THESI? ‘I :1 d y we???" a 333?? y {a}. '3' «*5! 3 1 W17!“ “0a ‘ 0 E: P r . I 0 I 5., f)- l-. 0.4) ;, 'z-éqfir‘zsgrflzwm any», g 4/924685 .0315» .4 wafer-.440 - .1 zfié"""§’d.“?¢ 5 acid. a 9:." Eat. , ”a This is to certify that the dissertation entitled The Adaptation of Spanish-Speaking Latin American Graduate Students to the United States Higher Education Professor presented by Zobeida Ramos-Ruiz has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Ed. Administration 293% in Major professor Date Dec. 14; 1984 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 ‘bV1ESI_J RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to anaAmss remove this checkout from n your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. - THE ADAPTATION OF SPANISH-SPEAKING LATIN AMERICAN GRADUATE STUDENTS TO THE UNITED STATES HIGHER EDUCATION PROFESSOR BY Zobeida Ramos-Ruiz A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1984 ’ _\ {Vt Ln L.’ @>1985 ZOBEIDA RAMOS-RUIZ All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT THE ADAPTATION OF SPANISH-SPEAKING LATIN AMERICAN GRADUATE STUDENTS TO THE UNITED STATES HIGHER EDUCATION PROFESSOR By Zobeida Ramos-Ruiz This study attempted to gather information on: (1) the students' perception of the role of the Latin American higher education professor; (2) perceptions of the role of the United States higher education professor; (3) expectations Of the United States higher education pro- fessor; (4) description of their adaptation process to the United States higher education professor; and (5) the students' actions and recommendations on how to adapt to the United States higherfieducation professor. Latin American professors were described as more oriented toward individual students. United States professors were described asaa tendency to utilize an analytic/synthetic approach in their instruc- tion, more organized and clear in their explanations, and more dynamic and enthusiastic in their teaching. Latin American and United States higher education professors had one characteristic in common: their respect of students as persons. Data illustrated that students expected, prior to arriving in the United States, the United States higher education professor to Zobeida Ramos-Ruiz prefer group to individual teaching, to know worldwide education, to require absolute discipline, to be challenged by the students' superi- ority, and to be always accessible. However, among these character- istics students identified that knowing worldwide education was not descriptive of the United States higher education professor. The students' adaptation process to the United States higher education professor was described as interesting, stimulating, and satisfactory, and somewhat frustrating and difficult. Students took two types of actions to adapt to the United States higher education professor. They either attempted to relate to professors or isolated themselves. Students strongly recommended to others to be open and to communicate to professors and other students to facilitate the adaptation process. Recommendations are offered: (1) to sponsoring institutions to enhance the students' ability to cope with the educational environ- ment of the United States higher education institutions; (2) to United States higher education institutions and professors so that personnel be trained to effectively relate with foreign students, and that programs and courses have an international perspective; (3) for further research that include a concern for the conducting of similar studies to examine different populations of students and to examine the cross-cultural validity of the instrumentation. DEDICATION To teachers, and from them my very special one: my mother, Esther To students, and from them my very special one, my son, Hector ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am deeply indebted to many people for their help with this dissertation. My greatest gratitude is due to Dr. S. Joseph Levine, my committee chairman, dissertation director, and friend. His con- stant encouragement and trust guided me not only through this research, but also through the completion of my doctoral program. Dr. Frank A. Fear who willingly gave much of his time, committed to teaching all the necessary skills, and encouraged me in difficult moments. Dr. Mildred Eerickson, who honored me by accepting to be on my committee, and became one of my main sources of support and help through all stages in the dissertation. Dr. Melvin Buschman, whose suggestions and trust guided me through my doctoral program. My appreciation to all Michigan State University Spanish-speaking graduate students, the Foreign Student Office at Michigan State University, Karen Sullivan at the Non-Formal Education Center, Dr. James Costar and the Sage Foundation for their financial support, and the sponsors of my doctoral studies the Organization of American states for giving me the necessary help to fulfill this effort. Special thanks to my colleague and friend Rosa Mendoza for her advice, encouragement, and uncovering trust. Thanks to Debbie Hill and Nancy Heath for their support and dedication in the secre- tarial work. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . 1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Background to the Study . 4 Importance of the Study .. . . . . . . . . . . 7 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Limitations . . . . . . . 14 Overview of the Remainder of the Study . . . . . . 15 REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Introduction . . . . . . . 16 The Latin American Higher Education System . . 16 Foreign Students' Adjustment to the Academic Environment in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . 20 College Teacher Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Population . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Development of the Instrument . . . . . . . . . 37 Stage 1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Stage 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Stage 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Stage 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Stage 5.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Stage 6.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Collection of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Page ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Description of the Population . . . . 46 Description of the Latin American Higher Education Professor . . 51 Description of the United States Higher Education Professor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Description of Selected Expectations of the United States Higher Education Professor . . . . 66 Description of the Stduents' Adaptation Process to the United States Higher Education Professor . . . 69 Open- -Ended Questions . . . . . . . . . 71 Summary and Discussion of Findings . . . 80 Description of the Latin American and the United States Higher Education Professors . . . 80 Students' Expectations of the United States Higher Education Professor . . . 83 Students' Description of Their Adaptation Process to the United States Higher Education Professor . . 84 Students' Actions and Recommendations to Other Students on How to Adapt to the United States Higher Education Professor . . . . 85 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . 88 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 The Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 The Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 The Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Additional Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . 95 To Sponsoring and Host Institutions . . . . . . 95 Suggestions for Further Research . . . . . . . . 97 Final Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 vi LIST OF TABLES Foreign Students Reported in the United States Foreign Students in the United States by Continent of Origin with Percentages of all Foreign Students . Personal Characteristics of the Population of the Study. Variable: Sex . . . . . . Personal Characteistics of the Population of the Study Variable: College . Personal Characteristics of the Population of the Study Variable: Length of Time as a Graduate Student at Michigan State University . Personal Characteristics of the Population of the Study Variable: Graduate Level Personal Characteristics of the Population of the Study Variable: Other Graduate Studies . . . . . Personal Characteristics of the Population of the Study Variable: Previous Residence in the United States . Personal Characteristics of the Population of the Study Variable: Country of Origin Students' Ratings for Scale 1--Analytic/Synthetic Approach of the Latin American Higher Education Professor . . . . . . . . . . Students' Ratings for Scale 2--Organization/Clarity of the Latin American Higher Education Professor Students' Ratings for Scale 3--Instructor-Group Inter- action of the Latin American Higher Education Profes- sor . . . . . . . . . . . Students' Ratings for Scale 4--Instructor- Individual Student Interaction of the Latin American Higher Education Professor . . vii Page 46 47 48 48 49 50 50 52 54 55 56 Table 4.12 F-l F-2 F-3 Students' Ratings for Scale 5--Dynamism/Enthusiasm of the Latin American Higher Education Professor Students' Ratings for Scale 1--Analytic/Synthetic Approach of the United States Higher Education Professor . . Students' Ratings for Scale 2--Organization/Clarity of the United States Higher Education Professor . Students' Ratings for Scale 3--Instructor-Group Interaction of the United States Higher Education Professor Students' Ratings for Scale 4 Instructor-Individual Student Interaction of the United States Higher Education Professor . . Students' Ratings for Scale 5--Dynamism/Enthusiasm of the United States Higher Education Professors Students' Ratings of Selected Characteristics of the United States Higher Education Professor . . Students' Expectations of Selected Characteristics of the United States Higher Education Professor Students' Ratings of the Description of Their Adapta- tion Process to the United States Higher Education Professor . . . . . . . . . . Students' Ability to Describe the United States Higher Education Professor before Arrival in the United States - Descriptive Characteristics of the United States and Latin American Higher Education Professors Absolute Frequencies for Scale 1--Analytic/Synthetic Approach of the Latin American Higher Education Professor . . . . . . . . . . Absolute Frequencies for Scale 2--Organization/Clarity of the Latin American Higher Education Professor Absolute Frequencies for Scale 3--Instructor-Group Interaction of the Latin American Higher Education Professor . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 58 6O 61 63 64 65 67 68 7O 79 81 130 131 132 Table F-7 F-8 F-9 F-1O F-11 F-12 Absolute Frequencies for Scale 4--Instructor-Individual Student for the Latin American Higher Education Professor . . . . . . . . . Absolute Frequencies for Scale 5--Dynamism/Enthusiasm of the Latin American Higher Education Professor Absolute Frequencies for Scale 1--Analytic/Synthetic Approach of the United States Higher Education Professor . . . . Absolute Frequencies for Scale 2--Organization/Clarity of the United States Higher Education Professor Absolute Frequencies for Scale 3--Instructor—Group Interaction of the United States Higher_Education Professor . . . . . . . . . . Absolute Frequencies for Scale 4--Instructor- Individual Student Interaction of the United States Higher Education Professor . . . . . . Absolute Frequencies for Scale 5--Dynamism/Enthusiasm of the United States Higher Education Professor Absolute Frequencies of Students' Rating of Selected Characteristics of the United States Higher Education Professor . . . . . . . . . . . Absolute Frequencies of Students' Rating of Their Adaptation Process to the United States Higher Educa- tion Professor . . . ix Page 133 136 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 Appendix UOW> LIST OF APPENDICES Student Description of Teachers Examples of Additional Questionnaire Items . English Version of Instrument Spanish Version of the Instrument . Spanish and English Version of Letter Sent to Sample Students . . . . . . . . Frequency Distribution Tables Page 101 105 108 116 126 129 IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM Introduction The phenomenon of students who set out to study in a foreign country is an old and growing one. Recent statistics of the Institute of International Education show that 336,985 foreign students from 188 different countries enrolled in academic colleges and universi- ties in the United States in the academic year of 1982-83 (Boyan & Julian, 1983, p. 12). From those, 56,810 students came from Latin American countries. The steady growth in the proportion of foreign graduate students was predicted by John Thurston (1963). Two of his remarks were extremely accurate: (1) his estimate of 120,000 foreign gradute students by 1970, and (2) his prediction of an increase at a faster rate of foreign students with heavy concentrations of students at relatively few graduate institutions (Walton, 1971, p. 17). Adjusting to campus life is a common effort of all beginners in higher education institutions, but it is a more acute problem for a student from a foreign country who is likely to be troubled with language handicaps, unfamiliar customs and mores, limited by financial problems, and worried by a constant demand to succeed. The experience of being a foreign student, no matter how differ- ent and how far that country is from home, is frequently a difficult and unsettling one. The foreign student within American educational institutions faces an unfamiliar academic system, new kinds of exam- inations, relationships with other students, and unknown instructors. The success of any educational activity is enhanced if it starts at the level of the students. The professor and the institutions must be aware that cultural differences for a foreign student can be great. Understanding the foreign student is an important task for all those who plan and offer educational experiences. This study will explore the nature of the adaptation process of the Spanish-speaking Latin American graduate students who are enrolled at Michigan State University to the United States higher education professor. This research will attempt to provide information not only on the Spanish-speaking Latin Americans as students, but on their expectations and adjustment to the United States higher education professor. Purpose The general purpose of this study is to explore the Michigan State University Spanish-speaking graduate students' adaptation to the United States higher education professor. Specifically, this study attempts to gather information on the following areas: 1. The role of the higher education professor in Latin America and in the United States. This information will provide elements for determining the magnitude of the changes necessary for a Spanish-speaking Latin American graduate student in an American insti- tution of higher education. 2. The Spanish-speaking Latin American graduate students' expectations about the United States higher education professor within the learning situtation. Data will describe what was expected by these students and how accurate their expectations were. 3. The Spanish-speaking Latin American graduate students' adapta- tion process to the United States higher education professor. Data collected will provide information on the adaptation techniques used, the actions taken by these students, and the students' recommendations to other foreign students as the most effective actions to facilitate the adaptation process to the United States higher education profes- sor. This study focuses exclusively on graduate students in an attempt to expand knowledge with this particular population. Also, it is assumed that many of the Latin American Spanish-speaking graduate students will return to their home countries following their graduate studies to assume leadership positions in higher education. As such, any new understanding that these graduate students may have developed as an outcome of their participation in this research will have effects on Latin American higher education. The selection of Michigan State University as the site for this study was done partially as a matter of convenience and partially by design. Since the researcher was a student at Michigan State Uni- versity, it was most convenient to conduct the study there. However, Michigan State University is a major university with strong Latin American affiliations that attract Latin American students. Findings from a study of this nature would have immediate applications to the University and to other similar institutions with large Latin American enrollments. Research Questions 1. What are the expectations that Spanish-speaking Latin American graduate students have of the role of the higher education professor in the United States? 2. Is there a difference between the perceptions that Spanish- speaking Latin American graduate students have of the role of the higher education professor in Latin America and the role of the higher education professor in the United States? 3. How do Spanish-speaking Latin American graduate students describe their adaptation process to the higher education professor in the United States? Background to the Study Thousands of foreign students come to the United States each year to study at American universities and colleges; their experiences may vary enormously. Foreign students bring with them a wide range of motives and expectations. Du Bois (1956) identifies three groups of foreign students according to their motives for coming to the United States. A first group is composed of those who come to satisfy their curiosity about the world, their sense of adventure, and their desire to travel for its own sake. A second group is composed of those who are discouraged by their life chances in their homelands and travel with a goal of possible inmigration. A third group is motivated by an eagerness to gain new skills. They are task-centered individuals who may view study abroad as an opportunity for personal enhancement and a way of acquiring skills that will contribute to the development of their home countries. Simply by virtue of cultural contrast and the attendant diffi- culties in communication, the foreign student is likely to have major problems of adjustment (Brewster, 1956, p. 5). Many studies have identified the problems of foreign students in American campuses. These problems range from language difficulties to the student's adjustment to the new educational environment. Among the factors shown by research that hinder the foreign student's adjustment to the United States educational institutions are the following: size of school (Lee, 1981); adequacy of education (Johnson, 1971); the system of education (Hagey, 1974); and personal relations with Americans (Sewall, 1956). This study will focus on one specific problem; the Latin American, Spanish-speaking graduate students' adjustment, and expectations of the United States higher education professor. Latin American higher education is often provided in an institu- tional environment where both traditional and modern norms toward professional work still prevail. Administrators, professors, and students oriented toward modern definitions of the functions of the university are constantly challenged by powerful contemporaries who are committed to a more traditional approach (Liebman, 1972, p. 59). Research on Latin American higher education has examined the follow- ing aspects: the rigidity of programs (Drapela et al., 1977); the centralized character of the higher education system (Palacin, 1955); the teacher-centered nature of the program (Palacin, 1977); the iso- lationists tendencies of university departments (Burroughs, 1974); the general lack of library and staff resources, and the neglect of research (Burroughs, 1974). Focusing specifically on the higher education professor in Latin America, research points out the following characteristics: lively teaching, formal work, one-way communication, close adherence to the textbook, lack of appropriate teacher training, predominance of part-time teachers (Burroughs, 1974); class work entirely planned by the teacher, repetitive.teaching techniques, the general tendency to note-taking (Palacin,.1955); excellent organization of the professor's lectures; knowledge focused mainly on theory, excessive formality of professors (Beals, 1957); the sparse communi- cation between the professor and the students, and the limitless power of head professors in the departments (Liebman, 1972). What seems to be a norm in one culture can be odd in another. The characteristics mentioned above describe the higher education professor that Latin American students are likely to have encountered in their college and university education in their home countries. What happens when Spanish-speaking Latin American students go to different countries to acquire further specialization? What type of professor do Spanish-speaking Latin American students expect to encounter in the foreign educational institutions? How do these students react if what they find does not match with what they expected? This study explores the expectations that Spanish-speaking Latin American graduate students, enrolled at Michigan State University, have of the role of the United States higher education professor. It also explores the students' adaptation process to the United States higher education professor. It is hoped that results from this study will be helpful to professionals involved in academic and counseling services, as well as to whole academic institutions, in understanding the needs of this selected group of students. Importance of the Study As observed by Spaulding and Flack et al.(1976), foreign students are no longer a novelty on American campuses. The steady increase in number of foreign students in the United States in the last three decades is illustrated in Table 1.1. Table 1.1. Foreign Students Reported in the United States. ‘ 1954/55-1982/83 Year Foreign Students 1954-55 34,232 1959-60 48,496 1969-70 134,959 1979-80 263,938 1982-83 336,990 Source: Boyan and Julian, Open doors, p. 2. Boyan and Julian note also that during the 28-year history of the census on foreign students in the United States, the proportion of foreign students by region of the world has changed significantly. According to these figures, Latin Americans form the third largest group of foreign students. The number of Latin American students in the United States, and the percentage by year and total is illustrated in Table 1.2. Table 1.2. Foreign Students in the United States by Continent of Origin with Percentage of all foreign students. 1954/55-1982/83 Year Foreiggti%udents Latggu32:::can Latiiuggfiilcan Total Percentages 1954-55 24,232 8,446 24.7 1959-60 48,486 9,428 14.4 1969-70 134,959 24,991 18.5 1979-80 286,340 42,280 14.8 1982-83 336,990 56,810 16.9 Source: Boyan and Julian, Open doors, p. 12. Current statistics show that 32.7% of the total number of foreign students in the United States are at the graduate level. These data underscore the importance of this study which focuses on a specific aspect of the foreign student's adaptation process to the United States academic system: the adjustment to the United States higher education professor. The foreign student who goes out to study at a foreign university does not only come into contact with the society and culture of the host country; he also enters a specialized situation in the university or college. As explained by Sellitz (1963), it is expected that the more the student's national culture differs from the one of the host country, the more the foreign student will differ from the peeple of the host nation in behavior and attitude. Consequently, Sellitz believes the greater the gap between the home culture and the host country, the more difficulty the student will have in adapting to the latter. Staying in a foreign country always presents problems of adjust- ment. If the visitor is a student, he must learn to function in an unfamiliar academic situation while assuming the workload and responsi- bilities. An inquiry into the adjustment problems of foreign students in the United States is supported by research in the area. Coombs (1961) discussing the roles of the foreigner as a student notes that differ- ences in the curriculum may disturb the foreign students. As a result, the foreign student may find it difficult to fit into estab- lished prerequisites, such as the grading system and the rigidity of the academic system in the United States. Of all these mentioned difficulties that the foreign student faces when adjusting to the new academic environment, Coombs stresses the concern that the international student has on how to interact with other students and with professors in the host country. 10 Relating to unknown professors in an unknown culture may be extremely confusing for a foreign student, especially if the pro- fessor differs from the one at home. Coming from cultures where the professor is near the top of the social hierarchy, the foreign students are shocked by the disrespectful demeanor of the students and the easy, often flippant, interchange between the professor and the students in the United States. Contrast this with the deferential respect accorded the teachers in many cultures where the mere presence of the professor strikes a mixture of awe in the obedient students. No one would mistake the teacher for a student in such a setting, for he is so clearly the focal point, the center of the ideas which radiate out to those who fall within his omnipresent aurea (Fieg 8 Blair, 1976, p. 132). Accordingly, the international student on an American campus may need time to adjust to the relatively informal, conversational atmosphere of the higher education system in the United States. This pr0posed research is important because of its contribution to the understanding of the foreigner as a student, and his/her experiences through the adjustment process to the higher education professor. This research will provide knowledge on what the popula- tion under study expects of the higher education professor in the United States. This information is relevant not only for the institu- tions that sponsor students, but also for the institutions that receive foreign students. Both institutions should know what stu- dents expect from their learning experiences so that the student's ability to fit into the new environment is enhanced. 11 Students who go to a foreign university to pursue further educa- tion must learn to cope with the elements of the new environment. One of these elements is the higher education professor from the host uni- versity. What is the role of the higher education professor in the United States? The "average" college teacher is a composite figure and the roles the professor enact arise from the unique definition and ideology of higher education. In the American society, the professor's career focuses on the classroom situation (Riley, 1950). The professor's role encompasses the transmission of knowledge and the inspiration of creative achievement. The role of the professor is not simply that of a "learned" man. He is a learned man who must not only transmit knowledge, but also stimulate, inspire, and instill values. The diversity of the tasks that are included within university teaching is considerable. Teaching in a university is a series of intentional acts directed towards types of learning which are appro- priate to the subject matter to be learned. What a good professor does is to facilitate the student's learning process. He does this in a variety of ways: he arouses the student's interest in the mate- rial; he organizes the material in a course in such a way to make it easier for the student to master principles and relationships as well as isolated facts; he ties things together and points up rela- tionships; he can help a student learn by interacting with him (Udolf, 1976, p. 12). This may be an exhaustive list of functions for the United States higher education professor. Not much is written on how similar or how 12 different are the functions of the Latin American higher education professor, as students perceive these roles. The proposed study emerges from two concerns: one, understanding the adaptation process of the Spanish-speaking Latin American graduate students from Michigan State University to the higher education professor h1the United States; the other is providing information to the host countries so that actions may be taken to facilitate the students' adaptation process. The study explores the perceptions of the Spanish-speaking Latin American graduate students regarding their adaptation process to the higher education professor in the United States. This research focuses on one group of students: Spanish-speaking Latin American graduate students at Michigan State University. It is hoped that future studies will be conducted to compare how students from other cultures perceive their adaptation process and how they act to adapt to the higher education professor in the United States. Definition of Terms Perception: the experience of objects and events in the world based on stimulation of the sense of organs. As used in this study, perception will refer to how higher education professors are viewed by the students. Adaptation: the process by which an individual responds to change in his environment by altering his responses to keep his behavior appropriate to the new environmental demands. In this study, 13 the term will refer to the intentional efforts students make to fit the higher education environment. Adjustment: expression of the concern with living well in one's environment so as to fulfill one's needs and find happiness (Encyclo- pedia of Psychology. 1981, p. 12). In this study the term will refer to the state of getting acquainted and accepting the norms of the host educational system. Expectations: anticipations of the behavior most likely to occur given the individual and the circumstance. In this study the concept will refer to the preconceptions students had of the higher education environment. Teacher role: attributes and patterns of behavior that the teacher exhibits according to the expectations of others and to his/her interpretation of the appropriate attitude and action. In this study the teaching role, itself, will be subdivided into the following areas: analytic/synthetic approach, organization and clarity, instructor- group interaction, instructor-individual student interaction, and dynamism/enthusiasm. Higher education teacher: professional employed by a college or university for the purpose of teaching. Latin America: the term encompasses the entire continent of South, Central America, and Mexico (called Middle America), and the Caribbean Islands. Graduate student: student who is a regular student of any gradu- ate program at Michigan State University, who has completed the 14 English language proficiency requirement, and is not enrolled in any English language classes. Assumptions 1. It is assumed that Spanish-speaking Latin American graduate students can be thought of as a unit whose elements behave, perceive, expect, and act similarly. 2. It is assumed that both Latin American professors and United States professors can be examined as a group and that findings can be generalized about them as distinct groups with generalizable behav- iors. 3. It is assumed that the areas of this study: the perceptions of the role of the higher education professor; the expectations of the United States higher education professor, and the student's adaptation process to the United States higher education professor can be measured through an instrument. 4. It is assumed that Spanish-speaking Latin American graduate students can identify the perceived roles to the Latin American and the United States higher education professor, and describe their adaptation process, expectations, and actions taken to adapt to the United States higher education professor. Limitations 1. This is an exploratory study. Identifications of relation- ships will need to be undertaken in future studies. 15 2. The devised instrument can be relied upon only to explore trends. It is hoped that as the instrument continues to be used, it will be refined, and its statistical validity and reliability will be determined. 3. The study focuses on a specific group: Spanish-speaking Latin American graduate students enrolled at Michigan State University. Thus, generalizability is limited to the particular group under study. Overview of the Remainder of the Study Section 11 contains a review of the literature concerned with the Latin American higher education system, the foreign students' adjustment to the academic environment of the United States, and the roles of college and university professors. Section 111 contains an explanation of the methodology used in the study and a description of how the instrumentation was developed. Included in Section IV are a presentation of the data and summary of major significant findings. A summary of the findings, discussion of the data, conclusions, and recommendations for further study are found in Section V. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction The flow of students across the United States boundaries has a long history. But the topic has attracted wide attention since World War II. Donahue (1970) explains that one of the factors that moti- vated the increase in number of foreign students in the United States is that European universities were either shut down or operating on a war-time footing. The United States, largely because of its post- war leadership role, has maintained preeminence as host in educational exchanges. Research on foreign students' adjustment to the academic environ- ment is extensive. The foci and findings of each are also varied. This review of literature will be divided into three equally important sections: 1. The Latin American higher education system 2. Foreign students' adjustment to the academic environment in the United States 3. College teacher roles The Latin American Higher Education System Beals and Humphrey (1957) described the Mexican educational system as in a state of change. However, the system seemed to remain traditionally oriented, authoritarian, and with heavy emphasis upon 16 17 memory. University instruction tended to be somewhat formal and specialized. In college, according to these authors, the student is regarded as responsible; attendance at lectures is not required. Most university professors hold other jobs, and normally spend little time at the university. Classes meet irregularly. Lectures tend to be formal and authoritarian. Discussion is rare. A very similar description of the educational system is presented by Burroughs (1974) in his study about education in Venezuela. The Venezuelan educational system was in a reorganizational period by the time Burroughs conducted his study. Burroughs recognized the value of the teachers' input and their involvement in the planning of changes. Describing the Venezuelan higher education system, Burroughs notes that research and post-graduate study never have been a strong feature of university life. Speaking about teaching in Venezuela, Burroughs notes that due to the small number of pedagogical institutes and university faculties providing initial teacher training, there was observed a perpetuation of practices and errors of one's forefathers. There is some remarkably good and lively teaching, partly because some teachers have been well trained and have adopted new ideas. But there is also a great deal of dull, formal work, one-way communica- tion, and close adherence to the textbook. Burroughs observes that this is not only a matter of training or its lack; there are also traditional cultural forces at work. Liebman et a. (1972) conducted a six-nation study of Latin American university students in Colombia, Mexico, Puerto Rico, 18 Panama, Uruguay, and Paraguay. It was found that both traditional and modern norms exist within higher education institutions. It was remarked that the organizational structure of the university, often rooted in the past, impeded educational innovations. The Latin American higher education system is characterized by these authors as a system heavy in fragmentation and duplication of resources. Specifically, analyzing the education of university stu- dents, Liebman et al. note a great variety of procedures along a con- tinuum from modern to traditional. At the modern end, students are involved in a process ofprofessional socialization which emphasizes the mastery of technical skills and knowledge as a prerequisite for professional status. At the traditional end of the continuum, stu- dents experience a minor emphasis on the mastering of professional knowledge; there are limited opportunities to implement newly acquired skills. These students are exposed to a learning system based on the ritualistic aspects of education: students enroll in prescribed courses, take examinations that require heavy memorization, and spend years in the university without being part of it. Liebman et al. explain that observers and commentators of Latin American higher education have placed a large part of the responsi- bility for this state of affairs upon the students. They are portrayed as ritualists, uninterested in quality education, unconcerned with acquiring meaningful professional skills, and being the major obstacle to genuine reform and modernization of their universities. Speaking about facilities and curricula in the Latin American universities, Liebman et al. remark about the inadequacy of research 19 and teaching facilities. The lack of sufficient funds impedes the function of universities with adequate or above adequate standards. The curricula are oriented to traditional subject matter. At the heart of the learning enterprise is the quality of instruc- tion. The instruction provided by professors in Latin American uni- versities is the most criticized aspect of the education system. Liebman et al. note that this is a crucial problem with many dimensions. One important part of the overall issue is the problem of recruiting capable people to the field of university teaching. Inadequate funds for salaries are an obstacle in attracting talented individuals to the profession. Part-time teaching is very much the rule, rather than the exception, throughout the hemisphere. These part-time professors either have little time or no incentive to engage in research. In addition, this system is clostly to the education of the students in that it deprives them of meaningful interactions with the professors. Liebman et al. include a section on student evaluation of their education. The authors remark that there is very little empirical data revealing how Latin American students evaluate their professors. Students seem to hold a dual conception of the ideal professor. Some still cherish the notion of their teacher as a philosopher- intellectual. Others talk of the scientist or dedicated professional who produces and publishes and also trains a future generation to compete in the modern world. Research findings from Liebman et al. study show that the quali- ties that students identified the most when defining a good higher 20 education teacher were not so much enterprise or professioanlism, but the instructor's ability to lecture well. This ability includes having the right speed to allow note taking, and oratorical capa- bilities. Findings do not suggest that students were either indis- criminate or totally accepting in the evaluation of their teachers. While the majority of students evaluate their professors favorably, those in the later years were consistently more critical than those just beginning their studies. Survey results indicate also that teachers play a more important role in the student's professional socialization and their total university experience than had been assumed by the researchers. Foreign Students' Adjustment to the Academic Environment in the United States Research in the area of foreign students' adjustment to the academic environment in the United States is extensive. Some studies focus on the adjustment problems of a specific national group, others gather data from students of different nationalities. The aspects to be considered within the range of adjustment problems varies almost from one researcher to another. Research findings included in this sections are the ones considered most important to the understanding of this study. Peterson and Neumeyer (1947) studied how the academic institutions meet the needs of foreign students and how these students felt about their experience in the United States. Data were gathered through a mailed questionnaire and responded to by 141 students. The authors 21 concluded that the chief complaints of foreign students pertain to academic difficulties. Foreign students have problems in understanding lectures, writing' and giving oral reports, and in getting acquainted with American educational standards. Forstat (1951) conducted a study of 201 international students at Purdue University. The most important finding is that the country of origin of foreign students and their academic status seem to be factors affecting the total number of adjustment problems. Length of time was not found to affect the students' adjustment to the academic environment. Sewel and Davidsen (1956) designed an exploratory study in an attempt to identify relevant variables that might influence the foreign students' adjustment to the university situation. Data were gathered from a group of Scandinavian students at the University of Wisconsin. Findings show that Scandinavian students were able to acquaint themselves sufficiently well and rapidly to the new environ- ment. However, the adjustment was not either smooth nor easy. Adjust- ment to academic life was complicated, particularly in the initial period. The Scandinavian students found it very difficult to adjust to the rigidity of the American system of education. The evaluation of the competence of professors, however, was very favorable. DuBois' study (1956), a benchmark in the research on foreign students in the United States higher education, investigated the adjustment problems of foreign students. Findings showed that they face the following problems: (1) practical living problems; (2) adjustment problems related to the way of life in the United States, 22 and (3) adjustment problems related to the educational system of the United States. Studying the variables that affect the foreign stu- dents' ability to adjust to the academic environment, Du Bois found that language and duration of the visit in the foreign land are of primary importance. Other variables, such as age and academic status, were not very important factors. Selby and Woods (1966) studied a sample of 18 foreign students at "high pressure universities." The chosen students were representa- tive of the composition of the non-European foreign student body at Stanford University. In relation to the United States professor, it was found that faculty were mentioned to be the major source of academic guidance for the foreign student. They expressed satisfac- tion with the relationship that they had with teachers. Stecklein et al. (1971) conducted a study of the attitudes of foreign students toward educational experiences at the University of Minnesota. Results showed that most respondents had never attended a special class designed to help them adjust to life in the United States. When students were asked to evaluate the teaching techniques, those techniques to which foreign students had most frequently been exposed were rated as most effective. Foreign students were generally disap- pointed at the lack of an international dimension to faculty activi- ties. Also a third of the respondents said that knowledge about the unique needs of a foreign students' home country never entered into the department planning of a student program in his major area. Jammaz (1972) studied the adjustment problems of a sample of Saudi students in the United States. He noted that academic adjustment 23 is perhaps the single most important factor in determining the social adjustment of the international student. His data on student- faculty relationships showed that 54 percent of students perceived that faculty members were fair, interested in students, and willing to take extra time for needed explanations; 37 percent of the sample indicated that faculty members were fair, but somewhat indifferent to the needs of individual students. Assistance from other Saudi stu- dents was found to be the main source of orientation for Saudi stu- dents in the United States. Hagey and Hagey (1974) investigated the academic and social prob- lems of 272 Middle Eastern students in the state of Oregon. In the area of special help for academic work in the classroom situation, 77% of the respondents expressed the desire for special effort by instructors to help the student with difficulties in the use of English. These students indicated that the system of education itself can present a major source of difficulty for the foreign student. Hull (1978) studied the coping bheavior of a sample of foreign students at three universities in the United States. His findings are especially relevant to this study because he highlighted the reluctance of foreign students to comment on their instructors. Find- ings on the coping skills used by foreign students in the sample revealed that trial and error was the most used technique. Observa- tion and interaction with others was also found by foreign students as very important to learn how to cope with the educational environ- ment in the United States. 24 M'tukudzi's study (1979) of the foreign students' perceptions of the environment at Southern Illinois University showed very impor- tant findings from this study. In the sample of international stu- dents, the second most important problem foreign students have is with instructors. The general complaint, according to M'tukudzi, was that most professors assumed all their students were proficient in English, and therefore, did not take time to explain basic facts. Respondents stated that instructors spoke too fast and were more interested in research than in teaching. Some instructors were mentioned to be prejudiced against foreign students. Also, no relevant advisement was given to foreign students when selecting courses. A special contribution to this research on literature related to Latin American students in American universities is given by the Beals and Humphrey's study (1957) on the Mexican student in the United States, and Ruscoe's study (1968) on Latin American students in United States colleges and universities. Beals and Humphrey's research is very important to the present study, not only for the provision of knowledge on the Mexican stu- dent in American universities, but also for the provision of specific data on the perceptions that Mexican students have of the United States higher education professor. Information obtained from the Beals and Humphrey study supports the statements included in the instrument to be used in this study. . Among the tapics discussed in the Beals and Humphrey study (1956) are the difficulties that Mexican students encounter when adjusting to United States universities. Data show that Mexican students face 25 language problems, lack of preparation for the competitive grading system, and inadequate academic counseling. Beals and Humphrey point out that Mexican students, when counseled, tend to take the adviser's suggestions as final and often are not aware of electives or options in meeting requirements. This attitude could be interpreted as a con- tinuation of the behavior positively reinforced by the Mexican educa- tional system, but which students ignore as not functional in the United States educational environment. Beals and Humphrey write on the ways that the Mexican student reacts to the educational experiences encountered in American uni- versities. The general reactions of the Mexican students suggest that they find the American university experience satisfying and approve of the American university professor. Students, with few exceptions, stated that the professor respected the student. However, respondents made other types of remarks about the United States uni- versity professor. Of the negative attributes of the United States university pro- fessor mentioned by Mexican students, it was found that students dis- likedimpersonal teaching, the teacher's ignorance of education in other countries, the undisciplined class environment, the professors' lack of concern of the quality and relevance of his teaching, the profes- sors' lack of interest in his students, and the professors' neglectful attitude of this student advising. The positive attributes of the United States university professor mentioned by Mexican students include: the informal character of the 26 teacher-student relationship, the students' confidence in their pro- fessor; the professor's interest in interacting with the students outside the classroom; the professor's exclusive dedication to uni- versity work; the professor's enhancement of the opportunities for student discussion; the professor's sense of humor, and his acceptance of student disagreements. It was very interesting to note in the Beals and Humphrey study quotations from the interviews with Mexican students. In those students tended to compare the United States and the Mexican professor when a description of one of the two professors was asked. For example: The relations between the students and the instructors are very different. I feel free to ask questions in class here. In Mexico, I would just keep my mouth shut. . . . The Mexican professor makes a better exposition of the subject; he is a little more organized. The American instructor makes his point better because he gets closer to the student, although he isn't organized at all (Beals and Humphrey, 1956, p. 80). This evidence supports the methodology used in the instrument of the proposed study, where students are asked about the characteris- tics of their higher education professor in their home country before describing the United States counterpart. Ruscoe's study (1968) focused on Latin American students in the United States. Ruscoe gathered data from 2,000 Spanish-speaking Latin American students, including students from Brazil. This study col- lected information on aspects related to the adjustment of foreign students to American universities similar to what is proposed in this intended study. 27 When asked to identify the sources of preparation for life in the United States, Ruscoe found out that students mention American movies, magazines, newspapers, and members of the student's own family. Analy- zing the sources of personal and academic problem-solving, more than one-half of the respondents felt that other Latin Americans, whether friends, fellow students, or relatives in the United States were of some or much assistance, followed by the student's academic advisor, and the foreign student's office. Ruscoe's study included items to assess the opinions of the Latin Amercian students on the roles of the professors in American universities. At least three-fourths of the students feel that professors are fair in the grades that they give, are willing to discuss academic work, are not inconsistent in their requirements, do not require extremely demand, and use understandable criteria for evaluation. Students are less favorable, however, on less formal nonclassroom activities. Students feel that they could not easily talk informally with their professors outside of class, and also find it difficult to be sociable with North American students. College Teacher Roles The history of college teaching, according to Ellner (1983), moves from an emphasis on instruction to an emphasis on scholarship and from a common curriculum of liberal culture for all students to specialized programs of professional education fln~individual choice. Ellner divides the history of American colleges in four periods: the first is the colonial period. American colleges developed from a transplant of the England tradition of higher education. Colleges 28 provided education for leadership, sectarian and social, and stressed the transmission and preservation of intellectual culture. Teaching style consisted of memorization and lesson recitation and did not require much instructional originality or creativity. A second period began just after the Revolutionary War. While traditional, "classical" education still employed recitation from textbooks, teachers of science began to introduce methods of lecture, often accompanied by demonstrations. As in the previous century, college teachers received little or no advanced education. A third period in the development of college-teaching practice is approximated to Charles William Elliot's administration at Harvard (1869-1909). This period marks the beginning of the university in the United States. 'One of the major borrowings from the Germans is the concept of a higher faculty of scholars who create knowledge and train successors. The transition from the college as moulder of character, to the university as catalyst in the pursuit of knowledge, had begun. In fact, Ellner notes that the purpose of higher education shifted from mental discipline to scholarly inquiry. By 1890, the university's role changed to that of an active agent for scientific investigation. The fourth period in the history of college teaching originates from three developments: the expansion of curriculum, the choice of majors and electives, and instructional innovations within the class- room. Even in this last period, Ellner observed, professors still receive little or no pedagogical training, and the one attempt to rectify this situation, the Doctor of Arts degree, failed miserably (Eble, 1983, p. 5). 29 Through the history of American higher education, college teach- ers have attempted to fulfill their duties in an informal apprentice system, with little or no opportunity to study teaching systematically. Their status and role within these institutions have changed dramati- cally, but changes in teaching practice have been more modest. Reci- tation and disputation became lectures, and the centrality of lectur- ing still remains constant. The roles which the college professor enacts emerge from the nature of the institutional processes and unique definition of higher education. According to Riley (1950) the professor's role is not simply that of a learned man, but a learned man who can transmit his learning, stimulate, inspire, and instill values. Bond (1971) agrees with Riley's view of the role of the modern college teacher. He also provides a list of duties characteristic of the effective college teacher. The effective college teacher must set learning objectives; guide students in the achievement of objectives; find creative ways of arising meaning and interest for learning, and be able to evaluate the effectiveness of the learning. Udolf (1976) considers the college professor as a facilitator of learning by arising student interest and motivation, and assist- ing the student in his learning. Udolf's characterization of the effective college teacher is similar to what Bond and Riley point out. However, Udolf adds a new characteristics. An effective teacher must help students learn by interacting with him. Interacting means not only the sharing of the active role within the classroom 3O situation, but also the professor's engagement in informal conversa- tions with students outside of class. Morrill (1982) speaks of three basic roles of the college pro- fessor: teaching, research, and service. Part of the later role, explains Morrill, involves group work with colleagues, parents, administrators, and other persons in the community. According to this author, to be an effective teacher, one must be an effective participant in group efforts. The principles of group sharing come in class discussion, projects, and the preparation of work material. Eble (1983) recognizes the difficulty of reducing traits of effective teachers to any set of essentials. However, he cites several of the characteristics are musts for effective teachers: discipline, generosity, energy, variety, relevance of teaching, enthusiasm, clarity and organization, honesty, and a sense of balance. He con- cludes his explanation remarking that teaching is simple to do and to keep on doing in a mediocre fashion. But superior teaching makes the same kinds of demands as does any craft or art. Consider the many ways any lesson may be learned, the myriad purposes to which learning may be put, the complex personalities of individual teachers and learners, the tangled relationships it involves (Eble, 1983, p. 53). Ellner (1983) explains that in today's colleges and universities, the professor is expected to fulfill three roles: reasearch, teach- ing, and service. However, the weight given to these roles varies from one institution to another. In large research institutions, most day-to-day instruction is carried out by graduate students. In universities not pranting a Ph.D., professors normally carry a heavy 31 teaching load, and are expected to conduct research and to perform other services as well. The role of professors at four-year liberal- arts institutions is different. In those institutions, teaching and interpersonal contacts with students are generally valued and rewarded. In the community college the instructor's role is teach- ing, and in most cases as professors at the institutions mentioned before, instructors have no preparation for effective teaching. Authors from the area of adult education, acknowledging the uniqueness of adult learners, provide helpful ideas on the character- istics and roles to be performed by effective teachers of adults. Kidd (1973) explains that until recently, there has begun to appear literature on the art of teaching adults. On the characteristics of the effective teacher of adults, Kidd makes the following sugges- tions. The teacher of adults must: (1) be a learner himself; (2) be concerned about his self-improvement; (3) value the benefit from different points of view without being lost in partisanship; and (4) know how to deal effectively with controversy. Knowles (1980) defines who an adult educator is. "An adult educator is one who has some responsibility for helping adults to learn" (Knowles, 1980, p. 26). Under this definition, many types of professors can be included: program chairmen, executive and training directors, and professional adult educators among many others. Explaining the role of the adult educator, Knowled defines the follow- ing: (1) helping the learners diagnose their needs for particular learnings within the scope of the learning situation (the diagnostic 32 function); (2) planning with the learner a sequence of his experiences that will produce the desired learnings (the planning function); (3) creating conditions that will cause the learners to want to learn (the motivational function); (4) selecting the most effective methods and techniques for producing the desired learnings (the methodological function); (5) providing the human and material resources necessary to produce the desired learning (the resource function); (6) helping the learners measure the outcomes of the learning experiences (the evaluation function). As it can be noted, these functions basically include what other authors have remarked on the roles of the higher education professor. However, Knowles emphasizes the importance of imvolving the learner in the whole learning process and helping the learner evaluate the outcomes of his learning effort. Research on the teaching process itself, regardless of level, subject matter, or instructional content, as noted by Ellner,began with work in which large numbers of laypeople were asked to recall great teachers they once had and to designate what characteristics made them great (Ellner,1983, p. 15). Lists of "effective teaching characteristics" have begun to emerge. A later form of investigating on this topic is the use of rating forms, where qualities are valued. The many types of student evaluation questionnaires in existence have characteristics in common. Studies by Hildebrand and Wilson (1971), Crawford and Brakshaw (1968), Perry and Bauman (1973) have used instruments that basically focus on the same characteristics of college teachers: knowledge of 33 subject, interest in subject, interesting presentation, organization, broad-mindedness, sense of humor, stimulating intellectual curiosity, fairness, honesty. Research on college teaching is vast. However, Ellner (1983) observes that several research problems continue to exist. First, what the teacher is frequently confused with is with what he does. Research findings seem to focus on an assemblage of virtues, not very descriptiove of what teachers actually do. A second problem of research on teaching is the tendency to look at global groups of attributes. It is necessary that researchers study extensively on relationships between teaching and learning that appear to be consistent. A third problem is the practice of viewing teaching as an act inself not related to a particular subject area or group of students. It is necessary that research focuses on attributes that must be needed to effectively teach within a specific situation. A fourth problem area is the instrumentation used to study teach- ing. There has been a strong tendency for researchers to create new instruments for each study instead of gathering data with already existing instruments used in similar work. This had led to data that cannot easily be compared. Research with more sophisticated methodological approaches is needed, as well as longitudinal studies with multiple perspectives. Finally, research must study whether professors change their behavior over time and the positive effects of certain teaching strategies. 34 Future research must provide with evidence that helps teachers become more effective. Summary The first section of this review of pertinent literature enlight- ened the characteristics.ofthe Latin Amercan higher education system. Information from that section was presented to facilitate the under- standing of the reality on which Latin American higher education pro- fessors have to Operate. The second section provided information on the adjustment problems faced by various groups of foreign students within the American higher education institutions. Data showed that though foreign students seemed to be satisfied with the service provided by the United States higher education professor, still students are disturbed about some characteristics of the United States higher education professor, especially if these characteristics are in conflict with what foreign students were accustomed to in their homes. Two studies gave a special contribution to the intended study. The Beals and Humphrey study provided a detailed description of the Mexican higher education system. Findings from the analysis of the Mexican and the United States higher education professor supported the selected statements to be included in the instrument of the intended study. Ruscoe's research on Latin American students in the United States focused on areas similar to the ones included in this study: sources of preparation for studying in the United States, sources of 35 personal and academic problem-solving, and the students' Opinions of the roles of the higher education professor in the United States. The third section dealt with the roles of the higher education professor in the United States. College teacher roles have changed through time mainly due to the change in the conception of the pur- poses for the university. In the last fifty years, college professors have been seen as facilitators of student learning, with some com- promise on research and service. Research in the area of college teaching is fairly recent. It needs to be redirected so that relevant data may be obtained to facilitate effective college teaching. METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this study, as outlined in Section I, is to explore the adaptation of the Spanish-speaking Latin American gradu- ate students at Michigan State University to the higher education pro- fessor in the United States. An interview, which included an instru- ment designed to study the students' adaptation process to the United States higher education professor in the United States, served as the primary source of data. This section presents detailed information pertaining to the population of the study, the development of the instrumentation, and the procedures and techniques used in the collection and analysis of data. Population The population consisted of all Spanish-speaking Latin American graduate students enrolled Fall term, 1984, at Michigan State UniVers- ity. The following cases were excluded from the population: 1. Those students who had been accepted for graduate study, but not yet started to work on their programs 2. Those students who were currently enrolled in English courses either prior to beginning their academic study or at the same time as their academic study 36 37 3. Those students who participated in the pilot study for this dissertation. According to University records obtained from the Foreign Student Office at Michigan State University, fifty-seven students shared the characteristics of the defined population of the study. However, four students (7%) refused to participate and two students (3.5%) could not be reached. Therefore, the pool was made of fifty-one students (89.4%). Development of the Instrument Stage 1 A comprehensive review of the literature related to student ratings of college professors was undertaken. Writings from Centra (1980) were very helpful in providing information on the content, reliability, and limitations of student ratings. Doyle's study (1975) on student evaluations of instruction gave insights on the types of instruments used to rate professors, the content of the ques- tions and format of the ratings, types of rating scales, attempts to reduce rating errors, as well as the validity and reliability of these instruments. Giles Nadeau's article in Knapper et al. (1978) pro- vided interesting information on the criticism and advantages of student ratings, as well as on the construction, administration, and interpretations of rating forms. Genova et al. (1976) provided information on the essential features of student rating scales. These authors also included examples of student rating scales that have most recently been used in the United 38 States. From these forms, the Wilson Rating Scale-Medium Form was selected (see Appendix A), and the writer's authorization was obtained to use this instrument to collect data on the description Of the Latin American and the United States higher education professor. Wilson's Rating Scales were developed as part Of a study of teaching and teacher evaluation conducted by the Center for Research and Development in Higher Education, University of California at Berkeley. The scales and items used by Wilson focus on a description Of teaching useful to the instructor in order to understand how his students perceive his behavior. The Wilson Student Description of Teacher Scale-Medium Form includes thirty-six items comprised in five teacher description scales: (1) Analytic/Synthetic Approach; (2) Organization/Clarity; (3) Instructor-Group Interaction; (4) Instructor-Individual Student Interaction; and (5) Dynamism/Enthusiasm. The author also includes supplementary items that can be substituted. Stage 2 A first draft of the instrument was developed. Besides Wilson's Student Rating Scale, other sections were added to the instrument to Obtain information on aspects that were considered important to explain the adaptation of the Spanish-speaking Latin American graduate students to the United States higher education professor. Thus, the first draft Of the instrument consisted Of two parts: 1. A self-administered questionnaire composed of four sections: --The description Of the Latin American higher education professor 39 --The description of the United States higher education professor --The student's expectations of the United States higher education professor --The students' description Of their adaptation process to the United States higher education professor 2. An interview to focus on the following areas: --The students' actions and recommendations to other students on how to adapt to the United States higher education professor --Demographic information on each participant in the study Stage 3 A draft of the English version of the instrument was submitted and examined by a panel Of experts. The panel included English- speaking faculty from Michigan State University. Recommendations were made on the wording of the Open-ended questions to insure the validity of responses. Suggestions were also made about constructing the items to measure students' expectations of the United States higher education professor based on the findings from research on Latin American stu- dents in the United States. Modifications were made to the instrument. and a first draft Of the Spanish version was made. Stage 4 A panel of experts revised the instrument in its Spanish form. This time the panel included Spanish-speaking faculty from Michigan 40 State University. The panel had difficulty finding a meaningful translation of three of the items used by Wilson in his instrument. Thus, it was decided to substitute those three items for other three from the supplementary list provided by Wilson (see Appendix 8). Stage 5 After acceptance by all members of the panel, the instrument was piloted with a group of four Spanish-speaking Latin American graduate students from Michigan State University. They were also asked to pro- vide suggestions to improve the content and wording Of the instrument. Modifications were made. Rewording and rephrasing was accomplished. Stage 6 After extensive reading and revisions, the final instrument was developed (see Appendices C and D for the English and Spanish versions, respectively). It included the following parts: Part A. Spanish translation of Wilson's Student Rating Scale--Medium Form--, used to describe the Latin American higher education professor. Part B. Spanish translation of Wilson's Student Rating Scale--Medium Form--, used to describe the United States higher education professor. Part C. A form that allowed students to express their expectations about the United States higher education professor. 41 Part D. A form that allowed students to describe their adapta- tion process to the United States higher education professor. Part E. Open-ended questions on: (1) the reasons why the students' adaptation process was described; (2) the students' actions to adapt themselves to the United States higher education professor; (3) the students' recommendations to other students on how to adapt to the United States higher education professor, and (4) the students' previous knowledge about the roles of the higher education professor in the United States. Part F. A form for entering demographic information on the student respondents' sex, college enrolled in at Michigan State University, graduate level, other graduate studies, if so where enrolled, previous residence in the United States, for how long and activity during that period. Parts A through D were included in a self-administered instrument. Parts E and F were the foci Of the interview. Collection of Data As explained in the section on population, a list Of all Spanish- speaking Latin American graduate students was obtained from the Foreign Student Office at Michigan State University. After excluding the 42 students who did not meet the study's criteria for inclusion, a list of tentative participants was developed. A letter explaining the purpose of the research and requesting participation in the study was mailed to all tentative participants (see Appendixlj). Each tentative participant was phoned within three days to arrange individually the best time and date for the collection Of data. Students were assured of the confidentiality of their iden- tity and their responses. Data were collected by an interview in Spanish language. It took place in a selected university Office. The use Of the office provided a relaxed atmosphere to conduct the interview. All inter- views were conducted by the researcher. Each student was given a numbered instrument and asked to answer from Part A to Part D. After those sections were completed by the student, the researcher conducted the interview which collected infor- mation for parts E and F of the instrument. Data Analysis Responses to thecuestionnaire were coded and analyzed using computer programs from the statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the responses to items related to the description Of the Latin American and the United States higher education professor, the students' expectations of the United States higher education professor, and the students' description Of 43 their adaptation process to the United States higher education profes- sor. Absolute and relative frequencies of alternative responses to each item of the instrument were calculated to show the distribution Of responses. Alternative responses to each item were regrouped in three categories: Not Description--including former alternatives 1 and 2-; Moderately Descriptive--including former alternative 3-; and Very Descriptive--including former alternatives 4 and 5-. Means were calculated to describe the average score by item. Standard deviations were also calculated to demonstrate the variability of responses from the mean. Since inferential statistics and tests of significance were not called for in the study, an acceptance criteria was established as a basis for identifying those scale items that could be considered as representative Of participant agreement. On multiple choice items, 70% agreement of the respondents on a particular item choice is con- sidered as participant agreement. For binary choice items a response over 50% was considered as reflecting support by the respondents. The establishment of these particular acceptance criteria, though arbitrary, allow a systematic way for the analysis fo data and provide a basis for future replication. Summary This study is an attempt to explore the adaptation process of the Spanigh-speaking Latin American graduate students enrolled at Michigan State University to the United States higher education 44 professor. The population for this study consisted Of all Spanish- speaking Latin American graduate students enrolled at Michigan State University during Fall term, 1984. After extensive reading on students' rating scales of college professors, an instrument was develOped. The instrument was examined by two panels of experts, one for the English and one for the Spanish version. It was also pretested with a sample Of Spanish-speaking Latin American students from Michigan State University. The final instrument consisted of six parts: A. The description of the Latin American higher education professor B. The description of the United States higher education professor C. The students' expectations Of the United States higher education professor D. The students' description of their adaptation process to the United States higher education professor E. The students' actions and recommendations to other students on how to adapt to the United States higher education professor F. Demographic information on each participant Data were collected in an interview in Spanish language by the researcher. The data were analyzed using the SPSS, and tabulated in the case of the open-ended questions. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze results. ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction In this section analysis of data is presented. As stated in the Introduction to this dissertation, the purpose of this study is tO explore the adaptation Of the Spanish-speaking Latin American graduate students enrolled at Michigan State University to the United States higher education professor. Specifically, the instrumentation attempted to gather information on : (1) the students' description of the Latin American and the United States higher education professor; (2) the students' expectations Of the United States higher education profes- sor; (3) the students' adaptation process to the United States higher education professor; and (4) the students' actions and recommendations to other students on how to adapt to the United States higher educa- tion professor. Fifty-seven Spanish-speaking Latin American graduate students were asked to participate in an interview designed to generate data on the areas mentioned above. Fifty-one students participated in the study. Data from the instrumentation were coded and analyzed using descriptive statistics to illustrate patterns of responses by item. Frequencies, mean description scores, and standard deviations will be presented for each item of the instrument. The data and analysis procedures used are reviewed here in six sections: (1) the description Of the pOpulation, (2) description Of 45 46 the Latin American higher education professor, (3) description Of the United States higher education professor, (4) the students' expecta- tions Of the United States higher education professor, (5) the stu- dents' adaptation process to the United States higher education professor, and (6) the students' actions and recommendations to other students on how to adapt to the United States higher education professor. Description of the Population The population consisted Of fifty-one Spanish-speaking Latin American graduate students enrolled at Michigan State University during Fall term 1984. Of these students, 68.6% were male and 31.4% female, as shown in Table 4.1. TABLE 4.1.--Personal Characteristics of the Population of the Study. Variable: Sex. Frequencies N = 51 Variable 1: Sex N % Male 35 66.7 Female 16 31.4 Students respondents were enrolled in eight colleges at Michigan State University: Agriculture and Natural Resources, Arts and Letters, Business, Communication, Education, Human Ecology. Natural Sciences, and Social Sciences. From those colleges, the College of Agriculture 47 and Natural Resources had 27.5% of the population of Spanish-speaking Latin American graduate students; the colleges of Business and Communi- cation had 3.9% of the population each. See Table 4.2. TABLE 4.2.--Personal Characteristics of the Population of the Study. Variable: College Frequencies N = 51 Variable 2: College N % Agriculture and Natural Resources 14 27.5 Arts and Letters 3 5.9 Business 2 3.9 Communication 2 3.9 Education 7 13.7 Human Ecology 10 19.6 Natural Sciences 10 19.6 Social Sciences 3 5.7 When students were asked about the amount of time spent as gradu- ate students at Michigan State University, responses ranged from one month to five and a half years with three years being the modal response at 23.5%. See Table 4.3. When students were asked about their graduate level at Michigan State University, 39.2% Of the students indicated the Master's level, 58.8% the doctoral level, and one student was a participant in Lifelong Education Programs at Michigan State University (2%). See Table 4.4. 48 TABLE 4.3.--Personal Characteristics Of the Population Of the Study. Variable: Length of Time as a Graduate Student at Michigan State University. Variable 3: Length of Time as Frequencies N = 51 a Graduate Student at Michigan State University N % 1 Month 7 13.7 6 Months 3 5.9 1 Year 7 13.7 11 Years 4 7.8 2 Years 8 15.7 3 Years 12 23.5 4 Years 3 5.9 5 Years 6 11.8 51 Years 1 2.0 TABLE 4.4.--Personal Characteristics Of the Population Of the Study. Variable: Graduate Level. Variable 4: Frequenc1es N = 51 Graduate Level N % MaSters 20 39.2 Doctoral 30 58.8 Other: Lifelong Education 1 2.0 49 When students were asked whether they had other graduate degress previous to the one on which they were working at Michigan State Uni- versity, 35.5% of the students indicated they had not had other gradu- ate studies, and 64.7% had other graduate studies. From this last group, twenty-one students (63.6%) received their degrees in the United States, ten (30%) received their degrees in Latin American countries, and two (6%) in Europe. See Table 4.5. TABLE 4.5.--Personal Characteristics of the Population Of the Study. Variable: Other Graduate Studies _ Variable 5: Frequencies N = 51 Other Graduate Studies N % "0 18 35.3 Yes 33 64.7 When students were asked whether they had previously resided in the United States, 72.5% of the students indicated they had not come to the United States before, 17.5% said they had previously been in the United States. See Table 4.6. The range of the amount Of time of previous residence was from six months to ten years. In all cases, students mentioned they had come to the United States in order to study. . . Though this study assumes a similarity between all Latin American graduate students and hence the data are grouped, Table 4.7 shows the distribution by county of origin of the population. 50 TABLE 4.6.--Personal Characteristics Ofthe Population of the Study. Variable: Previous Residence in the United States. Variable 6: Previous Residence Frequencies N = 51 in the United States N % No 37 72.5 Yes 14 27.5 TABLE 4.7.--Personal Characteristics of the Population Of the Study. ' Variable: Country Of Origin Variable 7: Country Frequencies N = 51 of Origin N % Argentina 2 3.9 Chile 4 7.8 Colombia 5 9.8 Dominican Republic 2 3.9 Ecuador 1 1.9 Honduras 1 1.9 Guatemala 4 7.8 Mexico 13 25.4 Paraguay 1 1.9 Panama 1 1.9 Peru 1 1.9 Uruguay 4 7.8 Venezuela 12 23.5 51 Description of the Latin American Higher Education Professor The students' descriptions Of the Latin American higher educa- tion professor are depicted in Table 4.8 to 4.12. The items that composed this section were grouped into five scales. These five scales are: Scale 1: Analytic/Synthetic Approach; Scale 2: Organization/Clarity; Scale 3: Instructor/Group Inter- action; Scale 4: Instructor-Individual Student Interaction; and Scale 5: Dynamism/Enthusiasm. For purpose Of analysis, the five categories presented in the instrument were regrouped into three: Not Descriptive for Alternatives 1 and 2-, Moderately Descriptive for alternative 3-, and Very Descriptive for alternatives 4 and 5. An acceptance criteria was established to assist in the analysis of data. Those scale items that received at least 70% agreement as Very Descriptive, Moderately Descriptive or Not Descriptive were considered to be representative of the group. Those scale items below 70% agreement were not considered representative Of the group. Each of the tables includes adjusted frequencies, means and standard deviations. Additional tables with absolute frequences for each item of the instrument are presented in Appendix F. Table 4.8 summarizes responses to Scale 1--Analytic/Synthetic Approach. Item number 7 "Emphasizes Conceptual Understanding" had the highest mean within the items included in the scale. 0f the students, 69.4% identified this as a Very Descriptive item of the 52 acosmmcmm RON M." « mmm. m.m Ne.me Rm.em afi.e memeeapmemeee pmzuamucou mmuwmangsm .m mmw. ¢.m ww.o¢ xm.¢e am.eH mupmw» umaapmc soc» muamucou use macaw mucmmmga .o mmm. m.m ewe Rafi gem meeeee ee>Fe>ew tea meeemeeaeee macs gee mucmgmmmc mm>ww .m mom. e.m aem mom NeN me_xeeee Paewuwee e>eeaeeu mcpgwsamc mcowpmcwsmxm mm>ww .e mom. ¢.m Rue xvm Rem upmww on» :_ mucmsaopm>mu ucmumc mommaumpo .m mum. m.m xm.mm xm.m~ Rm.~H newcomnu mzowse> mo meowuauwpae_ mumacucou .N mom. e.m ewe flee NoH czo cm;\mpg saga cwzuo 3mw> mo mucwog mommzumwa .H m>wuawcummn o>_uawgommo m>wuawcummo cowuew>ma .w apmuagmuoz membm H mpaum ocmucmum mmwucmacmgu commmmoca cowumuzcm gonna: eeeeeee< e_ean wee Co eeeeeae< eeeaeeexm-u_eapae<--fi a_aem tee maeeeem .aeeaeeem--.m.e wsmvuomnao magnum .mH emm. m.m &oe xmv gm” mucwoa “cepcoasp ewes mONPcm252m .NH mom. m.m eom eve an compmmzc new igmzmce mmvumga use Psmmgmu mH .fiH «on. m.m RH.~m Rm.oe xN.m w:_~u=o cu aged magauump mm>ww .ofi emu. N.m Nam ace RN eaeeeaea FPO; a“ .m NH“. ~.m New awe am apeaape meeepaxm .w m>PuapLummo m>ppawgummo m>muawgumma cowpmm>mo xgm> apmpmgmnoz poz cgmucmpm m. mamafi N mpmom Hm u z mmwucmscmgu ceuwgme< cape; mcu mo xuwce_0\comua~wcmmgoium commemoca cowpmoauu gmsmwz apeem tee mmeweam .meeaeaem--.m.e mnmww .mm mow. m.m xom wee x8 mcwzuomu mm; mo auwpeac on» com :Lmucou use cw ummgoucw we: .HN mmm. ¢.m xm.m¢ ww.mm ae.m~ nomaucou so cocoa wee mpcmcsum can: mzocx .om eom. m.m Roe ewe ewe Bee ee ee;\eee meweeaem -cmuca ma mmepu mg» mp mzocx .mH N¢0.a n.~ eom xmm Ree meme? :30 gmgxmw; mo Emwovuwcu mmup>cm .wH Nmm. m.m Nee Rom Now mcowumoppnam peowpumgq mammaumwo .mfi mmH.H N.m ewe eon NNN eeem_emaxa eea ameapzeex Leona maegm on mpcmuzum mmup>cu .mH mm~.~ e.m Rom Rom New cowmmzummu mmupu mmmagzoucm .mH m>wwawcummo m>wpawgommo m>puawsummo :owum?>mo .M zgm> apmumgmuoz mempH m m—eum ugmccmpm Hm u z mmwocmscmgd commemocm cowueuzum cmzmw: ceumcme< swam; as» mo cowpuecmacfi gzo5u12ouozgum2H11m mpeum com mmcwpum .mucmuaum--.ofi.¢ m4m<~ 56 pooEooLmo non M." a «flu. m.m «Nun xmm 1- moomgoo mo mpcoooum muooomoz .mm emu. ¢.m fine xoo xofi omgooo ox» op oouopoc apuomgwo no: ooe>oo Low mo=Fo> mm .mm mom. H.o exam NNH gm mmopo mo poo mucoozpm op o~_ommoooo ma .mm 2w. «4‘ .- Now x2 .EV 32o mo poo mucooopm muoocm one mo~wcmooom .om mam. ~.m eon RNN xv“ mpmaow>wo=w mo mucooapm op monopom .mm Hum. m.m 1.xm.fin Rm.m~ N~.~H mucoooum ogozou apooowgu mu .om New. m.m Rum Roe Rm mucoooum cw amogoucw oopocom a mo: .mm m>eoopgomoo m>uwowcomoo o>wuomcomoo cowuow>oo M. aco> xpouocmooz «oz msoum o mpoom ocoocoum Hm u z mowocoooogu commomoga :opuoooou cocoa: coowgos< ovum; 8:3 ea coweaeaee_ oeaeaom paeee>eeefi-eeoe=eomeH--e epaem gee moeeoam .meemesom--.fifi.e womee 57 highest means within the scale. Those items fulfilled the acceptance criteria and can be considered Very Descriptive Of the Latin American higher education professor. None of the remaining items in Scale 4 were seen as Moderately Descriptive or Not Descriptive Of the Latin American higher education professor. Table 4.12 summarizes responses to Scale 5--Dynamism/Enthusiams. Item number 34 "Seems to have self-confidence" had the highest mean (3.8) among the items of this scale. None of the items met the acceptance criteria for being considered Very Descriptive, Moderately Descriptive, or Not Descriptive of the Latin American higher education professor. Description of" the United States Higher Education Professor The students' descriptions of the United States higher educa- tion professor are depicted in Tables 4.13 to 4.17. The items that composed this section were grouped into five scales. These five scales are: Scale 1--Analytic/Synthetic Approach, Scale 2--0rganization/Clarity, Scale 3--Instructor-Group Interaction, Scale 4--Instructor-Individual Student Interaction, and Scale 5-- Dynamism/Enthusiasm. For purposes of analysis the five categories presented in the instrument were regrouped into three: Not Descriptive--for alterna- tives 1 and 2-, Moderately Descriptive--for alternative 3-, and Very Descriptive--for alternatives 4 and 5. 58 poosooLmo &o~ M." « mmm. o.m Noe goo Rea Loss; yo omcom o no: .om om“. o.m fine ewe x0“ oOwo> ow; yo moo» one oooom oz“ mowgo> .mm mfim. m.m me eoo RN oocoowwooo1$pom o>o= o» meoom .om 5mm. o.m fiom xoo em noonoam we; ozone ovumommaguco on .mm so“. o.m eom Nee em meeeeamo hence ea meaem .Nm mum. o.m awn goo RN oopoopcomogo mo opxum mcwumogoucw on ma: .Hm eeo. e.m xoe xmm RN cemema o_uomco:o coo OwEocxo o mH .om o>wpowcommo m>wuomcumoo o>waowLOmoo ago> xpouocoooz uoz cowoow>oo x msouH m opoom oaoocopm Hm u z mowocoaoogd commomoga oowuoozom Lo;m_: eeeeeae< eeoes on» me Emaemaeeem\5me5ee»o--m a_eem Lee maeepam .moeaeaum--.mfi.e mompo>cw can mcwpmmgmucw egos com mmocmcommg mo>mw .Ho fimm. m.m Rm.om fin.mm am.HH moexcwga poormmco m>voaoco newswoooc mooruocmsoxo mo>ma .oo owe. N.o 4&M.N &~.mfi em opowm on» cw mucosoopo>oo acoomg momm=Omwo .mm New. m.m xmm Rom em mowgomzp moowgo> mo mcowuoowposw monogacou .wm «no.H m.m New xofi Rom :zo go;\mm; cog» cozuo zmm> mo mpcwoo mmmmoomwo .nm m>wuoPLOmoo o>wpowcomoo m>wpowgummo cowpop>oo ago> apopocoooz no: ogoocopm m. meow“ a oFoom fim u z mowocozomgd commemoca cowpoooom Locmpz manaem eeoee= one ea eeeeeee< empeeoe»m\eeeapae<--fi e_aem tee moeeoam .meeeeapm--.mfi.e mnmqe 61 ecosoogme Rom M." e mom. o.e «em.eu em.m~ -1 «seasons? memowmcoo a: yes: mowmwacoon .om mew. H.e exm.¢n em.H~ No.m cormmom mmepu seem so» mo>Puoonoo mmueam .me he“. e.m ee.em em.mm em.m meepea uceugoos? pmos mo~vgeesom .we moo. m.m em.~m ee.mm Rm.n moopemooo mcwamzmoe c? omwooso one poeoceu mH .Ne emu. m.m N~.me &H.me em.n ocwppzo op :oeo mogouoop mo>vw .me He“. m.e eem.~e ee.a~ -- eaeaeeee Ppez me .me Nmn. m.m N~.He x~.me a~.m~ xpgempo mcwepoxm .ee o>uwomgOmon m>wuowgomoo o>wpowgomoo compew>oo .w ago> apouecoooz uoz esopH N opeom ogeocepm Hm n z mmwocoooogu sommoeoga oowueooem emcee: magnum eeoeez as» ea zeeeapo\eoeoenpeeeeo--m e_aem tee mnemoam .meeeesem--.efl.e “seep 62 No other item met the acceptance criteria for being considered Moderately Descriptive or Not Descriptive Of the United States higher education professor. Table 4.15 summarizes responses to Scale 3--Instructor-group Interaction. None of the items met the acceptance criteria for being considered Very Descriptive, Moderately Descriptive, or Not Descrip- tive Of the United States higher education professor. Table 4.16 summarizes responses to Scale 4--Instructor-Individual Student Interaction. Item number 65 "Respects students as persons" had the highest mean among the items in the scale. This item also met the criteria for being considered Very DeScriptive of the United States higher education professor. None of the remaining items in this scale met the acceptance criteria for being considered Moderately Descriptive or Not Descrip- tive Of the United States higher education professor. Table 4.17 summarizes responses to Scale 5--Dynamism/Enthusiasm. Item number 70 "Seems to have self-conficence" had the highest mean among the items in the scale. This item also met the criteria for being considered Very Descriptive of the United States higher educa- tion professor. None Of the remaining items in this scale met the acceptance criteria for being considered Moderately Descriptive or Not Descrip- tive Of the United States higher education professor. 63 “cosmocme Non M." « Nee.“ ~.m efi.me ee.fim ee.mm meoaeo eeeeeemeea gee zappwawmcoomog macmooum o>_o .mm mmm. o.m ew.mm em.mm em.n .m:_;oemp we; mo zuw_e:o ego Loe :Loocoo use cm umocoucw me: .nm ooo.H o.m emu xmm Rem eomoecou so oogon use mucoooum cos: mzocx .mm “mm. m.~ ee.m~ em.mm em.mm eee ee eee\eee eeweeeom -Lmozs ow mmepo oz» e? mzocx .mm eno.H m.~ em.mm xm.mm ee.mm memo? ozo we; eo sweepewgo moow>cm .em mew. e.m &N.He &H.me en.m~ mcowueoP—ooe Peowuoego mommoompo .mm emm. m.m Noe ee.~m am.mH mooco_cooxo oce oaoopzocx g_o;u ogegm op mucooopm mopr>cH .Nm com. m.m efl.mm em.om &N.efi cowmmaomwe mmepu momegsoocm .Hm m>muowgomoo o>wpowgomoo o>uwowgomoa cowpew>oo ago> apogeemooz msmpm o—eom oseecepm .w Hm movocoooogu gommomoga cowueoaeu Loewe: meoaem eaowea wee ea eeeoeeeeeee aeeee-eeee=eomeH--m epeem gee mmeeoem .meeeeaom--.mfl.e “seep 64 pnonoonoe eoe M.» a Npm. o.e eem.oe eo.m~ em.m mnomnoo me mpnooopm mpooomom .mo emm. m.~ eo.mp ep.ee em.mm o2:8 onp op oopepon appoonpo pon oop>oe no; moope> mp .eo moo. e.m em.oo ee.m~ em.m mmepo yo poo mpnooopm op opopmmoooe mp .mo moo.p m.m eo.mm em.e~ em.m~ mmepo oo poo mpnooopm mpoonm one moepnoouom .No wmo.p o.m e~.om em.m~ em.mm openop>ponp me mpnooopm op mopepom .Ho emm. o.m ep.mo .eN.Ho ee.mp mpnooopm onezop aponopno mp .00 com. H.m em.mm ep.me eo.p~ mpnooopm np pmonopnp onpnnoo e me: .mm o>ppopnomoo o>ppopnomoo o>ppopnomoo noppep>oo ano> a_openoooz poz oneonepm .m meope o opeom Hm u z mopononoonu one nommomona noppeooom nonop: mopepm ooppn: no eeppeeeepen peeoepm paeop>poen-eepe=epmen e epeem nee moeppem .mpeaoepm--.op.e unmep 65 pnoEoonme eon M." « opo.p ~.m em.mm ep.me eo.p~ nose; wo omnom e me: .me mew. m.m em.om eH.eo ee.mp oopo> men wo onop one oooom onp mopne> .He owe. o.e «em.oe eo.p~ eo.~ monoopenooimpom o>en op meoom .oe mom. w.m ee.ee em.em em.e poonoom non\mpn poooe oppmepmonpno mp .mo ewe. e.m emp.em em.~m ee.m oepeeeep eeeee op meeem .eo moe. m.m ep.ee ep.ee em.m noppepnomono mo opxpm mnppmonopne no me: .eo owe. e.m em.mm e~.mm em nomnoo oppoonono one opsenAo e mp .mo o>ppopnomoo. o>ppopnomoo o>ppopgommo noppep>oo x. ano> epopenoooz; poz meopp m opeom oneonepm moponoooonu nommoeone noppeooou nonop: ampepm oappeo eep no smepmeepnM\Empeeeee--e epeem nee monppee .mpeeoapm--.ep.e onenp 66 Description of Selected Expectations of the United States Higher Education Professor The students' descriptions of their expectations Of the United States higher education professors are depicted in Tables 4.18 and 4.19. Table 4.18 includes items on selected characteristics of the United States higher education professor. For purposes Of analysis, the five categories presented in the instrument were regrouped into three: Not Descriptive--for alternatives 1 and 2-, Moderately Descriptive--for alternative 3-, and Very Descriptive--for alterna- tives 4 and 5. This table will include adjusted frequencies, means, and standard deviations. An accepted criteria was established tO assist in the analysis of the data. Those scale items that received at least 70% agreement as Very Descriptive, Moderately Descriptive, or Not Descriptive were considered to be representative of the group. Those scale items below 70% agreement were not considered representative of the group. In the case where the instrUment asked for Yes-NO responses, the acceptance criteria was lowered to 50%. Table 4.19 groups responses on whether or not students expected those characteristics in the United States higher education professor. Frequencies were used to illustrate the students' responses. A table with absolute frequencies for each item on each of the former alterna- tives are presented in Appendix F. Table 4.18 summarizes responses to selected characteristics Of the United States higher education professor. One item in this scale had 67 pnosoonoe eon M." a po~.H e.m eo.me ee.~m eo.o~ oeopmmouoe whezpe on ponp np pmonopnp oppppp we: ponp nenp ozone onp op onenoeop mnowone ppopnomoo o>ppopnomoo o>ppoenomoo noppep>oo eno> aeopegoooz poz oneonepm .M noppepoooxm Hm moponmooonu nommoeonm noppeonom noeopx mopepm ooopno oep eo moppmpeopoeeeeo oopoopom no moeepem .mpoooopm11.op.o “Jeep 68 pnosoonme eom M." - eo.em om N.Ho He eopopmmoooe meezpe we: .eoo H.ee ow 1o.ne om omoooe pooop>poep on pmoeooep oppppp oer .eoe H.ee Ne 1o.om .oe eoepeooop eeep eoeeomoe ones ooneoeoee .eee 1o.eo mm o.o~ mp weepeopeooom .mpeooopo one on eooeop_eno .mee 1m.oe em e.me no eoeppopom_o opopomoe ooepooom .eoe 1o.om we p.mo me Neoppeoooo oepzopeoz zone .mme 1o.oe om m.e~ on eoepeoeop Peoop>noep op ozone ooeeoeoeo .eoe N.pe He 1o.em om eeonoe eo omeom oooo e oe: .eee e z e z . . . nommomona noepeonoo nonmpn no» oz oopepm ooppno one poooxo so» ope Apm u zv nommomono noppeooou nonop: mopepm ooppn: onp eo moppmpnopoeseno oopoopom mo mnoppepoooxu .mpnooopm-.mp.e upmppopnomoo o>epoenomoo o>ppopnomoo nwwwmwwwm m. xno> apopenoooz poz noppoenomoo pm u z moponoooone nommomone noppeooom nonme: mopepm ooppn: mnp op mmooone noppepoeo< neonp mo noppnpeomoo onp wo monepem .mpnooopm-.o~.o m4m