STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF IMPORTANT FACTORS IN SINGLE STUDENT HOUSING Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY CHESTER RANDOLPH TITUS 1970 ...L A- , V xl—u’a *2. -x" -‘ an r v ~ I. ID Li 1'2 1:. - T’“ a ' Michigan SW3 ' ' ' University v‘r' _ This is to certifg that the thesis entitled Student Perceptions of Important Factors in Single Student Housing presented by Chester Randolph Titus has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in Administration & Date éflo/ZG / / Higher Education / c‘“"htUV\ArI\//VV~\//’T Major professor 0-169 .. __4~‘.4 «V. m— ABSTRACT STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF IMPORTANT FACTORS IN SINGLE STUDENT HOUSING BY Chester Randolph Titus The purpose of the study was to identify what stu- dents perceive to be important elements of satisfactory housing arrangements. The basic hypothesis was that significant differences do exist in these perceptions among-the various academic and residential groupings of students. To test the null hypotheses subsequently generated, the perceptions of housing characteristics held by male students at the University of Virginia were surveyed during the academic year 1968-69. A 10 per cent random sample with a final 92 per cent response provided a base of 555 male students. The survey instrument used was designed to give a broad view of student desires and opinions and contained eighty-seven items. Only certain areas of the question- naire (twenty-four items) were used for this study. Most of the selected items were grouped to provide the five Chester Randolph Titus principal variables, referred to throughout the study as the Five Student Needs: (1) Supervision and/or control, (2) Privacy and/or quietness, (3) Freedom to manipulate the social environment, (4) Freedom to manipulate the physical environment, and (5) Personal study space. The scores on the questionnaire items were weighted so that the lower score indicated the more emphatic re- sponse. They were grouped under the five categories indi- cated, and converted to standard scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 10. An analysis of variance routine was used to test for significant differences. The findings showed that some differences did exist but that not all of them were significant. There were significant differences between the students at the three academic levels and their perceived needs for Freedom to Manipulate the Social and the Physical Environment. Significant differences were not found for the three academic levels, on the other scales of Super- vision, Privacy, and Personal Study Space. The significant differences observed between the on-campus and off-campus groups apply only to upperclass and graduate students. The freshmen do not have a choice of residence so their data was not included in this com- parison. The off-campus group rated significantly stronger in their perceived need for Privacy, Freedom to Manipulate the Social Environment and Freedom to Manipulate the Chester Randolph Titus Physical Environment. The on-campus group rated stronger on the perceived need for Supervision and Personal Study Space, but the difference was not statistically significant. Analysis of the data on Source of Financial Support revealed no significant differences on any of the scales. Significant differences were found in the Place of Study most frequently used by the three academic levels. The graduate group made least use of their rooms for study purposes and overall the freshmen made most use of theirs. Graduate students made significantly more use of the library than either of the other groups. On the whole the off- campus group made significantly less use of the student room and more of the living room and the library than did the on-campus group. The most frequent place of study overall was the student's own room. The key implication may well be that there is no optimal study space or optimal housing space but that there must be space constructed for people who in this case are students. STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF IMPORTANT FACTORS IN SINGLE STUDENT HOUSING BY Chester Randolph Titus A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1970 Q) Copyright by CHESTER RANDOLPH TITUS 1971 ACKNOWLEDGMENT A work of this sort is seldom the result of one person's efforts and this thesis is no exception. I regret that it is not possible to acknowledge all the help re- ceived. This paper and indeed this whole educational experience would not have been started without the initial stimulus of Dr. Harold Grant and the active interest of Dr. Margaret Ruth Smith. My wife, Margaret, is also due a large measure of gratitude for her continued support and encouragement. To my committee and especially my adviser I owe whatever measure ci'academic success I have enjoyed. The members of the committee were Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker, Chair- man, Dr. Norman Bell, Dr. Walter Johnson, and Dr. Iwao Ishino. Each one contributed in his own way to a whole experience that seemed designed for me. They all were most helpful in suggesting new approaches, and in providing guidance and encouragement when needed. They all were most patient in dealing with what must have been to them, problems with obvious answers. ii / Emory Foster, Manager, Housing and Food Service, and Lyle Thorburn, Manager of Residence Halls at Michigan State University were unending in their practical support, their encouragement, and their friendly interest. With- out their help the undertaking would have been much more difficult, perhaps impossible. In the preparation of the thesis three people were instrumental. Dr. Alton Taylor, in the Office of Insti- tutional Analysis at the University of Virginia was most helpful in the data gathering process. Miss Jean Fickes prepared all of the basic drafts from long hand notes and with good humor encouraged the production. Mr. David Wright in Consultation Services very patiently counseled and guided the preparation of the statistics. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . 7 II. LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . 9 Related Research . . . . . . . . . 15 Student Reaction to Study Facilities-- Amherst . . . . . . . . . . . 16 An Environmental Analysis--Berkele . . 17 The Residence Halls Study--Michigan State University . . . . . . . . 20 Space and Territoriality . . . . . . 22 Proxemics. . . . . . . . . . . 23 Personal Space . . . . . . . . . 27 Summary of the Literature . . . . . . 31 III. METHOD OF THE STUDY. . . . . . . . . 35 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Definition of Student Needs . . . . . 40 Analyses. . . . . . . . . . . . 41 iv Chapter IV. RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O 0 Five Student Needs. . . . . Place of Study . . . . . . Statement of Hypotheses . . . V. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . Implications. . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES Appendix A. Housing Questionnaire . . . . B. Consolidated Housing Questionnaire C 0 Letter 0 O O O O O O O O Page 43 43 54 58 64 69 71 75 79 84 9O 93 LIST OF TABLES Page Cross Correlation Table on Five Student Needs I O O O O O O O O O O O O 44 Five Student Needs and Academic Level (Mean Standard Scores) . . . . . . . . . 46 Five Student Needs and Place of Residence (Mean Standard Scores of Upperclass and Graduate). . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Five Student Needs and Source of Financial Support (Mean Standard Scores). . . . . 52 Analysis of Variance Table for Five Student Needs and Source of Financial Support . . 53 Place of Study and Academic Level (Mean Percentage of Study Time) . . . . . . 55 Place of Study (On-Campus) and Academic Level (Mean Percentage of Study Time) . . 57 Place of Study and Place of Residence (Mean Percentage of Study Time) . . . . . . 59 vi Figure 1. LIST OF FIGURES Five Student Needs and Academic Level . Five Student Needs and Place of Residence. Source of Financial Support and Five Needs Place of Study and Academic Level . . Place of Study and Place of Residence . vii Page 47 48 51 56 60 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION College supervised or operated housing was initi- ated in the early years to provide some measure of security for the entering students whose usual age was only thirteen or fourteen years. About the middle of the nineteenth cen- tury, however, most American institutions of higher edu- cation concluded that it was not worth the trouble and ceased to provide housing for students (Shay, 1964). A few institutions (especially the women's colleges that had opened after the Civil War) continued their dormitory operations in spite of difficulties. At the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century there was a resurgence of interest in student housing. This was due to a strong desire on the part of the supporters of American higher education to have students educated in a democratic institution with a suitable moral atmosphere. It was believed the college administrators could provide this through control of space assignments and the enforcement of living regulations. There has been a more or less continuous development of college housing as an important part of the extra curriculum ever since. Dr. Ruth Useem (1966) identified four periods of development in college housing and referred to them as: the Dormitory Period (up to World War II)--a period of accumulating traditions, centralized activities, and separate men's and women's dormitories; the Disjunctive Transitional Period--a period typified chiefly by the innovation of married student housing; the Traditionless Period (l950-65)--a period of larger buildings with pro- fessional managers, decentralized services, increasingly standardized high quality facilities, and "rules" gener- ated out of a need to protect investments; and the Period of Instant Traditions (1965- )--a time for experimental environmental arrangements. Much of the housing constructed over the years has been built to satisfy administrative requirements and provide a warehousing kind of operation for students while they attend the school. It has not been really directed at providing a living space for students (Riker, 1965). Housing questions are usually related to how many students can be accommodated in how much space, not how much or what kind of space do students need. A construction committee is usually called to plan for new housing and it typically consists of some member of the faculty, a representative of the business office, the architects, and someone representing the housing operation. Very seldom does the planning team include a student or a behavioral scientist charged with represent- ing the future residents (Miller, 1968). All too often even the housing representative is omitted. It is true that these committees sometimes receive information from sources outside the committee, sometimes even from students themselves. Most often this additional information is in the form of a critique of existing structures. In the final analysis whether or not any suggested changes are adopted is largely a "matter of economics" (Marshall, 1968). The major portion of the committee's time is spent in discussing time schedules, economies to be realized by making certain changes, and the durability or usability Of materials. Unbelievably little time is spent in con- Sidering life within the area being planned. It is unlikely that the planning process will <3hange much in the foreseeable future, but some improve- meint must be made in the end result. History has shown reither conclusively that educational institutions are not Velli‘y'productive if they fail to meet what students per- ceive to be basic needs (Rudolph, 1962). Two reasons more consideration has not been given tzC) actual student needs has been a lack of readily available, quantified or empirically derived information on students and their needs, and an assumption that there was an average student that could somehow be described and built for. The body of information on student charac- teristics is growing and the concept that any one precise housing unit will comfortably fit all students is being discarded (Van Der Ryn and Silverstein, 1966). The important factors of territoriality and the effects of space on individuals is also being explored. Not enough of this thinking has yet penetrated to planners to have had any real effect however, and very few experi- mental models exist. The situation is further complicated by there being little or no agreement on what the goal of housing should be. In the absence of such agreed upon goals it is difficult to gauge whether or not housing is achieving its objectives. It seems to follow that since no particular method or arrangement of housing has been clearly shown to be superior to others, and students in substantive numbers across the country are trying to avoid occupying dormitory spaces prepared for them, further investigation is warranted. A logical area for study would seem to be the perceptions of the problem as held by the users--in this case dormi- tory residents. It is hoped that the present study will add to the body of information about the needs of residential students and help define the kind of an environment they feel would be most beneficial and satisfying. Purpose The purpose of this~study is to identify what stu- dents perceive to be some important elements of satisfac- tory housing arrangements and to explore the relationship of these stated needs to the student's present place of residence, his academic level, and source of financial support. A further purpose is to identify the present place of study and explore its relationship to the stu- dent's place of residence and academic level. Hypotheses I. Students at the three general levels of academic maturity (freshman, upperclass undergraduate, graduate) have a significant difference in their perceived needs for: (l) Supervision and/or control, (2) Privacy and/or quietness, (3) Freedom to associate, or manipulate the social environment, (4) Freedom to manipulate the physical environ- ment, and (5) Personal study space. Educational institutions for years have tried different groupings of classes within housing programs and although logic would seem to justify an assumption of difference due to age and experience, reports on trial arrangements have not been consistent. II. Those students who choose to live off-campus and those who choose to live on-campus have significant differences in their perceived needs for: (l) Supervision and/or control, (2) Privacy and/or quietness, (3) Freedom to associate, or to manipulate the social en- vironment, (4) Freedom to manipulate the physical environment, and (5) Personal study space. Several writers and researchers have indicated that there is a difference between those students who choose to live off-campus and those who choose to live on, but no one has really identified the difference. It can be assumed that students feel such housing will better satisfy at least some of their needs otherwise they would not have chosen to live there. III. Students, whose parents have assumed total financial responsibility for their edu- cation, favor housing that offers super- vision and control while students without parental financial support prefer housing that does not. Cy I“ ~nt§ Students paying even part of their own expenses are likely to demonstrate their emancipation by stating a preference for housing principally in private accommo- dations where they can more fully accept responsibility for their own affairs; those whose parents are covering all costs may accede to their parents' desires even when they honestly prefer independence and tend to state a preference for housing that is supervised and controlled. IV. (A) The place of study used most frequently by students is related to their academic level (freshman, upperclass undergraduate, graduate). (B) The place of study used most frequently by students is related to whether they live on-campus or off-campus. One possible difference among students may be their varying study needs and it seems reasonable to assume that if there are differences, they will be related to the student's academic level and place of residence. Overview In Chapter II pertinent literature is reviewed on three broad bases. The first is a general background in- cluding what has been seen in the part as both values and disadvantages of institutionally owned single student housing. The second consists of reviews of the most current research closely related to the present study. The third addresses literature on various theories of space and territoriality with emphasis on more recent publi- cations. A summary is given in the final section. In Chapter III the design of the current study is presented. The chapter contains a description of the sample, the questionnaire, the survey techniques used, and a statement of the hypotheses in testable form. This chapter also includes a description of the subtests generated from the basic questionnaire and a description of the statistical measures applied. Chapter IV contains the analysis of the results. The findings are tabulated, and their significance is noted. A statement on the hypotheses is included. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Much has been written over the years by experts and others on various aspects of student housing but only rarely has an integrative work such as a book been pro- duced. In fact, books on housing have averaged only about one each decade (Fairchild, 1963). As a result, the literature lacks fullness and only represents piece-meal attacks on what many people now consider a major facet of higher education. It is reasonable to assume that in some of the research and thinking student opinion has been considered, but there is little evidence that student reactions have been very often systematically sought and utilized in planning student housing. The literature refers to chang- ing residential concepts, type of existing housing facili- ties, living-learning theories, and the effects of room- mates and dormitory groupings. Even the most comprehen- sive published works, however, make no pretense of measur- ing student desires. Most of the literature reflects a change in educational philosophy, from an early one of 10 almost total separation of residence from academic pur- suits, to one in which residences play a significant role in academic success and in the total development of the individuals. The American Council on Education's Committee on Student Personnel Work in 1950 prepared one of the most comprehensive general studies (Strozier, 1950). It gave detailed consideration to the basic issues that must be dealt with if student housing is to become a more inte- grated aspect of the educational systems in colleges and universities. It did not deal with architectural or con- structional problems. Riker's Planning Functional College Housing (1956) describes the development of American college housing and provides a comprehensive view of both the theory and practice of building student housing, and shows how the two should be brought together in planning construction. In a symposium on housing in higher education, E. G. Williamson and W. M. Wise (1958) present a compre- hensive discussion of what student housing can and should do for the life of a student. The authors suggest five basic facets of student life that must be considered in any discussion of housing-—academic, economic, social, emotional, and recreational. None can be ignored in developing an adequate program. ”"”“ Another publication (Riker, 1961) describes some actual building that has taken place in recent years and 11 is replete with illustrations and floor plans, and covers many possibilities from room decorations to kitchen equip- ment. Shaffer and Foster (1965) provide a good look at changing residential concepts and make a strong case for the residential college. In these publications as in much of the rest, the emphasis appears to be on the needs of the college first and the student second, whereas better results might well be achieved by reversing the priorities. If the needs of students as people could first be met and then the school's needs overlaid on that base, the resulting whole would be more effective. Riker's monograph on College Housing as Learning Centers (1965) seems to place more emphasis than previous writings on student needs and at any rate is an excellent overview of the vital role of residence halls in the educational process. Regarding the learning and living aspects of higher education, an effective synthesis of educational and community values can be obtained but an integrated system has to be developed for that purpose (Brownell, 1959). Considering the impact of college on student and student on student it is apparent that residential life creates an educational force of its own, which works upon each student individually and all of them collectively (Thistlewaite, 1959). 12 As an extension of this kind of thinking some schools developed living-learning models, and one of the most active has been Michigan State University. Several articles have been written concerning its living-learning .. ,-.., ,. -._,__ ,. .,.v '- \19631~196§) and on at least one occasion (Olson, 1964), a survey of student opinion was used as a base. The results seemed to justify the continuance of having both classes and instructors nearby, the presence of the opposite sex, and the relaxed atmosphere appeared to be the three most significant elements in the favorable response. The im- portance of maximizing student-faculty contact has long been stressed and the role of residential centers in stimulating this contact is a very important one (Shaffer, 1959). A large portion of the literature is devoted to studies of various residential arrangements, roommate selection, characteristics of students, and academic achievement. There appears to be little consistency and Feldman and Newcomb in their substantial work The Impact of College on Students (1969) point out that the impacts from residential settings have been little studied and most differences that have been discovered can be attri- buted to the forces on self selection. In spite of this some useful information may be derived from a review of typical material. Some of the literature suggests, for instance, that grouping students 13 in the same academic area may be conducive to both academic production and satisfaction with living arrangements (DeCoster, 1966; Brown, 1968; Elton and Bate, 1966). Several writers conclude that the institution in its dormitory operations provides residents with a supportive community that off-campus students lack. Alfert (1966) made special reference in his study to drop-outs and their needs while others drew similar conclusions based on either tests (Dollar, 1966; Baker, 1966) or an overall study of student development in which residences were used as reference points (Chickering, 1967). Stern (1965) in his research showed that schools could be described or categorized on four bases: (1) student characteristics, (2) college characteristics, (3) college cultures, and (4) intellectual climate. Centra (1966) at Michigan State University found that freshmen and upperclassmen, both men and women, differed in their rating of an environment as being intellectual. Other re- searchers have concluded that while there appear to be substantial differences between on-campus and off-campus students the differences are not clearly identified (Lindahl, 1967). Some of the literature serves as a critique of selected housing types or model housing facilities. It is observed for example that the living-learning centers at Michigan State University are fulfilling their pur- poses{(Adams,ml967) and that co-educational residence halls ‘\ g -——'—- . __ -.. 14 provide great opportunity for individual growth and more efficient use of space, although not everyone would benefit from SUCh an experience (Greenleaf, 1962). One writer (Fairchild, 1963) describes how to evaluate the effective- ness of any residence hall program on the basis of physical plant, people, and their pursuits. Another author (Marshall, 1968) writes of surveying student opinion on new housing. She qualifies the usefulness of such infor- mation by stating that economics will really determine what changes if any, are made in future housing plans. Many articles are written on what is now planned for construction or has been recently built at various institutions, thus providing averages for the guidance of planners (Crane, 1962). On occasion a writer addresses the problem of con- structing the ideal dormitory and one such writer indi— cates that the ideal dormitory is most likely to be the next one rather than the one just built. He claims that there is no universal model. Each one must be carefully planned to reflect knowledge and institutional needs, as foreseen, at the time it is built (Goltz, 1967). The literature overall suggests that institutionaI residences should be planned to stimulate or at least allow each student to grow and to develop his potential. The availability of comfortable surroundings that he can call his own is important to this development. Easy 15 /fi- student-faculty and student-student contact is also im-1 2 f a , portant. The residential community should be constructed: to provide identity and foster participation in the I residential life. One point that is made in the literature is the need for diverse group involvement in the planning and execution stage. The point is repeatedly made with par- ticular reference to students themselves. However, there is no indication constructive use of students has been made to any realistic degree. Even including a repre- sentative from the behavioral sciences on the planning team is a rare event (Miller, 1968). Related Research Student opinion is only rarely solicited in determining what housing is needed, but there have been some notable exceptions. It is acknowledged that insti- tutions occasionally make informal surveys to test the student climate, but these seldom produce ideas that are implemented. Three examples of research using student responses are cited because they add significantly to the background of housing information and they will serve as reference points for the present study. 16 Student Reaction to Study Facilities-~Amherst The first study was conducted in 1959 at four Massachusetts schools and addressed the problem of study facilities and student reaction to them. This study grew out of a larger cooperative study in which the four schools involved attempted to devise a new imaginative institution to which they all would contribute. It is not aimed directly at housing but it has strong implications for one facet of it. The researchers attempted to determine "what kinds of study spaces were used by students, why they used them, and what they would prefer." ’ The sample included sophomores, juniors, and seniors of both sexes drawn from the four schools and distributed over the major divisions of study, type of residence, and preparatory school attendance. The heterogeneity of four different institutions, residences, and diversity of libraries, rules, regu- lations, etc., was deliberately sought in the hope that either contrasts would show up, or that general- izations would appear which would have high validity and wide application because they existed in such diverse conditions (Stoke, 1960). Three major sources of information were used: (1) a diary of study times and places kept by each partici- pant over a four-day period, (2) the recorded comments of the participants, and (3) a questionnaire completed by each member of the sample group. A 49 per cent response was obtained. 17 The researchers found that approximately 48 per cent of all study time was spent in student rooms. Inter- estingly they also found that proportionally more time was spent studying in the room when two people were shar- ing it than when a student had a room to himself. Although there were several who preferred to study in large active areas, the vast majority (approximately 75%) preferred small spaces where they could study alone or with one or two others. Most students also wanted to study in a place where nothing but studying was going on at the time. The study concluded that in any new dormitory there should be some special room to allow those who wished to study outside of their rooms to do so, and that the school as a whole should provide a variety of study spaces. This study seems to have been carefully constructed and reported and is one of the very few utilizing system- atically acquired student opinion as a base and providing data that can have meanings for other schools. An Environmental Analysis-- Berkeley The second study was conducted under the stimulus of the 1964-65 student protest movement at Berkeley and sponsored by the Educational Facilities Laboratories (Van Der Ryn and Silverstein, 1967). The authors, who are both in the department of architecture, constructed a 18 research design incorporating questionnaires, interviews, observations, and diary or log keeping. They gathered information from various samples of dormitory residents regarding their reactions to environments and their activi- ties. This study focused on the qualitative aspects of student-housing design. The findings are reported in seven major areas. The Institutional Syndrome is one in which personal choice is limited and group living parameters are already set; distribution and designation of space is determined by the administration but it does not necessarily coin- cide with the needs or uses of the residents; spaces are constructed to serve an ideal student but actually there may be at least four kinds of subcultures, and thus four ideal students to serve. Both Van Der Ryn (1967) and Stern (1965) identify these four groups as basically collegiate, academic, non-conformist, and vocational. Personal Environment refers to the need of indi- viduals to have a space of their own in which they can be by themselves, have their own possessions and be quiet. This study showed for instance that when allowed to do so, "94 per cent of the sample group arrange furniture completely on one side of a hypothetical line that splits the room into two equal halves." The Social Environment either aids or hinders social intercourse. Most construction assumes an ideal configuration (such as one that places two men to a room, 19 six rooms to a suite, and four suites to a corridor and lounge). It is hoped that there will be overlapping groups, but since the numbers are really arbitrary and most students belong to many groups, the chances of guess- ing an optimum arrangement is not good. Furthermore, "the size of the dormitory complex is often determined by the number of mouths required to consume the output of an efficient central kitchen." The Study Environment was found to be a major cause for moving out as stated by 67 per cent of the dis- satisfied students. Most students prefer to study in their rooms in spite of too small desks. This study also indicates that there are four levels of studying, from casual to intense, and arrangements for all cannot be expected in residence halls. The use of the residence halls for study will probably relate to what other facili- ties are available so study facilities should be studied on a campus wide basis. Meals and snacks points up the need for a variety of dining environments so that the person who wants to eat a quick meal can do so, while the casual diner can take his time and eat where he can meet others. The authors identify five different eating patterns none of which fit present facilities very satisfactorily. The Intellectual Environment defined as easy faculty-student contact needs imaginative implementation. 20 There appears to have been much discussion of the problem but very little action. In Loco Parentis includes all those rules and regulations that inhibit or restrict students' behavior. Frequently institutions have been more restrictive than parents. Perhaps most important is that dormitories have been constructed on that philosophy with restricted access, and clear definition between public and private areas. Problems develop when attitudes and life styles change and buildings cannot. In a final phase of their study the authors suggest some design proposals which demonstrate a concern for the whole community, of which the institution is only a part; and the whole institution of which housing is an obvious part, to the end that students receive the kind of housing they need. They finally even suggest that non-profit student housing cooperatives should be encouraged because the students know their own needs better than the insti- tution does. The Residence Halls Study-- Michigan State University The third study was conducted at Michigan State University in 1968 under the auspices of the Provost and was designed to consider the quality of residence hall life and the place of the residence hall system in the university. 21 Four different questionnaires were constructed covering various fields of emphasis: physical facilities, staffing, rules and regulations, and living-learning. One-fourth of the residents of each hall received one of the questionnaires so that all questionnaires were equally distributed among the resident population and each resident received one of the four. Each of the question- naires were used on approximately 4,250 residence hall students. In all a total survey population of 17,000 was used. The response to all questionnaires was approxi- mately 30 per cent for the university as a whole, however, there was considerable variation among the areas and even greater variation among the individual halls. The least return being 18 per cent and the greatest 71 per cent. The findings as presented in the committee report are general in nature and usually refer to majorities or minorities rather than to specific percentages. They do report specifically, however, that more than 72 per cent of the respondents study in their rooms. On occasion characteristics appear to be attributed to the entire pOpulation that more clearly refer to the respondents. The report is not always clear in whether its references are to student questionnaire response or opinions of staff or individual students. Comments are made about the respondents as a whole, so they are much 22 more meaningful than conclusions about smaller groupings of the respondents would be. The findings showed that students are satisfied with much of the physical facilities, but want more in the way of quiet study space, freedom to manipulate their own rooms, and a higher degree of privacy. In the regulations part of the report the committee concluded that "when personal relationships are good they are the best thing that happens in the living experience at college. When they are had, their badness is seen as the one thing most to be condemned.“ There was in general a favorable reaction to living- learning centers as they are evolving at Michigan State Uni- versity and the students felt that they should be continued with increasing emphasis on personal relations. These three studies have been reviewed because they are some of the best and most recent research related to housing. They also are three of the very few systema- tized efforts made to gather and use student housing opinion. Space and Territoriality The concept of personal space and/or territoriality has been known to students of animal behavior for many years but only recently has there been an attempt to apply the concept to human behavior. Two writers have been par- ticularly active in synthesizing and contributing work in 23 this area. Edward T. Hall's work with the concept of what he calls "proxemics" or man's use of space observed from an anthropologist's point of view provides many useful insights. Robert Sommer as a psychologist has conducted a great deal of research on individual and group use of space and reaction to it and has very recently published a book that has many implications for college housing. A look at the ideas of these two men supported by the works of others may provide some insight into the baffling, inconsistent reactions of students to past efforts to provide them with adequate housing. Even though institutional representatives spend hours in consultation with architects to plan new construction, the results frequently do not seem to satisfy the student tenants. Proxemics Hall works from a biological base to depict how man INN: only interprets what he sees but also only per- ceives that which his system is trained to perceive. For instance cultural differences allow the Japanese to accept paper walls as acoustic screens while the Germans require thick walls and doors. Hall expands on the work of Carpenter (1958) and others and applies the concepts of territoriality to the human realm. Unlike Ardrey (1966) he feels that while territoriality has a biological base and reaction is chiefly on the subconscious level its stimuli, expressions, 24 and manifestations are culturally determined. He draws lessons from the rat experiments of Calhoun (1962) to demonstrate that some kind of social organization is neces- sary, but that the particular organization will depend on many variables. He explores the human perceptors of space (eyes, ears, nose, skin, and muscle) and describes how each has evolved to receive and interpret stimuli in accordance with cultural patterning. Hall shows that space is determined by all the senses so that it is possible to talk about visual and auditory space, affactory space, thermal space, and tactile space. Hall (1963) coins the word proxemics and defines it as the interrelated observations and theories of man's use of space. In developing his system he speaks of be- havior on three levels: infra-cultural, that which is rooted in man's biological past and is on a lower organi- zational level underlining culture; the pre-cultural or sensory base which is physiological and very much in the present; and finally the micro-cultural level where most proxemic observations are made. Translating behavior from one level to another is important but it is also very difficult. As Hall demonstrates in his book The Silent Languagg (1959), it is virtually impossible to examine with precision some- thing occurring on two levels simultaneously. He uses the example of a child being reprimanded by his mother, 25 who in the middle of her tyrade says, "Gee mommy your lips move funny when you're mad." Speechlessness at such a time is a normal reaction. It is obvious that man as well as all other organisms is redundantly programmed and depends on receiving information from one system to back up infor- mation received from another. Hall's study model of proxemics is further refined into three aspects: fixed- feature, semi-fixed feature, and informal space. He refers to fixed-feature space or territory as that which is usually well defined by a fence or wall or lot line or designation such as "bedroom"; semi-fixed- feature space as that established by the placing of furni- ture for example; and informal space as that immediately significant for the individual, but generally out of aware- ness even though it has distinct patterns. It is informal space that holds perhaps greatest significance for planners and may at the same time be the biggest obstacle to satisfactory design. The general failure to grasp the significance of the many elements that contribute to man's sense of space may be due to two mistaken notions: (1) that for every effect there is a single and identifiable cause; and (2) that man's boundary begins and ends with his skin. If we can rid ourselves of the need for a single explanation, and if we can think of man as surrounded by a series of expanding and contracting fields which provide information of many kinds, we shall begin to see him in an entirely different light (Hall, 1966). With this thought in mind it is possible to conceive of each person having, in addition to the many common types of personalities such as introvert and extrovert, a number 26 of learned situational personalities such as those associ- ated with intimate, social, or business transactions. Hall includes as part of his proxemic system for classifying behavior four action distances, each one having a close and far phase, and all based on the hypothesis that: It is the nature of animals, including man, to exhibit behavior which we call territoriality. In so doing, they use the senses to distinguish between one space or distance and another. The specific distance chosen depends on the transaction; the relationship of the interacting individuals, how they feel, and what they are doing. The four-part classification system used here is based on observations of both animals and men (Hall, 1966). In evaluating architecture or the structures de- signed for people, it is important to look at them as if man were surrounded by a series of invisible bubbles which have measurable dimensions. It is possible for people to be cramped by the spaces in which they live and work and also forced into behavior, relationships, or emotional outlets that will be overly stressful. "One of mans most critical needs appears to be principles for designing spaces that will maintain a healthy density, a healthy interaction rate, a proper amount of involvement and a continuing sense of ethnic (and personal) identification" (Hall, 1966). Hall is referring to cities but with the addition of "personal identification" it is equally applicable to residence halls planning. 27 Personal Space In the preface to his book Sommer (1969) says the term "personal space" has two usages: one refers to the emotionally charged zone around each person and the other refers to the processes by which people mark out and personalize the spaces they occupy. He points out that territoriality is valuable from a social organization point of View, since it allows members of the society to locate themselves in it in the absence of some dominance or social status criteria. He makes frequent references to the four types of territory distinguished by Lyman and Scott (1967). Public territories such as parks and lounges which provide free access. Home territories which are public areas taken over by groups or individuals. Interactional territories where social gatherings may occur (these have clearly marked boundaries and rules of access). Body territories which are most private and inviolate and belong to the individual. They also distinguish three types of en- croachment: violation (unwarranted use of the territory), invasion (the physical presence of an intruder), and contamination (rendering an area impure in respect to its designation). The differentiation in type of space and encroachment are important because they require or elicit various degrees and types of responses. 28 Sommer conducted some interesting experiments in libraries, on invasions of personal space from which he concluded that individual distances vary somewhat among individuals but follow a general pattern. He also con- cluded that an important consideration in determining whether or not an invasion had actually occurred depended on the parties perceiving one another as persons. In the animal kingdom invasions apparently require that the in- vader be of the same species, intrusion by members of other species may be ignored. Sommer's work in a hospital ward, where he re- arranged chairs and observed the patient's reactions, pro- vide some insight into the possibilities inherent in territorial behavior. Patients who failed to respond to most other stimuli responded to territorial intrusions. Sommer (1968) found in his research that some of the best places to escape from people are out of doors. There is little reason that places outside cannot be developed with some visual screening and comfortable seating, perhaps even tables high enough to write on, with clips for papers. Such spaces would probably not be used for research or hard study but there seems to be little doubt that they would be used for study. He also found that asking people what they want in the way of an environment helps overcome institutional alienation and depersonalization even when their desires could not be carried out. 29 In reference to college housing Sommer's research revealed that only a small amount of studying took place at the student's desk. In a separate study on the subject he found that whether a person studies most on the bed or at the desk had no appreciable affect on his grade point average (Gifford and Sommer, 1968). He concluded that college housing must reflect the fact that different sorts of students have different sorts of needs. The same facilities will not satisfy the intro- verts and the extroverts or the loners or the group studiers. There is no optimal study environment for all students. On the other hand the research indicates that when students encounter inadequate facilities, grades do not necessarily go down. The students search out other places causing misuse and sometimes overuse of other facilities. Another chief concern in dormitories is improved privacy. This too can mean many things to many people and range all the way from absolute freedom from noise and disturbance to merely being ignored in a crowded area. There are two basic ways in which student housing needs can be met, one is by building in flexibility and the other is by providing variety. In a changing world it seems reasonable to establish variety and flexibility as important goals in a build- ing program. I do not propose substituting them for harmony, unity, balance, rhythm, excitement, or the other traditional design values. Both variety and flexibility inherently increase the range of individual choice. A necessary corollary of these two values is 30 that we must establish institutional arrangements-- rules, procedures, and personnel practices-~that enable individuals to eXploit the variety and possibilities for flexibility in their environment. By variety I mean a multiplicity of settings and spaces a person can select to suit his individual needs. . . . The same principle can be applied to other design elements; rather than installing benches of one kind or size in parks and recreation areas, it is preferable to vary one's purchases and arrangements. Flexibility is expressed in such terms as multipurpose, multiuse, and convertible spaces. With rapidly changing technology and the inability to predict institutional practices even five years ahead, its importance seems obvious. It is closely tied in with personalization since it permits a man to adapt a setting to his unique needs. If people say they like something or show by their behavior that they prefer it, this should be a value fed into the design process even though it cannot be proven that this makes a difference on a profit-and- 1055 statement or an academic record (Sommer, 1969). It is apparent that some aspects of student life have not been receiving the attention that their signifi- cance to students would warrant. Knowledge of the presence of these aspects has not been unknown, however. At least as early as 1948 it was understood that there were three groups of human criteria necessary to proper understanding of space--functiona1, sensory, and psycho- logical. The study of functional space was well under— stood but measuring perceptual or psychological space was found to be very difficult (Smith, 1948). Even some very recent studies have been unable to empirically identify territorial action or show its re- lationship to any other variables. Workers in residences, however, have subjectively distinguished territorial be- havior and have observed apparent relationships (Eigenbrod, 1969). 31 The importance of these other dimensions in addition to physical comfort is highlighted by the work of Fried and Gliecher (1961) in studying urban slums. They concluded that there was a high degree of residential satisfaction present in many areas and a chief element in this was the ability of the people to identify themselves as belonging somewhere. The significant space for them was not limited to the apartment or house but included such things as the shared street and stairways. It was further defined by meaningful relationships. It seems obvious that as Sommer has said all people are builders, creators, molders, and shapers of the en- vironment; and that what man is and wants is really the best yardstick for measuring success. Summary of the Literature The literature on housing is singular in that there have been very few books published and relatively few other publications that could serve in an integrative capacity. The general literature describes existing facilities or programs, refers to concepts of desirable housing arrangements and the way they have changed over the years, or eXplores and describes a particular facet of housing. A considerable number of references have been made to living and learning centers as viable answers to many student problems. 32 Although Feldman and Newcomb feel that most differ- ences that have been discovered cannot be attributed to differences in housing there does seem to be some agreement within the literature. Several writers feel that satisfy- ing housing will prevail when there is an atmosphere in which the individuals feel free of undue restrictions both socially and psychologically and one in which there is also a degree of academic stimulation. Some also feel that providing comfortable surroundings for the individuals to the extent that they enjoy being there will produce satisfactory housing. Some others feel that there is a need for small or carefully constructed groups devised in such a way that all students can identify with at least one. .”1 T'N‘In spite of the repeated statement by many writers that students should be involved in the planning of future housing most direction is given by administrators who decide apriori what students need or want. Only rarely has anyone indicated that students or someone representing them has been constructively involved in planning. There have been a few instances of research, how- ever, where student opinion or ratings or behavior has been the vital characteristic. At Amherst in 1960 researchers investigating student study facilities found that in general students preferred their own small place of study. They reported their 33 findings emphatically. The need for the development of individual study spaces in dormitories and libraries has been strongly supported by this report ever since. A study at Michigan State University in 1968, on the other hand, attempted to look at residence hall life in its many aspects and perhaps because of that lost some of its impact. The findings were not precisely reported, but they were generated from a base of approximately 5,000 students. In general,[the students gave a high priority to quiet study space, privacy, and freedom to manipulate w. their own rooms. I l- g-..- A composite study at Berkeley not only produced some new information, but more importantly, according to the authors, substantiated or documented some of the avail- able knowledge of students such as[:study habits, need for privacy, and feelings about the impersonality of w. I institutional housing. I I '4'"; Since clear answers to what student housing should be, cannot be derived from literature aimed directly at the student housing industry, literature in the area of space and its effects on people was also reviewed. The works of two people provided the basic material, Edward T. Hall an anthropologist, and Robert Sommer a psychologist. Hall expounds a theory of "proxemics" which he explains as "the interrelated observations and theories of man's use of space." His chief concern is in developing 34 a system that will help organize and make useful the knowledge of how man behaves. He feels that if people can go beyond the idea that each affect has a single cause and that man's boundaries begin and end with his skin some real understanding of man's sense of space may develop. Hall uses his knowledge of biology and his study of several foreign countries and their cultures to illustrate his points. Sommer, using some of the same basic ideas, but using examples and research on people who presumably share the same broad American cultural base, shows how people use and react to space. He also shows how they establish and defend boundaries. He stresses that there is no optimal study space and there is no optimal housing space. There seem to be two basic ways in which diverse student housing needs can be met. One is by building a maximum amount of flexibility into any structure designed to house students. The other is in building a variety of housing spaces so that there can be a choice. CHAPTER III METHOD OF THE STUDY The perceptions of housing characteristics held by male students at the University of Virginia were surveyed during the academic year 1968-69 to determine whether or not a pattern of perceptions existed. Housing policy im- posed some limitations on the study in that all freshman students were required to live on campus and the three major class groups of freshman, upperclass, and graduate students were housed separately. Sample A 10 per cent random sample of the single non-first year students (both graduate and undergraduate) attending the University of Virginia at Charlottesville during the fall semester 1968-69, and a 10 per cent random sample of the single first year (freshman) students attending during the spring semester 1968-69, served as the base group. The freshman sample was surveyed during the second semester so that they would have at least one semester in residence. At the time of the survey female students were not admitted to the University as freshmen so none were included 35 36 in that sample. They were drawn with the upperclass and graduate sample but since they were so few in number they were omitted from the study. The Registrar's report showed 5,470 non-first year (freshman) students in the fall semester 1968-69 so the initial group contained 547. The Registrar likewise indi- cated 1,428 freshmen so 143 students were included in that sample. Since married students were excluded from the initial sample group, whenever one was drawn the name was discarded and a new name (using the next random number) was selected. The sample group included male, freshman, upper- class-undergraduate, and graduate students and those living off-campus as well as those living on. It was assumed that because of the controlled random sampling technique the sample was representative. Furthermore since the student body was 45 per cent out of state and approximately 40 per cent out of the region, generalizations may not have to be completely limited to the University of Virginia popu- lation. Ninety-three per cent of the upperclass/graduate group (a total of 423 men) and 92 per cent of the freshman group (a total of 132 men) responded. The total response to the survey was 555 out of 600, or 92.5 per cent. 37 Instrument A questionnaire (Appendix A) was constructed con- taining information that both administrators and students felt to be important in considering desirable housing. It was pre-tested on a small group of students (23 members of student council) who were asked to make any comments or criticisms they wished in addition to filling out the questionnaire. The questionnaire contained eighty-seven items, one-third of which were basically demographic in nature, and two-thirds were items calling for ratings on a five position scale. The questions ranged from those concern- ing physical requirements to those concerning desired social or living arrangements. The questionnaire was designed to give a broad View of students, and their desires and opinions regarding housing. For the purposes of this study only certain areas of the questionnaire were used (Appendix B). Procedure Each questionnaire was given an identifying number so that a follow-up would be possible. A packet was made up for each person in the sample groups. Each packet consisted of a questionnaire, a personally addressed letter (Appendix C) (each one signed by the Director of Housing), and a stamped return envelope. Each person was asked to respond within ten days. A 38 follow-up card was sent out to those who had not responded by that time. The members of the upperclass undergraduate and graduate group were initially contacted by mail and a final telephone contact was made with those who did not respond to the post card follow-up. The members of the freshman group (since they all lived in dormitories) were handed their packet by the counselor for their area. This man also made a final con- tact with those who did not respond to the post card re- minder. Hypotheses The hypotheses to be tested were restated in the null form. Hypothesis I. Students at the three general levels of academic maturity have no significant difference in their perceived need for supervision and/or control. Hypothesis II. Students at the three general levels of academic maturity have no significant difference in their perceived need for privacy and quietness. Hypothesis III. Students at the three general levels of academic maturity have no significant differences in their perceived need for freedom to manipulate the social environment. 39 Hypothesis IV. Students at the three general levels of academic maturity have no significant differences in their perceived need for freedom to manipulate the physical environment. Hypothesis V. Students at the three general levels of academic maturity have no significant difference in their perceived need for personal study space. Hypothesis VI. Students who choose to live off- campus and those who choose to live on-campus have no significant differences in their perceived need for supervision and control. Hypothesis VII. Students who choose to live off- campus and those who choose to live on-campus have no significant difference in their perceived need for privacy and/or quietness. Hypothesis VIII. Students who choose to live off- campus and those who choose to live on-campus have no significant differences in their perceived need for freedom to manipulate the social environment. Hypothesis IX. Students who choose to live off- campus and those who choose to live on-campus have no significant differences in their perceived need for freedom to manipulate the physical environment. 40 Hypothesis X. Students who choose to live off- campus and those who choose to live on-campus have no significant differences in their perceived need for personal study space. Hypothesis XI. Students whose parents have assumed total financial responsibility for their education and those students without parental financial support show no difference in their preference for supervision or control. Hypothesis XII. The places of study used most fre- quently by graduate, upperclass, and freshman stu- dents are not significantly different. Hypothesis XIII. The place of study used most frequently by students living on-campus is not significantly different from the places used most frequently by students living off-campus. Definition of Student Needs The five student needs that served as the princi- pal variables were operationally defined as the ratings given to selected questionnaire items consolidated into five groups (Appendix B). These were an expression of the importance the individual assigned to various facets of a housing environment. 41 Supervision and/or control.--A rating of the need for controls instituted by either the institution or stu- dents. Privacy and/or quietness.--Ratings on privacy, single rooms, private baths and entrances and living with a few close friends. Freedom to manipulate the social environment.--A scale of the importance assigned to freedom to entertain the opposite sex and separate housing for men, women, schools, and classes. Freedom to manipulate the physical environment.--A rating of movable furniture, permission for refrigerators, television, and telephones, freedom to decorate own space, and easy access to meals. Personal study space.--A rating of the importance of providing for study in student rooms, and the provision of quiet study rooms. Analyses The scores were weighted so that the lower score indicated the more emphatic response and they were grouped under the five categories indicated. The grouped re- sponses were converted to standard scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 10. A repeated measures analysis of variance routine was used to test overall differences under each hypothesis. When significant differ- ences were shown to exist within the group a one-way 42 analysis of variance was used to produce F ratios for the sub-groups. When the F ratio was significant and the sub- group contained more than two variables a Scheffe post hoc comparison was made to determine significance. The university's computer was used in analyzing the data. CHAPTER IV RESULTS The chief result of this study was the identifi~ cation of some differences in perceived needs among various groupings of students. Several of the differences were found to be statistically significant at the .05 level, the level at which the hypotheses were to be accepted or re- jected. Five Student Needs As indicated in the method section student per- ception data were grouped to form five variables which were referred to as Five Student Needs. These were cross correlated and the results are shown in Table 1. The very low correlation coefficients indicate that the Five Student Needs are only slightly related. They thus appear to be describing different factors. The high— est correlation (.32) exists between Privacy and Freedom to Manipulate the Physical Environment both of which have a physical characteristic base. Note: It must be borne in mind in interpreting the data on the Five Student Needs that low standard scores indicate strength and that high scores indicate proportion- ally less strength. 43 44 oo.a ma.o v0.0: mm.o mm.o mommm mosum Hmcomumm m msouw oo.a mm.o mm.o No.0 ucmEcoufl>cm Hmo lawman mumasmflcmz OD Eocmmnm v msouw oo.H mo.o oa.ot ucmficoufl>cm amaoom mamasmficmz o» Eocmmnm m msouw oo.a ma.o mmmcumflso can >0m>fium m moonw oo.a Houucoo can cofimfl>nmmsm a moonu m v m N H moouw macaw QDOHO macaw msouw .mpwmz ucmpsum m>flm so magma coflumawuuoo mmOHUII.H mqmde 45 A review of Table 2 shows that while graduate stu- dents feel less strongly about the need for Supervision and much more strongly about the need for Privacy than the upperclass and freshman students, there is no statistically significant difference (at the .05 level) among the groups on those items, or on the perceived need for Personal Study Space either. The F ratios in Table 2 clearly show that signifi- cant differences beyond the .01 level do exist within two of the groups. Applying the Scheffe method of post hoc comparison revealed that there was a significant difference between the freshmen and both graduate and upperclass stu-_ dents in their perceived needs for Freedom to Manipulate the Social Environment. There was not a significant differ- ence between the graduate students and the upperclassmen. The freshmen felt very strongly that they should have such freedom. Regarding Freedom to Manipulate the Physical En— vironment, use of the Scheffe test again revealed that while freshmen scored strongest on this item also, they were not significantly different from the upperclass stu- dents. Both freshmen and upperclass students, however, scored significantly stronger than the graduate students. Figure l graphically shows these relationships. The data presented in Figure 2 and Table 3 derive from upperclass and graduate students only. Freshmen at this institution were required to live on-campus. They .Hm>mH Ho. um unmoamaamam.. 46 mm.a «avo.m mmmaoummmbtcmficmmum «smm.v asHH.m CMESmOHhIODMDGMHU «aoo.m no.0 mumocmuwtmmmaoummmb "mCOmflummEoo mmmmnom mm.o «amm.m aemn.v Hm.m wo.m oflumm m Aa.oav Ao.mv Am.oav Am.oav Am.oav AcoHDMH>mo cumocmumv Hm.mm mn.moa mh.ooa Ha.mm mm.aoa omanz mumspmuw Am.oav Aa.oav Aa.oav Ao.oav Am.mv AQOAUMH>mo pumocmumv sm.mm ms.mm Ha.ooa as.ooa as.am Homuz mmmHonmamo 3.3 C.$ 3.3 :.3 8.03 30313.59 oumosmumv wm.ooa wa.mm 50.nm mn.ooa vs.mm NmHuz cmfinmmnm Hmoamsnm Hmaoom mommm hosum mmmcumflso Houucou w HMGOmHmm ucmficoufi>cm a mom>flnm cofimfl>nmmsm onwasmflcmz 0D Eoommnm m w m N a .AWOHOOm UHMUGM#m CMOEV HO>OH UHEOUMUM USN mUOOZ #fimfififlm 0>HWII.N HAQANH. 47 .._m>m._ 022mo03hm -Zom_>zm -Zom .>zm 4420mmwa 41m JSOOm >04). mm ZO.m.>mmn5m _ _ a _ a ll ’ \ wh 4420mm?“ 4xn .._<_oom >o<>_md -mmanm _ L _ n L maazao zoL 2321qu or. \0253621 .\ 3.123 201 \ / o ( J maazau to .1 1 mm mdm mm 0mm 00. 000. _O_ n. _ O. NO. ”NO. no. who. «.0. 838008 GHVGNVIS NVBW 49 .Hm>ma Ho. um ucmoHMflcmHmea .Hw>ma mo. gm undefimwcmflma mo.N «om.v «snm.ma smm.v hv.H Oflgmm m Ao.oav Am.mv Ao.mv Am.mv Am.oHV Acoflumw>wa onmocmpmv nm.ooa mm.mm mm.mm wo.mm nv.ooa mmmuz momEmotmmo Aa.mv Am.oav AB.HHV An.oav Am.mv AcoHDMH>mQ oumocmuwv om.mm mo.moa om.moa om.aoa ma.mm mmauz madamulco Hmoammnm anacom mommm mosum mmmsumflso Houpcoo w Hmcomumm unmacoufl>cm a mom>wum cowmfl>ummom mamasmwcmz cu Socmmum m v m m H .AODMSUMHm cam mmmaonomms mo monoom ounccmvm dodgy mocmcwmmn no woman can mommz ucmpsum m>AMII.m mqm.... 02d. .EOnEDm 1.4.0242... HO momDOm .m Maseru. 51 moEm Ems. Ems. 52m .2852”. .2955 ._mmaam mm _ _ — d _ I. ndm I 8 kmoanbw l mam Japzumqa .II .II.’ I] . II 56.3.8 oo. .1. 43mm: . I .0. I. So. I. NC. SBHOOS GENO NVlS NVEW 52 mm.mm mm.ooa mo.ooa mm.mm mm.ooa mmmnz uuommsm Hmucmumm oz mm.ooa mm.mm mm.mm va.ooa mm.mm vmmnz uuommsm amucmumm Hmoammgm Hmsoom mommm aosum mmwcumflso Houpcoo a HMCOmHmm ucmficouw>cm a mom>flum coflmfl>ummsm mumasmwcmz on Eoomoum m w m N a .Ammuoom oumccmum coma. uuommom Hoaocmcam mo condom can mommz pampsum m>HMII.v mamma 53 vmhm mo.mommnm Hmuoa om.sm somm mm.mommma mmsouounsm owummmmm mmh.o nm.mm v nm.mom mmsouw pmummmmm v monommwz owummmmm mm.mma Hmm ao.smmmm mmsouounnm moo.o a~.H H am.H mmsouo oaumflumum mumswm Eocmmum mmumsvm mocmflum> m com: mo mmmummo mo Esm mo condom .uuommsm Hmflocmcflm mo moHSOm can mommz uncoopm m>Hm How manna mocmwum> mo mammamcfill.m mqmda 54 Place of Study The data on Place of Study differs from that on the Five Student Needs in that it is reported in terms of mean percentage of study time rather than standard scores, therefore the larger figure represents the stronger re- sponse. From the data presented in Table 6 and Figure 4 it can be seen that freshmen spent approximately 60 per cent, upperclassmen approximately 50 per cent, and graduates approximately 40 per cent of their study time in their own rooms. Just the reverse order held for the library with freshmen spending approximately 8 per cent, upperclassmen spending 15 per cent, and graduates spending 30 per cent of their study time there. The low percentage shown for freshman study time in the living room may be partially explained by the lack of such spaces in freshman residences and a decision early in the study to incorporate the time spent in main lounges in the Other category. The F ratios and the Scheffe post hoc comparisons indicate that all the differences noted are significant at much less than the .01 level. In an additional analysis limited to just the on- campus group (Table 7) it was found that significance differences between academic levels in the use of the living room as study space disappeared. The use of the library remained virtually unchanged from that of the whole group, but the use of student rooms shifted somewhat. 55 .Hm>mH Ho. um ucm0fimacmflmee .«mm.m .«ms.o .«oa.sa ..mm.s mmmaoummmancmsnmmum «ama.m «aov.am «emm.h aamm.om cmecmmnmlmumoomuw aaoo.va aawo.va «enm.m «emo.va muospmnwtmmmaoummmo “mnemflummfiou mummnom ssmm.ma «smm.mm «sva.ma sewH.NH Oflumm h .v.om. .m.mm. .o.mm. .m.mm. .coHDMH>mQ pumocmum. mm.na mv.mm NN.NH mm.mm omauz mumscmnw .m.am. .o.mm. .m.mm. .m.vm. Acofluofl>ma onmocmum. oh.ma m>.va mm.ma H5.mm Homnz mmmHoummmD .N.om. .m.mav .m.ma. .v.mm. AQOHDmH>wa ounccmum. on.mm mo.m mm.v om.om mmauz cmficmmum Hmnuo mumunflq 800m mcw>flq Eoom CBC .Amfiwu hosum mo mmmucmoumm Gooey Hw>oa oaemcmom can hosum mo monamlt.m mqmde 56 4m>m.. 0.560404 QZ< >095 “.0 mo_._ 230 . _ . _ IL I (34845 I x. ,. 4 ($305.52 242.18.: I 0. ON on 0.» On 00 Oh 3W|l A0018 :IO lNI-IOHBcI NVBW 57 .Hm>ma Ho. um pancamacmwmaa ..~s.ma t.ma.~ .«sm.m mmmaoummmoucmsnmmum ««mo.ma aamn.am a«mm.HH cmenmmnmtwumscmuo mm.o «amo.ma a«mm.ma mumscmumlmmmaoummmo "mCOmHHmmEou mummnom *«mv.m aamv.ma mo.a «*Hm.v oflpmm m .m.vm. .H.Hm. .m.mH. .n.vm. .cofiu6fi>oo oumocmum. ~o.mH om.mm mm.n mm.me omauz muwopmuw .v.om. .n.mH. .o.ma. .m.am. .cOHp6H>mQ oumocmum. mm.ma m>.oa mv.m vm.nw Homuz mmmHoummmD .~.om. .m.ma. .m.~a. .v.mm. .coaumw>mo oumcsmum. o>.mm mo.m mm.v om.om mmauz cmanmmum umzuo muounflq Eoom mcfl>flq Eoom :30 .AoEHu monum mo mmmucmoumm some. Hm>ma OHEmomom can “nomenclco. monum mo oomamlt.h Manda 58 Analysis of the whole group showed freshmen using their rooms the most (60%), and graduates the least (40%). Analysis of the on-campus group alone showed upperclassmen making the most use of their rooms as study space (67%) and graduates still the least but with a higher percentage (49%). Table 8 and Figure 5 show that there are signifi— cant differences in the place of study for those living off-campus and those living on. Sixty per cent of the study time on-campus was spent by students in their own room and only 45 per cent was spent there by off-campus dwellers. The amount of study time spent in living rooms and the library was much less for the on-campus students than it was for those who lived off-campus. Once again in all cases significant differences were found at well below the .01 level. Statement of Hypotheses The statistical analysis of the data provides the basis for the following conclusions regarding the hy- potheses: Hypothesis I. Students at the three general levels of academic maturity have no significant difference in their perceived need for supervision and/or control. Failed to reject. 59 .Hm>mH no. em ucmoamacmamt. «sam.m semh.m «smm.mv ssmm.mm Oflumm m .m.mm. .N.nm. .H.om. .m.mm. .coHu6H>mQ pumpCMDm. Hw.va mm.ma mm.om mm.vv mmmuz msmEMOImmo .m.nm. .N.mm. ~m.ma. .o.mm. NCOHDMH>0Q oumocmum. «0.0m mm.ma we.m mm.om ommuz msmEMOtco nmzuo mumunflq Eoom mcfl>flq Boom :30 .Awfiwu mooum mo mmmucooumm some. mocmcflmmu mo momam can mosum mo momamtl.m mqmde 60 mozwo.mmm no m04...n. 024 >095 v.0 w04..d .m mmDQE zoom zoom mthO >m