure involving Paul Dressel, faculty members from.Alma College's division of 61Pace, EngyclOpedia pf Educational Research. 78 humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences, and upperclass students at Alma College were edited and reworked until a set of Operational definitions for each continuum was established. The Operational guidelines for each of the continuums along with a concept of core academic experiences served as guidelines for the deveIOpment of an item pool. Selected literature in higher education, sample catalogs, Alma College senior exit interviews, and various other sources of information also generated ideas resulting in contributions to the item pool. A final group of 100 items was selected for a field test after an intensive writing-editing process involving Paul Dressel, undergraduate sociology classes at Alma College, faculty members from a number of different subject matter fields, and discussions with Myron R. Utech, a sociologist, working in the area of student alienation. Another outcome of this consultation, literature review and rewriting phase was the decision to use a survey format for test items. It was concluded that the individual's report of his own experiences (respondent) when placed beside the self reports of his colleagues may be much more informative and useful than an evaluation report by each student regarding his per- ceptions of other students' experiences (informant) within the college. A field test was held in the Winter of 1971 at Alma College in Alma, Michigan; General Motors Institute in Flint, Michigan; and Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. Samples at these institutions were procured by administering the first phase questionnaire to large elective classes. On the merit of critical comments from respondents, analysis of mean spreads and endorsement percentages, and further conceptual evalua- tion of items as they pertained to particular continuums, a second phase questionnaire was produced. This questionnaire was made up of 60 items, 79 or 15 items for each continuum or dimension. It was also decided on the basis of critical comments from the first field test to employ an agree- disagree answer scale format, and to administer the questionnaire only to upperc las smen. This second instrument or questionnaire was given a field test- ing in the Spring Of 1971 at seven institutions: Alma College in Alma, Michigan; Hepe College in Holland, Michigan; Mercy College in Detroit, Michigan; Montcalm Comunity College in Sidney, Michigan; Northwood Insti- tute in Midland, Michigan; Reformed Bible Institute in Grand Rapids, Michi- gan; and Saint Mary's College in Winona, Minnesota. 0n the merit of the data from this field test, presented in Chapter III including outputs of biserial correlations, split-half reliabilities and dimension intercor- relations, a final instrument was produced. In Chapter III an analysis of data on the second phase test in- strument revealed a number of findings which led to a conclusion that this instrument for testing the academic experiences of students is a viable research tool . All 60 items produced a higher biserial with their own dimension than with any of the other dimensions. Correlations in excess of .500 were found for 43 of the items. Even the items with the lowest biserials for each dimension produced good mean percentage spreads across samples. On dimension ID the item with a biserial of .388 still produced a spread on sample mean percentage scores from .00 to 36.9. On dimension PA the item with a biserial of .368 still produced a spread of 37.1 to 91.1. On dimension FR the item with a biserial of .269 still produced a spread of 20.4 to 62.9. On dimension 10 the item with a biserial of .336 still 80 produced a spread of 65.7 to 85.7. T-tests run on all of the biserials indicated significance at beyond the .001 level. Coefficients of internal consistency using the Split-half method produced very satisfactory results. Reliability coefficients for the four dimensions ranged from .850 to .930. Dimension intercorrelations produced correlations ranging from .040 to .550 which are substantially lower than the internal consistency reliabilities for each dimension. Content validity was established through the rigorous item sampling procedure described fully in Chapter II. Construct validity is approached in this study by an examination of mean percentage scores of samples on dimensions and a comparison of high and low scores with general characteristics of these institutions which are conceptually related to the definitions of the four dimensions. The analysis produced a related discovery that while institutional samples from different types of colleges produce different scores, the differences are a matter of degree rather than kind. That is, students respond in the same direction on items, however, the magnitude of these responses is of varying size. Norms were suggested for comparing future institutional scores on this research instrument. Taking into account the non-representativeness of our eight samples in terms of geography and in terms of the exclusion of universities and independent liberal arts colleges; a comparison group made up of the eight samples can be used to evaluate scores from church- related, private, liberal arts colleges, community colleges, both vocational-technical and academic programs, Bible colleges, and business training and technical colleges. Distributions of mean percentage scores of samples with mean percentages for combined samples and a standard 81 deviationwwere charted for each dimension. .A college sample score can be compared to this chart for some general notion of whether the college sample scores high or low on the particular dimension compared to our comparison group. Samples of related college profiles, a set of con- trasting college profiles and a combined profile of all colleges were Offered as further comparative data. Further generalization from the normative data in this study was not possible due to the inadequacy of the eight institutional samples to represent either a cross-section of American higher education, or to represent various typologies of insti- tutions, based on geography, control, tradition or size. As more types of institutions are tested, broader and more useful norms can be devel- Oped. Even without these more inclusive and external norms, institu- tional researchers can be well served by this newly develOped inventory in terms Of scrutinizing internal variations over time which occur in student responses to individual items or to dimensions within their own institutions. The item/scale biserial analysis, dimension intercorrelations, internal consistency coefficients for dimensions, content and construct validity statements, and normative data produced by analysis of the gen- eral field tests results strongly suggest the future merit of this instru- ment constructed for the purpose of yielding measurements of student academic experiences. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION This study has identified a conceptual and empirical base for an instrument yielding measurements of student academic experiences. This instrument is identified as the D-P Questionnaire of Student Academic Experiences. The future use of this instrument can provide institutional an es th th tr: cm a : bat Pet and find 82 researchers with scores reflecting dimensions of academic experiences of their students and with item scores which can be used as a basis for follow-up into specific segments of the academic community and the kinds of experiences encountered by students therein. One of the most exciting possibilities of the D-P Questionnaire is its incorporation into a bat- tery of testing instruments which would produce an overall assessment of the dynamics of student experiences within an academic community. Such a battery might include the Institutional Functioning Inventory (for faculty and staff), the College Student Questionnaire, the College Characteristics Index, and the D-P Questionnaire of Student Academic Experiences. The results of this battery administration could be collated and placed in a monograph for distribution to faculty, staff and inter- ested student leaders as a basis for decision-making discussions within the governmental structure of the institution. It is in the ability of the D-P Questionnaire to complement other testing instruments that its true value as a new testing tool resides. While the D-P Questionnaire can be a useful probe into the ecology of student lives in and of itself, a more fruitful direction for institutional research involves the use of batteries of devices plus interview data to assess student life and ex- perience. In the sense that the D-P Questionnaire is able to produce new and differently focused information on the lives and experiences of col- lege students, the D-P Questionnaire stands as a contribution towards the understanding of those young adults who are college students. As a related observation stemming from the develOpment of the D-P Questionnaire, some discussion of the apparent similarities in the academic experiences of the students tested seems in order. When the items from each dimension were inspected for similarities and differences across 83 samples it became evident that the difference in scores and/or profiles of the various samples resulted from the degree to which samples agreed or disagreed with the same items rather than from patterns of agree and disagree responses to different items. That is, students experience the same kinds of academic experiences, but they experience them in wide- ranging magnitudes or degrees. For example, inspection of the sample responses to items in the individual-discipline dimension produced the general conclusion that professors are not seen by students as ignoring them or as cold towards them. Yet, students agree that professors and advisors do not attempt to relate courses or conversations to the personal life of their students, nor to allow their students to enter into their personal lives. Sample responses to items on the problem - abstraction dimension indicated that students do have Opportunities to attend seminars on current social problems and to read materials related to current events. However, many students have no Opportunity to engage in field work experience, nor do they experience many non-abstract treatments of materials, even in seminar settings. Inspection of sample responses to items on the flexibility - rigidity dimension produced the findings that students seem able to make decisions about course Options, complain about grading, and evaluate in- struction. Nevertheless, most students experience classroom activities primarily oriented around lectures and textbooks, grades which are statis- tically rendered rather than individually assigned, and scant and limited evaluations of their academic progress and develOpment. 84 On the integration - compartmentalization continuum, sample responses to items produced results which imply that students feel that prerequisites are useful in advanced courses, that cOOperative learning situations are available and that Open competition between various depart- ments is not widespread. On the other hand, students find little help in relating their course of study to future goals, in ascertaining why they are doing strongly or poorly in certain academic areas, and in perceiving how academic requirements relate to their individual programs of study. While this kind of observation on the typical academic experi- ences of students was not directly related to the production of the D-P Questionnaire, it offers additional evidence of the merit of this new instrument. One direction for future research might well entail a wide administration of this new D-P Questionnaire throughout higher education. The study of the results of such a broad testing could produce some interesting generalizations about the academic experiences of students in the United States. Other directions for research based on this experimental study would include some research on the academic experiences of students by major or by academic division. It is conceivable that the average experi- ence of chemistry majors (natural science division) would profile out as distinctively different than the experiences of art majors (humanities division). Similar research based on a sexual dichotomy would be helpful in assessing the progress of higher education to meet the particular needs of women in our society. Exploratory research into additional categories of academic experiences of students which would yield new items and/or broaden the concept of core academic areas, perhaps even adding new dimensions, is needed. Future work of value would entail testing samples 85 of students from particular geographic areas, from multiversities, from private, independent liberal arts colleges, and from black colleges and universities. The task of comparing results from each of these research directions in order to collate some general statements about higher edu- cation and the academic experiences of the students engaged in that learning venture, would be an especially intriguing format for a new book in the general field Of the sociology of higher education. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Astin, Alexander W., The College Environment, Washington D. C.: The American Council on Education, 1968. Axelrod, Joseph, "Curricular Change: A Model for Analysis," The Research Repgrter, Berkeley: The Center for Research and Develop- ment in Higher Education, 1968, 3, 1-4. Axelrod, Joseph, Mervin Freedman, Winslow Hatch, Joseph Katz, and Nevitt Sanford, Search for Relevance, San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1969. Barton, Allen H., Organizational Measurement and its Beariggflgg the Study 2; College Enviromments, New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1961. Blackburn, Robert T., _A_ Week I}; 11; Life Of Twenty-One Young Adults, Ann Arbor: Center for the Study of Higher Education, 1968. Blaine, Graham 8., Youth and the Hazards 2f Affluence, New York: Harper and Row, 1966. Bolman, Frederick de W., "University Reform and Institutional Research," The Journal 2; Higher Education, 1970, 41, 85-97. Brown, Donald R., "Student Stress And Student Development," Memo 52 the Faculty, Ann Arbor: Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, 1968, 2, 1-6. Califano, Joseph A., Jr., The §tudent Revolution: A_Global Confronta- tion, New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1970, p. 71. Chickering, Arthur W., Education 33g Identity, San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1969. Cole, Charles C., Flexibility Lt; gig Undergraduate Curriculum, Washing- ton D. C.: Office of Education, 1962. Coleman, James 8., "Peer Cultures and Education in Modern Society," in T. M. Newcomb and E. R. Wilson (Eds.) College Peer Groups, Chicago: Aldine, 1966. Committee On The Student In Higher Education, The Student lg Higher Education, New Haven: The Hazen Foundation, 1968. 86 87 Dressel, Paul L., College and University Curriculum, Berkeley: McCutchan, 1968. Ebel, Robert L., "Assessing National Assessment," Caps Capsule, 3, 1970. Evans, Richard I., Resistence 22 Innovation Lg Higher Education, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1967. Farnsworth, Dana L., Psychiatry, Education and the Young Adult, Springfield: Thomas, 1966. Feldman, Kenneth A., and Newcomb, Theodore M., :32 Impact 9; College 92 Students, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969. Freedman, Mervin B., 335 College Expgrience, San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1967. Gamaon, Zelda, "Performance and Personalism in Student-Faculty Rela- tions," Sociology 2£_Education, 1967, 40, 279-301. Heath, Douglas R., Growing 92 lg College, San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1968. Rats, Joseph, and Associates, Nngime For Youth, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968. Mayhew, Lewis B., Institutional Factors and the Learning Environment," in L. E. Dennis and J. F. Kauffman (Eds.), The College and the Student, Washington D. C.: American Council on Education, 1966. McDill, Edward L., Meyers, Edmund D., and Rigsby, Leo C., "Institutional Effects on the Academic Behavior of High School Students," Sociology ‘2; Education, 1967, 40, 181-199. Newcomb, Theodore M., "Research on Student Characteristics: Current Approaches," in L. E. Dennis and J. F. Kauffman (Eds.),The College and the Student, Washington D. C.: American Council on Education, 1966. Pace, C. Robert, "An Evaluation of Higher Education: Plans and Per- spectives," The Journal 2£_Higher Education, 1969, 40, 673-681. Pace, C. Robert and Baird, Leonard, "Attainment Patterns in the En- vironmental Press of College Subcultures," in Theodore Newcomb and Everett Wilson's, College Peer Groups, Chicago: Aldine, 1966. Pace, C. Robert, "College Environments," in R. L. Ebel (Ed.), Encyclo- pedia 2; Educational Research, Toronto: MacMillan, 1969. Pace, C. Robert, "Methods of Describing College Cultures," in Kaoru Yamamoto (Ed.), The College Student 52g His Culture: Ag_Analysis, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968. 88 Reich, Charles A., The Greenipg_9§_America, New York: Random House, 1970, pp. 362-363. Reisman, David, "Comment," in T. M. Newcomb and E. R. Wilson (Eds.), College Peer Groups, Chicago: Aldine, 1966. Sanford, Nevitt, Where Colleges Fail, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1967. Taylor, Harold, Students Without Teachers: The Crisis ip the Univer- sit , New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1969, pp. 209-210. Utech, Myron R., Student Attitudes: A Study Ip;Alienation, Washington D. C., U. 8. Office of Education, 1971. Wallace, Walter L., Student Culture, Chicago: Aldine, 1966. Westley, William A., and Epstein, Nathan B., The Silent Majority, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969. Wilson, Everett R., "The Entering Student: Attributes and Agents of Change," in Theodore Newcomb and Everett Wilson (Eds.), College Peer Groups, Chicago: Aldine, 1966. GENERAL REFERENCES GENERAL REFERENCES Astin, Alexander W., "An Empirical Characterization of Higher Educational Institutions," Journal 2: Educational Psychology, Washington D. C.: American Psychological Association, 1962, 53, 224-235. Astin, Alexander W., "The Methodology of Research on College Impact, Part One," Sociology pf Education, 1970, 43, 223-254. Astin, Alexander W., "The Methodology of Research on College Impact, Part Two," Sociology p£_Education, 1970, 43, 437-450. Bay, Christian, "A Social Theory of Higher Education," in Nevitt Sanford (Ed.), The American College, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Bickford, Hugh L., and Neal, Arthur G., "Alienation and Social Learning: A Study of Students in a Vocational Training Center," Sociology 2; Education, 1969, 42, 141-153. Boocock, Sarane 8., "Toward A Sociology of Learning: A Selective Review Of Existnng Literature," Sociology 2; Education, 1966, 39. 1-45 C Campbell, Donald T., and Stanley, Julian C., "Experimental and Quasi- ‘ Experimental Designs for Research on Teaching," in N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook 0f Research On Teaching, Chicago, Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Centre, John A., "The College Environment Revisited: Current Descrip- tions and a Comparison of Three Methods of Assessment," College Entrance Examination Board Research And Development Reports, Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1970, 1, 1-62. Centre, John A., and Linn, Robert L., "On Interpreting Students' Perceptions of Their College Environments," Measurement And Evaluation Ip Guidance, 1970, 3, 102-109 Clark, Burton R., "The College as Determinant," in Kaoru Yamamoto (Ed.), The College Student 59g Hip Culture: Ap Analysis, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968. Bowie, N. M., and Heath, R. W., Basic Statistical Methods, New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1965. 89 90 Dressel, Paul L., "Toward An Era Of Flexible Rigidity: For Crisis sake," Paper presented at the 25th Anniversary Counseling Center Share-In, Michigan State University, October, 1970. Dunlap, Riley, "A Comment on 'Multiversity, University Size, University Quality and Student Protest: An Empirical Study,'" American Sociological Review, 1970, 35, 525-528. Eddy, Edward D., "The Possible and the Potential," in Yaoru Yamamoto (Ed.), The Collegg Student And His Culture: Ap Analysis, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1968. Feldman, Kenneth A., "Some Methods For Assessing College Impacts," Sociology 2; Education, 1971, 44, 133-150. Feldman, Kenneth, A., "Studying the Impacts of Colleges on Students," Sociology 2; Education, 1969, 42, 207-237. Hiller, Dana, and Bogard, Dodd H., "University Structure And Faculty Response," Unpublished Report, Institute For Social Interaction Research, University of Cincinnati, 1971. Lehmann, Irvin J., "Changes from.Freshman to Senior Years," in Kaoru Yamamoto (Ed.), The College Student And His Culture: Ag Analysis, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968. Lon Hefferlin, J. B., "Recent Research on College Students," in Earl McGrath (Ed.),The Liberal Arts College's Responsibility For The Individual Student, New York: Institute of Higher Education, 1966. Sanford, Nevitt, "Research and Policy in Higher Education," in Nevitt Sanford (Ed.), The American Collegg, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Sanford, Nevitt, and Katz, Joseph, "The Curriculum in the Perspective of the Theory of Personality Development," in Nevitt Sanford (Ed.), The American College, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Scott, Joseph W., and El-Assal, Mohamed, "Multiversity, University Size, University Quality and Student Protest: An Empirical Study," American Sociological Review, 1969, 34, 702-709. Soloman, Robert J., "The Forward Look In Testing Students," in Earl McGrath (Ed.), 1hg_Liberal Arts Collegefs Responsibility For Ihg_ Individual Student, New York: Institute of Higher Education, 1966. Stern, George C., "Environments for Learning," in Nevitt Sanford (Ed.), The American College, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Stern, George G., "The Intellectual Climate in College Environments," in Kaoru Yamamoto (Ed.), The College Student And His Culture: An Analysis, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968. 91 Trent, James W., and Medsker, Leland L., Beyond High School, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968. Tyler, Ralph W., "The Impact of Students on Schools and Colleges," in Kaoru Yamamoto (Ed.), :55 College Student 52g Hip Culture: _A_r_1_Analysis, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1968. Yamamoto, Kaoru, "Healthy Students in the College Environment," ng Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1970, 48, 809-816. APPENDICES APPENDIX A 100 Item - First Phase Questionnaire And Answer Sheet ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE To the student: This questionnaire is designed to discover some characteristics Of your academic experiences. This questionnaire is not a test. The only correct answers are those which correSpond to your own academic experiences. Your answers are confidential and you are not asked to identify yourself. You are asked to select only one answer for each question. At the end of this questionnaire, you are free to comment, positively or negatively, about these questions. Your advice is needed to improve this questionnaire. Your time is appreciated. 92 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 93 The faculty members I know are completely wrapped up in their particular specialty. I have Opportunities in the classroom to express my feelings about course materials. My classroom experience leads me to conclude that my professors are more committed to their disciplines than to teaching students. I have found that it is acceptable to inject my personal philosOphy into a term paper or class discussion. My professors seem to subscribe to the belief that what I know is more important than what I am. My academic adviser has encouraged me to think my way through my personal educational goals. My classroom experiences lead me to conclude that my professors allow outside committments to interfere with their preparation for class. My professors seem tO think that the only thing of importance in this world is the subject matter that they teach in their courses. My professors are warm and informal individuals. My professors seem'more interested in going to coffee with their colleagues or home than in talking with me. In class, I can undertake a project of real interest to me. Faculty members encourage me to attempt courses which are of special interest to me. I have occasion to visit with professors in their homes. My required reading is so heavy that I have to eliminate reading of personal interest. My professors are always attempting to demonstrate how their disci- plines are most important. I have lost my enthusiasm to learn because I feel that faculty mem- bers have little interest in me as a person. My professors exhibit interest in my personal feelings and concerns. My academic adviser does not express his personal Opinions about any courses in the curriculum. I have Opportunities to sit around with professors discussing my personal reactions to books and lectures. My academic adviser helps me to see how my program of studies relates to those things that are important to me. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 94 My academic adviser helpS'me to explore the relation Of course choices to vocations which are of interest to me. My professors seem really interested in demonstrating how their courses relate to my personal committments. The principal concern of my academic adviser is that I complete all required courses. My academic adviser seems to be a good listener as well as a good source of advice on academic matters. My classes don't seem to have anything to do with me as an indivi- dual human being. In my classes, paperback books dealing with current social situ- ations which relate to the course are assigned. In my classes, a part of the course is a field trip Off campus. In my classes an attempt is made to apply concepts from the subject matter field to real problems. I do not have assignments which require reading a newspaper, news magazine or current journal. My academic adviser seems disinterested in the world outside of the college. I can participate in study abroad, or in some off-campus leadership program while enrolled at this college. My class discussions and assignments are abstract and theoretical. My independent study here deals with Specific problems rather than theoretical schemes. I am not asked to relate what I am learning in class to the contem- porary scene. I find that the concept of teaching leadership in bringing about social change is not pOpular on this campus. My classes deal with past events and findings. My professors demonstrate concern about issues in society. I find that current issues are a part of the discussion or homework in my classes. In my classes I have used realistic case studies as a part of my study materials. I have never attended any kind of special seminar or program on the issues of the day. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 95 My academic adviser doesn't ask me about how I plan to use my educa- tion. My class discussions do not focus on finding solutions to problems. My professors criticize me if I advocate the active interest of the college community in develOping an awareness of social problems. I participate in an academic program here where I come face-tO-face with a real life situation as an assignment. My professors are not interested in what impact their field might have on our world in the future. My course work does not deal with possible applications of theory to real problems. I can see the relationship between what I am studying and the kinds of situations I will meet when I leave college. My professors encourage me to deal with specific problems and their solutions. My professors attempt to provide some kind of off-campus experience as a part of their course. ‘My classes are concerned with abstract theories and ideas. I can be excused from class if an important speaker or program of interest to me conflicts with class time. In my classes, professors closely follow a course syllabus. I find that my professors insist on prerequisites for their courses. 'My experiences suggest that it is difficult to change a declared major. My academic adviser makes the decisions about my academic program. My academic progress here is not timed; I can progress at my own rate. All majors in my department take the same courses. My academic requirements are locked in and I can't change them. There is no one for me to go to in order to complain about or cor- rect grades which I feel are unfair. I can take independent study for credit here at the college. In my classes, my major assignments are reading a single textbook and studying lecture notes. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 96 I participate in decisions that affect my academic life here at the college. I have not been able to make a presentation, outside of asking a question, in my classes. My classes meet a standard number Of times per week throughout the temm or semester. My conversations with my academic adviser are all prearranged rather than drOp-in sessions. I feel that my own academic aspirations are ignored in order to turn out an individual who fits a particular mold. I have the Opportunity to evaluate my courses and professors. My classes are straight lectures. I can take a course pass-fail when I want to. My classes always meet in a classroom. I find that my courses are graded on the basis of one mid-term and one final exam. I find that in labs and on tests I have to stOp at the end of the period even if my work is not completed. My grades are determined by a class curve. I am able to make quite a few choices of electives in my academic schedule. I am.not able to decide upon the nature of my classroom activities. I do not have Opportunities to help professors set up labs or prepare assignments. In courses outside my major, I find it difficult to understand class discussions, course materials and lectures. I feel that my professors' grading systems often help me understand where I am weak and how I can improve. I have academic requirements to fulfill that seem to bear no rela- tionship to my program of study. I can take courses where an interdisciplinary approach on term papers and in assignments is encouraged. Different academic departments have different goals for their students. My advanced level courses do not make use of anything that I learned in introductory courses. 83. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 97 Everyone here at college seems to have a different set of goals. In my classes I can see no relationship between one assignment and another. I find that students agree with me that the goals of this college are important for us. The faculty expects one thing from‘me and my fellow students another. My academic adviser helps me to relate my out-of-class and off- campus experiences to my academic studies. I get the feeling that all I'm getting out of college is a lot of "loose ends" that I can't pull together. My professors bring in materials from other disciplines and relate them to their own particular subjects. I can see relationships among most of my courses. I don't see professors from one department talking and working with professors from other departments. I am not involved in academic assignments that require work with another student on a joint project. My independent study Opportunities cannot involve any interdisci- plinary projects. I feel that the curriculum is designed to give me an overview of both the humanistic and materialistic aspects of man. I think that my professors attempt to relate the objectives of their courses to the objectives of the college. I find that my extracurricular activities conflict with class sched- ules and lecture programs. I can see the relationship in my academic program between the Humanities, the Social Sciences, and the Natural Sciences. I have assignments in courses that involve articles, books and lec- tures from.ather academic disciplines. My academic adviser helps me to find academic goals that we both agree on. I find no real conflict between my goals and those of the college. (SD) If you strongly disagree with the statement as it applies to your SA .A D SD Strongly Disagree experiences. Disagree (D) If you mildly disagree with the statement as applied to your experiences. SA .A D SD 98 ANSWER SHEET Freshman D SOphomore D Junior [:1 Senior [:3 Please answer questions by selecting one of the following categories: Agree (A) If you mildly agree with the applied to your SA. A D SD statement as experiences. Maleet::]Female[::] (SA) If you strongly agree with the applied to your SA .A D SD experiences. Strongly.Agree statement 88 DDDDDDDDDDDDDUDDDDDDDDDDU DDDDDDDDDDDUDDDUUDDDDDUDU DDDDUDDDDDDDDDDUDDDDUDDDU EDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDU ,0 a: no 0, no 1. 7. 1. 4..) ,0 a: no a, no 1. 9. 1. 4..) ,0 a: no 0. no 7. 7. 7. 7. R. R. no no no no no no no no a, o, o, o, 0, o, o, o, o. 0. MN EDDDUDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDUDUDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDU EDDDDDDDUDDDDDDDUDDUDDUDD 1234567890123“56789012345 5555555556666 66666777777 EDDDDDDDDDDDDDDUDDDDDDUUU DDUDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDU DDSUDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD EDDDDDDDDUDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 78901234567890 :M 890 9.222333333143334 I... 445 EDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDUDUDDDD DDUDDDUDDDDDDDDUDDDDDDDDD BEDDDDDUDDDDDDDDDDDDDDUDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDUDDUDUUDDD 1.23456789012345678901234.) 1.111111111222222 Thank you. Please indicate your reactions to this questionnaire. APPENDIX B Sumary of Critical Coments and Sample Mean Percentages - First Field Test SUMMARY OF CRITICAL COMMENTS ALMA COME, GENERAL morons INSTITUTE AND OAKLAND UNIVERSITY SAMPLES A. General Comments 1. 2. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Many students requested an additional answer category such as don't know, or pp_experience. A number of students indicated that they would be aided in their responses if the questions utilized adjectives such as most or some to modify academic experiences. For example, the phrase (in ‘my classes) would be modified to read (in some of my classes). A number of students said, "Do you mean professors or classes indi- vidually or as a whole?" Many students responded that they would favor a yes or no answer format, a true-false motif, or agree-disagree. A good number of students at General Motors Institute and Oakland felt that there were too many questions about academic advisers. Students felt that the questions were often redundant. A number of students wrote that it was difficult to relate ques- tions about outside experiences and in-class discussions to science courses and/or majors. Some students suggested that many of the questions should be modi- fied by reference to social science, humanities or science. For example, the phrase I have assignments in courses, would be modi- fied to read I have assignments in my social science courses. At General Motors Institute, quite a few students wrote that many of the questions were not relevant to a technical school or "company" school. Several students utilized the Open-ended section to detail their frustrations about classes, professors, advisers, social life and college in general. Many students felt that freshmen should not take the questionnaire because they had not yet had many academic experiences. Quite a few students queried "What are the goals of this college?" A few students felt that the questionnaire was biased towards stu- dents who knew where they were going (declared majors). 99 100 B. Specific Suggestions Pertaining to Items too much emphasis on application of course work to contemporary issues rather than an emphasis on the develOpment of principles, case studies and student projects need some questions about student feelings about the composition of the curriculum, especially the extent to which the humanities play a role elaborate on the theme of question 88 (college is a lot of loose ends) questioned the meaning of disciplines (item 3), personal commit- ‘ments (item 22, off-cgppus leadership program (item 31), realis- tic case studies (item 39), independent study (items 60, 93) how about items which ask about: 1). the difference between talkipg about applying theory and the actual application of theory to real problems 2). whether professors discourage pass-fail Options 3). grading 4). class limits due to presence of underclassmen and size of room 5). the value of the past rather than the future 6). whether professors are prejudiced as far as sex and youth when it comes to grading 7). whether professors penalize students for missing classes 8). whether professors suggest that you drOp courses in which you are doing poorly or leave college 101 «Hansen; 39:: agenda—Boo ozs «A. No. an. an. as .oauaom-auae.oua - ua~< . an. an. on. an. as .oaqx-cuse.oue - .H.z.o an. as. mm. an. an .oauz-c.ae.oua - sausage on. mm. mm. on. em .usuz-aua;.oua - mam< an. as. an. on. me ease.uua - ecuaxno an. an. an. an. «we auae.oua - «53¢ as. ea. as. as. an .um-...auuoaa= - «sec . an. an. ac. an. we «ensue .un-..a~uuoaa= - easesuo . on. on. as. an. an .ue-..ueuuosa= - sausage an. an. as. an. nu .un-...auuuaa= - game an. as. on. me. as «mason .eaom-...~uuoaa= - easesao mm. «m. om. as. an onus.» .eaom-...uouoaa= - name an. en. an. as. «M «an: .eaom-...~ouoaa= - gaa< . as. es. em. as. on .naom-...~uuoaa= - sausage an. an. an. om. an .eaom-..aauuoaa= - ua~< as. he. an. as. so oeqaoa-..u~uuuaa= - eccesuo an. on. an. an. we o~q5om-..u~ouoaa= - name oe. he. Na. on. “N o~u:-..u~ouoaa= - assuage an. mm. an. an. on onus-..u~ouoaa= - game as. 54. mm. as. use ..uausoaa= - eaaaxuo an. as. an. an. ca .aaauuuaaa - ua~< me. as. an. we. «a «mason-.o..uuo one - eaaasuo on. co. an. as. use «enema-.o...ao ~a< - game as. as. mm. mm. no «aux-.u...eo um< - ecuesuo an. an. an. on. «on onus-.o...ao EH4 - «see we. as. an. an. end .o...ao flue - vaaasno mm. mm. mm. an. aeN .o..u~o ae< - game censuses. masseuse .coauuuuuase .ocaeaao.ea «new maumz¢ OHOEOO OHOOuenaoo oz a OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. ON. ON ON. OO. HO. OO. NO. OO. ON NO. NO. NO. OO. OO. HO. ON OO. OO. ON. OO. OO. NO. NN OO. HO. NO. OO. HO. OO. HN OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. ON NO. NO. OO. NN. OO. ON. OH OO. NO. OO. NO. OO. NO. OH OO. OO. HO. OO. NO. OO. NH ON. OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. OH NN. OO. HO. ON. NN. OO. OH OO. NO. ON. HH. HO. NH. OH HH. NH. NO. OO. OH. OO. OH ON. OO. ON. NN. OO. ON. NH OO. ON. OO. OO. OO. OO. HH OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OH NO. ON. ON. ON. ON. NN. O NN. NO. NN. ON. ON. ON. O NN. NN. OO. ON. ON. OO. N OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. NO. O NO. NO. OO. OO. HO. NO. O HO. ON. OO. NO. NN. ON. O OO. OO. HO. OO. ON. OO. O OO. ON. NO. OO. ON. OO. N OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. ON. H O3¢x.z¢zwmumm mash O3¢2.2dx O34: 24: O3¢xum z¢z ZOZOOHOO .ZOZHOOOM Osman uHHOzH Omen—.2 333w 33.—mug :3 Hang 33¢ -3553 33¢ .4 925—3 33¢ mu3m=¢m 8:83: 2.3333 .. 1:339: OOHeBomun—am vouooHom .. nowouaoouom one: as”; Onn OHOIH 107 OHnoHHe>¢ oHeaem oHaeuenaoo oz O OO. HO. NO. NO. OO. OO. OO OO. OH. OH. ON. OH. ON. OO OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. NO. OO OO. ON. OO. OO. ON. NO. NO HO. NO. OO. NN. ON. OO. OO NO. NO. OO. NO. OO. OO. OO NO. OH. OH. HO. OH. ON. OO NN. NO. NO. OO. OO. NO. OO NO. ON. NO. OO. NN. OO. NO OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. HO. HO OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO HO. OO. OO. NO. OO. NO. OO OO. OO. NO. HO. NO. HO. OO OO. ON. OO. HO. NN. OO. NO NO. NO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO OO. NO. HO. OO. HO. OO. OO OO. OO. OO. NO. NO. OO. NO OO. NN. OO. OO. NN. OO. HO NN. OO. ON. ON. OO. ON. OO ON. NN. NO. OO. ON. OO. ON .NN. OO. OO. ON. HO. ON. ON OO. OO. HH. NO. ON. ON. NN ON. HO. NO. OO. OO. OO. ON O34: z¢xmwuah many ”3‘! 24! O34: 24: m3¢xum z¢ OHOBOO OHOeuuaaoo oz a ON. OH. ON. OO. NH. NO. ON ON. HO. NO. NN. OO. NN. ON NH. OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. ON NN. ON. NO. NO. ON. NO. NN OO. NO. NO. OO. HO. OO. HN NO. HH. NH. OH. OH. OH. ON OO. OO. HO. OO. OO. OO. OO ON. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. OO OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO ON. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO OO. OO. OO. HO. NO. OO. OO OO. OO. OH. OH. OO. OH. OO HN. NO. OO. HO. OO. HO. OO NO. NO. OO. NO. OO. OO. NO OH. NN. ON. OO. OO. NO. HO OH. NO. ON. NO. OO. NO. OO NN. ON. NO. ON. ON. NO. OO ON. NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. NO. NO OO. OO. HO. OO. OO. OO. OO OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. HO. OO OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO OH. ON. OO. NN. ON. ON. NO OO. OO. NO. NN. OO. OO. HO u3<8 242mmumh OHOH u3¢z 242 O3¢z 2c: m3¢xum 242. 242mmumh 24:2mfldh Osman 3.523 9393.92 3¢OO2OO unmana— 9233 -333 33¢ -3333 33¢ s 9233 33¢ mn3mx¢m 82:an .3332 .. 532.:qu OOHnaemuOom OOOOOHOO .. nomeuooouom so»: So: Oum OHAIH 109 wHOnHHu>< oHnaum oHnauun—Eoo oz a. ON. HO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OOH OO. HO. OH. OO. HO. ON. OO OO. OO. OO. ON. OO. OO. OO OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. NO. NO OO. OO. OO. ON. OO. OO. OO ON. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO OO. HO. OO. ON. OO. OO. OO ON. NN. OO. NN. NN. ON. OO OO. NO. ON. OO. OO. NO. NO OO. OO. HO. OO. OO. OO. HO NO. ON. OO. OO. HO. HO. OO OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO OO. OO. OO. NO. NO. HO. OO ON. ON. ON. OH. NN. HN. NO OO. OO. OO. HN. OO. ON. OO OO. OO. OO. HN. NO. HO. OO OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. OO OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. NO. OO OO. OO. ON. OO. OO. NO. NO ON. OO. OH. NO. OO. HH. HO OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO OO. OO. HO. NO. OO. OO. ON OO. NO. ON. OO. OO. OO. ON ON. ON. OO. ON. ON. HO. NN NH. HH. OH. OH. NH. OH. ON OH< mHnawm oHOuuuaaoo oz « OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. ON. HO. NO. ON NO. OO. OO. NO. ON. NO. OO. NO. NO. ON ON. NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. HO. OO. ON ON. ON. NO. NN. OO. ON. OO. OO. NO. NN HO. OO. OO. OO. NO. HO. OO. OO. OO. HN ON. OO. OO. ON. NO. ON. OO. ON. OO. ON NH. NO. OO. NN. OO. HN. OO. OO. OO. OH OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. OH OO. OO. OO. ON. OO. NO. NO. NO. OO. NH ON. OO. OO. NN. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. OH OO. HN. OO. NO. NO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OH OO. OH. ON. NO. ON. HH. HH. ON. OH. OH HH. OO. NO. HH. NO. HH. OO. NH. OO. OH OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NH OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. NO. ON. NO. HH ON. OO. OO.H NN. OO. ON. NO. NN. OO. OH HO. OO. ON. OO. ON. OO. OO. OO. OO. O OO. OO. ON. NO. OO. HO. OO. OO. ON. O OO. NN. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. NN. OO. N OO. OO. NO. HO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. O ON. OO. NO. ON. HO. OO. NO. OO. NO. O NO. OO. ON. OO. NO. OO. OO. HO. OO. O ON. OO. OO. HN. OO. ON. OO. NO. NO. O NO. OO. ON. NO. OO. NO. NO. OO. OO. N OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. NO. H mu¢xflh OHOZMO MH<= Odo: NOD: OHOSMO OAOIMO and: uqdz OZMHH mace-OO.HOO MMSOEOO OMOSOHEOO nommcm nommom magnum: wavy—Baa mag—mum: wavy—mam: OZOHMOO ¢xH<. (zu<_t OZOHMOO <2H< OZOHMOO < uHOEwm «Haaumaaou oz « 111 OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. HO. ON. OO. OO ON. OO. ON. ON. NO. OO. NO. NO. OO OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. NO. NO. OO. OO OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO ON. OO. OO. ON. OO. ON. OO. OO. OO OO. NO. HO. OO. HO. OO. OO. NO. OO NN. NO. NN. ON. OO. OO. ON. OO. OO OO. HO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO OO. OO. ON. OO. OO. OO. OO. NN. NO NO. OO. NO. NO. OO. OO. HN. OO. OO. HO OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. ON. NO. OO. OO. OO OO. NN. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO HO. OO. NO. OO. NO. OO. ON. NO. ON. NO NN. OO. ON. ON. OO. ON. OO. OO. ON. OO OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. HO. OO. OO. OO. OO OO. OO. OO. OO. HO. HO. NO. ON. OO. OO OO. NO. OO. OO. NO. HO. OO. OO. OO. OO OO. ON. HO. NO. OO. HO. OO. NO. OO. NO OO. OO. NO. OO. HO. OO. ON. ON. ON. HO OO. NO. OO. ON. ON. ON. OO. HN. ON. OO OH. OO. OO. HN. OO. ON. OO. OO. OO. ON NN. NN. ON. HN. ON. HN. ON. NN. ON. ON OH. ON. ON. NH. ON. NH. ON. ON. OO. NN ON. NO. OO. HN. NO. ON. NO. OO. OO. ON OHOZNO NHOSMO MAO: Maoz. MOO! MAOZBN OHOZNO MAO: and! OxMHH mmozbmmom umoxbsmom NOQZOOOOO commom nommom OOOHOOOOOD Omdaummmmn Omdaomummb OOOHUONOOO OZOHMOO «2&4 Oxu<_« OZOAMOO Oxa< OZOAMOO Ozud Ozcaxdc £244 muHHZIO GOHuaoaHO :oHuuuuuoOOVu BUHOoum onnaumuasm wouuoHom n «0533033 coax BouH HHuO oHpna 112 wHOaHHm>< oHaaum oHOmuuanO oz * NN. OO. OO. ON. OO. ON. OO. ON. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. ON. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. ON. ON. OO. ON. NO. NN. OO. NH. OO. OO. OO. ON. OO. OO. HO. NN. ON. OO. OH. ON. ON. OH. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. ON. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. NO. OO. OO. OO.H NO. OO. OO. ON. OO. NO. NO. NO. OO. ON. ON. OO. OO. NO. OO. HO. HO. NN. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OH. OO. OO. OH. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. ON. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. HO. OO. NO. NO. OO. NO. NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NH. ON. OO. ON. OO. NO. ON. HO. ON. HO. OO. OO. ON. ON. OO. NN. OO. HN. OO. NO. OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. HO. NO. OO. OO. OO. HO. HO. NN. OO. OO. NH. OO. OO. NN. OO. ON. OO. HO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. NO. OO. NO. ON. HO. ON. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. HO. NO. HN. NH. ON. HN. NH. ON. OH. OO. ON. ON. OO. OO. ON. NO. ON. OO. OO. OO. uqtzmm ma< «Hgamm oHOwquEoo oz « HO. NO. OO. OO. NO. HO. NO. ON. NO. OOH ON. NO. OO. ON. NO. ON. OO. NO. NO. OO OH. NO. ON. ON. OO. ON. OO. OO. OO. OO HO. OO. OO. NO. OO. HO. OO. NO. OO. NO OO. OO. ON. NO. HN. OO. ON. NO. NN. OO OO. OO. HO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. NO. OO ON. OO. ON. ON. NO. ON. OO. OO. ON. OO OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. ON. OO. HO. NO. OO ON. OO. OO. ON. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO OO. NO. OO. OO. HO. OO. OO. OO. ON. HO OO. NO. NO. OO. OO. NO. ON. OO. OO. OO HO. NO. OO. HO. OO. OO. NO. OO. NO. OO OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. HO. OO. OO. OO. OO NO. NO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OH. OO. NO OO. OO. NO. NO. ON. OO. ON. NN. OO. OO OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. HO. OO. ON. NO. OO HO. OO. OO. OO. HO. HO. OO. OO. OO. OO NO. OO. ON. OO. OO. OO. NO. NO. OO. OO OO. ON. OO. NO. OO. OO. NO. ON. OO. NO OO. NH. NH. OO. NH. OO. HH. OO. OO. HO NO. ON. OO. NO. HN. HO. NO. OO. HO. OO NO. OO. OO. ON. NO. ON. NO. OH. OO. ON OH. NO. OH. OH. NN. HN. OO. ON. NN. ON ON. NN. HO. ON. OO. ON. NN. OO. NO. NN NO. HN. OH. OO. OH. OO. NN. ON. NN. ON mudxum NH¢zwm and: mac: mac: NH< «HE—8O 399.8980 oz a. ON ON ON NN HN ON OH OH NH OH OH OH OH NH HH OH HINMOIAOINOOO a“: moan—«manna vuuouHoO a nowuucuuuom duo: 83H aoHucuaHO oaHHOHooHO .. Hangs—EH OHIO «Hana. 115 OO. ON. HO. ON. OO. OO.H OO. OO. OO. ON. OO.H OO. NN. OO.H HN. OO. HN. OO. NO. HN. OO. OO. ON. ON. ON. OOHZMO <£H¢.i NO. OO. ON. ON. NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. ON. NN. OO. NN. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. HN. OO. HO. NO. OO. HO. HN. OO. OO. OO. NN. OO. OO. NN. ON. OO. OO. ON. HO. NO. ON. NO. OO. OO. OO. NO. ON. HH. NN. NO. ON. OHdzum OOHZDO OZOHMOO ¥ OOHZDO OZOHMOO OMANZKO oHOaHHu><.mHgaum «Hauuugaoo oz « OO. OO. ON. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. ON. ON. OO. HO. ON. OO. HO. NN. OO. OO. OO. ON. OO. HN. HO. OO. OOHZDO dzud OO OO OO NO OO OO OO OO NO HO OO OO OO NO OO OO OO OO NO HO OO ON ON NN ON MZNHH :oanoaaO noauuuuuaOOVu auHOoum man—aumunam BuooHom .. nowuufiouom :3: a: OHuO oHnuH 116 wHauHuoNE uHO—Eum «HO—«.3980 02 O NO. OO. OO. OO. ON ON. OO. OO. ON. ON oO. NO. OO. OO. ON OO. OH. OH. ON. NN ON. NN. NO. OO. ON OO. ON. ON. OO. oN NO. NO. OO. OO. OO ON. OO. OO. OO. OO oo.~ ON. OO. OO. NO OO. OO. OO. OO. OO ON. NO. OO. OO. OO co. oo. oo. Oo. OO HN. OO. OO. OO. OO NN. OO. ON. OO. NO NO. oO. OO. NO. HO oo.O ON. OO. OO. OO OO. OO. OO. OO. OO oO. OO. ON. OO. OO ON. oO. OO. OO. NO NO. OO. OO. ON. OO oo.O OO. om. ON. OO ON. ON. OO. OO. OO OO. NO. ON. OO. OO ON. ON. OO. OO. NO NO. ON. NN. OO. OO «358 45¢ .. 535 «25: E553 O 82:. 925.3 SEE. £2 25 OmeazHOOH casuwa mHaovH>OOOO mo mouoom :soa oaouuxo hp wouuoumHv uoa ous OOHOEOO OOM nuH sowmcoaav so mono: .o.¢w mo save a saga m Ozone mo cowumooxo Os» sud: .mOHnsam vocOano .mquaoO roam "MHOZ w.mo u mfiHthm :EZHMZOU mom z NHDHHHmzH MHDHHHmzH NUQHHOO muflHHoo whom roam: .H00 .2200 .400 .2200 aoozmfimoz mHmHm m.wmdz .Hm OOOH Hun OHan 124 .800 HON some may no .303 On some OHOOEOO Ego Hausa anon—u .OoumOOHo momma HOOBNQOOOH canuwa 336.2595 «0 Ooh—OOO coon. oaoquOo .OA vouuounav uoa ous moHaada .OOm tum coins—.2. no 330: lion «0 coca o 5.; m 95.5 mo ooOunooxo on» 5.; 539.8» vocab . $ng £05» "@802 m.mo I mMHMde szHmzoo mom zOvcH :OLOOB OHOOOO>OOOO mo mouoom cwoa.oEOpuxo NA OOOOOOOOO uon sum OOHOEOO you mum OOOOOOEOO no undo: .mOHOEum can“: .OOHOEOO noun "maoz 0.N0 a mfiHmz HHDHHHOZH MHOHHHOZH mOflAAOO MOQAAOO umom Noam: . .HOO . ECO . 1moo . ECO Ooozmhmoz SOHO m. w; . Hm g4 SH¢UBZO= .:AOOOH nun oHnuH 126 .O.mN 00 came a nufiz m OOOOO wo coOuOOoxo Onu :OOS .OOHOEOO OOOOO quo now some Onu mm HHos mm came OHOEOO :30 uwmsu uaonm umumsHO mamma HOOOH>OOOH .mOHOEmm Loam cOnan OHOOOO>OOOO mo monoom came annuxo Na OOOOOumOv uo: mum meafiwm now OuH coOmcoBOn co mcwm2 ”meoz m.m0 u mmamzdm Omsz200 mom z mHDHHHmzH MHDHHHOZH mumHHOO momHHoo mmom wommz .400 .2200 .H00 .2200 Ooozmhmoz MHOHO O.>m<2 .Hw <2H< 559202 2458202 agommm mmHm2OvcH OIO anmH APPENDIX E Sample Mean Percentages By Item, Combined Mean Percentages, and Standard Deviations: Second Phase and Final Questionnaire 127 mo.O Hm.O0 0.0N N.NN m.mN O.HN m.00 m.mm N.NN 0.00 NH 00.0 O0.00 m.O0 N.NN n.00 H.NN O.mm O.HO 0.00 0.00 0H NN.O mO.mN N.O0 H.mO N.OO 0.00 0.0N 0.00 N.NO N.0N mH Nm.m Om.mO n.0O O.NO N.mO O.HO H.MO 0.00 N.0N m.0O OH 0N.mH OO.NO H.0O 0.0m 0.00 0.0N 0.00 O.NO O.Nm m.Om OH OO.m OO.mN 0.00 0.0N N.OO H.NN H.NN O.Nm 0.00 0.0N NH ON.mH O0.NN O.NN 0.00 m.0H 0.00 N.OH 0.00 0.0H 0.0m HH NN.OH H0.0m 0.00 0.0N O.N0 0.00 0.0m O.NO 0.0m O.N0 OH MN.0 OO.N0 0.0m m.Om H.Nm 0.00 O.N0 N.00 0.00 0.mm m mm.N O0.NO 0.00 O.NO 0.0N 0.00 N.ON 0.00 0.0N O.HO O HO.m HN.N0 0.0m 0.00 m.mN O.HN N.00 O.NO N.NN N.O0 N N0.0 O0.NN N.00 0.0N 0.0N N.OO 0.0N O.NO 0.0N N.O0 0 0H.OH N0.0N n.00 O.HO 0.00 N.OO N.NO 0.00 0.0N O.HO m Nm.0H 0O.n0 O.Nm H.O0 O.HN O.NO N.ON O.NO 0.00 0.00 O 0m.HH O0.0m 0.00 m.m0 H.mm O.N0 0.00 N.NN 0.00 H.Om m OZOHH< Om0 MBDHHHOZH OHOBHHOZH OOOHaoo 000A mzmaH cH>mO ummm ZONE mmom wommx .A00 .2200 .400 .2200 00032Hmoz OAOHO m.wm¢2 uAO0 520sz w 002 HO200 5408202 245.5202 magma . .H. m gd Omam2OOGH aOuH Om mowuucoouwm :uu2.0HnEum Hum OHOUH 128 0H.O mm.H0 0.0m 0.0N 0.00 m.ON H.00 0.00 0.00 0.mm Nm 0O.NH OO.m0 N.Hm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.NO 0.00 H.Om Hm HH.HH Hm.NN 0.0N O.NO 0.00 0.0N O.NN O.NO H.HN 0.00 On ON.OH Om.mm H.0O O.N0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N.Om ON OO.m Nn.mO 0.NO 0.mO 0.00 N.OO H.OO 0.00 N.0N H.OO ON ON.NH O0.0m 0.00 0.0N H.Nm H.NN N.OO 0.0N 0.00 0.0n NN OO.HH mN.O0 0.0N N.ON H.O0 0.00 O.H0 O.HO 0.0m O.Nm 0N N0.NH mO.mN N.O0 N.ON O.HN 0.00 O.NO 0.00 O.N0 0.00 ON Hm.mH N0.0N 0.0N 0.00 O.N0 H.Nm 0.0N 0.NO H.HO 0.0N ON mo.mH N0.00 H.0O O.H0 H.00 O.NO H.NN N.O0 0.0m 0.00 MN ON.O OO.N0 N.O0 H.O0 0.0N H.NN N.HN O.HO N.00 O.Nm NN N0.0N Om.N0 0.00 N.NO 0.0N H.Nm O.NO N.O0 N.NO O.HN HN ON.OH OO.NN O.NN O.N0 N.Om N.OO 0.00 0.00 O.NN 0.00 ON 0O.N 00.00 0.00 O.HO N.OO O.HO 0.mO 0.00 0.0N N.ON OH N0.0H 0N.O0 O.NN O.HO N.O0 O.NO O.NN O.NO N.0N O.N0 OH OonH< mm0 OHOHHHOZH OHDHHHOZH m004400 m004 m2meH uH>mO ummm z OHOHHHOZH OHOHHHOZH m004400 m024 O2mHH uH>OO ummm 20202 .400 .2200 .400 .2200 Ooozmamoz O4OHO O.»O<2 :400 5292de OO2HO200 245.4202 245.4202 gommm . Hm <24< mm4m2dm aoOOOOeOO OOOOOOOO - OOOOOOOxOOO O8: .3 Ouwmucooumm :32 «.3me mum OHOOH 130 mm.OH ON.OO H.ON 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0N O.NN 0.0m N0 Nm.mH H0.00 N.O0 H.00 H.NN 0.0N O.NO O.NO O.N0 H0 OH.OH OO.N0 0.00 O.N0 0.0N 0.00 0.0N 0.00 0.00 O0 HN.OH ON.Om 0.0N 0.00 O.HN N.Nm 0.0N N.NO 0.0N Om OO.NH O0.0N 0.0m N.OO N.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0m O0 Nm.OH OO.H0 H.Om H.mm 0.00 H.OO 0.00 0.00 H.Om Nm NN.0H 00.HO 0.NN N.0m H.NN H.Om 0.0m N.0m N.0N 0m NO.m OO.NN 0.0N 0.NN O.NO 0.00 0.00 0.00 N.0N mm mN.O Om.ON O.HN O.N0 H.NN 0.00 N.00 N.0N O.N0 Om N0.0 0H.OO O.NO O.HN O.HN H.OO O.NO 0.00 0.0N mm OO.HH 0H.O0 N.00 H.Nm 0.00 O.NO 0.NO 0.00 N.O0 N0 NN.O 0N.Hm O.Nm H.00 0.0N 0.00 0.00 O.NO 0.00 Hm O0.0 ON.ON N.O0 0.0N N.00 O.NN 0.00 0.0N N.OO Om O0.0 HO.HN N.ON 0.NN H.Nm m.O0 N.O0 0.0N m.O0 OO OH.O H0.00 0.00 N.OO O.N0 O.NO O.NO O.NO H.NO OO 020H9< O00¢9200 0004400 0004400 0H200<0< 4420HH<00> 0HOHHH02H 0HOBHHOZH 0004400 0004 O20HH uH>00 :000 2402 0002 *0002 .400 .2200 .400 .2200 000309002 04OHO O.>0<2 -400 00¢02