__ . .- ' r h -.;.'\.-.g:.. . 1“" v v “(a "I{ ~ I “ éfVfi$mfi . \ "| “'2 4::( “{ "' L 1:?“ ‘I: ll}. .1. a y \”%.,{‘}: ""‘9. {13" ‘ .. ‘ I I My? .J“ ‘ .II ”Jv. . 7.3.35“. WW :éir-l‘ , WTrégfiwfipl 93.. 3%}; g. 0". ‘ i A)». ,_‘_ - -zfi','._?} .~_ .(l:% ’9 '2 .9 5‘3 z. ' P4£§y "1“ ufifi‘: - V A % ' Y‘ A. ‘ l 1 A. ‘ ‘ - . x» 1» -.: r- \ ‘ 0.7.. A ': “1:2? j‘ 4’ WE - . W6! ' f ‘ 'H. a . , p ‘15. n a v0 - l ' x V w” . I" l . . ‘- : - 5‘, .V. *1‘ \ . ‘ . ' .. . . . i . "". 'r 1%. v-c. < ‘ 3" ‘ _ ‘ 27 -_ ‘Yv. u a v ‘ }\‘ '. '- ")v_,1 'J .‘ ’l‘ . JV‘" . . I n ‘ . .fi 1 ' ‘ I. I ' . . ' -‘ u ‘ ,‘ ‘ I A ‘ n n I.” p u“{‘:-, 1 ”Vt" A $9 ’0'," \ ‘F “ ‘1‘ & e - , .»~ 1” -. ,. . .. '. + 39* § ‘ -. L ' ‘ “Cd! " "n ’ ' A " ”3g: ‘ .. I: ' ' , H '.' ’ ‘ H "' " t h ‘ .1 g. . ‘ . ' ‘ - 1 r' . ' - A w‘<'4>o‘- fiv- . . . H. "4-H A c, ' -. . ‘ '. ‘ v1 “ \. , . ' .. ‘ I." ‘0" ‘n . . I F I 3‘ "-":‘\C‘. u ‘ .p u‘ v. " ’. . .___.| H -. .. ‘. ‘7. ..“ . ., I" ‘ I‘w‘n’ -n ‘~|4.|. ‘ . v ' ' , . ‘ , .'.‘ ‘ l‘ - ' ‘ . . \"l .\ ‘- . . ' ‘ . ‘ . H A: A '. " 7' . .' . ‘ h. k... .' a ‘. -.~ . ‘_~.,- ~ - , -- :3“. PM“: ‘ , | r4. 1:63.; ._ ‘: .3'."fffl"y «4'3 it“ “nu ! ’g‘. " "1qu|’ 0 4 , .I I "rt ohm ‘0 I 'J . ,9 ‘;-'| ‘| '11:.1' Luv" ;‘ mm..uwa ~' .5 rxw' A. wrumnwu Ullllllcllfllllllllfll N HI L 1293 63 4058 THEE! This is to certify that the thesis entitled STUDENT, FACULTY, AND ADMINISTRATOR PERCEPTIONS OF THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROGRAM IN A PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL presented by Michael Evan Pittenger has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in Department of Administration and Higher Education .- w _ / J{gA/{W~xxmm /.."~v\/"\_ Major professor Date October 12, 1978 OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY PER ITEM Return to book drop to remove this checkout from your record. © 1978 MICHAEL EVAN P ITTENGER ALL RI GH‘I'S RESERVED STUDENT, FACULTY, AND ADMINISTRATOR PERCEPTIONS OF THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROGRAM IN A PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL BY Michael Evan Pittenger A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1978 ABSTRACT STUDENT, FACULTY, AND ADMINISTRATOR PERCEPTIONS OF THE STUDENT AFFAIRS PROGRAM IN A PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL BY Michael Evan Pittenger Student, faculty, and administrator perceptions of the Student Affairs program at the San Diego campus of the California School of Professional Psychology (CSPP-SD) were obtained through the use of the Student Affairs Questionnaire, developed by the writer. In Part I of this questionnaire respondents were asked to rate the necessity for and the effectiveness of twenty—six Student Affairs services and responsibilities. In Part II of this questionnaire respondents were asked seventy-eight ques- tions about the organizational climate at the CSPP-SD campus. The specific questions to be investigated were: 1. To what extent is the Student Affairs program perceived by students, faculty, and administrators as being necessary to the total educational program at CSPP-SD? Michael Evan Pittenger To what extent is the Student Affairs program per- ceived by students, faculty, and administrators as being effective as it is currently provided at CSPP-SD? Do students in the CSPP-SD community differ in their perceptions of the effectiveness of the Stu- dent Affairs program according to sex, number of years in the program, ethnic background, or in— volvement with campus governance or institutional affairs? Do faculty differ in their perceptions of the necessity or effectiveness of the Student Affairs program according to the extent of their contrac- tual relationship (Core versus Contract) to CSPP- SD? Are there differences in perceptions held by stu- dents, faculty, and administrators about the organizational climate at CSPP-SD? Is the organizational climate at CSPP-SD perceived differently by students according to length of time in the program, ethnic background, or level of involvement with governance or institutional affairs? Does there appear to be a relationship between student, faculty, or administrator perceptions of the Student Affairs program and their perceptions of the organizational climate at CSPP-SD? Michael Evan Pittenger Fourteen hypotheses were developed from these questions. The questionnaire was then tested, distributed to all students, faculty, and administrators, and returned by 66 percent of the sample. Analysis of variance, 3 tests, and Pearson product- moment correlations were used to analyze the data obtained from the questionnaires. Results demonstrated that stu- dents, faculty, and administrators all perceived the Stu- dent Affairs program as being necessary. Faculty and administrators perceived the program to be significantly more effective than did students. Among students grouped according to sex, number of years in the program, ethnic background, and level of involvement in governance or institutional affairs, no significant differences were found with respect to perceptions of effectiveness. Core Faculty and Contract Instructors also did not vary in their perceptions of effectiveness. With respect to the organizational climate, admin- istrators perceived it to be significantly more effective (at Likert's System III) than did students or faculty (who perceived the climate to be at Likert's System II). When the same student and faculty groupings mentioned above were compared as to the effectiveness of the organi- zational climate, again no significant differences were found. The correlation between respondents' perceptions of the effectiveness of the Student Affairs program and Michael Evan Pittenger the effectiveness of the organizational climate were sig- nificant for both the student and the faculty groups. It was concluded that the Student Affairs program is necessary to this professional school training program. Further, this Student Affairs program was found to be functioning at a level of effectiveness that suggested that some improvements could be made. Misinformation and lack of information were two specific problems that were discovered. It was also demonstrated that the extent to which the Student Affairs program is viewed as effective is related to the effectiveness of the organizational climate. Therefore, the effectiveness of the Student Affairs program and the campus's organizational climate must be improved concurrently. It was proposed that sub- stantial changes in organizational structure and adminis- trative commitment would be needed to bring about the needed improvements in effectiveness. This dissertation is dedicated to Bette, whose friendship and understanding have always been so valuable to me. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker, chairman of my doctoral committee, has contributed greatly to this dissertation. He helped me to crystalize the real nature of this study and the goals of clarity and directness toward which I needed to strive. Dr. Frederick Ignatovich and Dr. John Suehr gave me important advice and guidance, both as teachers and as members of my doctoral committee, throughout my graduate program. I appreciated Fred's critical insights about the methods and quality of my research and John's thoughtful perspectives on the nature of people and education. They have both made significant contributions to my education. Dr. Joseph Woelfel's participation as a member of my doctoral committee and as a teacher has also been appreciated. Dr. Rensis Likert and Dr. Bernard Abbott gave their consent for the use in this study of the content and format of their recently developed questionnaires for which I wish to thank each of them. At the San Diego campus of the California School of Professional Psychology, the entire community iii contributed to this study. Dr. Maurice Zemlick made it possible, while fellow administrators, staff and faculty colleagues, and students made it a reality with their cooperation and support. Robert and Suzanne Pittenger have also made an important contribution to this study. Their understand- ing, love, and encouragement have, as always, been of great value to me in this undertaking. Finally, special thanks to Dr. Carmel Myers for her help as a research consultant and her encouragement as a special friend. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Chapter I. THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction. . . . . l The California School .of Professional Psychology. . . . . . . . 3 Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . 13 Importance of the Problem . . . . . . 14 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . l6 Purpose and Hypotheses . . . . . . . l9 Rationale. . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Hypothesis I . . . . . . . . . . 23 Hypothesis II. . . . . . . . . . 24 Hypotheses III-VI . . . . . . . . 26 Hypotheses VII & VIII . . . . . . . 27 Hypothesis IX. . . . . . . . . . 28 Hypotheses X, XI, & XII . . . . . . 29 Hypothesis XIII . . . . . . . . . 29 Hypothesis XIV . . . . . . . . . 3O Scope and Limitations of the Study . . . 31 Organization of the Study . . . . . . 31 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . 33 Evaluation: Why and How. . . . 33 Evaluative Studies of Student Affairs Programs in Colleges and Universities. . 38 Evaluative Studies of Student Affairs Programs in Graduate and Professional Schools. . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Evaluative Studies of Organizational Climate in Higher Education Institutions . . . . . . . . . . 56 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Chapter Page III. METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 The Sample . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Students . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Faculty. . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Administrators . . . . . . . . . 94 The Instrument . . . . . . . . . . 94 Instructions and Background Data . . . 94 Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Part II. . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . 98 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 100 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 IV. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 The Findings. . . . . . . . . . . 105 Hypothesis I . . . . . . . . . 105 Hypothesis II. . . . . . . . . 105 Hypothesis III . . . . . . . . 109 Hypothesis IV. . . . . . . . . . 111 Hypothesis V . . . . . . . . . . 111 Hypothesis VI. . . . . . . . . . 113 Hypothesis VII . . . . . . . . . 114 Hypothesis VIII . . . . . . . . . 114 Hypothesis IX. . . . . . . . . 116 Hypothesis X . . . . . . . . . 118 Hypothesis XI. . . . . . . . . 120 Hypothesis XII . . . . . . . . 120 Hypothesis XIII . . . . . . . . 121 Hypothesis XIV . . . . . . . . 121 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 V. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Summary and Interpretation . . . . . . 127 Necessity . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . 128 Group Differences About Effectiveness-- Students. . . . . . . . . . . 133 vi Chapter Page Group Differences About Necessity and Effectiveness--Faculty . . . . . . 134 Organizational Climate. . . . . . 135 Group Differences About Organizational Climate--Students. . . . 137 Group Differences About Organizational Climate--Faculty . . . . . . . 138 Correlation Between Effectiveness of Student Affairs and Effectiveness of Organizational Climate . . . . . 139 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Necessity . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . 140 Organizational Climate. . . . . . . 141 Comparison of Effectiveness Perceptions . 142 Method of Evaluation . . . . . . . 143 Suggestions for Further Research . . . . 144 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. STUDENT AFFAIRS QUESTIONNAIRE FORMS S, F, AND A O O O O O O I O O O I O O 148 B. COVER MEMORANDA, INITIAL QUESTIONNAIRE MAILING O O O O O O O O O O O O 202 C. COVER MEMORANDA, FOLLOWUP QUESTIONNAIRE MAILING . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . 210 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Number and Percentage of Returned Question- naires for Each Respondent Group . . . . 93 2. Hypothesis I, Descriptive Data, Test of Necessity for Students, Faculty, and Administrators . . . . . . . . . . 106 3. Hypothesis I, Test for Differences Among the Perceptions of Students, Faculty, and Administrators About the Necessity of the Student Affairs Program. . . . . 106 4. Hypothesis II, Descriptive Data, Test of Effectiveness for Students, Faculty, and Administrators. . . . . . . . . 107 5. Hypothesis II, Test for Differences Among Students, Faculty, and Administrators About the Effectiveness of the Student Affairs Program. . . . . . . . . . 107 6. Hypothesis II, Scheffé Post Hoc Comparisons of Student, Faculty, and Administrator Perceptions of Effectiveness of the Student Affairs Program . . . . . . . 108 7. Hypothesis II, Subscale Means, Discrete Areas of Responsibility Within the Student Affairs Program . . . . . . . 110 8. Hypothesis III, Test for Differences Between the Perceptions of Male and Female Students About the Effectiveness of the Student Affairs Program. . . . . 111 9. Hypothesis IV, Descriptive Data, Test of Effectiveness According to Length of Time in the Program . . . . . . . . 112 viii Table 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Hypothesis IV, Test for Differences Among the Perceptions of Students About the Effectiveness of the Student Affairs Program According to Length of Time in the Program . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis V, Test for Differences Between the Perceptions of Minority and Majority Students About the Effectiveness of the Student Affairs Program . . . . . . . Hypothesis VI, Test for Differences Between the Perceptions of Involved Students and Uninvolved Students About the Effective- ness of the Student Affairs Program . . Hypothesis VII, Test for Differences Between the Perceptions of Core Faculty and Con- tract Instructors About the Necessity of the Student Affairs Program . . . . . Hypothesis VIII, Test for Differences Between the Perceptions of Core Faculty and Con- tract Instructors About the Effectiveness of the Student Affairs Program. . . . . Hypothesis IX, Descriptive Data, Effective- ness of Organizational Climate as Per- ceived by Students, Faculty, and Administrators . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis IX, Test for Differences Among the Perceptions of Students, Faculty, and Administrators About the Effectiveness of the Organizational Climate . . . . Hypothesis IX, Scheffé Post Hoc Comparisons, Test for Differences Among Students, Faculty, and Administrators About the Effectiveness of the Organizational Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis X, Descriptive Data, Effective- ness of Organizational Climate According to Length of Time in the Program . . . . ix Page 112 113 114 115 115 117 117 118 119 Table Page 19. Hypothesis X, Test for Differences Among the Perceptions of Students About the Effec- tiveness of the Organizational Climate According to Length of Time in the Program . 119 20. Hypothesis XI, Test for Differences Between the Perceptions of Minority and Majority Students About the Effectiveness of the Organizational Climate. . . . . . . . 120 21. Hypothesis XII, Test for Differences Between the Perceptions of Involved Students and Uninvolved Students About the Effective- ness of the Organizational Climate. . . . 121 22. Hypothesis XIII, Test for Differences Between the Perceptions of Core Faculty and Con- tract Instructors About the Effectiveness of the Organizational Climate . . . . . 122 23. Hypothesis XIV, Pearson Product-Moment Cor— relations of Student, Faculty, and Admin- istrator Perceptions About the Effective- ness of the Organizational Climate and the Student Affairs Program . . . . . . 122 24. Comparison of Effectiveness Means—-Student Affairs and Organizational Climate. . . . 138 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Organizational structure and functional responsibilities of CSPP-SD admin- istration . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2. Schematic interpretation of Rensis Likert's organizational models . . . . . . . . 81 xi CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction American colleges and universities have devoted a great deal of their assets during the past several decades to the concept of student development, growth, and learning outside the classroom setting. This division of each campus that has come to be known as the student personnel services or student affairs division has, like most facets of today's colleges and universities, become the object of a considerable amount of evaluative research. Many administrators of student affairs divisions have undertaken to measure and publish the impact that their programs are having on a variety of pOpulations from stu- dents to faculty to administrators. These studies have been helpful to several institutions in evaluating and upgrading their student affairs programs. Most of these research efforts, however, have been aimed at students, faculty, and administrators at two-year and four-year undergraduate institutions; little of this evaluative work has been focused on the impact of student affairs programs at the graduate and professional school levels of higher education. This scarcity of evaluative data about student affairs programs in graduate schools seems to have occurred in spite of the recognized need for such research. As long ago as 1966 Vestermark found in a survey of 122 graduate schools that two-thirds of the responding institutions reported their student affairs programs needed more study and attention.1 She also reported that student affairs programs at the responding institutions were not usually separate or formally organized programs for graduate students but were an inclusion or adjunct of the undergraduate student affairs program.2 If evaluative data concerning student affairs divisions at the graduate school level is scarce, the data available about these programs in professional schools are almost nonexistent. Since professional schools, independently certified and financed institu- tions organized especially for and dedicated to the training of students for licensing and careers in the 1Mary J. Vestermark, "A Critical Investigation of Personnel Policies and Services for Graduate Students in American Institutions of Higher Learning" (Ph.D. disser— tation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1966), p. 87. 2Ibid., p. 86. various professions, medicine, dentistry, law, and psy- chology, represent a relatively new concept in the delivery of advanced higher education, this lack of data about the impact of student affairs programs at these institutions is understandable. However, if professional schools are to survive as successful institutions of higher education, substantive research evaluating the success of their student affairs programs may be an ingredient needed to insure their survival. It is the intention of this study to examine the necessity for and effectiveness of the student affairs program at one pro- fessional school. The California School of Professional Psychology The professional school upon which this study will focus, the California School of Professional Psychology (CSPP), and especially its San Diego campus, is a non- profit, private, autonomous, professional training facility composed of four campuses located in California, Berkeley, Fresno, Los Angeles, and San Diego. The central administrative offices linking these four campuses into a statewide system are located in San Francisco. The School came about as the result of concerns that began to surface in the mid-19605 within the Cali- fornia State Psychological Association (CSPA). Foremost among these concerns was that the number of positions available for students in quality graduate psychology programs in California's colleges and universities was shrinking each year. Further, the number of positions for psychologists in the state of California that were being filled by professionals from outside the state was growing significantly. Finally, it was also clear to CSPA that while psychologists trained as researchers and academicians were abundant, the state of California and the nation needed more professional psychologists to fill the growing needs of society in the broad field of mental health care and psychological services delivery. Studies conducted by the American Psychological Association (APA) and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in the late 19603 demonstrated that 65 percent of all professional psychologists, broadly based practitioners trained and dedicated to work as service delivery professionals, were concentrated to the point of saturation in five major pOpulation centers around the country while 20 percent of the jobs for professional psychologists in the rest of the country were remaining unfilled for eight to fifteen years.3 Out of these concerns grew the initial plans for CSPP. The School's founders, Hedda Bolgar, Nicholas A. Cummings, Arthur L. Kovacs, Irwin Leff, Karl Pothorst, S. Don Schultz, and Maurice J. Zemlick, met in the spring of 1969 to begin the exciting, if not often tedious and 3California School of Professional Psychology, San Diego Campus, Self Study Report, 1975-76, p. 1.1. frustrating, process of building what was to become the California School of Professional Psychology. These planners departed from the traditional scientist-pro- fessional model (primarily academic and experimental) espoused at the 1949 APA Boulder Conference, and instead built their training program on a model that emphasized training in the theoretical and conceptual aspects of psy- chology and in professional service delivery.4 The program of graduate training at CSPP differs from the approach to graduate training of more traditional colleges and universities because students are involved in a broadly based course of study that prepares them to be effective in a range of settings where their skills might apply. These settings include clinical practice, community mental health, industry, teaching, community intervention and organizing, and consulting work. All CSPP students are required to spend from ten to twenty hours each week working in an agency setting where they have been field placed by the School to learn to implement and practice the theory and techniques to which they have been exposed in their classroom experiences. Further, CSPP students are required to participate in growth experiences such as individual and group psychotherapy during each of their years in the program. Finally, CSPP students are expected to make a full-time commitment to 4Self Study Report, p. 1.11. their graduate training and must complete their require- ments for graduation within the prescribed time limits of the program. This is in contrast to the time commitment expected of the School's faculty who must do a competent job of delivering instruction at the same time that they maintain their professional involvements. It is the School's intention, by establishing its faculty as part- time instructors, to guarantee that students of profes- sional psychology are being trained by practicing profes- sional psychologists who are necessarily in touch with what is happening every day in their profession. Today, all four campuses of the California School of Professional Psychology have been granted full accredi- tation by the regional accrediting organization, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. The Los Angeles and San Diego campuses are also currently candi- dates for accreditation by the American Psychological Association. Over 800 students are now enrolled across the four campuses, and since the School began delivering instruction, 750 graduates have been granted the Ph.D. degree. Focusing on the San Diego campus of CSPP where instruction began in September of 1972, this community is currently composed of 9 Pre-Master's students, 102 Master's candidates, 28 Pre-Doctoral students, and 93 Doctoral candidates, 16 Core Faculty members (employed for one- quarter to seven-eighths time), 33 Contract Instructors (contracted on a course-by-course basis), 4 senior admin- istrators (who may have additional Core Faculty responsi- bilities), and 19 additional professional and support staff. Almost half of the students at CSPP-SD come from within the state of California; the remainder come to the campus from thirty-one other states and four foreign countries. Like the profession for which it trains its graduates, 66 percent of the CSPP-SD student body is male and about 95 percent is white. Over 70 percent of all of these students will complete their Ph.D. at CSPP-SD and each of these degrees will be completed according to a rigorous, pre-determined calendar that urges, entreats, and finally forces almost every student to finish the dissertation prior to graduation from their three-, four-, or five-year degree program. Very few students enter this program with the intention of obtaining a terminal Master's degree because this degree has such limited value and versatility to the practicing professional psycholo- gist. The faculty at this institution contain within its ranks a wide range of talents, skills, and ideologi- cal frameworks with which to approach the practice of professional psychology. The curriculum for which they are responsible is divided into the following eight areas: P Professional Skills and Issuesy-develops under- standing, experience, and skills in behavioral assessment and change processes. T Theory--offers basic knowledge and competence in dealing with theoretical issues. C Culture and Society--provides knowledge of socio- logical and anthrOpological theory and models in community psychology: and familiarity with multi- disciplinary mental health services. H Humanities and the Arts--increases understanding of the relationship between the creative process and individual psychology, adds perspective on the human condition, improves aesthetic appreci- ation, and develops the individual's creative abilities. S Special Seminar--allows students to develop par- ticular interests working with individual faculty members. F Field Experience--provides participation in field work to develop professional competence. G Personal Growth and Personal Psychotherapy-- involves students in growth group experiences and individual therapy that also gives the student contact with professional models. I Scientific Scholarly Investigation--enab1es stu- dents to evaluate, understand, and apply research methodology. Each faculty member teaches in at least one of these areas and often will be involved in several. Besides instruc- tion, faculty members are also intimately involved in the campus' governance process in academic advising, in research, and in the guidance of dissertations as members or Chairpersons of dissertation committees. Faculty are of two types at CSPP-SD, according to the extent of their teaching commitment. The Core Faculty is the heart of the instructional staff. These people are committed to CSPP-SD on a one—quarter to seven-eighths time basis and they carry the major burden of instruction, advisement, and support of the curriculum. Contract Instructors, who are hired by the campus to teach indi- vidual courses, make up the balance of the instructional staff. This latter group have greater professional com- mitments than do the Core Faculty members and are less able to make a substantial commitment to CSPP-SD. There- fore, they form an additional instructional pool upon whom the campus regularly calls to help staff a significant but not overwhelming share of the curriculum. The management team of the San Diego campus is composed of four senior administrators: the Campus Dean, who is the chief administrative officer for the campus; the Dean for Academic Affairs, who is charged with manag- ing the academic program, organizing and staffing the curriculum, and working with the faculty; the Dean for Professional Affairs, who is in charge of the field placement program and the growth program: and the Dean for Student Affairs, who manages the nonacademic student support Operations, serves as administrative liaison to several student-related faculty committees, and coordi- nates the academic advising process. This team is com- plemented by the Campus Dean's professional staff, com— posed of the Assistant for Business Affairs, who administers the budget, monitors the payroll Operation, and supervises the business office, the administrative 10 assistant to the Campus Dean, and the director of the campus' community-oriented continuing professional edu- cation program. The Student Affairs office at the San Diego campus, of particular interest to this study, is composed of the Dean for Student Affairs, the Admissions Officer, the Financial Aid Officer, the Registrar, and support staff. The responsibilities delegated to this office are important to understand as a context for this study. The Admissions Officer is responsible for developing and annually up- dating admissions procedures commensurate with School- wide admissions policy, working with a faculty committee to implement these procedures in order to insure the admission of a sufficient number of well-qualified candi- dates to the program each year, recruiting applicants from colleges and universities in the San Diego County area, and developing and maintaining orientation and alumni programs. The Financial Aid Officer is charged with allocating $50-60,000 of financial aid annually in an equitable manner, accurate record-keeping for financial aid recipients, and acting as a resource about and as a catalyst for obtaining alternative sources of funding available for students through the federal government, the profession, or local area organizations. The Registrar is responsible for developing, updating, and maintaining an accurate system of record-keeping 11 reflecting each student's career at CSPP-SD, operating an orderly and prompt course registration process, and annually certifying students' eligibility for graduation. Finally, the Dean for Student Affairs is charged with supervision of these three major systems. Additional responsibilities delegated to the Dean include coordi- nating the accurate and timely evaluation by the faculty of each student's progress in the program each year, administering the academic advising program, serving as a liaison and source of administrative support for the Professionals in Training Association (the student govern- ment organization on the San Diego campus also known as PITA), coordinating the efficient use of the campus' grievance process, working as the campus Affirmative Action Officer, and generally serving, along with the rest of the Student Affairs staff, as an advocate for students and their legitimate needs and concerns. The flow chart in Figure 1 will help to clarify and summarize the structure of the CSPP-SD community and where responsibility lies for the ongoing tasks in which this organization is involved and which are of interest to this study. It should be recognized from this chart and the description above that this Student Affairs pro- gram includes two functions, the Admissions office and the Registrar's office, that are not a part of typical student affairs divisions. 112 cofiuauumwcfifivm amlmmmo mo mowuwafinwmcoemmu HucOMuocsu can wuauosuum Hm:0wumufic00uo moonsOm can HchMufipcc NOu um>~mumo 0cm woucomom mewmomxnvuoowu oumuzood mcuooom ucopsum can moumooaad "uuuumflmom "noofiuuo pad Hmwocncwh cofiuauumwoom _ H Eduooum weesdm mmoHo>oo mucmodammm comm AmooH muwauoom oouu«EEoo mcofimmwecm sudsomu on» cue: mxuoz mmoUOuQ mcoflmmfifivm ma0~o>wo Humowmwo mGOMmmfiEoc g .~ .mae mcwmw>cm oafiwccom mwumcwcuoou momuuwesoo xuasomm voumHmunucocsuw ou comwmfiq mfimum>m uuommsm unoczum oesocmomco: momw>ummzm "muflmwwd ucwnauw uOu ammo Eouooum nuzouo momw>ummsm smumOum unmEoomHm caofim mmmw>ummam “unwound AcconmouOHA new ammo xuaaomm on» nwmw>uomam esdaofluuso any mummun can mmuwcmmuo EMLUOum Owaocmom woodcut "muflmumd owaocmod now econ W _ mowwuo mmocflmsn may momw>uwesm HHou>mQ ozu muOufico: Demons on» wuoumACHEU< "whammu< mmocamnm MOM accumwmmt .>ufi:=EEoo >moHonoxmm auscummououm cacao com mzu can msmsmo any uo ufiuocon on» uOu mecuooue newumoavo mewscwucoo can 1515.550 wuoumflcwa Ian I Ammv¢ wow musuwumcH .uOuoouwo .EmuoO»: owleemu ocu mo ucmfioomcms Hamuo>o or» nuw3 cooumno boowmwo o>fiumuumficwscc umdzo I cmoo mzmemu 13 Statement of the Problem The problem faced in this study was to determine the perceptions held by students, faculty, and adminis- trators of the Student Affairs program on the San Diego campus of CSPP. Further, this study focused special attention on the organizational climate of CSPP-SD as a variable that might be related to student, faculty, and administrator perceptions of the Student Affairs program. More specifically, this study dealt with the following questions: 1. To what extent is the Student Affairs program perceived by students, faculty, and administrators as being necessary to the total educational pro- gram at CSPP-SD? To what extent is the Student Affairs program perceived by students, faculty, and adminis- trators as being effective as it is currently provided at CSPP-SD? Do students in the CSPP-SD community differ in their perceptions of the effectiveness of the Student Affairs program according to their sex, the number of years they have been in the pro- gram, their ethnic background, or their involve- ment with campus governance or institutional affairs? l4 4. Do faculty differ in their perceptions of the necessity or effectiveness of the Student Affairs program according to the extent of their con- tractual relationship (Core versus Contract) to CSPP-SD? 5. Are there differences in perceptions held by students, faculty, and administrators about the organizational climate at CSPP-SD? 6. Is the organizational climate at CSPP-SD per- ceived differently by students according to length of time in the program, their ethnic background, or their level of involvement with governance or institutional affairs? 7. Does there appear to be a relationship between CSPP-SD community members' (students, faculty, or administrators) perceptions of the Student Affairs program and their perceptions of the organizational climate at CSPP—SD? Importance of the Problem This problem is important to confront for four reasons. First, the study of this problem will contribute to the understanding of, and the literature about, the evaluation of student affairs programs, especially as they exist in professional schools. At only one other professional school, the Medical College of Georgia, 15 does the literature on the evaluation of student affairs programs show that a study of this type has been accom- plished. Further, this type of study has only infre- quently been attempted for a graduate level program of any type. Graduate student affairs programs and services for graduate students are minimal at most graduate insti- tutions. It is hoped that this study will contribute to a clearer understanding of just how effective student affairs programs are at the professional school level and will point out that student affairs programs can make a needed contribution to the educational experience of graduate level students. Second, this study will be of value to the insti- tution itself. CSPP—SD has never before formally examined the impact of its student affairs operation on the campus community. This type of evaluation will allow students, faculty, and administrators to take a careful look at how effectively the campus' Student Affairs program is meeting the needs of and is understood by each of these groups. Further, this study can perhaps reveal more fully the strengths and weaknesses of the Student Affairs program at CSPP-SD and be the basis for future patterns of change and evaluation. Third, this study will give the campus additional data about its organizational climate, the relationship of that climate to the student affairs program, and the 16 sources of friction that require future attention in relation to that climate. Finally, the problem confronted by this study is important because its investigation will give the writer the opportunity to labor at the process of con- structing and following through with a research project. This experience will be of great value in future settings where it could be important to know how and when to do good research and how to make efficient use of research techniques. Definition of Terms There are several terms that will be used through— out this study that must be clearly understood. They have been defined in the following manner: Administrator.--A person employed by CSPP-SD to give overall leadership and supervision to the campus, to make broad decisions, and to set procedures for the implementation of campus and school-wide policies. Contract Instructor.--A person employed by CSPP- SD to deliver instruction to students on a course-by- course basis. Core Instructor.--A person employed by CSPP-SD to deliver instruction to students on a one-quarter time to full-time basis with additional responsibilities for committee service and advisement. l7 Effective.--The extent to which the various services and mechanisms within the Student Affairs pro- gram at CSPP-SD are perceived by community members as being provided in a way that meets their needs. Involved Students.--All those students who have formally worked with the governance of CSPP-SD, or who have held positions as teaching or administrative assis- tants, or who have served on campus-wide standing com- mittees. Majority Students.--All those students enrolled at CSPP-SD who are Caucasian. Minority Students.--All those students enrolled at CSPP-SD who are not Caucasian, to include Black, Chicano, Pan Asian, and Hispanic students. Necessary.--The extent to which the various services and mechanisms within the Student Affairs pro- gram at CSPP-SD are perceived by community members as being needed to further the effectiveness of the total educational program at CSPP-SD. Organization.--Human groupings of social units deliberately constructed to seek specific goals.5 5This definition of "organization" was chosen because it is appropriate to the needs of this study. It is clear from the literature about organizations, however, that there are many ways to define this term: the clas- sical approach of Frederick Taylor; the human relations approach of Elton Mayo, John Dewey, and Kurt Lewin: and l8 Organizational Climate.--The relatively enduring quality of the internal environment Of an organization that (a) is experienced by its members, (b) influences their behavior, and (O) can be described in terms of the value Of a particular set Of characteristics of the I O 6 organlzat1on. Perception.--The impression, conscious knowledge, or firm Opinion held by a community member about any Of the various services and mechanisms within the Student Affairs program at CSPP—SD. Professional School.--An autonomous, graduate level, higher education institution whose primary edu- cational mission is to prepare otherwise academically qualified individuals to enter one Of the highly skilled career areas such as law, dentistry, medicine, psychology, etc. the structuralist approach Of Amitai Etzioni, Max Weber, and Karl Marx all receive wide recognition and support. Talcott Parsons, The Social System (New York: Free Press, 1951), p. 72. 6This definition is the synthesis of Tagiuri's survey of several writers' interpretations of organi- zational climate and several other terms related to it, like environment, ecology, milieu, social system, culture, etc. Frequently, according to this author, climate or organizational climate are terms that are left undefined or are defined Operationally. For the purposes Of this study, however, it seemed important to focus on what is meant by organizational climate. Renato Tagiuri and George Litwin, eds., Organizational Climate: Explorations Of a Concept (Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School Of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1958), p. 27. l9 Student.--A person enrolled at CSPP-SD as a full-time degree candidate pursuing an advanced degree and career in professional psychology. Student Affairs.--A noninstructional program Of support, service, and growth developed for and around the needs Of students and the institution (also known as Student Personnel or Student Personnel Services). Uninvolved Students.-—All those students who have not gotten involved in either the governance or institutional affairs Of the CSPP-SD campus. Year Level.--Refers to the seven different years Of the programs at CSPP~SD (PM, M-1, M-2, PD, D-l, D-2, and DRT). For the purposes of this study, year levels will be collapsed together according to the number Of years in the program that they reflect: PM, M-l, & PD = one year in the program; M-2 & D-l = two years in the program; D-2 = three or four years in the program. Purpose and Hypotheses The purpose Of this study was to examine whether students, faculty, and administrators perceived the necessity and the effectiveness Of the Student Affairs program at CSPP-SD differently and also to examine whether the perceptions that these three groups have Of the Student Affairs program is related to their per- ceptions Of the organizational climate at this 20 institution. The following more specific hypotheses further clarify this purpose: Hypothesis I: There will be no difference in the perceptions held by students, faculty, and administrators about the necessity of the Student Affairs program to the total educational program at CSPP-SD. Hypothesis II: There will be a difference in the perceptions held by students, faculty, and administrators about the effectiveness Of the Student Affairs program as currently provided at CSPP—SD. Administrators will perceive the program as more effective than will faculty. Faculty will perceive the program as more effective than will students. Hypothesis III: There will be no difference in the perceptions held by male students and female students about the effec- tiveness of the Student Affairs program as currently provided at CSPP-SD. Hypothesis IV: There will be a difference in the perceptions held by students about the effectiveness Of the Student Affairs program as currently provided at CSPP-SD according to length Of time in the program. Stu- dents who have been at CSPP-SD three or four years will perceive the program as more effective than will those students who have been at the school two years, who in turn will perceive the program as more effective than those students who have been at the school one year. 21 Hypothesis V: There will be a difference in the perceptions held by minority and majority students about the effec- tiveness Of the Student Affairs program as currently provided at CSPP-SD. Minority students will perceive the Student Affairs program as less effective than will majority students. Hypothesis VI: There will be a difference in the perceptions held by involved students and uninvolved students about the effectiveness of the Student Affairs program as currently provided at CSPP-SD. Students who are involved in governance and institutional affairs will perceive the Student Affairs program as more effective than will those students who are not involved in these activities. Hypothesis VII: There will be no difference in the perceptions held by Core Faculty and Contract Instructors about the necessity Of the Student Affairs program to the total educational program at CSPP-SD. Hypothesis VIII: There will be a difference in the perceptions held by Core Faculty and Contract Instructors about the effectiveness Of the Student Affairs program as currently provided at CSPP-SD. Core Faculty will perceive the Student Affairs program as more effec- tive than will Contract Instructors. Hypothesis IX: There will be a difference in the perceptions held by students, faculty, and administrators about the organizational climate at CSPP-SD. Administrators will perceive this climate as being more effective than will faculty, who will in turn perceive the climate as more effective than will students. 22 Hypothesis X: There will be a difference in the perceptions held by students about the organizational climate at CSPP-SD according to the length of time in the pro- gram. Students who have been at CSPP—SD three or four years will perceive the climate as more effec— tive than will those students who have been at the school two years, who will in turn perceive the climate as more effective than will those students who have been at the school one year. Hypothesis XI: There will be a difference in the perceptions held by minority and majority students about the organi- zational climate at CSPP-SD. Minority students will perceive the climate as less effective than will majority students. Hypothesis XII: There will be a difference in the perceptions held by involved students and uninvolved students about the organizational climate at CSPP-SD. Students who are involved in governance and institutional affairs will perceive the climate as more effective than will those students who are not involved in these activities. Hypothesis XIII: There will be a difference in the perceptions held by Core Faculty and Contract Instructors about the organizational climate at CSPP—SD. Core Faculty will find the organizational climate to be more effective than will Contract Instructors. Hypothesis XIV: There will be a positive correlation between the perceptions held by students, faculty, and adminis- trators about the effectiveness Of the Student Affairs program and the effectiveness of the organizational climate at CSPP-SD. 23 Rationale The motive for investigating each of these hypotheses can be summarized in the following manner.7 Hypothesis I Several studies have examined the views held by students, faculty, and administrators about the necessity of Student Affairs programs to college and university campuses. Fitzgerald8 reported that faculty found Student Affairs programs important to the success Of students at Michigan State University while Zimmerman9 found the same opinion was held by students at this same institution four years later. Students responded in the 10 same way to Rankin's study at Colorado State. In Troesher'sll study at Rock Valley College, students, 7The studies cited in this rationale will be dis- cussed in more detail in Chapter II. 8Laurine E. Fitzgerald, "A Study Of Faculty Per- ceptions of Student Personnel Services" (Ph.D. disser- tation, Michigan State University, 1959), p. 233. 9Elwyn E. Zimmerman, "Student Perceptions Of Student Personnel Services at Michigan State University" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963). 10Gary Edmund Rankin, "Graduating Senior Percep- tions Of Student Personnel Services at Colorado State College" (Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado State College, 1968). 11Carol Mabel Troesher, "A Descriptive Study Of the Perceptions Held by Students, Faculty, and Student 24 faculty, and staff generally agreed that Student Affairs programs were effectively implemented while Abbott12 found that these same three groups at the Medical College Of Georgia consistently agreed that the Student Affairs program was important. Experience with the Student Affairs program at CSPP—SD suggests that the findings of this study will be consistent with the literature; programs delivered in support Of students will be per- ceived as important by students, faculty, and adminis- trators . Hypothesis II Administrators seem to have the most positive perceptions Of the effectiveness Of Student Affairs pro- grams, followed by faculty, and by students. Mahler'sl3 study Of Student Affairs programs in four small private schools in Minnesota demonstrated that faculty perceptions were much more positive than were the perceptions Of Personnel Administrators of the Student Personnel Ser- vices at Rock Valley College" (Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1969). 12Bernard J. Abbott, "A Study Of Faculty, Stu- dent, and Student Affairs Staff Perceptions of Selected Student Personnel Services at the Medical College Of Georgia" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1976), PP. 102-07. l3Clarence A. Mahler, "A Study Of Student and Faculty Reactions to Student Personnel Work" (Ph.D. dissertation, University Of Minnesota, 1955). 25 students. Grayl4 discovered the same data in his study at the University Of Richmond. It appears that this study will replicate these findings at CSPP-SD. The style and posture Of administrators, faculty, and stu- dents at CSPP-SD suggest that administrators have the most accurate understanding of what the Student Affairs program is trying to accomplish in each of several areas. These administrators, therefore, reflect a positive attitude about the program's effectiveness based on this knowledge. Faculty have less contact with the Student Affairs program and with the campus in general. Their knowledge Of what the Student Affairs program is trying to accomplish is, therefore, necessarily reduced over that Of administrators. This lack Of information may lead them to view the program as less effective. Finally, students receive the least accurate information Of these three groups, have limited contact with faculty and still less with administrators, and at the same time have the greatest need for the services Of the Student Affairs program. This combination Of high needs and misinformation will lead the student population to evaluate the Student Affairs program as less effective than either administrators or faculty will find it. 14Clarence Jones Gray, "An Evaluative Study Of the Student Personnel Program for Men at the University of Richmond" (Ph.D. dissertation, University Of Virginia, 1962). 26 Hypotheses III-VI The Opinions held by students about the necessity and effectiveness Of student affairs programs have not been shown to be related to variables such as sex, length Of time in school, ethnic background, or involvement with governance or institutional affairs. However, some Of the literature about the organizational climate Of institutions Of higher education suggests that race is a variable that should be investigated in this study. In two studies, Pfeifer demonstrated that students at 15 and 197616 differed the University Of Maryland in 1974 significantly in their perceptions of that institution's climate according to their race. Majority students were much less negative about the university than were minority students. Experience with the CSPP-SD community indi- cates that length Of time in school and involvement with governance or institutional affairs are variables Of interest. Students who have been at CSPP-SD longer and students who have gotten more involved with the campus through its governance structure, its several committees, and its paid student assistant positions all seem to be 15C. Michael Pfeifer and Benjamin Schneider, "Uni- versity Climate Perceptions by Black and White Students," Journal Of Applied Psychology 59 (1974): 660. 16C. Michael Pfeifer, "Relationship Between Scholastic Aptitude, Perception of University Climate, and College Success for Black and White Students," Journal Of Applied Psychology 61 (1976): 345. 27 much more accurately informed about the strengths and weaknesses Of both the Student Affairs program and the campus as a whole. Hypotheses VII & VIII The inconsistent and unique nature of faculty contracts at CSPP-SD make it difficult to verify through previous research that this is a significant variable for this study. Observation indicates, however, that Core Faculty have a much higher level Of commitment to and knowledge of the institution in general and the Student Affairs program in specific than do Contract Instructors. This set of circumstances would suggest that Core Faculty perceptions of the necessity and effectiveness of the Student Affairs program will be more positive than those Of Contract Instructors. A somewhat related study by Pascarella17 in 1975 demonstrated that those faculty who spent more time informally with students had more accurate perceptions of the impact that the entire institution, including the Student Affairs division, was having on students than those faculty who spent little or no time informally with students. 17Ernest T. Pascarella, "Informal Interaction and Faculty Projections of Student Ratings Of the Insti- tutional Climate," Research in Higher Education 75 (1975): 383. 28 Hypothesis IX In 1967 Pick18 found student perceptions Of the organizational climate at three New York City colleges to be significantly more negative than the perceptions 19 found administrators to be of faculty. Pascarella significantly out Of touch with how the climate Of Syracuse University was affecting students in 1974. The administrators in this study predicted student assessment Of the climate to be much higher than students actually reported. In Hodges'20 1973 study Of faculty and student satisfaction with the climate of their engineering school, he discovered that the level Of satisfaction (defined in relation to Likert's model Of organizations) Of these groups related to the extent to which they were able to participate in the management structure Of the school. The nature Of the organizational climate at CSPP-SD indicates that administrators are concerned about this 18Dorcas Jane Pick, "A Comparison Of Campus Climates Of a Multi-Campus University as Measured by the College and University Environment Scales" (Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1967). 19Ernest T. Pascarella, "Students' Perceptions Of the College Environment: How Well Are They Understood by Administrators?" Journal Of College Student Personnel 15 (September 1974): 374. 20Joseph Daniel Hodges, "Perceived Organizational Characteristics and Organizational Satisfaction in an Engineering College" (Ph.D. dissertation, University Of Michigan, 1973), p. 109. 29 climate but perceive it as being more supportive and effective than do faculty, than do students. These Observations together with the studies mentioned are the basis for pursuing this hypothesis. Hypotheses X, XI, & XII As mentioned with respect to Hypothesis III through VI, Pfeifer's studies conducted at the University of Maryland suggest that race is a variable Of interest regarding student perceptions Of organizational climate. The literature Offers no particular indications that year level or level Of student involvement will be sig- nificant variables. Therefore, these hypotheses will be pursued in this study for the purpose of discovering the nature Of their relationship to organizational climate at CSPP-SD. Hypothesis XIII Again, with regard to the nature Of faculty mem- bers' contracts, it would seem that those faculty with the greatest allegiance to and support for the CSPP model of professional education and the San Diego campus would be Core Faculty and they would have a more positive attitude toward the climate of the organization in which they work than would Contract Instructors who teach infrequently and have little involvement in the campus. Only by exploring this hypothesis can any support be 30 found for these Observations. The literature surveyed did not cover this issue. Hypothesis XIV NO evaluative studies Of Student Affairs programs that treat organizational climate as a variable Of interest were found. This oversight by previous researchers is in itself a rationale for pursuing this hypothesis. A second rationale for this hypothesis is founded simply on this writer's interest in examining whether there is a relationship that ought to be explored between how students, faculty, or administrators perceive the effectiveness Of the organizational climate across the community at CSPP-SD and how they view the effective- ness of each Of the functional parts of that community, in this case the Student Affairs program. Finally, it seems important to conduct this evaluative study Of the Student Affairs program at CSPP-SD in the context Of the organization in which this Student Affairs program must Operate. This study will try tO determine the extent to which the CSPP-SD community's perceptions Of the program reflect the merits of the program itself and the extent to which these perceptions of necessity and effectiveness may also be correlated with the respon- dents' more global views Of the institution and the effectiveness of its organizational climate. It is recognized that such a correlation, if discovered, will 31 not imply a causal relationship between the perceptions of effectiveness and the organizational climate. How- ever, if a relationship exists between these two variables, further study Of how these variables interact would be appropriate. Scope and Limitations Of the Study Because of the unique setting in which the data were gathered, the results Of this study are limited in their impact to the CSPP-SD community and perhaps to the other three campuses in the CSPP system. Further, the use Of a questionnaire presupposes that each respondent understands each question in the same way, that each respondent answers each question honestly, and that the researcher analyzes the responses correctly. Each of these considerations also serve to limit the extent to which the results Of this study can be generalized beyond the San Diego campus of CSPP. Finally, these data were gathered at a specific time. The perceptions captured in these data will fluctuate even as a result Of the questionnaire itself and again should not be generalized beyond CSPP—SD in the spring Of 1978. Organization Of the Study An introduction, a summary Of the problem, a statement of hypotheses, a rationale for each Of these hypotheses, and a definition Of terms have been provided 32 in this first chapter. Additional background information has also been discussed, including the study's importance to higher education. In Chapter II a survey Of the literature relevant to this study will be presented. This survey will be in three parts: a review Of the research about the evaluation Of student affairs pro- grams in predominantly four-year undergraduate insti- tutions; a survey Of evaluative studies of student affairs programs in graduate and professional school settings; and a survey Of the literature evaluating organizational climate in higher education settings. In this third segment Of the literature survey, special attention will be devoted to the work that has been done by Dr. Rensis Likert in the area Of evaluating the organizational climate Of higher education institutions. The methodology to be used in this study will be described in Chapter III, while in Chapter IV the writer will dis- cuss the findings Of the study. In Chapter V the impli- cations and conclusions that these results suggest will be summarized, along with suggestions for future research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Before embarking on a survey Of the literature Of consequence to this study, it is important to clarify the need for evaluation with regard to student affairs programs and the most effective methods Of accomplishing this evaluation process. Evaluation: Why and How A clear trend in the literature in the general field of student affairs and student personnel services suggests that evaluation Of these nonacademic support programs is important. Wrenn, mindful that few researchers in higher education are prepared to do reasonable evaluation studies, cautions that: Evaluation is a particularized form Of research. The distinctive characteristic of evaluation is the establishment Of criteria against which the performance of the function is measured or judged. Almost any methOd Of research may be employed, but evaluation must always be against criteria. It follows that the careful establishment Of cri- teria suitable to the phenomenon to be evaluated is a critical prerequisite to the evaluation itself.l lC. Gilbert Wrenn, Student Personnel Work in C01- lggg (New York: The Ronald Press, 1951), pp. 476-77. 33 34 Williamson suggests that evaluation is the mark of an effective program and Of effective staff work. He further suggests that student affairs programs must emphasize evaluation in order to bring about increased effective- ness and more rigorous methods.2 Arbuckle attributes the need for evaluation to the following: 1. NO professional (personnel) worker can accept as the truth anything that has not stood the test of scientific logic. He may agree that he is using techniques that have little to show in the way of validation, but he is not satisfied with the use Of such techniques and will continually try tO devise ways and means Of evaluating their effectiveness. . . . As a matter Of professional ethics no per- sonnel worker can be satisfied with what he does unless there is valid evidence tO indicate the positive effect Of his labors. 2. If personnel workers cannot give some valid evi- dence to indicate the positive effects of their services, then those who pay for services are naturally going to question their continuance. It is not enough to recite a code Of ethics or to point to the moral necessity Of services concerned with the welfare Of students. The existence Of (student affairs) programs is at stake. If they cannot prove their worth, they should, and probably will, disappear from the American college scene. Concerning the methodology Of evaluation, Lloyd- Jones and Smith contend that evaluation should be a coop- erative endeavor because it is important to consult all of those involved in the educational process and give 2E. G. Williamson, Student Personnel Work in C01- leges and Universities (New York: McGraw Hill, 1961), p. 131. 3Dugold Arbuckle, Student Personnel Work in Higher Education (New York: McGraw Hill, 1953), pp. 9-10. 35 them a chance to contribute their ideas about the effec- tiveness Of the programs in question.4 This broad approach to evaluation is supported by several writers as an effective methodology for exploring the impact Of student affairs programs. Feder et al. suggest: The effectiveness of an Office may be judged by the attitudes Of the college community toward it. A systematic survey and analysis of the "climate of Opinion" is a time—consuming but rewarding means Of evaluation. Wrenn prOposes that evaluation according to the perceptions Of various major groups in a higher education community is a valuable approach as long as the instrumentation is designed with care and the data are dealt with as atti- tudes, judgments, or perceptions and not as facts. Wrenn also points out that where the COOperation Of various groups, students, faculty, or administrators, are required in order for a student affairs program to be effective, then their evaluative perceptions are a vital factor in the future success of that program.6 Because broadly 4Charles Eugene Morris, "Evaluation Of the Student Personnel Program," in Student Personnel Work as Deeper Teaching, ed. Ester Lloyd-Jones and Margaret Smith (New York: Harper Brothers, 1954), pp. 324-25. 5Daniel D. Feder, Joan Fiss Bishop, Wendell S. Dysinger, and Leona Wise Jones, The Administration of Student Personnel Programs in American Colleges and Uni- versities (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Edu- cation, 1958), P. 43. 6C. Gilbert Wrenn, 1951, p. 501. 36 based evaluation has been widely suggested as an effec- tive method, it seems appropriate that in this study perceptions of students, faculty, and administrators at the CSPP-SD campus should be Observed. A clear perspec- tive on each Of these groups suggests additional reasons for this approach. Student perceptions Of the Student Affairs pro- gram at CSPP-SD are important to measure because these people make up the clientele that the entire academic program intends to serve. Their needs related to student affairs should be met in a way that they find productive for them as they work toward their goal Of completing their advanced degrees in psychology. Faculty perceptions of Student Affairs at CSPP-SD are important to discern because for both the faculty and the Student Affairs staff to be effective at the jobs they are trying to do with and for students, they must, as Fitzgerald discovered in her study Of the student affairs division at Michigan State University, be able to work well together, communicate accurately, and respect each other's competence. Clarification Of faculty perceptions of student affairs is essential if, according to Fitzgerald, a unified program of services for students is to be implemented that will coordinate all educative elements of the campus community.7 7Laurine E. Fitzgerald, "Faculty Perceptions of Student Personnel Functions," in College Student 37 Finally, the perceptions Of the Student Affairs program held by the administration at CSPP—SD (who for the purposes of this study are all of the campus' pro- fessional, noninstructional staff) need to be surveyed because this group has final responsibility for the cost effectiveness and professional viability Of each phase Of the campus' Operation. Therefore, the extent of their support and commitment to this program will be a strategic factor with which to reckon. Based on this approach tO the evaluation Of stu- dent affairs programs, this review Of the literature is divided into three parts. The first part contains an examination of those studies that describe the evaluation Of student affairs programs at predominantly four-year undergraduate institutions, paying special attention to those studies that compare student, faculty, and admin- istrator perceptions. This part Of the literature survey has been included because it is at this level of higher education that most evaluative studies Of student affairs programs have occurred; very few such studies have been done at either the graduate or professional school level. However, the second phase of this literature review con- tains a discussion Of those few available studies evalu- ating the impact Of student affairs programs in graduate Personnel: Readings and Bibliographies, ed. Laurine E. Fitzgerald, Walter F. Johnson, and Willa Norris (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1970): PP- 159-60. 38 and professional schools. The third part of this lit- erature review contains an examination of those studies Of organizational climate that have been accomplished in higher education settings, again paying special attention to those studies where comparisons Of student, faculty, and administrator perceptions have been Observed. It should be recognized that this literature review is not intended to be exhaustive. Rather, it is intended to be instructive as to the type Of data that are available in the area Of student affairs program evaluation, the type of methodology that has been suc- cessfully employed in gathering this evaluative data, the variables Of interest in these studies, and the findings. Evaluative Studies Of Student Affairs Prpgrams in Colleges and UniversitIes Hopkins is credited with perhaps the first evalu- ative study in the area Of student affairs when in 1924 in an effort to begin to define student personnel work in higher education, he was asked to visit fourteen schools and rate their student affairs programs. Using a simple checklist Of the twenty services to students that he felt were most important, Hopkins summarized the nature of the programs on the campuses he visited. He discovered a wide variability both in the types of ser- vices Offered and in the quality Of these services. 8L. B. Hopkins, "Personnel Procedures in Edu— cation: Observations and Conclusions Resulting from 39 Brumbaugh and Smith followed in 1932 with a more elaborate method Of evaluation based on a point scale. This instru- ment was used successfully at more than one hundred insti— tutions.9 In 1936 Gardner was employed by the North Central Association to evaluate the student affairs programs Of its fifty-seven affiliated institutions. He developed, through the use Of experts in the field, a score card system of evaluation that proved successful at discriminating between levels Of effectiveness Of stu- dent affairs divisions and that correlated at .87 with the data collected by Brumbaugh and Smith. The results Of this study demonstrated that Gardner's methodology was sound for evaluating student affairs programs and that generally those schools with good student affairs programs were also institutions Of high quality in all areas.10 These three studies represent the first level Of development Of evaluation techniques for student affairs programs. In each Of these efforts, a scoring device Visits tO Fourteen Institutions Of Higher Learning," Educational Record, Supplement 7 (October 1926): 3-4. 9A. J. Brumbaugh and Lester C. Smith, "A Point Scale for Evaluating Personnel Work in Institutions of Higher Learning," Religious Education 27 (1932): 230-35. 10Donfred H. Gardner, Student Personnel Services (Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1936), pp. 230—35. 40 was administered by a researcher from outside the insti- tution. However, in each case the instruments used were broadly based for application to several institutions while the needs Of this study require a more narrow instrument that is appropriate tO a specialized profes- sional school. The first widely used evaluative technique for student affairs, the Evaluation Report Form, was developed 11 by Kamm and Wrenn in 1948 at the University Of Minnesota. Their instrument is based on fourteen services that the authors determined should compose a comprehensive student affairs program. In completing the Evaluation Report Form, professional student affairs administrators are asked to rate each service as it exists at their insti- tution according to several criteria. A supplementary form, the Reaction Inventory to Student Personnel Ser- yigeg, was also develOped by Wrenn and Kamm to measure student reactions to student affairs programming. Several researchers used these Wrenn-Kamm inventories during the 19503 and 19603 with some success, but only two authors used these instruments to compare faculty, student, or administrator responses. Shigley used the Reaction Inventory in 1957 to do one of the earliest evaluative studies comparing the perceptions Of faculty and students. 11C. Gilbert Wrenn and Robert B. Kamm, "A Pro- cedure for Evaluating a Student Personnel Program," School and Society 67 (April 3, 1948): 267. 41 His major finding was that the student affairs program at Marion College was inadequate. Both students and faculty reported that they lacked information about several of the student affairs programs. Significant differences in responses were found both within and between student and faculty groups.12 The Wrenn-Kamm instruments, along with two other instruments, were also used by Bailey in 1966 to evaluate students, faculty, administrators, nonacademic personnel, and board of trustees members at Salem College as to their perceptions of that institution's student affairs program. His results demonstrated significant differences in perceptions between these several groups on every scale of the Reaction Inven- pggy with students holding the most negative perceptions. In addition, Bailey found significant agreement among stu- dents grouped according to class standing and sex in their perceptions Of the student affairs program. This researcher also discovered that high academic achievers were significantly more positive in their perceptions of the student affairs programs than were low academic achievers and that students' perceptions Of the student affairs program did not correlate with the perceptions Of any other group. Bailey concluded that this campus group 12E. Harold Shigley, "An Evaluation of Student Personnel Services at Marion College" (Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1958). 42 who could make the best use Of the student affairs pro- gram had the lowest Opinion Of it.13 The Wrenn-Kamm Inventories and the studies that employ them compose a second level Of develOpment of student affairs program evaluation. Again, however, this instrument covers a much wider range Of functions than exist at CSPP-SD. It is important to note that in these studies that compared student, faculty, and admin- istrator perceptions, differing levels Of awareness and points of view Of these groups were apparent, thus demonstrating the significance Of comparing these three groups. The Student Personnel Inventory was developed by Rackham in 1951; through several involved steps he con- structed a rating scale of 225 items covering the fifteen services of student affairs that he found essential to all programs.14 This checklist could then be administered to any population in an institution, the responses weighted and tallied, and the results condensed onto a profile chart contrasting the ratings Of the institution in each of the l3Dallas Barnett Bailey, Jr., "An Evaluation Of Student Personnel Services in a College as Perceived by the Formal Organization Units of the College Community" (Ph.D. dissertation, Kent State University, 1966), pp. 132- 33. 14Eric N. Rackham, "The Determination Of Criteria for Evaluation Of Student Personnel Services in Insti- tutions of Higher Learning" (Ph.D. dissertation, Uni- versity Of Michigan, 1951). 43 fifteen service areas measured. Only one researcher, however, used Rackham's Inventory to assess the percep- tions Of a student affairs program held by students, faculty, and administrators. In 1955 Mahler studied the attitudes Of faculty and students toward the quality of student affairs programs at four colleges in Minnesota using a questionnaire that he develOped. He then com- pared these findings to the results Obtained through administering the Rackham Inventory to the professional student affairs staff at these same schools. Mahler found that faculty rated the effectiveness Of the student affairs programs at these four colleges significantly higher than 15 did students. In a later study using both the Wrenn— Kamm Evaluation Report Form and Mahler's inventory, Gray discovered that faculty and administrative-personnel staff held more nearly congruent perceptions Of the student affairs program for men at the University Of Richmond than did faculty and students.16 The techniques for evaluation of student affairs programs developed by Rackham and used by Mahler and Gray are important because they further underline what earlier 15Clarence A. Mahler, "A Study Of Student and Faculty Reactions to Student Personnel Work" (Ph.D. dis- sertation, University of Minnesota, 1955). 16Clarance Jones Gray, "An Evaluative Study Of the Student Personnel Program for Men at the University Of Richmond" (Ph.D. dissertation, University Of Virginia, 1962). 44 studies suggested about the potential differences in per- ceptions held by students, faculty, and administrators Of student affairs programs. Further, Rackham's instru- ment was designed so that this comparative data was readily obtainable. The Mooney Problem Check List was used in several studies to investigate the effectiveness Of student affairs programs during the 19403 and 19503.17 Parrott used this Check List along with his own questionnaire to measure student perceptions Of their personal problems and student, faculty, and administrator perceptions of the student affairs services available to assist with these problems at six liberal arts church-related col- leges.18 He found that students and faculty differed significantly in their perceptions Of these student affairs programs. Across the six colleges he studied, 17The essential purpose Of the Mooney Problem Check List College Form is to help individuaIs express their personal problems. Respondents read through the Check List and underline the problems which are Of concern to them, circle those Of most concern, and then write a summary in their own words of these most pressing problems. The Check List is constructed out of 288 items that are arranged into nine problem areas Of 18, 36, or 72 items each. Use Of this check list method is intended to accel- erate the process by which a therapist, counselor, organi- zational specialist, etc. identifies and begins to work with the problems Of an individual or group. Ross L. Mooney and Leonard V. Gordon, Manual to accompany the Mooney Problem Check Lists (New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1950), p. 1. 18Leslie Parrott, "A Study of Student Personnel Services at Six Liberal Arts Colleges" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1958), pp. 177-86. 45 Parrott found that in some cases the services available were understood and used by all three groups while in other settings they were not understood or used. Parrott concluded that better communication about what these ser- vices were intended tO accomplish was necessary. Results Of the Mooney Check List in this study also made it clear that on some Of these campuses students were particularly concerned about social adjustment and self-concept issues. Again, the author concluded that a really penetrating analysis Of how student affairs could more successfully deal with these problems was needed. Harry replicated this study in 1960 using the same Check List and question- naire to measure the effectiveness of the student affairs program for students, faculty, and student affairs staff at the Michigan College Of Mining and Technology. Again the results showed significant differences in the Opinions held by faculty and students Of these student affairs programs. Both Of these groups had widely varying Opinions about where students could turn for help with various types Of problems, the resources for each Of which were available within the student affairs program.19 For a study Of the perceptions held by the faculty of the student affairs division at Michigan State Uni- versity, Fitzgerald developed the Student Personnel 19Ormsby L. Harry, "A Study Of Student Personnel Services at Michigan College Of Mining and Technology" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1960), pp. 63-66. 46 Services Questionnaire that could be applied to any 20 institution. This questionnaire contains forty state- ments about student affairs functions. Many of these statements were derived from the Wrenn-Kamm instruments. This questionnaire was administered to a sample of faculty at Michigan State who were asked to indicate the importance, quality, and location Of each function. Her findings suggest, in part, that: . . . Student Personnel Services functions are recognized as having importance for the achievement Of the philosophy and purposes Of higher education. The degree Of importance accorded these functions is, to some extent, dependent upon the nature Of the service. . . . Faculty members who work closely with student organizations are more favorable in their perceptions Of the importance Of student per- sonnel services functions for higher education, and they indicate that these services are accomplished in a more satisfactory and outstanding manner than is expressed by faculty personnel not working closely with student groups. Zimmerman22 and Rankin23 both used Fitzgerald's questionnaire in the mid-19603 to evaluate student 20Laurine E. Fitzgerald, "A Study Of Faculty Per- ceptions of Student Personnel Services" (Ph.D. disser- tation, Michigan State University, 1959), p. 11. 21Ibid., p. 233. 22Elwyn E. Zimmerman, "Student Perceptions Of Student Personnel Services at Michigan State University" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963). 23Gary Edmond Rankin, "Graduating Senior Percep- tions Of Student Personnel Services at Colorado State College" (Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado State College, 1968). 47 perceptions of student affairs programs at Michigan State and at Colorado State respectively. In both studies students demonstrated general satisfaction with the pro- gram components with which they had had contact. Many students reported lack Of information about some areas Of these student affairs programs but found the services necessary to their college educations. Johnson used the same questionnaire, however, to compare the perceptions Of student affairs staff and faculty regarding Colorado State's student affairs program just two years later. He found little difference in the perceptions Of these two groups of the importance Of the student affairs pro- gram. Further, Johnson's study revealed that student affairs staff were unwilling or unable to make signifi- cant evaluative judgments about the quality of the student affairs program.24 In 1967 Ross used Fitzgerald's questionnaire to compare the perceptions held by faculty, administrators, and student affairs staff Of the student 25 Her findings affairs program at Ohio University. indicated differences between faculty, administrators, and student affairs staff on twenty-six of the forty 24Walter Michael Johnson, "Faculty Perceptions Of Student Personnel Services" (Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado State College, 1968). 25Margaret Ann Ross, "Administration, Faculty, and Student Personnel Worker's Evaluation of Student Per- sonnel Functions" (Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio University, 1967). 48 statements on Fitzgerald's questionnaire. Again, several subjects reported that they were unaware Of some Of the services Offered by the student affairs program at Ohio University. It was also apparent that many subjects were unsure about how well many Of the student affairs functions were performed. These findings led the researcher to con- clude that better communication was needed between these three professional groups and with students about the pur- pose and scope Of the student affairs program. Tamte also studied faculty, student, and student affairs staff perceptions of the student affairs program at the Uni- versity Of Denver using a "perceptionnaire" similar to the Fitzgerald questionnaire. He found significant differences regarding perceptions Of the effectiveness Of the student affairs program between faculty who worked with student groups and those who did not, faculty hold- ing the Ph.D. degree and those not holding this degree, faculty at the University for six years or more and those who had been there five years or less, and those students who were married and those who were single.26 Fitzgerald's method Of evaluating student affairs programs as employed by the several authors noted is an effective approach. The significance Of the findings 26James Arthur Tamte, "How Faculty, Student Per- sonnel Workers, and Students Perceive Student Personnel Services at the University Of Denver" (Ph.D. dissertation, University Of Denver, 1964). 49 summarized here is that they demonstrate again that stu- dents, faculty, and administrators perceive student affairs programs differently and that the nature of these differences varies markedly from study to study. While serving the Carnegie Foundation as director of the Conference to Plan Research on Junior College Stu- dent Personnel Programs, Raines developed the Inventory of Selected College Functions and the Inventory of Staff Resources.27 Although these instruments were developed for use in junior colleges, they have been cited here because Of their frequent application tO four-year institutions. The Inventory of Selected College Functions contains thirty-five essential functions Of student affairs programs that respondents are asked to evaluate at their institution. The Inventory Of Staff Resources is intended to measure the experience and training of student affairs staff at the community college level. After modifications, Peterson used the Inventory of Selected College Functions to compare student, faculty, and student affairs staff perceptions Of the student affairs program in the senior colleges of the American Lutheran Church.28 His findings in part follow: 27Max R. Raines, ed., Conference to Plan Research on Junior College Student Personnel Programs (University Of Chicago, 1964), p. 264. 28Glen E. Peterson, "The Perceptions Of Student Personnel Administrators, Faculty Members, and Students Of the Student Personnel Programs of the Senior Colleges 50 1. There were significant differences in perception by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to the scope and quality Of some student personnel services at each of the ten colleges. 2. All three groups were frequently negative about the scope of a service while positive about the quality Of that same service. 3. One of the most important concerns expressed by the student groups from each college was in regard to their desire to be greater participants in the decision-making process that affected their academic and social programs. 4. Due to the fact that many respondents from each college indicated that there was a need to implement certain student personnel services which were already available, there was a need to strengthen the lines Of communication between the student personnel administrators and the students and faculty. 5. Students and faculty agreed that each Of their institutions should provide the best possible program Of student services. At Rock Valley College, Troesher also used the Raines Inventory Of Selected College Functions to investi- gate the perceptions Of the student affairs program held by students, faculty, and student affairs staff.30 She asked the student affairs staff, faculty, and students to rate the effectiveness Of the various student affairs functions and then examined the extent to which the Of the American Lutheran Church" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968), p. 2. 291bid., pp. 226-28. 30Carol Mabel Troesher, "A Descriptive Study Of the Perceptions Held by Students, Faculty, and Student Personnel Administrators Of the Student Personnel Ser- vices at Rock Valley College" (Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1969). 51 perceptions Of these three groups varied. Troesher found no significant differences in the perceptions Of the three groups regarding six services while the five remaining programs were rated from fair tO poor by all three groups. She also found a consensus among the three groups that services based on student involvement and participation were implemented effectively. She con- cluded that the services rated as weaker needed more time to develop while the agreement about the effectiveness Of the other six services suggested good cooperation between faculty and student affairs staff together with a positive attitude among students toward the value Of these student services. Evaluative Studies Of Student Affairs Programs in Graduate and Professional Schools There are three studies Of interest in this phase Of the literature review. As mentioned earlier, Vester- mark surveyed 122 graduate institutions as to the extent of their student affairs programs, the organization Of these programs, and the type Of self-study they were currently doing. Of the eight services identified by Vestermark on the questionnaire as being Of concern to graduate students, admissions, financial aid, and housing were receiving the most institutional study. She found finances to be the major nonacademic reason why students dropped out Of graduate programs. Ineffective communi- cation patterns between graduate schools and their 52 students were also revealed in this study. Further, Vestermark discovered that individual graduate depart- ments offered better quality student affairs support and programming than did the graduate schools to which these departments belonged. Finally, she found that typically the policy formulating or recommending bodies at most of the 122 institutions surveyed did not provide for graduate student representation.31 These results indi- cate that as little as ten years ago, graduate student affairs programs in a wide range of institutions were limited in their scope and effectiveness. In their nation-wide study Of medical student attrition, Johnson and Hutchins asked medical college deans, student affairs staff, admissions staff, students, and former students who had dropped out of medical school to complete a questionnaire that dealt partially with the quality Of student affairs programs offered at their medical school. The authors found that administrators rated the value Of initial orientation programs, coun- seling services, food services, religious programs, and student organizations and activities higher than students rated all Of these same services. Psychiatric services, recreation facilities, and housing were rated the same 31Vestermark, 1966, pp. 88-91. 53 by all groups.32 It is significant to bear in mind, however, that this study's main focus was on the attrition rate in medical schools. On that general issue administrators rated several student affairs functions as having little impact on attrition, while students rated these functions as having potential for decreasing the attrition rate if their emphasis were altered. Finally, Abbott surveyed students, faculty, and student affairs staff at the Medical College Of Georgia to determine their perceptions Of that institution's student affairs program.33 He developed his own question- naire that asked respondents to rate the importance and adequacy Of the services available to students through the student affairs program. Abbott found that all three groups perceived the student affairs program to be Of moderate to great importance as part Of the total edu- cational program at the Medical College and to be Of minimal to moderate adequacy as it was currently being performed at the Medical College.34 It should be pointed 32Davis G. Johnson and Edwin B. Hutchins, "Doctor or Dropout? A Study Of Medical Student Attrition," Journal Of Medical-Education 41 (December 1966): 1183. 33Bernard J. Abbott, "A Study Of Faculty, Student, and Student Affairs Staff Perceptions of Selected Student Personnel Services at the Medical College Of Georgia" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1976), p. 5. 34Ibid.. pp. 102-07. 54 out that Abbott is the only researcher discovered by this writer who employed a method Of evaluating a student affairs program that separated the overall need (impor- tance) for the various aspects Of the program from the effectiveness (adequacy) with which these program compo- nents were being administered. This method seems more valuable than may others eXplored because it provides the respondent with the Opportunity to discriminate between his/her perceptions about how important a service or function is to students and the institution in general as Opposed to how adequately that service or function is actually being administered. These studies are perhaps more significant because they are so few in number than because of the findings they suggest. It appears that many graduate schools have not yet made a significant commitment to providing sup- portive student affairs programming and staff for their students. In both the graduate and the professional school setting these programs are just beginning to evolve. The means Of evaluating these programs are also just beginning to emerge. After reviewing the findings Of these several evaluative studies Of student affairs programs, the following conclusions are apparent. First, very little is known about the quality Of student affairs programs at the graduate or profes- sional school level. This area of research needs tO be 55 pursued if student affairs administrators in these types of settings are to do an effective job of implementing and delivering student affairs programs. Second, the findings in the studies that have been examined vary considerably. In some institutions the perceptions of students, faculty, and administrators Of the student affairs program were found to be alike while in other settings the perceptions of these three groups varied greatly. In some settings the perceptions Of the student affairs program were consistently high, while in other settings the perceptions were consistently low across these three groups. Still other evaluative studies produced inconsistent results. This variability in the measurable effectiveness Of student affairs pro- grams suggests that these programs may be Of varying quality from one institution to the next, but it may also suggest that the nature Of the institutions them- selves, the organizational climate Of the institutions, may have an impact on the effectiveness of a student affairs program as perceived by students, faculty, and administrators. The evaluative studies that have been surveyed in this literature review have not considered organizational climate as a variable Of interest. In this study, however, organizational climate was con- sidered as a variable that might influence the effec- tiveness of a student affairs program. Therefore, this 56 review Of literature also contains an examination Of studies of organizational climate that have been accom- plished in higher education settings. This review is intended to establish an apprOpriate direction for the current study to follow with regard tO this variable. Evaluative Studies Of Organizational Climate in Higher Education Institutions The phenomenon Of organizational climate has been widely studied by researchers from a variety of disci- plines in recent years. Applications to higher education Of the techniques that have been developed to study the climate Of business organizations have been frequent in the past two decades as higher education has found more and more need to evaluate, codify, and clearly understand itself in relation to classical organizational theory. These applications have led to several Opinions about how higher education organizations are actually organized. Millet suggests a community model in which a community Of power rather than a hierarchy of power is the organizational basis Of American colleges and uni- 35 The goals and Objectives Of a university versities. organization are agreeable to everyone involved in the organization, according to Millet's model. The concept of community assumes that organizational functions are 35John Millett, The Academic Community (New York: McGraw Hill, 1962), p. 62. 57 different across the university and that coordination and "coming together" is achieved through a process Of dynamic concensus rather than through a hierarchial sys- tem Of subordination. This author sees the relationship between students, faculty, administration, alumni, and governing boards as being collegial in nature and based on shared power.36 He states: . . . The peculiar institutional characteristics Of higher education (organizations) derive from the peculiar Objective which the institution exists to serve: to preserve, transmit, and advance knowledge. The pursuit Of this Objective gives to higher education its partial resemblance to religion, welfare, the economy, and government.37 . . . A college or university cannot isolate itself from the society of which it is a part. As an insti- tution, higher education is responsive to the influ- ences of religion, philanthropy, the economy, and government. Drawing financial support from these various elements Of society, higher education can- not well ignore them. The world is very much with those who labor in the cause Of higher education. 8 . . . Within the institution Of higher education, hierarchy Of power has been avoided by a pluralism Of agencies. But the avoidance Of a concentration Of power goes even further than this. Within each agency--this is, each college and university--there is an attempt in practice to avoid a hierarchy Of power. Community Of power rather than hierarchy of power is the organizational basis Of American col- leges and universities.39 Kerr describes higher education organizations as being multiversities, composed Of many individuals, separate units with specific narrow goals, a whole series 37 361bid., p. 54. Ibid., p. 60. 39 38Ibid., p. 64. Ibid. 58 of communities and programs loosely knitted together under the common name and governing board that they all share. Leadership in this model is Often diffused and transient.40 Kerr makes the following Observations: What is the justification Of the modern American multiversity? History is one answer. Consistency with the surrounding society is another. Beyond that, it has few peers in the preservation and dis- semination and examination of the eternal truths; no living peers in the search for knowledge; and no peers in all history among institutions Of higher learning in serving so many Of the segments of an advancing civilization. Inconsistent inter- nally as an institution, it is consistently pro- ductive. Torn by change, it has the stability of freedom. Though it has not a single soul to call its own, its members pay their devotions to truth.41 Etzioni adds to these viewpoints by pointing out that a large part of a college or university's staff are professionals. Since higher education organizations Often do not have clear goals and Objectives, this allows the power base in the institution to always be in a state Of fluctuation and change and encourages continuing battles for influence and decision making among this large number of professionals.42 These Opinions Of Millet, Kerr, and Etzioni con- tain several common threads that are woven through much 4OClark Kerr, The Uses of the University (Cam- bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963), pp. 1-2. 41Ibid., pp. 44-45. 42Amitai Etzioni, A Comparative Analysis of Com- plex Organizations (New York: Free Press, 1961), p. 260. 59 of the commentary on the organizational nature Of higher education. In addition, much has been written about the uniqueness Of higher education organizations. Caplow and McGee make this point as they suggest that: . The university is a fascinating specimen Of social organization, remarkably unlike any other. Its roots, and some Of its rituals, go back to the Middle Ages and beyond, but its principal business is innovation. Its hierarchial arrangements are simple and standardized, but the academic hierarchy includes a greater range of skills and a greater diversity Of tasks than any business or military organization. Above all, the university is remark- able for pursuing an intricate program with little agreement about fundamental purposes. It is easy for people to agree that the purpose Of a factory is production, even if they disagree violently about methods or about the distribution Of earnings. It is not at all easy . . . to determine the funda- mental purposes of a university or the relative importance of different activities in contributing to those purposes. It is also apparent from the literature that more data are needed about how higher education organi- zations work, how they are organized, and how these char- acteristics influence the effectiveness Of their programs, including student affairs programs. Olive, in a 1965 survey Of available research on higher education organi- zations, found "virgin territory." She also reports the Opinions Of Millet and Corson that: . . . The existing theories Of organizational behavior and administration may not be applicable to present-day universities (because of the follow- ing differences): the goals Of the university are not specific and clearly defined; the product or 43Theodore Caplow and Reece J. McGee, The Aca- demic Market Place (New York: Basic Books, 1958), p. 4. 60 service produced is not tangible; the customer (student) exerts limited influence; the employees (faculty) are dedicated to their specialized fields, not to the employing institution; and the decision- making process is diffused in a way not typical Of other forms Of organization. Such differences sug- gest the inadequacy Of present theories (when applied to) problems of university administration and the incontestable and urgent need for new thinking and new approaches to research in this field. DOi found, after surveying available research literature, that while the organizational structure Of colleges and universities had been explored, such explor- ation had not been in the context of modern organizational models and that this new exploration is necessary. He also suggested that the major barrier to new exploration for a long time was the sensitivity and resistance Of colleges and universities to scrutiny.45 In his exploration Of academic governance, Corson echoes the need for greater understanding and more specific research: Because Of the force Of tradition and custom, it is folly to seek precise processes and procedures to meet the administrative problems with which uni- versities are being confronted as they steadily grow larger. What is needed is clearer recognition Of the distinctive characteristics of the university as an administrative enterprize. In spite Of the fact that universities have existed for centuries, 44Betsy Ann Olive, "The Administration Of Higher Education: A Bibliographical Survey," Administrative Science Quarterly 11 (March 1967): 676-77. 45James J. DOi, "Organization and Administration, Finances and Facilities," Review of Educational Research 35 (October 1965): 357. 61 little has been written that aids the administrator or student to identify the respects in which the university differs from the business firm, the military, or the public organization as an admin- istrative enterprize. With this sketch in mind Of the organizational nature Of higher education institutions, it is now pos- sible to examine the variable of climate in higher edu- cation organizations, first by defining it and then by looking at how it has been quantified in several recent studies. ways. Organizational climate can be defined in several James and Jones developed three overlapping defi- nitions or approaches to the measurement Of organizational climate that serve to summarize this concept for the pur- poses Of this literature review: 1. Multiple measurement - organizational attribute approach - defines organizational climate as a set of characteristics that describe an organi- zation and that (a) distinguish the organization from other organizations, (b) are relatively enduring over time, and (c) influence the behavior Of people in the organization.47 Perceptual measurement — organizational attribute approach - organizational climate is defined as a set Of attributes specific to a particular organization that may be induced from the way the organization deals with its members and its environment. For the individual member within an organization, climate takes the form Of a set 46John J. Corson, Governance of Colleges and Uni- versities (New York: McGraw Hill, 1960), p. 41. 47Lawrence R. James and Allan P. Jones, "Organi- zational Climate: A Review Of Theory and Research," Psy- chological Bulletin 81 (1974): 1097. 62 of attitudes and expectancies which describe the organization in terms both Of static char- acteristics (such as degree Of autonomy) and behavior-outcome and outcome-outcome contin- gencies. 3. Perceptual measurement - individual attribute approach - organizational climate is a set Of summary or global perceptions held by individuals about their organizational environment and reflec- tive Of an interaction between personal and organizational characteristics, in which the individual, by forming climate perceptions, acts as an information processor, using inputs from (a) the Objective events in and character- istics of the organization, and (b) character- istics (e.g., values, needs) Of the perceiver.49 The significance Of these definitions is that, as these researchers suggest in the literature review support- ing their overlapping definitions, the climate of an organization is a tenuous commodity that blankets several areas of personal and organizational experience. Dif- ferent organizational members experience the climate Of their organization differently depending on several variables, such as their level in the organization, the type Of people with whom they work, and the type Of person they are themselves. The following studies demon- strate how organizational climate has been studied in several higher education settings. Kasper conducted an investigation at Albion College in 1966 of student perceptions Of that insti- tution's climate by surveying low, middle, and high ability students (as defined by grade point average 48 49 Ibid., p. 1099. Ibid., p. 1105. 63 and Scholastic Aptitude Test scores) with the College Characteristics Index (CCI) developed by Stern and Pace. She found that most aspects Of the college climate were perceived similarly by students Of varying abilities. Significant differences were found among the perceptions Of high, medium, and low ability students on only two scales Of the fifteen 991 factors.50 The author was able to conclude that the climate at Albion College cut across several of the five types Of college environments that Pace has described as prevalent in higher education 51 organizations. One year later Fick used the College and Uni- versity Environment Scales (CUES), also developed by 50Elizabeth Ann Kasper, "An Investigation Of the Perception Of College Climate Among Students of Varying Ability: Comparisons Within the Albion College Climate and Across Types Of College Climate" (Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1966). 51The College Characteristics Index (991)! dev- elOped by Stern and Pace in 1958, is a self-administered questionnaire containing three hundred items distributed among thirty scales Of ten items each. These items are intended to measure the reactions Of students to their environment in a higher education setting. This index is one Of several that Stern has developed to measure the impact Of various educational environments. The index is built around the need-press theory Of personality developed by Murray and articulated by Stern. This theory purposes that individuals are set into action by a set of complex motives. When a need is aroused, the indi- vidual moves into a state Of tension until that need is satisfied. Therefore, people learn to react to these tensions so that they will be reduced and also so that the tensions will develop again and need to be reduced again, producing even greater levels Of gratification and satisfaction. George G. Stern, People in Context (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1970), pp. 1-15. 64 Pace, to compare the social climates of several campuses of a multi-campus university. This instrument asks stu- dents and faculty to respond to questions about the climate Of their respective institutions, first as they perceive an ideal campus should be, and then as they see their own campus.52 In this study, the researcher found significant differences between the "real" and "ideal" responses Of both faculty and students on the five scales: Practicality, Community, Awareness, Propriety, and Scholar- ship. She also found that while faculty and students agreed with each other in their perceptions Of how their campuses should be, they disagreed significantly about how their campuses actually were, with students finding the climate significantly more negative than did faculty.53 When Taylor administered the CUES to college juniors and their faculty at Western Illinois University in 1969, he found little difference between these groups 52Dorcas Jane Pick, "A Comparison Of Campus Cli- mates Of a Multi-Campus University as Measured by the College and University Environment Scales" (Ed.D. disser- tation, Columbia University, 1967). 53The College and University Environment Scale (CUES), developed by Pace in 1963, is a questionnaire that consists Of one hundred statements distributed across five scales about colleges and universities--features and facil- ities, policies and procedures, curricula, instruction, faculty, and student activities--that students mark "gen- erally true" or "generally not true" in relation to their own campus. The purpose Of this Scale is to help describe the general atmosphere of different colleges as reported by students. C. Robert Pace, Education and Evangelism (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972), pp. 17-18. 65 in their perceptions of the campus' climate. Both groups perceived the campus as being characterized by an emphasis on procedures and order. They also found the campus friendly, cohesive, and congenial, with an air Of con- siderateness. What few differences were discovered among the sub-groups Of students who were surveyed were attri- buted to sex Of the student, academic major, and place Of residency while at school.54 Lindemuth studied the relationships between leader- ship behavior Of an academic dean and the campus' climate as perceived by students. In 1969 he administered the Leader Behavior Descriptionggpestionnaire (LBDQ), dev- elOped by Halpin and Stogdill at the Ohio State University, at six selected liberal arts colleges to 293 respondents, and the CUES to 317 sophomores and seniors in these same settings. The resulting data suggested that a relation- ship did exist between the academic deans' leader behaviors and student perceptions of the schools' climates, thus supporting the contention that an individual organization leader has a significant impact on an organization simply because Of the role in which that leader functions. The results also suggested that self-perceptions Of academic 54David Stanton Taylor, "A Study Of Institutional Climate at Western Illinois University as Perceived by Selected Junior Class Students" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969). PP. 105-06. 66 deans differed significantly from perceptions of their behavior held by other responding groups from around the . 55 31x campuses. In 1972, Borrevik circulated pilot questionnaires to faculty members in four departments at three universi- ties in western Oregon to draw together data that could be molded into an effective organizational climate inven- tory just for academic departments in higher education settings. The six domains he identified for his Organi- zational Climate Description Questionnaire--Higher Edu- cation were consideration, intimacy, disengagement, pro- duction emphasis, student involvement, and detachment.56 In testing the instrument that he subsequently developed, the author found that: 1. The OCDQ-HE is a valid instrument to assess the organizational climate Of academic departments. 2. The consolidation in this investigation in higher education of the same factors found in the original study (Halpin) was shown. Four Of the five subtest dimensions were similar to those found in elementary schools (by Halpin in his original develOpmental work with the OCDQ).57 55Marvin Harold Lindemuth, "An Analysis of the Leader Behavior of Academic Deans as Related to the Campus Climate in Selected Colleges" (Ph.D. dissertation, Uni- versity Of Michigan, 1969). 56Berge Andrew Borrevik, "The Construction of an Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire for Aca- demic Departments in Colleges and Universities" (Ph.D. dissertation, University Of Oregon, 1972), p. 91. 57Ibid., p. 93. 67 Cassel and Becker studied the degree Of Openness Of organizational climate for student input to the decision-making processes Of the various institutional administrative personnel of approximately forty colleges and universities in the state of Wisconsin.58 This study, conducted in 1973, employed the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire Form VII (OCDQ), a modified version Of Halpin's original instrument, which was administered to student leaders during leadership workshops that they attended. The researchers concluded from their data that the world inside Wisconsin colleges was "juvenile" and "oppressive" and allowed students little voice in their own education and personal develop- ment. This was in contrast to the authors' Observation that in the world outside Of the university, students had more autonomy than had been enjoyed by any other gener- ation in the history Of civilization.59 58Russell N. Cassel and William F. Becker, "Assess- ment Of Organizational Climate Of Colleges in Wisconsin for Student Input in Decision Making," College Student Journal 7 (September-October 1973): 26. 59The Organizational Climate Description Question- naire (OCDQ) was developed by Halpin and Stogdill and is composed of sixty-four Likert-type items that describe the climate of an elementary school. The items in this questionnaire are grouped around eight sub-scales, and the scores across these sub-scales reflect one of six climate types identified by the authors as ranging from Open at one extreme to closed at the opposite extreme. This instrument was initially designed for use in elemen- tary schools, but has more recently been adapted with 68 Two studies were conducted at the University of Missouri in 1975 to measure how students felt they fit into their university environment. Gelwick used a mod- ified version Of Pervin's Transactional Analysis Of Person and Environment (TAPE) and two additional instru- ments to measure the degree of person-environment fit or congruency experienced by adult women students in a uni- versity environment. She found that adult and average- age women students did not differ from each other in how they perceived the congruency or incongruency between themselves and the university environment. However, she also found that adult women students were more likely to drop out for nonacademic reasons, were more satisfied with administrative rules, and felt out Of place with average age students. Average age students, on the other hand, were more satisfied with the nonacademic aspects Of their university experience and blamed their environment for their academic frustrations.60 These and additional findings led the author to conclude that in a university setting there are interpersonal and noninterpersonal environments that tend to match or fit an individual's varying success to additional types Of educational insti- tutions. Andrew W. Halpin, Theory and Research of Admin- istration (New York: Macmillan Press, 1966): PP. 133-34. 6OBeverly Prosser Gelwick, "The Adult Woman Stu- dent and Her Perceptions and Expectations Of the Uni- versity Environment" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri, 1975). 69 personality. When such a match occurs, the individual will experience increased satisfaction with the environ- ment. Further, behavior was found to be functionally related to the person and the environment.61 The second study at the University of Missouri was conducted by Bauer in the School Of Forestry and proposed to investigate performance and satisfaction as a function of person-environment fit. He also employed the EEEE and discovered that performance was significantly correlated with person-environment congruency when the environment was defined by freshmen, upperclass students, or faculty. Additionally, performance seemed to be most directly related to the degree Of congruency between a student's perception of himself and the faculty's per- ception Of the ideal student.62 In a 1975 study at Purdue University, Reagan used a questionnaire that he designed to measure the satis- faction Of graduate students with their graduate education. 61The Transactional Analysis Of Personality and Environment (TAPE), developed by Pervin, is also based on the need-press theory Of Murray discussed earlier. The TAPE is built around the semantic differential tech- nique and asks students tO rate a number Of concepts related to their environment on the same polar adjective scales. Lawrence A. Pervin, "A Twenty-College Study of Student X College Interaction Using TAPE (Transactional Analysis of Personality and Environment): Rationale, Reliability, and Validity," Journal of Educational Psy- chology 58 (1967): 290-91. 62Gene Edward Bauer, "Performance and Satisfaction as a Function of Person/Environment Fit" (Ph.D. disserta- tion, University of Missouri, 1975). 70 The variables Of interest in this study were sex Of the student, marital status, degree Objective, area of study, and academic load. The results of this study suggested that sex Of the student was not related to satisfaction with graduate school. This finding contradicted the results Of several other studies, however, in which female graduate students were typically less satisfied than male students. Reagan concluded that recent emphasis on the rights and equality Of women across society had made an impact on the satisfaction of female graduate students at Purdue. Further findings were that graduate student satisfaction was not related to any of the addi- tional variables Of interest. However, the results did suggest that graduate students were significantly more satisfied with their experiences when they perceived that it was acceptable to faculty that Opinions held by stu- dents and faculty differed.63 Each of the several studies outlined to this point in this survey Of organizational climate research con- ducted in higher education organizations have employed one Of several instruments, the SEE, the EEEE, the 9929, or the TEEE. These instruments are each appropriate to traditional university settings where a wide range Of 63James H. Reagan, "An Analysis Of Graduate Stu- dent Satisfaction with Selected Aspects Of the Academic Environment in the School of Humanities, Social Science, and Education at Purdue University" (Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, 1975), pp. 57-59. 71 issues need tO be explored with a diverse pOpulation but would be of limited value in a small and highly specialized setting like CSPP-SD. The results that these instruments reflect about the organizational cli- mate Of each of the institutions in which they were used, however, are important to note in the development Of this study. The results of the next group of studies are also important because they deal with the climate perceptions of minorities and other special populations in higher education settings. Pfeifer and Schneider conducted a study at the University Of Maryland in 1974 in which they measured the perceptions Of university climate held by black and white students. Their data, responses to a questionnaire constructed on the basis Of essays and interviews with black and white students, showed consistent differences in the perceptions of the university climate held by these two racial groups. Primarily, blacks demonstrated that they were being affected by both personal and insti- tutional racism. Also, black students described the school's climate in much more negative terms than did white students.64 Correlations Of university climate and Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores with two criteria Of academic 64C. Michael Pfeifer and Benjamin Schneider, "University Climate Perceptions by Black and White Stu- dents," Journal Of Applied Peychology 59 (1974): 660. 72 success, grade point average (GPA), and a student's estimated probability Of receiving a degree, were com- puted according to race by Pfeifer in a second related study at the University Of Maryland in 1976. Since much Of the literature about organizational climate discusses the impact that climate can have on performance, Pfeifer chose to lOOk at the difference in performance that a university's climate might make between black and white students. A questionnaire was developed and adminis- tered to 550 students Of both races. Findings indicated that for white students negative perceptions Of the uni- versity climate correlated with low grades and low esti- mated probability Of receiving a degree. However, for black students negative perceptions Of the university climate correlated with high grades and high estimated probability of receiving a degree.65 The author's explanation of this phenomenon was that the more racist that black students perceived the university to be and the more negative they perceived the academic atmosphere to be, the more determined they were to study hard and 66 to achieve academically. These two studies by Pfeifer indicate that race is an important factor to consider 65C. Michael Pfeifer, "Relationship Between Scholastic Aptitude, Perception Of University Climate, and College Success for Black and White Students," Journal Of Applied Psychology 61 (1976): 345. 66Ibid., p. 346. 73 with respect to a higher education organization's cli- mate. Pfeifer's findings suggest that just as climate may impact students, faculty, and administrators dif- ferently, so it may also have varying effects on people according to their ethnic or racial background. Student's perceptions Of their college environment and how well they are understood by administrators was the subject of Pascarella's 1974 study at Syracuse Uni- versity.67 The author investigated the accuracy with which administrators described the college environment as it appeared to students. About nine hundred students and one hundred administrators from two upper New York state private universities were asked to complete seman- tic differential scales developed by the researcher that rated "this university" against twenty-six bipolar adjec- tive pairs. These administrators projected students as viewing the environment significantly higher regarding intellectual stimulation and significantly lower regard- ing bureaucracy than students actually did. The findings of this study indicated that at least in these two uni- versities, administrators as a group had substantially inaccurate and overly Optimistic understandings of the 67Ernest T. Pascarella, "Students' Perceptions Of the College Environment: How Well Are They Understood by Administrators?" Journal Of College Student Personnel 15 (September 1974): 370. 74 ways in which students perceived their institutions' environments along the two significant dimensions mentioned.68 Noeth and Dye conducted a study at Purdue Uni- versity in 1974 in which they measured students' per- ceptions Of the University's climate compared with their perceptions Of the climate Of their ideal university. A questionnaire containing forty-one items on four scales was constructed, tested, and administered to 1,040 ran- domly selected students. The results tabulated from the 821 returned questionnaires point out that students felt Purdue differed significantly from the ideal university on thirty-eight of the forty-one items. The greatest disparities came in the areas Of class discussion, teaching innovations, courses being interesting, the role Of upperclassmen, teachers' interest in students, and campus police.69 Both the work Of Pascarella and that of Noeth and Dye suggest that there can be a substantial difference in perception Of an organization's climate according to the perspective from which it is being evaluated. As was the case in several Of the studies cited in the earlier 681bid., p. 374. 69Richard J. Noeth and Allan H. Dye, "Real and Ideal Perceptions Of a University Environment,” Journal Of College Student Personnel 15 (November 1974): 506. 75 part of this literature review, here again students and administrators differed in how they perceived the organization. Further, the second study indicates that the university was significantly distant from how the student population would like it to be. In their 1975 study conducted at the University of Pittsburgh, Bowen and Kilmann developed their Learning Climate_guestionnaire (LCQ) to measure the dimensions Of the organizational climate moderating the impact Of the Objective prOperties Of professional schools on the moti- vation, learning, and satisfaction Of students.70 The authors made the assumption that educational institutions develop a climate analogous to that found in industrial organizations and that this climate has a measurable impact on students.71 The study's major focus was on the development and validation Of the Egg using profes- sional and nonprofessional MBA students as the pOpulation Of interest. This is one Of the very few organizational climate studies that has been initiated at the graduate or professional school level. The results of this study suggest support for the authors' contention that a measurable organizational climate exists in educational 70Donald D. Bowen and Ralph H. Kilman, "DevelOp- ing a Comparative Measure Of the Learning Climate in Pro- fessional Schools," Journal Of Applied Psychology 60 (February 1975): 71. 71Ibid. 76 institutions. The authors contend that this study demonstrates that overall satisfaction with the edu- cational process should be heavily dependent upon the quality Of the faculty-student relationships in an institution.72 This latter conclusion is supported by Pascarella in his second study at Syracuse University in 1974. Using another semantic differential technique to investigate the accuracy with which faculty members project students' perceptions Of the institutional climate at two Colleges of Arts and Sciences, this researcher found that when subdivided into categories Of "high," "moderate," and "low" interactors on the basis Of their (faculty's) fre- quency of informal out-Of-class contacts with students, high interactors were found to project consistently more accurate student ratings Of the climate than low inter- actors.73 Together, these several studies further under- line the need for higher education administrators to accurately verify the nature Of their organization's cli- mate and to understand that there may be a great deal Of variability in the organizational climate perceptions held by students, faculty, and administrators. 721bid., p. 78. 73Ernest T. Pascarella, "Informal Interaction and Faculty Projections Of Student Ratings Of the Institu- tional Climate," Research in Higher Education 75 (1975): 383. 77 The studies of organizational climate in higher education settings that have been summarized to this point in this literature review represent a wide range Of research approaches. From this point forward, however, this review will focus on the work Of Dr. Rensis Likert and those researchers who have employed his approach tO the study Of higher education organizations. Likert has worked extensively with organizational and management issues. In October of 1946, he and members Of his staff established the Survey Research Center at the University Of Michigan as a setting in which they could carry forward their research in a more formal manner. Shortly after the death of Kurt Lewin in 1948, Likert's organization and Lewin's, the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute Of Technology, combined to form the Institute for Social Research at the University Of Michigan under the direction Of Likert. This study group, and more recently the private consortium known as Rensis Likert Associates, have contributed greatly to the understanding Of organizational problems connected with leadership, organizational performance, improvement and change, economic motivation and behavior, communi- cation influence, and related organizational issues. There are several reasons for the use in this study of Likert's model and methods. First, he has developed a theoretical framework for discovering the organizational effectiveness Of a higher education 78 organization that is comprehensive and that differentiates between a range Of organizational types, exploitive- authoritative, benevolent-authoritative, consultative, and participative, rather than relying on a more narrowly defined continuum. Second, Likert does not attempt to force educational organizations into a theoretical mold cast in the world of industry. Instead, he has developed a more fluid model that accommodates a wide range Of organizational types that includes educational organi- zations. Third, Likert's model is particularly valuable to this study because the instrumentation used for data collection is specifically geared, through the use of multiple forms Of questionnaires, toward examining the perceptions Of the climate Of a higher education organi- zation held by specific constituencies, such as students, faculty, and administrators. It should be recognized that Likert uses the term "organizational effectiveness" in his work to include organizational climate. His instruments measure organi- zational effectiveness along four major scales: climate, managerial leadership, group process, and self-perception. This approach yields a broader and more SOphisticated range Of data about an organization than do the approaches of other researchers discussed in this literature review. However, this range of data is still basically concerned with the concept Of organizational climate as it has been developed in this study. 79 Likert's primary concern in evaluating an organi- zational setting is to discover how effectively the organization is making use Of its human resources. In the tradition Of the human relations theorists like McGregor and Mayo, Likert proposes that those organizations that are most successful in achieving their goals are organizations in which individuals and groups feel sup- ported, trusted, and included in the work that is being accomplished. He describes a continuum Of organizational types or systems, each of which place varying emphasis on these concepts Of trust, support, and participation: System I (exploitive-authoritative)--information that flows through the organization is Often twisted and falsified. Resulting information is incomplete and inaccurate. Orders and decisions are usually issued by individuals at the tOp of the organization. Upward communication is almost nonexistent and lateral communication is at a minimum. These organizations make erroneous use Of employees' desires for physical security while making moderate use Of economic motives and slight use Of status and power motives. Fear, threats, punishments, and occasional rewards are additional tools Of the System I organization. System II (benevolent-authoritative) - decision making is Often made at levels appreciably higher than the levels where most adequate and accurate information for these decisions exists. Communication flow is mostly downward and is interpreted with suspicion by subordinates. These organizations make some use Of the desire for physical security, extensive use of economic motives, and some use Of members' desires for status and power, recognition and achievement. Here the organization uses rewards and some actual as well as potential punishment. System III (consultative) - there is some pressure to protect self and colleagues and hence some pressure to distort; information is only moderately complete and contains some inaccuracies. Attitudes are usually favorable. These supportive behaviors help to implement the organization's goals. 80 Communication is usually directed from the tOp, but with some initiative at lower levels. System III organizations fulfill the desire for physical security and make extensive use Of economic motives, moderate use of the desire for recognition and achievement, and also, desire for power and status. Here the organization uses rewards, occasional punishment, and a controlled sense Of involvement. System IV (participative) - provides the mechanisms that facilitate group decision making and multiple overlapping group structure. As a consequence, System IV organizations set objectives which repre- sent an Optimum integration Of the needs and desires Of the members of the organization. System IV organizations fulfill the desire for physical security and make highly effective use of economic motives, achieved by group involvement in how best to use economic motivation fully. They also make extensive use Of group problem solving and the desires for achievement, self-actualization, and new experiences. Economic rewards are based on compensation systems developed through participation. Group involvement and participation are utilized in arriving at goals, improving methods, and appraising programs. Organizational members are fully recog- nized for their achievement and excellence.74 Participation in the organization is a signifi- cant factor in Likert's theoretical approach. Figure 2 demonstrates the varying types Of participation that the four systems discussed above have to Offer.75 These diagrams also demonstrate the importance of the "link pin" concept in System IV that encourages members of the organization to relate to and understand members Of parallel organizational groups in order to produce greater effectiveness. 4Rensis Likert, New Patterns of Management (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), pp. 104-10. 75Rensis Likert, The Human Organization (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), pp. 49-50. 0 IL 00 00 System I OOROO System 11 __________________ System IV Fig. 2. Schematic interpretation of Rensis Likert's organizational models 82 Related to these four systems that Likert has described are the variables that he has identified that explain the differences in these organizational types. These variables are Of three kinds: Causal Variables - those which the organization's leaders can modify or alter directly and that will, if altered, produce change in intervening or end- result variables. Organizational climate, together with supervisory leadership and structure are the causal variables that should be the main focus for change. Intervening Variables - reflect the internal state of the organization, such as the loyalty, attitudes, and motivation Of organization members. Changes in causal variables are highly correlated with changes in these intervening variables. End-Result Variables - performance-based variables that reflect the achievement Of the organization, including satisfaction with the environment of the organization. According to Likert and his associates, causal variables are the key to organizational improvement. If the effectiveness Of an organization is to improve, therefore, this improvement must begin by altering the causal variables, such as the organizational climate. SO, for example, as CSPP-SD would improve its organi- zational climate, a causal variable, the extent to which the Student Affairs program would be viewed as effective, an end result variable, would also improve. TO determine at what system level a higher edu- cation organization is Operating, Likert has developed several forms Of a questionnaire called the Profile Of 761bid., pp. 26-29. 83 a College or University (POCU). Each Of the forms is designed for a special constituency, from students to the Board Of Trustees. The purpose of this instrument is to measure how each member Of the organization, according to constituency, perceives that the organi- zation relates to Likert's continuum Of four systems. From these data can then be drawn a range Of information about what the organization or its parts need to do to achieve the goals to which they aspire. The EQEE is arranged around four major variables: organizational climate, managerial leadership, group process, and self- perception. For the purposes Of this study, the EQEE will be significantly modified to meet the needs Of the CSPP-SD community. The following studies demonstrate how this Profile of a College or University and Likert's model have been applied in several higher education organizations. In 1973 Hodges developed a study aimed at relat- ing satisfaction and other reactions Of faculty and stu- dents tO their perceptions Of the organizational char- acteristics Of an engineering college in a large uni- versity, measuring such variables as supportive behavior, communication, and leadership style. The researcher hypothesized that satisfaction Of faculty and students was related to the extent to which they perceived the organization to be Operating at the participative 84 (System IV) level. The Likert Profile was administered to faculty and students, and the findings supported the hypothesis. Satisfaction Of students and faculty with the climate of the engineering college was found to be greater for those respondents who perceived the organi- zation to be Operating at or closest to the System IV level. Satisfaction was less for those students and faculty who found the organization tO be less effective (Systems I, II, or III).77 Hodges also found the Likert Profile was useful in systematically determining the perceptions Of each segment Of the population he sur- veyed.78 In a study conducted in several Colorado com- munity junior colleges in 1973, Laughlin used Likert's Profile of a College or University, Faculty Form to survey organizational climate perceptions among 353 full-time faculty. The results showed that the faculty as a group perceived themselves to be functioning within Likert's System III and System IV levels relative to students.79 77Joseph Daniel Hodges, "Perceived Organizational Characteristics and Organizational Satisfaction in an Engineering College" (Ph.D. dissertation, University Of Michigan, 1973), p. 109. 781bid., p. 110. 79Richard Allan Laughlin, "A Study Of Organiza- tional Climate as Perceived by Faculty in Colorado Com- munity Junior Colleges" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado, 1973). 85 Also, faculty as a group perceived deans and department Chairpersons to be functioning within System II and occasionally even at System I relative to faculty and students.80 This study did not explore, however, the perceptions that any Of these constituencies held about the faculty. In 1971 Smith used an early version Of Likert's Profile Of a College or University, Faculty Form to survey faculty, department Chairpersons, and senior administra- tors at twelve public community colleges in the Midwest as to their perceptions of the organizational climate in which they were working. His findings for this community college setting suggest that: 1. The closer the department chairperson is to System IV, the more faculty members feel they have an influence on what goes on in their departments. 2. The faculty and their department chairperson share more of a consensus about the chairperson's role in those departments where the chairperson is closer to System IV. 3. Those department Chairpersons who conform most closely to the role expectations of their faculty are also closest to System IV. 4. Chairpersons with higher faculty evaluations tend to be closer to System IV. 5. Greater influence in departmental matters on the part of faculty is accompanied by better evalu- ations of the department chairperson, greater faculty cohesiveness, and greater faculty satis- faction with how the department is run. BoIbid. 86 6. The longer Chairpersons serve their departments, the less democratic their management style becomes.81 Likert's Profile was also used by Gardner to sur- vey faculty and administrator perceptions of the organi- zational climate in a large midwestern university. The findings Of this 1971 study are summarized as follows: In seven Of the ten administrative activities in this study, faculty satisfaction is influenced more by the management style of the department chairperson than any other variable. In each case the relation- ship is positive and indicates that as faculty per- ceive the department chairperson's management style to be more participative, they tend to express greater satisfaction with their participation in these activities, and vice versa. This is true in all activities except three Of the four activities considered least important by the faculty. . . . Faculty do desire less direct involvement in admin- istrative activities when they perceive the manage- ment style Of their department chairperson to be consultative or participative (System III or IV) than when they perceive it to be authoritarian (System I or II).82 In a study conducted by Bechard in 1970, the per- ceptions of the organizational climate in the College Of Education at Michigan State University were measured as perceived by administrators, graduate faculty, under- graduate faculty, graduate students, and undergraduate students. Bechard also used early forms Of the Likert 81Albert B. Smith, "Role Expectations for and Observations of Community College Department Chairmen: An Organizational Study of Consensus and Conformity" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1971). 82Carroll A. Gardner, "Faculty Participation in Departmental Administrative Activities" (Ph.D. disser- tation, University Of Michigan, 1971). 87 Profile of a College or University to gather his data. His results revealed that students found the college much more authoritarian than did administrators while faculty fell between the two groups but closer to stu- dents. Bechard summarized his findings by saying that: . . . the results show great differences in percep— tion Of the organizational climate. . . . These findings indicate that the administrators feel a high degree Of satisfaction in the participative character Of the organization Of the College. . . . They view the College as a favorable place to work, and enjoy their relationships with col- leagues and subordinates. A high ranking by the Administrators Of the Leadership Process indicates satisfaction with their ability to establish a climate of trust and confidence in relationships with subordinates. This includes the degree to which they exhibit supportive behavior, Obtain ideas and Opinions Of subordinates, and the degree to which subordinates feel free to discuss matters about their jobs.83 The author went on to note that further examina- tion Of the data revealed that the student and faculty group reported significantly lower degrees of satisfaction with the College and its climate as an environment in which to work and learn. Lasher also made use Of Likert's Profile in his study in 1975 of the governance Of nine professional schools in a large midwestern university. He used the same set Of questions and the same basic approach as did 83Joseph E. Bechard, "The College of Education at Michigan State University as an Organization: A Survey Of the Perceptions Of Its Students, Faculty, and Admin- istrators" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970). pp. 150-55. 88 Smith and Gardner except that Lasher aimed his study at administrative style Of the dean of each school. He found the following: . . . As the administrative style Of a unit's dean becomes more consultative and participative (closer to System IV) greater satisfaction with decision making and greater loyalty and commitment tend to be in evidence for unit members. . . . The basic finding was that as a dean's style was perceived to be more Open and participative, faculty members tended to be viewed as more influ- ential while lesser administrators and groups higher in the faculty hierarchy tended tO be viewed as less influential in professional school governance. . . . When the dean's administrative style was Open and participative, the level of influence desired for these groups was low. . . . (Further,) less personal involvement in profes- sional school governance was desired when the administrative style Of a unit's dean was per- ceived as being very Open and participative. . . . One would think that an Open operation, where the emphasis is on teamwork, would be characterized by a high degree Of faculty involvement in most decision areas. Apparently this is not the case. An open, participative school is apparently char- acterized by the potential for involvement. In such a setting faculty can get involved in and have a significant impact on a decision making process if the need arises, but continued involvement is evidently not required.8 Summary A review Of the literature concerning the evalu- ation Of student affairs programs in undergraduate, graduate, and professional school programs suggested that while many evaluative studies have been accomplished in four-year undergraduate institutions, almost no 84William F. Lasher, "Academic Governance in Uni- versity Professional Schools" (Ph.D. dissertation, Uni- versity Of Michigan, 1975). 89 research is available to suggest the impact that student affairs programs are having at the graduate or profes- sional school levels. The studies reviewed also reflected several methodologies for examining student affairs pro- grams. Three issues were important with regard tO these methods. First, wide support was found for retaining separate measures for students, faculty, and adminis- trators. Second, it was apparent, after comparing the needs Of this study tO the approaches to data collection used in the Wrenn-Kamm forms, the Rackham questionnaire, the Mooney Problem Check List, Fitzgerald's form, and the Raines forms, that, aside from any other problems these methods Of data collection might contain, they were not applicable tO the unique setting and population found in the CSPP-SD community. Only Abbott's format seemed appropriate, and only Abbott's format had been previously used in a professional school setting. Third, the method used by Abbott of asking respondents to rate both the importance and the adequacy of each student affairs function seems to be a valuable approach for this type Of evaluation. It was also discovered in the course Of this literature review that no previous studies had taken into account the variable Of organizational climate as a possible additional determinant Of the perceptions held by students, faculty, or administrators of the necessity and effectiveness Of the student affairs 90 program. Therefore, the variable of organizational climate was discussed and several studies measuring organizational climate in higher education settings were also reviewed. A wide range Of data collection methods was explored. Examination Of the per, the EEEE, the 9929, the EEEE, and the 999 as methods of data collection were each found to be incompatible with the special needs Of this study. Further, it was discovered that the theoreti- cal approach and the methods Of data collection develOped by Dr. Rensis Likert could be adapted for use in this study. Therefore, Likert's theoretical model and approach to the study Of higher education organizations were reviewed in addition to several studies that implemented his techniques. There are two major results of this review of literature. First, it is apparent that a study Of the impact Of a student affairs program at the professional school level is needed in order to begin to build an understanding Of how valuable student affairs programs are at this level Of higher education. This study should be conducted on the basis of a comparison Of constituent perceptions as measured by a questionnaire suited to the specific needs of this study. Second, the variable Of organizational climate is important to consider in this evaluation tO determine to what extent this variable may influence perceptions Of the student affairs program. 91 Dr. Rensis Likert's approach to the study and measurement of organizational climate seems to most accurately meet the needs Of this study in that regard. CHAPTER I I I METHODS In this chapter the sample and the instrument used for data collection are described. The methods Of data collection and data analysis used in the study are also discussed. The Sample The sample surveyed for this study was divided into three groups: the students, the members Of the faculty, and the administrators at CSPP-SD. Students The student group consisted Of all full-time students enrolled at CSPP-SD in May 1978. The variables of interest with respect to this sample group were sex, year level, ethnic or minority status, and level Of involvement in the governance or institutional affairs Of the CSPP-SD community. Table 1 demonstrates the size and response rate for this sample group. 92 93 TABLE l.--Number and Percentage of Returned Questionnaires for Each Respondent Group Number Follow- Respondent in Initial up Total Total Group Sample Ma1l1ng Mailing Unusable Usable # % # % # % # % Students 211 99 47 50 23 3 l 148 69 Core Faculty l6 8 50 5 31 O 0 13 81 Contract Instructors 33 8 24 7 21 4 12 11 33 Administrators 9 5 56 2 22 O 0 7 78 Totals 269 120 45 64 24 7 3 179 67 Faculty The faculty group was composed Of all Core and Contract members of the CSPP-SD faculty involved in the delivery Of instruction during the summer trimester, 1978. The primary focus, however, was on the perceptions Of Core Faculty because they carry the major burden Of instruc- tion at CSPP-SD, while Contract Instructors fill in those gaps in the curriculum that the Core the time or expertise to teach. Core Faculty were, however, compared Of Contract Instructors with respect effectiveness Of the Student Affairs and about the effectiveness of the organizational climate at this institution. Table 1 demonstrates the size and The perceptions of the response rate for this sample group. Faculty do not have to the perceptions tO the necessity and program at CSPP-SD 94 Administrators The administrator group was made up of all senior administrators and professional staff employed by the campus as Of May 1978. This group was not further sub- divided because Of its small size. Table 1 also reflects the sample data relevant tO this group. The Instrument The Student Affairs gpestionnaire used in this study was developed by the writer in consultation with faculty members from the Department Of Administration and Higher Education in the College Of Education at Michigan State University. The questionnaire is divided into three parts: instructions and background data; Part I, composed Of twenty-six items related to the Student Affairs program at CSPP-SD; and Part II, composed Of seventy-eight items related to the organizational climate at CSPP-SD. Instructions and Background Data The instructions clarify for the respondent how to respond to the items in Parts I and II, while the background data section requests demographic information from each respondent upon which the hypotheses and data analyses underlying this study are based. 95 Part I Respondents are asked how necessary and how effec- tive they perceive the Student Affairs Office and staff to be at performing twenty-six major functions. Similar to the study completed by Abbott (1976), it is important in this study to differentiate between how important (necessary) certain student affairs program functions are and how well these functions are actually being accom- plished (effectiveness). These perceptions of necessity and effectiveness are reflected on two scales numbered from one to seven. The necessity scale is composed Of the following responses: - NO Opinion - Not Necessary - Minimally Necessary Fairly Necessary - Moderately Necessary - Very Necessary - Absolutely Necessary \rmmwal-J I The effectiveness scale is made up Of the following responses: - NO Opinion - Not Effective - Minimally Effective Fairly Effective - Moderately Effective - Very Effective - Totally Effective \lO‘Lfl-bUONH I Thus, for each of the twenty-six items in Part I Of the questionnaire, two responses between one and seven are Obtained for each respondent. The first Of these responses reflects how necessary the respondent perceives 96 the service or function to be tO the total educational program at CSPP-SD. The second response indicates how effective the respondent perceives the same service or function to be as it is currently provided by the Student Affairs Office at CSPP-SD.1 It should also be noted that items one through twenty-six Of the Student Affairs questionnaire are grouped into four subscales. Each Of these four sub- scales (Admissions, Financial Aid, Registration and Records, and Dean's Responsibilities) consist Of from four to ten items concerning these four discrete areas of responsibility within the Student Affairs program. The purpose Of these subscales is to allow, through the develOpment Of subscale means, the collection Of more precise data about the effectiveness Of each discrete part Of the Student Affairs program. Part II In this section Of the questionnaire, which is a modified version of Rensis Likert's Profile of a College or University, subjects are asked to respond to a series Of questions about how they perceive the effectiveness Of the organizational climate at CSPP-SD. Likert's basic 1The format Of Part I of this Student Affairs Questionnaire is based on and used with the permission of Bernard Abbott, "A Study Of Faculty, Student, and Student Affairs Staff Perceptions of Selected Student Personnel Services at the Medical College Of Georgia" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1976), Appendix A. 97 methodology and items were chosen as the means by which the effectiveness Of the climate at CSPP-SD would be measured for the reasons outlined in Chapter II, pp. 77-78. The responses to each item in this part Of the Student Affairs Questionnaire are reflected on a scale Of one to eight. The exact meaning Of these eight response cate- gories varies according to the question, but one is always the least positive response while eight is always the most positive response. These eight response cate- gories also correspond to Likert's four organizational types. The first and second response categories reflect that with respect to that item the respondent finds the organization to be Operating at the eXploitive-authorita- tive or System I level. Responses three and four reflect the benevolent-authoritative or System II level, while responses five and six suggest the consultative or System III level, and responses seven and eight correspond to the participative or System IV level.2 Separate forms of this total questionnaire were develOped for students, faculty, and administrators. The difference between these forms is found in the background information section. The forms were color coded so that they could be easily sorted. 2The content and format Of Part II of the Student Affairsguestionnaire is modeled after the work Of and reproduced with the permission Of Drs. Rensis and Jane Likert, Profilegof a College or University, Rensis Likert Associates, 1978. 98 The questionnaire was tested by two methods prior to its distribution. First, a draft copy was circulated to several student affairs professionals at Michigan State University; at the University of California, San Diego; and at the other three campuses of CSPP. A cover letter was attached to this draft urging criticism of both the content and the format Of the questionnaire. Several suggestions for improvement were made by these professionals, and as a result several changes were made in the questionnaire. Second, two students from each year level at the San Diego campus were selected at random, asked to complete the revised questionnaire, and to meet briefly with the writer to Offer their criticisms. From this stratified random sample, eight of eleven students responded. Each of these students were queried about the clarity Of the directions, the exactness of the items, and the usefulness of the format. Several of the students made helpful suggestions that were implemented in the final version Of the questionnaire (see Appendix A). Data Collection Agreement was reached with the Campus Dean in late November about collecting data for this study at the San Diego campus. It was decided that the Student Affairsguestionnaire should be administered during the summer trimester in order that first-year students would have a reasonable basis upon which to respond. On May 22 99 the questionnaires were mailed to the homes of 211 stu- dents, 16 Core Faculty, 33 Contract Instructors, and 9 administrators. Included with each questionnaire were a return envelope and a cover memorandum explaining the nature of the study and asking respondents for their cooperation (see Appendix B). Each questionnaire was coded so that a follow-up mailing could be sent to non- respondents. The questionnaires were sent to respondents' homes in an effort to give the study a more personal flavor and to thereby encourage a high return rate. On June 3 the same questionnaire and a second cover memoran- dum were mailed to nonrespondents as a follow-up to the initial mailing (see Appendix C). By July 7 all com- pleted questionnaires had been received. The response rates for these two mailings are reflected in Table 1. Table 1 also suggests that several respondents did not fully complete the Student Affairs Questionnaire. For this reason, the sample sizes in each of the hypothe- sis tests in Chapter IV varied by from one to several respondents. The writer was careful to destroy the question- naire coding key after the follow-up mailing and before the data analysis process began. This was to insure that individuals would not be associated with their responses. In a further effort to protect the confidentiality of each subjects' responses, the writer was careful not to 100 be involved in any process of sorting, coding, or analy- sis in which a respondent's name could become associated with his/her responses. Data Analysis Three scores were developed for each respondent. The first was a necessity score which consisted Of the sum Of all responses on the necessity scale in Part I Of the questionnaire, divided by the number Of items to which the subject responded. The second was an effec- tiveness score that was made up of the sum Of all responses on the effectiveness scale in Part I Of the questionnaire, divided by the number Of items to which the subject responded. In those cases where the respon- dent answered an item about the necessity or the effec- tiveness Of the Student Affairs program with a one, or NO Opinion, the response was drOpped from consideration. This was done in order to reduce the impact on the neces- sity and effectiveness scores of a respondent's lack Of familiarity with the Student Affairs program. Finally, the climate score was developed from the sum Of all responses to the items in Part II of the questionnaire divided by the number Of items to which the subject responded. These three scores for each respondent were then summed to produce necessity, effectiveness, and climate means for the student, faculty, and administrator groups. 101 Using these means and analysis of variance (ANOVA) tech- niques, Hypotheses I, II, IV, IX, and X were tested. Where significant differences were Obtained among various groups, Scheffé post hoc comparisons were used to further examine the results. The Scheffé method was chosen because of the unequal cell sizes involved in this study and because it is a more conservative test. In the case of Hypothesis II, subscale means were also Obtained. To test Hypotheses III, V, VI, VII, VIII, XI, XII, and XIII, t test techniques were employed. Finally, the Pearson product-moment correlation method was used to test Hypothesis XIV, and one-tailed t tests were used to discover if these correlations were significantly different from zero. The alpha level for this study was set at .01. This alpha level was chosen in order to insure conserva- tive tests Of each Of these hypotheses. The probability levels reported in Chapter IV are the actual levels reflected in the data analysis and are Often smaller than .01. Summary The sample for this study consisted of 211 stu- dents, 49 faculty, and 9 administrators who were all involved with the San Diego campus Of the California School Of Professional Psychology in May Of 1978. A questionnaire entitled the Student Affairs Questionnaire 102 was mailed tO this sample, along with an explanatory memorandum and a return envelope. The questionnaire was returned by approximately 66 percent of the subjects after the follow-up mailing results were combined with the results of the initial mailing. Analysis Of variance techniques, t tests, and Pearson product-moment cor- relation analyses were used tO test the hypotheses Of interest. Scheffé post-hoc comparisons were used to further investigate those significant differences that were discovered through the use Of ANOVA. Subscale means were also developed to further clarify the general neces- sity and effectiveness means Obtained from Part I Of the Student Affairs Questionnaire. It should be underscored in this summary of pro- cedures that the writer was careful throughout this pro- cess of data analysis to guard against the possibility that his own prejudices might color the results. Because the writer has been intimately involved in the Student Affairs program about which this study focuses (as the Dean for Student Affairs), this possibility of personal bias influencing the results of the study was an impor- tant consideration. The first precaution taken in this regard was to confront this problem Openly with the doc- toral committee so that they would be aware Of it and could help to remedy problems as they arose. Second, the writer was particularly responsive to the criticisms Of the students who tested the Student Affairs 103 Questionnaire and to the comments Of the student affairs professionals who reviewed the final draft Of this questionnaire before its publication. The comments made by these two groups were the basis for extensive revisions of both the content and format Of the questionnaire. Finally, the writer submitted the methodology and results Of this study tO a member Of the administrative staff at the University Of California, San Diego, who possesses expertise as a researcher, a broad background in student affairs, and a working knowledge Of the Student Affairs program at CSPP-SD. The critical comments of this U.C.S.D. staff member were especially helpful in eliminating any shreds Of personal bias that the writer may have brought to this study. CHAPTER IV RESULTS Reported in the following pages are the results of the hypothesis tests conducted during the data analy- sis phase Of this study. Analysis Of variance, one-tailed t tests, and Pearson product-moment correlations were used to examine the hypotheses Of interest. In those cases where univariate analysis techniques revealed significant differences between the variables of interest, Scheffé post hoc comparisons were also employed to further clarify these differences. It should be noted that the faculty sample mentioned in each Of these hypotheses refers to Core Faculty only, except in those cases where the Con- tract Instructor group is also specified. This faculty sample has been limited in this way because, as the results indicate, no significant differences were found between the perceptions of Core Faculty and Contract Instructors, and, for the purposes Of this study, it is the perceptions of the Core Faculty that are most impor- tant. 104 105 The Findings Hypothesis I Hypothesis I stated that there will be no dif- ferences in the perceptions held by students, faculty, and administrators about the necessity Of the Student Affairs program to the total educational program at CSPP-SD. The mean scores for each Of these groups reflect that the Student Affairs program is perceived as Very Necessary by students, faculty, and administrators alike. These descriptive data are reported in Table 2. Further, the results Of the ANOVA confirm the hypothesis (H = 0.751, p < 0.478). These results are included in Table 3. Hypothesis II Hypothesis II stated that there will be a dif- ference in the perceptions held by students, faculty, and administrators about the effectiveness Of the Student Affairs program as currently provided at CSPP-SD. Admin- istrators will perceive the program as more effective than will faculty. Faculty will perceive the program as being more effective than will students. The results of the analysis Of variance indicate that significant differences do exist among the perceptions Of students, faculty, and administrators with respect to the effectiveness of the Student Affairs program. These results are included in Tables 4 and 5. 106 TABLE 2.--Hypothesis I, Descriptive Data, Test Of Necessity for Students, Faculty, and Administrators Students Faculty Administrators Sample sizea 145 13 7 Mean 6.130 6.210 6.333 Standard Deviation 0.466 0.492 0.552 aSample size for each Of the major respondent groups, students, faculty, and administrators, may vary from one to several subjects across the several hypothe- sis tests in this chapter. The reason for this variability in sample size is that some respondents did not complete either Part I or Part II of the Student Affairs Question- naire and, therefore, could not be included in some samples but could be included in others. TABLE 3.--Hypothesis I, Test for Differences Among the Per- ceptions of Students, Faculty, and Administrators About the Necessity Of the Student Affairs Pro- gram Degrees E Of Sugaggs Smfizges RaEio Proba- Freedom q q bility Between Groups 2 0.333 0.167 0.751 0.478 (193Wl Within Groups 162 35.985 0.222 Total 164 36.318 aThe alpha level chosen for each Of the hypothesis tests reported in Chapter IV is .01. In those cases where the F probability exceeds .01, it will be followed by the notation NS, or Not Significant. The alpha level reported for each hypothesis test is the actual level reflected in the data analysis and may Often be smaller than .01. 107 TABLE 4.--Hypothesis II, Descriptive Data, Test Of Effec- tiveness for Students, Faculty, and Adminis- trators Students Faculty Administrators Sample Size 145 13 7 Mean 4.612 5.380 5.612 Standard Deviation 0.715 0.716 0.301 TABLE 5.--Hypothesis II, Test for Differences Among Stu- dents, Faculty, and Administrators About the Effectiveness of the Student Affairs Program Degrees Sum Of Mean F E Of S uares S uares Ratio Proba- Freedom q q bility Between Groups 2 12.924 6.462 13.050 .001 Within Groups 162 80.215 0.495 Total 164 93.139 108 Scheffé post hoc comparisons were used to deter- mine which groups were significantly different from one another. The results Of these comparisons, summarized in Table 6, reveal that perceptions of the effectiveness Of the Student Affairs program held by faculty and admin- istrators are significantly more positive than perceptions held by students. However, no significant difference was found between the perceptions of effectiveness held by faculty and administrators. Therefore, Hypothesis II is only partially supported (E = 13.050, p < 0.001). TABLE 6.--Hypothesis II, Scheffé Post Hoc Comparisons Of Student, Faculty, and Administrator Perceptions Of Effectiveness Of the Student Affairs Program Students Faculty Administrators Sample Size 145 13 7 Subset I 4.612 Subset II 5.380 5.612 It should also be noted that the means for stu- dents, faculty, and administrators presented in Table 4 indicate that while faculty and administrators rate the effectiveness of the Student Affairs program highly (5.380 and 5.612 respectively on the effectiveness scale), the student sample rated the effectiveness Of the program somewhat lower (4.612). TO further clarify the concept of effectiveness with regard to the Student Affairs program, four subscale 109 means were calculated. These subscale means, presented in Table 7, represent the mean scores of all respondents in each group for all Of the items associated with the four discrete areas Of responsibility within the Student Affairs program: Admissions, Financial Aid, Registration and Records, and the Dean's responsibilities. Obser- vation of the differences between these means verify that students, faculty, and administrators agree about how necessary the Student Affairs program is. With respect to effectiveness, again it is clear that administrators and faculty find the program more effective than do stu- dents. These means also suggest that Admissions, Finan- cial Aid, and the Dean's Office are reported as being Fairly Effective by students and from Fairly Effective to Moderately Effective by faculty. The Registrar's Office is rated Moderately Effective to Very Effective by all groups and is consistently the most effective of the functional areas that were evaluated. Hypothesis III Hypothesis III stated that there will be no dif- ference in the perceptions held by male students and female students about the effectiveness of the Student Affairs program as currently provided at CSPP-SD. The results of the two-tailed t test of this hypothesis are summarized in Table 8. These results indicate that no significant difference was found between students grouped 110 m m m wmv.o mhv.m h ovm.o ooa.m ma Hom.o Ohm.v mva some 2 m mhm.o mva.© n mmo.o mam.m NH mam.o wav.m mva Hmsumflmom > H ovm.o me.m m HBN.H mmm.v o OMH.H mow.v va cad Hmwocdcwm B O mmv.o mom.m h Ham.o mom.m ma mom.o mne.¢ Ned mcoflmmfiEO¢ m m m m w men.o omo.w h mmm.o mwo.o ma NH0.0 evo.o mva came 8 H vOM.O wmh.o h omm. Omw.o NH nwm.o mhv.o mva unnumfloom m m omn.o hav.o @ won. 5mm.o ma ome.o Hov.o Nva pfifi Hmflocmcam m U Hmo.o hmm.© m voo.o vmo.o ma ovm.o mom.m vva mcoflmmHEpd m z :oflum«>oa ONHm co«umfl>oo Onwm coHumfi>mo wuwm new: and: cam: pumosmum mHmEmm pumpcmum mamfimm oumocmum OHmEmm muoumuumwsHEOd unasomm musoosum Emumoum muflmmmm unmosum on“ :flsufiz xuwafloflmcommom mo mmmum muouomflo .mcmmz mamownsm .HH mfimmnpom>miu.b mqmde 111 according to sex (t = -0.01, p < 0.993). Therefore, the hypothesis is supported by these data. TABLE 8.--Hypothesis III, Test for Differences Between the Perceptions Of Male and Female Students About the Effectiveness Of the Student Affairs Program Sample Mean Standard t Proba- Size Deviation Value bility Male Students 94 4.612 0.697 -0.01 0.993 (NS) Female Students 51 4.613 0.753 Hypothesis IV Hypothesis IV stated that there will be a dif- ference in the perceptions held by students about the effectiveness of the Student Affairs program as currently provided at CSPP-SD according to length Of time in the program. Students who have been at CSPP-SD three or four years will perceive the program as more effective than will those students who have been at the School two years, who in turn will perceive the program as more effective than those students who have been at the School one year. The hypothesis was not supported (E = 1.075, p < 0.345). The data are presented in Tables 9 and 10. Hypothesis V Hypothesis V stated that there will be a dif- ference in the perceptions held by minority and majority ! 112 TABLE 9.--Hypothesis IV, Descriptive Data, Test of Effectiveness According to Length of Time in the Program Three or Four One Year Two Years In Program In Program Years j In Program § Sample Size 59 62 22 1 Mean 4.598 4.552 4.811 I : Standard Deviation 0.676 0.816 0.484 TABLE 10.--Hypothesis IV, Test for Differences Among the Perceptions of Students About the Effective- ness of the Student Affairs Program According to Length Of Time in the Program Degrees Sum of Mean E Proga- Freedom Squares Squares Ratio bility Between Groups 2 1.106 0.553 1.075 0.345 (NS) Within Groups 140 72.016 0.514 Total 142 73.122 113 students about the effectiveness of the Student Affairs program as currently provided at CSPP-SD. Minority students will perceive the Student Affairs program as less effective than will majority students. The hypothe- sis was not supported (3 = 0.83, p < 0.408). The results Of the two-tailed t test Of this hypothesis are presented in Table 11. TABLE ll.--Hypothesis V, Test for Differences Between the Perceptions Of Minority and Majority Students About the Effectiveness Of the Student Affairs Program Sample Mean Standard t Proba- Size Deviation Value bility Majority Students 131 4.628 0.730 0.83 0.408 (NS) Minority Students 14 4.461 0.553 Hypothesis VI Hypothesis VI stated that there will be a dif— ference in the perceptions held by involved students and uninvolved students about the effectiveness Of the Stu- dent Affairs program as currently provided at CSPP-SD. This hypothesis was not supported (t = -1.06, p < 0.292). The results Of the two-tailed t test Of this hypothesis are recorded in Table 12. 114 TABLE 12.--Hypothesis VI, Test for Differences Between the Perceptions Of Involved Students and Un- involved Students About the Effectiveness Of the Student Affairs Program Sample Mean Standard t Proba- Size Deviation Value bility Involved Students 68 4.545 0.695 -l.06 0.292 (NS) Uninvolved Students 75 4.672 0.737 Hypothesis VII Hypothesis VII stated that there will be no dif- ference in the perceptions held by Core Faculty and Con- tract Instructors about the necessity Of the Student Affairs program to the total educational program at CSPP-SD. The results Of the two-tailed t test Of this hypothesis are shown in Table 13. This hypothesis was supported (t = -0.11, p < 0.916). Core and Contract groups both indicate that they find the program Very Necessary. Hypothesis VIII Hypothesis VIII stated that there will be a dif- ference in the perceptions held by Core Faculty and Con- tract Instructors about the effectiveness Of the Student Affairs program as currently provided at CSPP-SD. Core Faculty will perceive the Student Affairs program as more effective than will Contract Instructors. The 115 TABLE l3.--Hypothesis VII, Test for Differences Between the Perceptions of Core Faculty and Contract Instructors About the Necessity Of the Student Affairs Program Sample Mean Standard t Proba- Size Deviation Value bility Core Faculty 13 6.210 0.492 -0.11 0.916 (NS) Contract Instructors 10 6.184 0.665 TABLE l4.-—Hypothesis VIII, Test for Differences Between the Perceptions of Core Faculty and Contract Instructors About the Effectiveness of the Student Affairs Program Sample Mean Standard t Proba- Size Deviation Value bility Core Faculty 13 5.380 0.716 -l.29 0.212 Contract Instructors 8 4.821 1.281 116 results Of the two—tailed t test Of this hypothesis are provided in Table 14. This hypothesis was not supported (t = -1.29, p < 0.212). Contract Instructors find this program to be Fairly Effective while Core Faculty find it Moderately Effective, but there is no significant statistical difference in these ratings. It should also be noted, however, that a careful survey Of the raw data used in this study reflects that many Contract Instructors responded to the questions about effectiveness with a large number Of NO Opinion responses. This information is not a part of the numerical analyses but must be borne in mind as an Observation Of interest to this study. Hypothesis IX Hypothesis IX stated that there will be dif- ferences in the perceptions held by students, faculty, and administrators about the effectiveness Of the organi- zational climate at CSPP-SD. Administrators will perceive this climate as being more effective than will faculty, who in turn will perceive the climate as more effective than will students. The hypothesis was partially sup- ported (E = 8.298, p < 0.001). The results of the uni- variate analysis Of variance test of this hypothesis are summarized in Tables 15 and 16. Scheffé post hoc comparisons were again employed to locate differences among the groups. The results Of these comparisons, shown in Table 17, indicate that the 117 TABLE 15.--Hypothesis IX, Descriptive Data, Effectiveness Of Organizational Climate as Perceived by Stu- dents, Faculty, and Administrators Students Faculty Administrators Sample Size 148 13 7 Mean 4.417 4.722 5.375 Standard Deviation 0.660 .525 0.557 TABLE l6.--Hypothesis IX, Test for Differences Among the Perceptions Of Students, Faculty, and Admin- istrators About the Effectiveness Of the Organizational Climate Degrees E °f Ssggrgf smiii Ragio PrOba' Freedom q S q es bility Between Groups 2 6.960 3.480 8.298 .001 Within Groups 165 69.191 0.419 Total 167 76.151 118 perceptions of the organizational climate held by stu- dents were significantly different from those of admin- istrators while faculty perceptions were not significantly different from those of either students or administrators. TABLE l7.--Hypothesis IX, Scheffé Post Hoc Comparisons, Test for Differences Among Students, Faculty, and Administrators About the Effectiveness Of the Organizational Climate Students Faculty Administrators Sample Size 145 13 7 Subset I 4.417 4.722 Subset II 4.722 5.375 Hypothesis X Hypothesis X stated that there will be a dif- ference in the perceptions held by students about the organizational climate at CSPP-SD according to length Of time in the program. Students who have been at CSPP-SD three or four years will perceive the climate as more effective than will those students who have been at the school two years, who in turn will perceive the climate as more effective than will those students who have been at the school one year. The hypothesis was not supported (E = 0.929, p < 0.400). The ANOVA results are displayed in Tables 18 and 19. 119 TABLE 18.--Hypothesis X, Descriptive Data, Effectiveness of Organizational Climate According to Length Of Time in the Program Three or Four Years In Program One Year Two Years In Program In Program Sample Size 60 64 22 Mean 4.466 4.333 4.517 Standard Deviation 0.706 0.567 0.779 TABLE l9.--Hypothesis X, Test for Differences Among the Perceptions Of Students About the Effectiveness Of the Organizational Climate According to Length Of Time in the Program Degrees Sum Of Mean F 2 Of Squares Squares Ratio Proba- Freedom bility Between Groups 2 0.811 0.405 0.929 0.400 (NS) Within Groups 143 62.407 0.436 Total 145 63.218 120 Hypothesis XI Hypothesis XI stated that there will be a dif- ference in the perceptions held by minority and majority students about the organizational climate at CSPP-SD. Minority students will perceive the climate as less effec- tive than will majority students. This hypothesis was not supported (t = 0.19, p < 0.848). The results Of the two-tailed t test Of this hypothesis are reflected in Table 20. TABLE 20.--Hypothesis XI, Test for Differences Between the Perceptions Of Minority and Majority Students About the Effectiveness Of the Organizational Climate Sample Mean Standard E Proba- Size Deviation Value bility Majority Students 133 4.420 0.674 0.19 0.848 (NS) Minority Students 15 4.385 0.532 Hypothesis XII Hypothesis XII stated that there will be a dif- ference in the perceptions held by involved and uninvolved students about the organizational climate at CSPP-SD. Students who are involved in governance and institutional affairs will perceive the climate as more effective than will those students who are not involved in these activi- ties. This hypothesis was not supported (t = -1.33, p < 0.186). The results Of the two-tailed, t test of this hypothesis are presented in Table 21. 121 TABLE 21.--Hypothesis XII, Test for Differences Between the Perceptions Of Involved Students and Un- involved Students About the Effectiveness Of the Organizational Climate Sample Standard t . . Size Mean Deviation Value Probability Involved Students 70 4.334 0.643 -1.33 0.186 (NS) Uninvolved Students 76 4.479 0.675 Hypothesis XIII Hypothesis XIII stated that there will be a dif- ference in the perceptions held by Core Faculty and Con- tract Instructors about the effectiveness Of the organi- zational climate at CSPP-SD. Core Faculty will find the organizational climate to be more effective than will Contract Instructors. This hypothesis was not supported (t = 1.11, p < 0.280). The results Of the two-tailed t test Of this hypothesis are demonstrated in Table 22. Hypothesis XIV Hypothesis XIV stated that there will be a posi- tive correlation between the perceptions held by students, faculty, and administrators about the effectiveness of the Student Affairs program and the perceptions Of these respondents about the effectiveness of the organizational climate at CSPP-SD. The results Of the Pearson product- moment correlation test of this hypothesis are shown in Table 23. These results demonstrate that the correlation 122 TABLE 22.--Hypothesis XIII, Test for Differences Between the Perceptions Of Core Faculty and Contract Instructors About the Effectiveness of the Organizational Climate Sample Mean Standard t Proba- Size Deviation Value bility Core Faculty 13 4.722 0.525 1.11 0.280 (NS) Contract Instructors 12 4.981 0.648 TABLE 23.--Hypothesis XIV, Pearson Product-Moment Cor- relations Of Student, Faculty, and Adminis- trator Perceptions About the Effectiveness Of the Organizational Climate and the Student Affairs Program All . . Adm1n1s- Respon- Students Faculty trators dents Sample Size 165 145 13 7 Significance Level 0.001 .001 0.01 0.126(NS) Correlation Between Effectiveness Of Student Affairs and Organization Climate 0.531 .478 0.607 0.501 tr 0: tr ti Cd CO Cal pa: WEI int n V 411 123 between perceptions of effectiveness of the Student Affairs program and the organizational climate for all respondents was significant (E = 0.531, p < 0.001). However, in order to further clarify the meaning of this correlation, three additional correlation analyses were accomplished for each of the respondent groups. The results of these additional correlational analyses, also recorded in Table 23, demonstrate that the correlations between perceptions of effectiveness of the Student Affairs program and the effectiveness of the organizational climate for students, faculty, and adminis- trators are r = 0.478, 5 = 0.607, and 4 = 0.501 respec- tively. It is clear from these data that each group contributes differently to the initial correlation obtained for all respondents. It is also clear that the correlations for students and faculty are signifi- cant (p < 0.001 and p < 0.01 respectively), while the correlation for the administrator group is not signifi- cant (p < 0.126). Therefore, the hypothesis is only partially supported by these data. Summary Univariate analysis of variance techniques, t tests, and Pearson product-moment correlation techniques were all employed to test the fourteen hypotheses of interest in this study. In those cases where the univariate analyses demonstrated significant differences, 124 Scheffé post hoc comparisons were also used to further clarify the nature of these differences. No significant differences were found among the perceptions of students, faculty, and administrators about the necessity of the Student Affairs program to the total educational program at CSPP-SD. All three groups rated the program in the Very Necessary range on the necessity scale. With respect to the perceptions of effectiveness, however, faculty and administrators per- ceived the program to be significantly more effective than did students. Faculty and administrators did not differ significantly from each other with respect to the effectiveness of the program and rated it as Moderately Effective while students perceived it as only Fairly Effective. Subscale means depicting the necessity and effec- tiveness of each discrete area of responsibility within the Student Affairs program demonstrated that the Regis— trar's office is perceived by students, faculty, and administrators to be Moderately Effective to Very Effec- tive while the remaining areas, Admissions, Financial Aid, and the Dean's responsibilities, are perceived as being Fairly Effective to Moderately Effective on the effectiveness scale. The Registrar's office is consis- tently rated by all groups as the most effective area of responsibility in the Student Affairs office. 125 No significant differences were found among stu- dent respondents' perceptions of the effectiveness of the Student Affairs program with respect to sex, year level, minority group membership, or level of involvement in governance or institutional affairs. Core Faculty and Contract Instructors did not differ significantly in their perceptions of the neces- sity or the effectiveness of the Student Affairs program. Both groups found it Very Necessary and Fairly to Mod- erately Effective respectively. The results of the analysis of student, faculty, and administrator perceptions of the effectiveness of the organizational climate at CSPP—SD revealed significant differences. Administrator perceptions were substan— tially higher than were those of students and faculty. No significant differences were found among stu- dents' perceptions of the effectiveness of the organi- zational climate with respect to year level, minority group membership, or level of involvement in governance or institutional affairs. No significant difference was found between the perceptions of the effectiveness of the organizational climate for Core Faculty and Contract Instructors. Finally, when each respondent's effectiveness score was compared with his/her climate score, it was found that a significant positive correlation did exist. 126 Upon further investigation it was discovered that the correlation of all respondents was significant at the alpha = .001 level, the correlation of student perceptions was significant at alpha = .001 level, and the correlation of faculty perceptions was significant at the .01 level. No significant correlation of these effectiveness per- ceptions with effectiveness of the organizational climate was apparent in the administrator respondent group. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION In this chapter, the results of this study will be reviewed as to their meaning and implications. The nature of this study necessitates, however, that caution be exercised in drawing inferences from these findings. The conclusions that are presented below are not intended to be generalized beyond the California School of Pro- fessional Psychology's San Diego campus. Summary and Interpretation Necessity The results of the test of Hypothesis I indicate that the students, faculty, and administrators at CSPP-SD agree that the Student Affairs program is a necessary part of the total educational program on this campus. The group means for each of these respondent groups fell consistently into the Very Necessary range on the neces- sity scale. These results are consistent with the find- ings of the studies by Fitzgerald, Zimmerman, Rankin, Troesher, and Abbott surveyed in Chapter II. It seems apparent from these results that just as student affairs 127 d. (if. re he a; ’1' 128 programs are perceived as important to the success of predominately undergraduate institutions, so this Student Affairs program is perceived as important to the success of this professional school program. Effectiveness As demonstrated by the results of the test of Hypothesis II, there are significant differences between the perceptions of students, faculty, and administrators about the effectiveness of the Student Affairs program as it is currently provided at CSPP-SD. Specifically, admin- istrators and faculty were shown to have a significantly more positive perception of the program's effectiveness than indicated by the perceptions of students. These former two groups did not vary significantly from each other and described the effectiveness of the program as Moderately Effective. The student group, on the other hand, rated the program as only Fairly Effective. These data suggest that the Student Affairs staff may need to review and improve the extent to which the program is meeting the needs of CSPP-SD students. It is for these students that certain parts of the program are designed and it is these same students who, of the three major respondent groups, rate the program lowest in effective- ness. However, the program is also designed to meet institutional and governmental demands, especially in the areas of Admissions and Financial Aid. The effectiveness 129 perceptions of faculty and administrators seem to indicate that these demands are being met by the program. In addition, it must be pointed out that the Student Affairs program is part of the CSPP-SD management structure charged with the administration of specific services according to clear parameters. Given this context, it is possible that students would always expect more of the Student Affairs program than it would reasonably be able to deliver. It is also the case with respect to perceptions of effectiveness that many respondents in the student group answered many questions about the effectiveness of the Student Affairs program with a No Opinion response. Members of the administrator group, on the other hand, rarely responded in this way. The data analysis procedure controlled for this inequity by not including these No Opinion responses in the mean scores. However, this observation of a large number of No Opinion responses by students suggests that many of these members of the CSPP- SD community do not have a clear perspective either on what the tasks and services are for which the Student Affairs program and staff are responsible or on how effectively these tasks and services are being performed. Comparison of subscale means for each of the dis- crete areas of responsibility in the Student Affairs pro- gram demonstrated more clearly the differences that were 130 found between the perceptions of students, faculty, and administrators about the necessity and effectiveness of the Student Affairs program. While the necessity ratings were consistently high, the effectiveness subscale means were of particular interest. Administrators' perceptions in this area were consistently a few tenths above those of faculty which, in turn, were somewhat above those of students. A comparison of the four effectiveness sub- scale means showed that for students, only the Registrar's office was rated Moderately Effective while the remaining three areas were rated Fairly Effective. The faculty rated the Financial Aid office Fairly Effective and the remaining areas Moderately Effective. However, less than one-half of the faculty responded to the Finan- cial Aid items, suggesting that their knowledge may be limited in that area. Finally, administrators joined faculty and students in rating the Registrar's office as the most effective of the four areas while rating the other discrete areas of responsibility at the Moderately Effective level. These findings are similar to results reported by Mahler and Gray at predominately undergraduate insti- tutions and by Abbott in a professional school setting. These studies are summarized in Chapter II. However, it is important to examine some possible causes for these outcomes at CSPP-SD. 131 The Registrar's office has been a clearly estab- lished area of responsibility at CSPP—SD for several years. Staff turnover in this office has been minimal. In an evolving institution where change is constant, the Registrar's office has been a fairly stable part of the community. These characteristics may contribute to the consistently higher effectiveness means attributed to the Registrar's office. Conversely, the Financial Aid office and the Admissions office have only existed for the past academic year as professional areas of responsibility and may not have had the chance to develop the reputation for effectiveness that the Registrar's office has demon- strated. The Registrar's office is designed to be somewhat more oriented toward students than are the Admissions and Financial Aid offices. Students must work with the Registrar's office on a regular basis in order to keep in touch with course offerings, scheduling, and program requirements. Their contact with the Admissions office may be limited to their own admissions and orientation experiences and, less frequently, to committee work. Student contact with the Financial Aid office is limited to financial aid issues and is further colored by the limited aid available, the high expense of the program, and the high financial need of many CSPP-SD students. These factors of organizational stability and type and 132 extent of student contact may contribute to the variations in effectiveness means reported for these areas of responsibility. With respect to the rating of effectiveness for the Office of the Dean for Student Affairs, several issues need to be considered. First, the Dean had been part of CSPP-SD for only ten months at the time of this study and may be perceived as more effective as his length of service increases. Second, the Dean's position is defined as that of a senior administrator for the campus and as that of an advocate for students. This combination of responsibilities often places the Dean in rather precarious conflict situations with respect to the longer range needs of the campus and the shorter range but, sometimes equally important, needs of students. Finally, the Dean is a part of the campus' management team and may, therefore, be associated with the negative image of power and authority attributed to that group. Whether this association is accurate or not, it could be hard to overcome with enough force to significantly change the effectiveness scores of the Dean's office. Finally, these effectiveness scores for Admis- sions, Financial Aid, and the Dean's office may be the result of ineffective service delivery in these three areas. This possibility must be confronted by the Student Affairs staff and suggestions for changes in the 133 methods by which the program is implemented must be evalu- ated carefully. A further variable that should be con- sidered in this suggested discussion is the effectiveness of the organizational climate at the San Diego campus. The extent to which this climate influences how effec- tively the Student Affairs program is perceived (to be discussed later in this chapter) will be an important consideration with respect to proposed changes about how the Student Affairs program should be implemented. Group Differences About Effec- tiveness--Students The results of the tests of Hypotheses III, IV, V, and VI demonstrate that students did not exhibit sig- nificant differences about their perceptions of the effec- tiveness of the Student Affairs program when grouped according to sex, length of time in the program, minority group membership, or level of involvement in the governance or institutional affairs of the campus. It is difficult to be certain about the meaning of these results. The average age of CSPP-SD students is twenty-nine, and students at this institution as a group can be characterized as mature and generally knowledgeable about how to succeed in higher education settings. It is possible, therefore, that the percep- tions held by these students might be more homogenous and might not vary according to their membership in the groups studied, but would instead tend to vary according 134 to the comparisons they might make between CSPP-SD and other institutions they have attended, or between the reality of CSPP-SD and their expectations of this insti— tution. Informal discussions with students about these issues have generated additional evidence for this position. Group Differences About Necessity and Effectiveness--Facu1ty Core Faculty were compared to Contract Instructors in Hypotheses VII and VIII with respect to how necessary and effective they found the Student Affairs program to be. No significant differences were found with regard to necessity or effectiveness. The ratings of each of these faculty groups of the Student Affairs program on the necessity scale, in the Very Necessary range, is consis— tent with the findings of Fitzgerald and Abbott reported in Chapter II. The ratings of Core Faculty and Contract Instructors that were discovered with respect to effec- tiveness were in the Fairly Effective to Moderately Effective range and were not commensurate with the observations of this writer. Contract Instructors seem much less involved in the campus, much less committed to its goals and mission, and seem generally less informed about how the campus operates than are the members of the Core Faculty. Contract Instructors teach primarily at night or at other odd hours and rely on 135 students, who found the Student Affairs program least effective of major respondent groups surveyed, for their most substantive contact with the campus. This limited knowledge base was also reflected in the large number of No Opinion scores present in the raw data supplied by Contract Instructors. Additional anecdotal data collected informally by the writer in preparation for this study also indicated that many Con- tract Instructors have made more limited commitments to CSPP-SD and perceive much of the Campus operations as ineffective. When all of these data are reviewed, it suggests that the results reported for Hypothesis VIII may not be substantial. This is chiefly because when the No Opinion responses were removed from these data, so was much of the variability in this respondent group. Therefore, the remaining data reflect the effectiveness perceptions of only those Contract Instructors who have enough knowledge to respond to the items. Further, this informed group is probably much smaller for Contract Instructors than for Core Faculty. Organizational Climate The results of the test of Hypothesis IX illus- trate that significant differences were found between the perceptions of students, faculty, and administrators about the effectiveness of the organizational climate at CSPP-SD. Specifically, administrators rated the 136 organization as functioning at the System III or consul— tative level in Likert's terms, while the students and the faculty rated the organization at the System II or the benevolent-authoritative level. These findings are consistent with the results summarized in Chapter II of studies by Pick and Pascarella at several predominately undergraduate institutions and the work completed by Hodges in a graduate school setting. When Likert's descriptions of the characteristics of System II and System III organizations are compared to the observations of the writer about the effectiveness of the organization at CSPP—SD, many similarities are apparent. Students and faculty often complain that they do not have adequate access to the decision-making pro- cess on the campus, while administrators frequently voice the opinion that students and faculty are continually being consulted for their Opinions on a wide range of issues. Students and faculty seem often to be misinformed about how decisions have been made or how issues have been resolved, while administrators perceive themselves to be accurately informed in these same areas. Students and faculty are often suspicious of the communications that they receive from administrators and complain that these communications frequently come to them from "above." Administrators, on the other hand, seem to trust the communications they receive from each other and perceive 137 themselves as trying to communicate honestly and directly with students and faculty. These brief comparisons of the characteristics of Likert's System II and System III organizations (as out- lined in Chapter II) placed in the context of the San Diego campus seem to be additional evidence of support for the results of the test of Hypothesis IX reported above. It is also important to note, as evident in Table 24, that students, faculty, and administrators dif— fered in their perceptions of the effectiveness of the CSPP-SD organizational climate in somewhat the same pat- tern that they differed in their perceptions of the effec— tiveness of the Student Affairs program. In each case, the administrator group perceived the effectiveness of the Student Affairs program and the organizational climate to be significantly higher than did the student group. Faculty perceptions fall between these two groups in both cases. With respect to effectiveness of Student Affairs, faculty differ significantly from students but not from administrators, while with respect to effectiveness of organizational climate they do not differ significantly from administrators or students. Group Differences About Organi- zational Climate--Students The results of the tests of Hypotheses X, XI, and XII indicate that students do not demonstrate sig- nificant differences in their perceptions of the 138 effectiveness of the organizational climate when grouped according to length of time in the program, minority group membership, or level of involvement in the gov- ernance or institutional affairs of the campus. These results are inconsistent, regarding minority group mem- bership, with the findings of Pfeifer and Schneider in two studies conducted with undergraduate populations. TABLE 24.—~Comparison of Effectiveness Means--Student Affairs and Organizational Climate Students Faculty Administrators Sample Size 145 13 7 Effectiveness-- Student Affairs 4.612 5.380 5.612 Effectiveness-- Organizational Climate 4.417 4.722 5.375 Further, these results would seem to suggest that the organizational climate at CSPP-SD impacts these groups equally. If there are groupings within the stu- dent body that have distinguishable perceptions about the organizational climate, these groupings will have to be discovered and incorporated into future research. Grouprifferences About Organiza- tional Climate--Faculty The only test for group differences that was examined among faculty respondents regarding the effec- tiveness of the organizational climate was between Core 139 Faculty and Contract Instructors as reported in the results of Hypothesis XIII. This contrast demonstrated that these two groups did not differ significantly. This finding is similar to the results of the comparison made in Hypothesis VIII which showed that Contract Instructors reported essentially the same perceptions of the effec- tiveness of the Student Affairs program as did Core Faculty. The position taken by the writer with respect to the results of the test of Hypothesis VIII can also be applied to the results of this hypothesis test. A comparison of the results of the tests of these two hypotheses suggests that Contract Instructors view the effectiveness of the organizational climate as positively as they view the effectiveness of the Student Affairs program. This set of perceptions is equivalent to those expressed by Core Faculty in this study but differs from the results expected by the writer. Correlation Between Effectiveness of Student Affairs and Effectiveness of Organizational Climate The results of the test of Hypothesis XIV indi- cates that there is a significant positive correlation between perceptions of the effectiveness of the Student Affairs program and perceptions of the effectiveness of the organizational climate. When each group was examined, it was determined that for the student group and the faculty group there was a significant correlation, while 140 the correlation for the administrator group was not sig- nificant. Causality cannot be directly inferred from this significant correlation. However, a relationship has been demonstrated between organizational climate, a causal variable in Likert's terms, and perceptions of effectiveness of the Student Affairs program, defined as an end-result variable by Likert. Conclusions Necessity Agreement about the need for the Student Affairs program at CSPP-SD is evident. The Student Affairs pro- gram is perceived as needed to insure the operation of the San Diego campus of CSPP as a successful graduate level professional training program. Effectiveness The Student Affairs staff needs to consider improvements in its methods of implementing the Student Affairs program in this professional school. This is especially true for the Admissions, Financial Aid, and Dean's offices. This study also revealed a substantial amount of misinformation or lack of information about the Student Affairs program among students as demonstrated by a large number of No Opinion scores in this group. Therefore, the Student Affairs staff needs to make their abilities and intentions better understood by the CSPP-SD 141 community. This can be accomplished by an expanded orien- tation program for students, more extensive exposure of the Student Affairs staff to faculty, especially at their annual retreat, and by the Dean assuming a more active role with the faculty on a week-to—week basis in faculty and committee meetings. Organizational Climate Improving the effectiveness of the organizational climate must also be considered with respect to improving the effectiveness of the Student Affairs program at CSPP- SD. This study has demonstrated that these two variables are related, as Likert suggested in his theoretical structure. Therefore, it is probable that, while indi— vidual services or functions within the Student Affairs program may be modified and improved as discussed above, significant improvement in the perceptions held by stu- dents (and the campus community at large) of the effec- tiveness of the Student Affairs program, and end-result variable, will also require that the organizational cli- mate, a causal variable, improve. It would seem that CSPP-SD must move away from its current position, reflected in the perceptions of most of the members of the community who participated in this study, as a benevolent—authoritative organization, in which trust is low and paranoia and misinformation are high. The campus must move toward Likert's consultative level 142 (where the campus's administrators currently perceive the organization to be) and on to the participative level where more effective use can be made of the organization's human as well as fiscal resources. Comparison of Effectiveness Perceptions With respect to both the Student Affairs program and the organizational climate, the administrator group reported perceptions significantly higher than students reported. Faculty also differed from students regarding the effectiveness of the Student Affairs program but did not differ from administrators or students as to the effectiveness of the organizational climate. It would seem, therefore, that each of these groups, but espe- cially administrators, need to develOp more clear per- spectives about how each group perceives the effectiveness of the Student Affairs program in particular and the organizational climate in general. Two steps need to be taken with respect to this conclusion and the conclusion described above suggesting that the organization needs to move toward Likert's System IV type of organization. First, the campus must make a greater commitment to quality administrative work. Currently, administrators at this institution are under a great deal of stress to carry out complex tasks that require substantial skill and continuous followup. 143 However, many of these same administrators are part-time employees who have major professional commitments outside CSPP-SD. If this institution is to overcome the System II communication and conflict dilemmas that it so consistently generates, each administrative position at CSPP-SD must be re-evaluated, and each administrator who is charged with the duties of these newly defined positions must also be charged with the task of making CSPP-SD his/her pri- mary professional commitment. Second, the administration of the San Diego campus needs to take the initiative in working together with faculty and students to formulate a new management struc- ture that emphasizes increased cooperative spirit, trust in each persons' capabilities, and reasoned accountability. These steps are recognized as preliminary to any substan- tive change. However, if these steps can be taken, the students, faculty, and administrators at this campus may be able to begin to view with more accuracy the nature of the climate of this organization and how that climate is affecting particular segments of the organization, such as the Student Affairs program. Method of Evaluation This study has demonstrated an efficient and pro- ductive method of evaluating a Student Affairs program. Specifically, asking respondents to the Student Affairs Questionnaire to quantify their perceptions of both how necessary and how effective each service is within the 144 Student Affairs program seems to improve the specificity and clarity of the resulting data, especially with respect to changes that need to be considered for that program. Further, the more general data about the effectiveness of the organizational climate in which this Student Affairs program must function provides additional clarity about the type and extent of the change that is needed across the organization (Likert's causal variables) in order to produce substantive change with respect to the effectiveness of the Student Affairs program (Likert's outcome variables). It should also be pointed out, how- ever, that Part II of this instrument does not provide substantive data about those specific aspects of the organizational climate that need to be strengthened. Suggestions for Further Research It is the intent of this writer to implement on an annual basis the procedure for evaluation of a Student Affairs program in a professional school that is the basis for this study. It is hoped that by establishing this ongoing evaluation procedure, the continued improvement of the Student Affairs program can be accomplished effi- ciently and productively. As this study is replicated in the future at CSPP—SD, the following additional questions and issues should be considered: 145 To what extent will the perceptions of the effec- tiveness of the Student Affairs program and the organizational climate improve in relation to each respondent group over time? Are there other specific sub-groups within each of the respondent groups whose responses should be examined and compared with respect to percep- tions of effectiveness of the Student Affairs program or effectiveness of the organizational climate? No significant results were found regarding the student and faculty sub-groups employed in this study. These sub—groups had been derived from the literature review and the writer's experience with the institution. How- ever, if additional sub-groupings are discovered as a result of increased experience with the institution, these groups should be pursued in a future study in order to determine if dif- ferences in effectiveness perceptions among students or faculty could be related to these new groups. Will students, faculty, and administrators become any more homogenous in their perceptions of the effectiveness of the Student Affairs program and the organizational climate? What interventions 146 can be suggested to reduce whatever variability continues to color the perceptions of these three groups? What improvements are demonstrated over time in the effectiveness scores for each of the four discrete areas of responsibility within the Student Affairs program? Improvement may be war— ranted in three of these four areas, and a repli- cation of this study should demonstrate the extent of and the reasons for this improvement. How can the evaluation of the effectiveness of the organizational climate at CSPP-SD be made a more productive part of this study when it is replicated? If it is probable that the climate must improve in order for the effectiveness of the Student Affairs program to improve substan- tively, then more data about the nature of the organizational climate is necessary in order that the replication of this study might also suggest the organizational interventions that are needed in order to make substantive changes in the effectiveness of the organizational climate. This task might be confronted by attempting to structure the organizational climate questionnaire items around several subscales representing 147 particular organizational issues, such as leadership, trust, self-concept, and communi- cation. Finally, it is hoped that a similar format for evaluation might be adopted by other departments on the San Diego campus. Data from each depart- ment would be compared and the trends of effec- tiveness or needs for improvement in service delivery could be identified on a community- wide basis. APPENDICES APPENDIX A STUDENT AFFAIRS QUESTIONNAIRE FORMS S, F, AND A m Show mama .mcflumm wwoqomuwmm AdZOHmmmmomm m0 AOOmUm dHZ¢OhHQ¢U mmHu:VflV1~A:Vh~flV>n-.fl~ \Hao>cw ma mowmmo \mmmum mnwwmm< unmosum on» soflna cw xuoz may mo and mo mmmco>wuommmm1uo mummmmom: on» usonm mama ou :mw3 50> unawumomosm no mucoEEoo :muuauz HanoHuwccw ham .0 .cowumfluummo comm mo unmflu on» on canaoo 620 can puma map on assaoo 0:0 >H:O.xomno ommmam can .mcofiummaq Ham um3mcm ommoam .o .omummmu um covw>oum ma u“ nu ma Emuooum\oow>uom umnu o>fluoowmo 30: mo .oocofluomxo can c0wu6>uombo :30 use» no woman .ucoempsn “90> muooHuou xaoumusoom umos awn» :ofiumwuomoo coco mo unmflu on» 0» :Esaoo onu ca x cm woman .m ..omnmamo Dc Emuooua HcCOAucoaoo HGBOD 0:» Cu we Enumoum\oofi>uom gosh zuzmnooo: 30: ac ozoEOCSm use» musoeuou zaoucusooc umos was» :ofiuawuomoc some :0 uuoa osu Cu :Esaoo ozu 2% x :c cocfiz .< - .mucaumflmm< o>wuauu nmwcflsp< ucoonum can mmwumuouomm mcflosHocfl .ooflmmo muflmmm< ucoczum ozu cw xuoz on: mmmum .vquQQSm and can .Hmuumwmmm asp .umoflmuo cfl< Hmwocmcwm on» .uoowmwo mcoflmmwsw< on» .A4mov ”umufiwmm4 unocsum How soon on» on mummmu =mHaMmm¢ ucwcsumz .muwmccofiumosw was» no mmmomusm on» you .omlmmmu pm m00fl>umm\smumoum mufimwm< ucmwsum may no mcowumwuommc mo mmwumm m on noncommmn 03¢ m>wm on so» mxma uumm umuam one .muunm 03» ea mw muwmccoflumosv mane a puma I mcofiuoouwo .QHon Hsoa mom 50> xcczb .xcsgm many «0 mcoflumowammu mnsunu you wanna may on HHH3 can :oHuoamEoo com: zuwcseeoo osfluco 02p cu oanmawm>m on Hafiz hogan mwsu mo muasmmu one .mwmaamcm sumo mo omomusm oz; MOM zaco cocoa mum mouwmc IGOflpmosq may “H8flucocwmcoo mum momcommou HH< .wmoa .m o::: a: ooflmuo museum< ucocouw map 0» pa ansuou can zoaon mcowuoouflo on» o» acacuoooc czemccofiumosv wasp ouonEoo on mouscwfi 3mm 6 mxmu mmmoam .660: 03 xocncoou osu boa ms ago: On .mnoumupmwcasom can .apasomm .mucmcsum .coflumummooo nsox How mcwxmm one 03 .msoscu mflsu now ocfioo me ya now may mumsam>o mowumo muwmmm< ucmcsum may mam; ou concoucw ma ouwcc:0flumosv unflonHou one cofluosoouucH m SmOh mhmH .mcwumm MUOAOSUNmm Aow .mom MH mm» 02 mmz no .mmwuuHEEoo msmfimu .mcofiuocom mocmcum>om ham cH Aonma .HwDEoummm mocfimv mumwa UHEwomom 03p ummH may awcuHB Um>ao>cfl coon so» m>mc no 30: ©w>ao>cfi do» mud umnuc omEmCIusm Lmflcmmm cmfimmq “mow ucmuusu .m mHmEmm mam: uxwm .a 151 x .mucocsbm cufis can “Om,mnflcuuc moocchu< .H oz mz E: E. w: ”.3 mi wofluobmaum mind: ucausum 2:. :2 22 E: z,._ z: z> z< 3 3 Jul» 34 3 . .... .II. .11. i. myh .2 MW... 71:..th m. wwwmuwqueum $11... T..::....:.... U GIrQUSJaD, [MSG U 5 SUSJSDSIAQO I. O DID/383 3] I 3 315/333 R./ w h. iowuxuouu H/d m... a. fiawudowww 9m 4 I./ 4 1+ A 4 . U / n J I‘, I J a 2.64/9 .mm9 a onemmaomquxm ., /,..// Amx 4w :4 In In. /. / . .xmwu mwnu mEuowuom moflwmo\mmmum mnfiwmm< acousum osu w>fluowumm 30: was Nummmoooc 30: mo coacflmo “50> muooamou uana unmflu onu 0» can umoa ozu ou emcoauou s omoozo I :ofluwoso oamecxm wcu cum>om umsu mmuammooum mam mmAOAHom on» mmmw>mu mam mcmeCAmz .m Icmfloflmmm oflewmmom.mcu mmcflsumumo .m Aamuouoomlmum no .kummz .mumumma Imumv Hm>ma muucm may mmcwEkuma .v . may mucmowammm £0w£3 >3 Amcfl3ww>umucw .mmmooum m:0wmmwamm .ucmfigflm 300$ HO mmfiO .moflmwamsm unoccum 30: comm hoflnz Mom .Emumoum amlmmmu ou mwuuwemm mam mmcmmuom mum ”u unmowammm mam mafimmmu :oHumomeamv . 1 mmoooum ms» mnmumwcflsmm mam mcmam .m .omnmmmo ou xammm ou mmfluflmum>wcs mam moooHHoo mmum HmooH Eonm mucmmsuw muflsuoom .m .Emumoum omlmmmu onu DDOQm mucmowammm Hmwucwuom momfl>m< .H 02 NZ m_2 mm . m2 m> m< . o o ”UHMHO\MMMUm-a mHHMHMxN “CUUDHm 05H. 02 22 722 Z.- 22 Z> Z< 3 3 3 3 .IH v I... pllv WI.- .0: .N/l ”WV .10me JWGWHWJW%H%U% .nwum.....w.31«flunomfi%mwmw%%fi n..m4§w%+e%%bwm. w.w smemayxmo I. IT a w. I? I o J I? I 0’. «a Q. U 5° I, s J s «a , UO .1. “WP/.4“?! ”sh/V “mu 9 knew/9910.. 910... a mum mam a. m an. um? um A LW A. ,M A momummmo mamummmo um smumoum um mmmfl>oum ma ufl mm oofl>uom \Emumoum man» ma m>fiuommmm 3o: HmcoHumosmo HmuOu msu Cu oo~>uom \Emumoum was» ma Nummmwomc 30: .mmmooum mam HmflocmCHw on» cum>oq umcu nonsmoooum mam mwflowaoa ozu momw>ou mam mewmucflmz .NH .Hm>oH mmmc .HH mcHEHmumm on mucmoflammm mam Hmfio Icmcwm :ufl3 m3mfl>umucH muonmcoo .OH .cwm HmflocmCAM HON mcoflumoflaodm ucmmsum woumSHm>w mam mo>wooom .moousom mnemcsw usoam coHumEHOM ncfl mmuonfluumflm Ucm .mcwammcsoo mam Hmwocmcfim Hmumcmm mmmw>onm .m 153 .HcEsHm msmEmU :pfl3 .m uomucoo mafimucme cam mogmfluficH .umummfiflnu damn coma mucoosum 3w: MOM Emumoum cowumu Icmwuo cm wucmeHmEH mam onHo>oo oz oz 3: m: m: m; “.2 . . . moflmofimmum 3H3: 6.8636. 2:. oz 22 2.: z. 22 z> E 3 3 3 3 . DIWIV Ii! I on”! I II“ .o a” A. N V JWGWH%H%H%¥W awake) .an.% aaqywewq 1.52.7. ,. ....u...,.._../.: a 3 P U s Nfi S J a» Cu .5 O a 4. 3.! I A; s /;s./ s .s s I I o. .e s we.4 e.% e o.0 e e U J D. I Mu J 1+ M J l‘. U, 9 / /. a A 154 .cofiumuumfl ICHEom no auHsomm ou mmucmmmummu on on com: hmcu Hmmm oc3 mucmm loam wow mumoo>mm mm mm mm>umm .cmmoov coflummam>m ucmmsum co mmuuHE IEoo mcu hc ummm comm cmumsHm>o adamofiEmmmom mum mucmmsum coHcB >c mmmooum mcu muouflcoe mam mcmam A.oum .ommlmouo .Hm>flm3 .omcmaamcov mmmooum mouoomu\coflumuumflmou ocu cum>om umcu mousomooum mam moflo Iwaom mcu mmumom: ocm mcflmuCHmz .umummEfluu comm mmmhsoo Cw cm IHHoucm mum mucmosum cowc3 ac mmmo loam mcu uso mmwuumo ocm mmummop .muou Imuuoflcflficm oumficzcuaam gem ficm .HOmH>©m unasomm m.u:owsum ocu .ucmczuw ocu you muooou oflEmcmom ucmcmEumm mcu ou mmmoom mmofl>cum .mcofluom m>wumnumwcfleom cam .mcofluom oHEmomom .cmvumfluomcmuu mcflmnaocw .onoomu oHEmmmom ucoc ImEHmm m.ucmcspm comm mcfimuchz .mH .hH .ma .mH .va .ma .. mowmw0\mmmum whammmd ucmonum ocE 155 .oumom cwumaasm mnflmum< ucmmsum mcu mo >m3 xc mucmGSpm ou ucmuuomfifl :0wumfiuomcw mmumoflcsEEou .mam: mmm: awn» Bonn: sacs muoflamcoo oHEmmmom Ho Hmcomumm mcfl>mc.mnm oc3 mucmooum mammcsou .Ammmmmooum COMUSHOmmu HmEHOM 0cm HmEMOMCA mcuv muoomooum coHusHOmmm mocm>mflu0 mcu mam cmmmum mam muou ImuumflcflEom .auasomm .mucmosumv mmflocmsuwumcoo msmEmo msoflum> cmm3umc COmAmAH mcu mm muo< .cumm .mucmosum xc ©o>floouom mm mafimfl>om mo xpflamsc mcu unocm >uasomm on xomcmmmm mmmfi>oum mcm monommmz mu0wa>mm acaaomm mecu ou pocoflmmm mum mucomspm coflcB ac mmoooum mcu mmumufiawomm mam mmumcfimuoou .vm .mm .mm .HN .om ma _. ... ooflmmoxmmmpm muflmmm< ucmmsum .am L b .momucoo .opmwndonmmm mnm Hmmm :oa umcu monmm0\mmmum mnflmwm< ucmosum mcu Mo mmmcm>nuommmm mcu no apnmmmomc mcu nmcunm usocm mcoHummmmSm no mucmEEoo cmuufin3 HmCOAuncom acm mme mmmmam I mucmEEou HmcoHuwmmc .mm 156 coonnm mo am3 ac mucoosum 0c ucmunomEn :0wum8n0mcw moumoACSEEou .mocmnOEoE . conuflnz mo amB ac mucomsum on ucmunomEH GOAumEn0mcfl mmumoncsaaoo .mm 3 ”HI- .I .II I .N fi%fldfl%8% aux»? WWms%mf..% mm...» #0....augwapm. 3 I .H. «N. S WIS II SBw S U J 9 I J J .4. J I .M.I .4 a 4 A. I - _ x. . x mnocmnumnCHEmm .m x . 3303 . m x mucmosum .H ammo pmmnw Spam 4 meow mauunc um>mc mcflonHOM mcu om mCOnmnomo anm> < mango anm> ucoocmmmpcn mme ou Eoommnm cuss 3o: .cOnumosw mncu usocm c0ncnao nooa muomammn aamumnsoom umoe umcu ucmnn ocu ou omcommmn m mmooco I coHummso mHmmem .COHummsv comm now mmcommmn mco aaco xomcu 157 .COHummsq umcu mannm3mcm uHEo .c0numocnm nsoa ou macmonammm #0: mn c0nummov m mH .mmcommmn nsoa mmcnnommm aanmmc cmOE umcu ucmnn mcu om xoc mcu an x cm momaa .mmmcommmn macnmmom ccmnm mmc GOnummsq comm .un m>nmonmm soa mm cenuommn no conumsunm mmmnm>m mcu on mcnmnooom mc0nummzv mcu ntmcm mmmmam .Hmnmcmo an mnoumnumncnemm mam .auazomm .mucmmmum psocm omxmm mnm chnummsq cmcz .macwmmom mm aaccmnm mam aHHSMucosocu mm amnummnv comm ntmcm on 90a now ucmunomfin mn an .H9mmamc mc ou muasmmn ommcu nOH noono cH .cmmnconz .nocn< cc< an mmumnoommc unmxnc mnmcmm mo unman mcmo mcm mnmcmm .mno ac ommon>mc mmnnmcc0nummsv mo mmnnmm m mo c0numonmnmoa m mn am>nsm mumEnHo HmCOAnmnncmmno mnce .mmmcm>nuommmm HchHumosmm mam m>numnumwcnamm mun m>onmEn omImmmO ocm monmmo mnnmmmc ucmmsuw mcu mHmc cmo umcu COnumEnomcn cnmcco on mmcmnmmm an mnnmccOAHmmsv mac» mo unmm ocoomm mce .4 HH unmm I mCOnpomnno m Emom 2158 couuc anm>. :muuc noenuofiow aaonmc cmuuo anm> cmuuo amaaumeom awmnmc Home uumno unm < mEOm onmunc _ anm>x< muasc ano> ammmnrmmno una < meow onuun; anm> < munso anm> .NH mnoumnumHCHEpm .NH .nn aunaomn .nn .OH mucmvzum nmcuo .cH um>wunommsm mam aaocmnnu aHHmnmcmm mm manonH0u mcu no n0n>mcmc mcu mmm soa om :muuo 30: .m mnoumnumwcnsmm .m .m nunsomm .m .a mucmcsum nmcuo .5 ”ac m>nunommsm mam aaocmnnu aHHmnmcmm mm comm n0n>mcmc naoa an cmumo 30: .w mnoumnumncwficm .o .m nunsomu .m . v mucmvflum Hwnuo . v ”90a an m>mc man3oHH0u mcu om unanu mam mocmvnucoo come 30: ..mnnmmm4 unmanmsm new ucmumnmm< mcu mam mmmc soa om umsnu cam mocmmnucoo come 30: 159 :mumo anm> cmumo mmfincmsom aamnmx [mama ummnm unm < msom mnuuanI anm> a munao anm> mmnm mmnm mmnm mmnm anm>I munsc uchmEOm uoz IIILII , mmnm mmnm mmnm mmnm anm> mango umc3msom uoz .vN .mm .mm .HN .cm .mH .mH .aa .mH .mH .va .MH wnocmnnmnanom .vm auasomm .mm mucmmsum nmcuo .NN ”mo mmmcn mcu mms ocm xmmm 50a 00 cmumo 30m mnoumnumncHEmm .Hm auasomm .om mucmosum nmcuo .ma umEchonm cmumamn Imsmfimo nsoa can3 50a mamc on mananu mnm manonHOM mcu umcu Hmmm sea on come 30: mnoumnumnCAEcm .mH nunsomn .nn mucmosum nmcuo .ma uxnos omcmnmnImsmEmU nsoa cun3 omumnoommm mEchonm unocm mcnonHOM mcu ou camp on Hmmm 50a om mmnm 3o: mnOpmnumncfiE©m .mH auasomw .vH mucmmsum nmcuo .ma uxnoz nnmcu on omumamn mEchonm usocm soa on cam» on Hmmm mcnonHOM mcu om mmnm 3oz 160 :62 .262 n 33 . In 63 anm> munso umc3msom uoz ammo ummno unm m maom mnuunn anm> 4 munsc anm> Hmmc ummno unm < mfom ma unq anm> 4 munso anm> cmumo anm cmuwo mmeumEom aamnmm .mm mnoumnumncnfimm .mm .mm aunsomm .mm .vm mucmosum nmcuo .vm uanB omumamnImsmEmo nsoa an momm 50a mEchonm mcu 30cc mansoaaom mcu om Hamz 30m .mm mnoumncmncnficm .mm .mm anamomm .mm .Hm mucmosum .Hm ”menuscnumcn mncu mo meMHWHHom Hmc0numonmm mcu co m>mc masocm man I30HH0m mcu cancu 50a om mocmnamcn come 30m .om mnoumnumncnfimm .om .mm annsomm .mm .mm mpcmmncm .mm "Genusunuan mncu mo mmnun>nuom HmCOHumonom mcu co m>mc mansoHHom mcu 0o mocmDHMCn cosE 30m .am mnoumnumncnfiom .am .mm avasomm .mm .mm mucmosum .mm "mmmon nsoa mms mcm xmmm mcnonH0m mcc ow cmuwo 30m 161 a... ummno _ mnnmnmmnm_ meow mnuunq nnm> Icoo anm> _ _ umono chmnmCAm— mEom _ mauunc anm>. Icou ano> l .2 ummno macmnomnm mEom mauunq anm> Icoo anm> I - .oq mnumm ocw> mflnm onwawmflumm madammaumm anm> mango umczmsom .poz. .mm .mm .am Hamz Hamg H m3 H.m3 anm> mpnso umczmaom uoz mxnoz nsoa on omumamn mGOHmHomm an 90a m>Ho>cn mnOmmmmonm nzoa om ucmuxm pmcz OB mnmcuocm mco cuwz mumnmmmoo on Emcu mcnmmnsoo Icm ac mucmmsum mum>nuoa on anu mnOmmmmonm nsoa om ucmuxm umcz OB mnmcuocm mco cans mummeoo on Emcu manomnnoo Icm ac mucmmsum mum>nuoe on anu mnOmmmmonm naoa om ucmuxm nmcz OB mcowusunumcn mac» um xnoz nsoa mn manammnumm 30m mnoumnumncnfimm auasomm mucmosum nmcuo .mv .Nv .Hv .ov .mm .mm .bm ”xnoz nnmcu an mCHBOHHOM mcu ac mmomm mEchonm mcu 30cc 90a om Hamz 30m 162 UOUUGHM‘ NOflHOQ CO U0>Hom0fi OOHOCUH nn< mocmnnmm an uoz mnm annmsma no nenuom mm>H0mmm mmammmmnommm . mHm>mA mnm>mq mam>mq mam>mq ummm W anacomm cmnm ooa cmnm ooa mcu ad Imwumm pd umc3mEom u<_ cos: u< ammo ummnw cam < . meow maucnc anm> 4 munso c anm> cmumo anm> cmumo mmEnumEom aamnmm l l m©m>HOmmn aaamsms mamsmn>nan no masonm :mm3umc muonam .mq Icoo mnm 30c .GOnusunuan mncu cH .mv mcoHnonnumcn mncu mo mocmEnOMnmm m>nuommmm now mHm>mH .mq ummc mcu um momE mCOanomo mn< .mv mmunOMMm nnmcu mumcnmnooo mcm nmcummou cmam QOnusunumcn mncu .av an masono ucmnmmwnm on come 30m .av .ov mnoumnumncnfimm .mv .mv aunsomn .mw .vv mucmosum .vv "mmsmmn HmCOnu Iounuan cunz Hmmm ou man>aom Echonm anonm mm: man3oHHOm mcu om cmumo 30m 163 c .mm mnoumnumACMEmm .mm .am auasomm .am . .mm mucmmsum nmcuo .om umzna amine canowamsm cOHowmwsm ummno fins» meow can: meow cans mood 5n. om3mw> n, Um3mn> om3mm>. .mmsow> "Eonm c0numoncsafioo 3mn> ooa om 30m «cennsunnmcn ., mncu an mmmmmm mBOHm umcu fl .mm cOnumEnowcn mcu mn mumsvmcm 3oz .mm mummmmoc mumnmmoc mumammmd mumsqmmc’ anm> . ounso umcsosom noz H . - chnusunuan a mncu an cnm3c3oo mzoam umcu II . .mm c0numfinow:n mcu we mumnvmom 30: .vm mum om mumfiom©< mumnvmo< mums m©< anm> mango umcsmfiom uoz , mmmmmmao on venom II, .mm on onm3now cooH 50a on cosE 30m .mm ummno chmnmmMm mEom maucnc _ anm> Icoo anm> .mm mnoumnumHCnEmm .mm .Hm auasomm .Hm .om mucmcaum .om um no macmnmmnm meow mauunq "mmsvnccomu Hm:0numosmm ucmnonmwm mam anm> Icou anm> m>nuommmm mnOE mandon>mo an cm>ao>Cfl masonm man3oHHow mcu mnm ucmuxm umc3 08 164 umono mncmnmmnm mEom mauunq anm> Icoo anm> . ummno chmnmonm meow mauunc anm> Icoo anm> Hmmaxummnw cam < mI mauuwg anm> 4 munso anm> no3smms no nnc Emma hammnmm\fiwm ammo ummno no can < msom non comnmm anm> « mango anm>m .mm .am .00 .mo .vm .mm .Nm .Hw .om .mm mnoumnumHCnEmm .mm anasomm .am mucmcsum .mm ”mnmuumE Hoocom Hmnmcmm on omumamn mCOHmnomm an om>Ho> Inn manonHOM mcu mnm ucmuXm umcz OB mnoumnumncHE©m .mm auanomm .vm mucmosum nmcuo .mo "mam mucmmsum cmmzumc onmcmo mcm cmmo COnumonCSEEoo mn ucmuxm umcs OB mnoumnumncfifiom .Nm amnaomm .nm mucmcsum nmcuo .om “0cm mucmcsum cmmzumc mnmcu mn c0nuomnmucn cosE 30m mxno3Emmu m>numnmmooo mnmcu we no =mammnmc\Enc now comnmm anm>m= an mn .cOAusunumcH mncu :H .mm 165 _ ummnu mncmnmmnm mEom mauunc ano> Icoo anm> unmno mnnmnomnm _ msom _ annunn anm> Icou \ anm> ummnu chmnmmnm mEOm mauunc anm> Icoo anm> In) , I ummnu chmnmmnm meow mauunn anm> Icoo anm> .ma mnoumnumMCnEom .ma .nn aunsomm .5» .mn mucmmsnm .en ammonflowwh HMMUCMCHM MO wwfi ucmnonmmm cam m>nuommmm mcu nOM :nmocoo amammnp mcnonHOM mcc om ucmuxm umc3 OB moancnmmc unocm .ma mmnnoxm nmmu soa om ncmuxm umcz on .mn .va mnoumnumnanom .wa .mn auaoomm .ma .ma mucmosum .ma "cOnumunumcn mncu um mm>mncom mn mocmaamoxm Hm:0numosom umcu canmmm now macnmcomwmn Hmmm mCHBOHHOM mcu om ucmuxm umc3 09 .Ha mnoumnumnCnEUm .Ha .oa auasomm .oa .mm mucmcsum .wm "mnmuume Hoocom Hmmmcmm on omumamn mCOnmnomm an mm>Ho>Cn mc masocm mcnonHOM mcu cancu 50a on ucmuxm umcz OB 166 m Show mama .wcwnmm auoflomoamm A¢ZOHmmmmomm mo geomom ¢HzmomHA¢U mmH¢ZZOHEmMDG mmHao>cw an monmuo \mmmpm mnnmmu< pcmmzpm mcp conc3 an xnoz mcp no acm no mmmcm>npommmm no apHmmmomc mcp psocm mcms Op cmn3 soa mCOnpmmmmsm no mpcmEEoo :mppnns Hmconpwomm ac< .o .conpmnnommm comm mo pcmnn mcp Op cEsaOo mco mam puma mcp Op :Esaoo mco cho.xomco mmmmaa mam .mconpmmsw Ham nmsmcm mmmmam .o .omImmmo pm mmmn>onm mn pn mm mn Emnmonm\mon>nmm pmcp m>npommmm 30c mo .mocmnnmmxm mam cowpm>nmmco :30 nsoa co mmmmc .pcmsmmsn nsoa mpomammn aHmpmnsoom meE pmcp cprannommm comm mo pcmnn ocp Op cssaoo ocp an x cm momam .m .omIccmo pm Emnoonm HmCOnpmosmm HmpOp mcp Op mn Emnmona\mon>nmm pmcp anmmmooo: 30c mo pcmsmmsn nsoa mpomnmon aHmpmnsoom meE pmcp :prmnnommo comm no puma ocp Op :Esaoo mcp an x cm oomac .< . .mp:mpmnmm< o>npmnp Imncnsoc pcmmspm mcm mmnnmpmnomm manmsaocn .monppo mnnmmm< pcmmspm mcp an xno3 oc3 ppmpm 7 pnOQQSm acm mnm .nmnpmwmmm mcp .nmonmmo mad Hmwocmcwm mcp .nmowmwo chnmmnEm< mcp .Aamoc M mnnmmm< pcmmnpm now cmmn mcp Op mnmmmn :mnnmum< pcmmapmz .mnnmccowpmmsv mncp mo mmmomnsm mcp nom .omImmmU pm mmon>nmm\amnmonm mnnmmm< pcmmspm mcp mo chnpmnnommm mo mmwnmm m Op mmmcommmn 03p m>nm Op aoa mxmm pnmm pmnnu mce .mpnma 03p an mn mnanGprmmsv mnca H pnmm I chnpomnno .mamc nooa nOH soa camce .aOSpm mncp mo mcowpmowammn mnspsm now mnmmc mcp mc Haw3 mnm conpmamsoo coma apncsEEoo mnnpcm ocp Op chmHnm>m mc Hafiz amopm mncp mo mpasmmn mce .mnmaamcm mpmm mo mmoonsm mcp nOu anco mmmoo mnm mmnnmc Iconpmmsq mcp "HmnpcmOnmcoo mnm mmmcommmn HH< .maaa .m 92:: ac OOnumO mnnmuu< pcmm5pm mcp Op pn cnnpmn mam 30Hmc mconpomnnm mcp Op manmnooom onnmcCOnpmmsq mncp mpmHmEoo op mmpscne 3mm m mxmp mmmmam .mmmc m3 comcmomm ocp pom m: cHoc Op .mnOpmnpmwanom mnm .apanomm .mpcmmspm .COnpmnmmooo nsoa n0m mcnxmm mnm m3 .modamo mncp now manoo mn pn com mcp mpmsam>m monmmo mnnmumc pcmmnpm,mcp dnmc Op mmmcmpcn mn onnm::0npmmso man3oHH0p mcs COnposmonch a Each mnmn .mcnnmm amoqomonmm q<20nmmmnomm no qoozom mm mnmma m>nm mnmma nsom mnmma mmnce mnmma 036 nmma mco "amummmo Op mon>nmm mo cpmcmc nmcpo OmEmCInsm cwncmmm cmnmdlcmm ocmoncu cmnmmosmo nomnm CMHUCH CMUflHOE "mapmpm moonm apwnocnz .Q mmmc ocsonmxomm a 2&0: mnoo nm>m soa mnm3 .pomnpcoo mnm 90a MH pomnpcou pomnpcoo nm>m 50a mnm3 .mnoo mnm :oa MH mnOU amummmo on mnnmconpwnmn no mnspmz .o o "COnpmanmmd mmnnmm .m mHmEmm mam: "xmm .a x .apCOUSpm cpn3 pcm n0m mnpmuuc moocmnn< .p 02 m2 B: mm m: m; m< monmnoxmmfim 933.: £535 2:. :2 22 E: 2-. z: z> E 3 3 3 3 .....I. “II ..Iv- .rr... pH.I .Iln w %oN HWGWHW. How HaAHW ..wma...) 3.44.16: was. ac %W 1 w ....ImwpwmImp/umm .1 .mflawpmmmpai o/ u mow/......IIQJH an 31.”. amaxamm an; u 4 411.4 mnm 44 L 0 p/m 57.4 .5. e a / e/ a 23.550 mqmznpomumm 30c o:m ancmmooo: 30c no acncnmo nooa mpooauon pmcp pcmnn ocp Op mcm pump ocp Op Omcczuon : Omooco I :Onpmoso opzszx: 170 .mmmoonm mCOnmmnEOm mcp cnm>om pmcp mmnsomoona ocm mononpom mcp mmmn>mn mcm mcpmpcnmz .pcmOSpm comm mo mmno Icmnonmmo onEmomom.mcp manEnmpmc .mmnMpHmsw pcmonpm 3mm comm.conc3 now camnOpoomImnm no .nmpmmz .mnmpmmE Imnmv Hm>mH anpcm mcp manEnmpmo . .Emnmona QmImmmU mcp Op ompanmm ccm mmcmmnom mnm mpcmopammm cowc3 ac cmcwzmn>nman pcmOpHmmm ccm mcnmmmn COnmenHammv mmmoonm mcp mnmpmpanOm mam mcmam .lemmmo Op adamm Op mmnpnmnm>nco cam mmomppoo mmnm HmOOH Eonm mpcmmspm mpnsnomm .Emnmonm omImmmo ocp psocm mpcmoHammm Hmnpcmpom mmmp>o< .H up a. 4: :5 mum. JoNflwgouGW ~34er u % a a J a.% o e e I. o 1.4.! o J 4. o I w H 4%14149! HI 4 Ale/4 4*4 4x. 9 6,9 as a 9 A I ,4 momlmmmu pm mmOp>onm mp pp mm mon>nmm \Emnmonm mncp mp m>npomppm 30m monnnoxmmmpm mnnmnp< pcmmspm one momImmmo pm Emnmonm Hchppmosmm nmpOp mcp Op mon>nmm \Emnoonm mncp mp ammmmmomc 30m .mmmoonm ppm HmnocmCHM mcp cnm>om pmcp mmnsmmoonm ocm mmnonpom mcp mmmp>mn ocm mcnmanmz 171 mannmme Op mpcmoHHQmm ppm Hmno Icmcnm cpnz m3mp>nmch mponpcou .cpm Hmnocmcflp new chnmenamdm pcmcspm mmpmsam>m Ucm mm>nmooa .mmonsom manocop psocm COnmenom Icp mmpocnnpmnc mcm .mcnammcsoo mnm Hmnocmcwm Hmnmcmm mmmp>onm .NH .Hm>ma ommc .HH .OH .m .HCEsHm mzmemo cpnz pompcoo manmpcpmfi pcm mOpmnpncH .m .nmpmmEnnp camp comm mpcmoopm 3m: now Emnmona COnpmp Icmnno cm mpcmEmHmEn ocm mQOHo>oc .a wz mzz mm m: m> w< . . . mowppoNppmpm mnnmpmé pcmcnppm ocp. oz 22 2.2 2-. z z> z< 3 3 4: 3. NJ In” N INANV Nswuwdwowumpm. mumpanupwwno/fimppw . «imam. u! %.%w%u%%s4%m I n. m. s Swain Scum... a; A. u e e 9.4 e 4 4.4 . J J’s lam/I 46 AM 1A., I/ A / .cowuwuumw .mH Icfiewm no auasomu Ou Umucmmmummu 03 on wmmc >05» Hmmm 0:3 macaw Inum Mom mumoo>©m cm mm mm>uwm .Ammouv :ofiumus>m pawvsum co mwuuwe IEOU mnu an Ham» nomm Umumsam>o adamoafiocmom mum wucmwsum nown3 an mmmuoum may muouwCOE can mcmHm .bH A.oum .vwmnmouw .Hm>Hm3 .mmcmaamnov mmoooum mvuoomu\coflumuumwmmu.onu cum>ow was» monscwooum mnm wmflo Iflaom mnu mmumcms can mcwquwmz .HQHMGEHHu. £050 mmmHDOU CH U0 uaaoncm mum mucwvsum £UH£3 an mmmo loam mnu use mmwnumo can mmumUQD .muou 172 ImuumHCHEQQ oumflumonaam you Ucm .wH .HOmfl>Um %uasomm m.u:ocsum any .ucwwsum Gnu How whoowu oflemcmom ucmcmfiumm onu on mmmouc mocfl>oua .va .mGOHuom m>fluwuumflcflEcm can .mCOwuom owsmvmom .Amvuafluomzmuu OCHUDHOCH .cuoomu oflEwcaom uco: ImEHmm m.ucm©zum comm mcflmuCflmz .ma 3 3 Mr.- J J .N I" HIV I N A ( PI . a a [J I ;d as / IV “Sam @qko%uaw%g%wmw It. aw I U o a 4 U S ..e I. S J S S S S O a % x%%fl%w% %W U J .Je I. w J I» J J «w? /s I I A 9 14 I 14 [V .4 ucmwsum ms» mo >m3 an mucmvsum ou ucmuuomfifi cowumEHONCw mmumowcsssou .mm .Uhmom cwumaasm mhflwmu< .vm .aamz ommc amnu sows: nuflz muUHHmcoo anmcmum Ho HMGOmHmm mcw>mz.mum 0:3 mucmosum mammczou .Ammmmououm cowusHOmmH HmEuom cam HmEu0mcw mnuv wuscmooua COHuDHOmmm mocm>mfiuo may 6cm Aummum can who» .mucmwsumv msoflum> mm muo< .NN .A«9Hmv Imuumflcwacm .muaaomm mmwocwsuflumcou mDQEmo mamcoflm cwmzumn cemflmwa may 173 n coflumwoommm mcwcflmua CH Immmoum may .coflumNflcmmuo ucwwspm msmswo ma» mom uuomm5m mo monsom m cam ou nomHMflH m mm mm>umm .HN .mucwvsum an Um>floouom mm unflmfl>wm mo huflamsv wsu usoam auasomm on xomncmmw mm©H>oum 6cm mousmwmz .om .mHOmH>©w wuasomm Mama» on wocmflmmn mum mucocsum £0w£3 an mmwooum may wwumuflaflomm can mwumcflmuooo m2 3: ”...... w: m; M: _ . . .. moflmohmmum mfimmmm ucmcsum 9:. 22 2.2 E 22 z> z< 3 3. N. N .N,..N N QJWOWUqMHW‘ %AW%W%ManJo%qu.%%W «a; .m4swfe.w?? a a. xwéh “5% wan; 9 Q 9 .4 i J 4’4 Jaw‘r/s us 4’ 14, /, 14 (A [A 174 .wumwumoummm mum Hmmm 50> umnu moflmw0\mmmum muflmwm< ucmcsum map mo mmmcm>fluommmm any we >uflmmm0mc mnu uwnuww usonm mGOflummmmSm Ho mucmEEoo :muufluz Hmcofluflvmw xcm wme mmwmam I muc08500 Hmcoflpflvm< uoouflv mo >m3 an mucoosum Cu .hm 1’ .uomucoo .om ucmguomfifl :oflumEHomcH woumoflcstou .wEEHOEOE . cmuufiHB we >m3 xn m#:065um Cu ucmuuomsfl :oflumEHOMCH moumoflczfiaou .mm 3' N I N 3 3 3 343 OJIN NVe3..w.aI/av w2uwuwfium 5.331%?wa P .M_%.e . S &.mws.w fife 8.4 $.m .+nu m. 1% s_UAm/n s.w % ”an” U 9 9.4 P . J J 4 3 u II - ,m. m. /. - m /A. AI A _ myoymuymycyficm .m x x . myysomm .m x mycmcsym .y .Adwo ymmyw .yym « meow myyyyq . um>mn mayBOyyow mny ow m:0ymyom© >Hm> < myyso >Ho> ycovcomowcy owa 0y Eocmmyy 20:8 30: .coyymmsv mycy yaonm COyCyao ysom myomyumy hymymysoom ymOE ymny ynmyy may oy mmcommmy m mmoono I :0yymmso mymmem .GOyymmsv nomm How mmcommwy mco myco xomnu 175 .c0yymwsv ymay mcyum3wcw nyo .:Oyym5yym use» oy oynmoyymmm you my COyymmsv a my .mmcommoy ysoz mwnyyommn xyymm: ymOE ymny ynmyu mny oy xon mny my x cm mUMya .mwmnonmoy oynymmom yzmym mm: c0yywmsv 30mm .yy m>ymoymm 50> mm :0yyumoy yo Geyywsyym mmwym>m any 0y mcymyooow mCOyymvsc any ymzmcm mmmmym .ywymcmm cy myoymyymyCyeom cam .>yysomm .mycmcsym ysonm coxmm mum mGOyymmsv swag .mynymwom mm hyxcmyy wan xyysmynmaony mm COyymwsv 50mm Hm3mcm 0y so» you ycmyyomEy my yy .ysmmyma on 0y myysmmu wmmny yam ywoyo :H .cmmynuyz .yonud ccé :y mmymyoomm< yumxyq mymcom yo yyoxyq mama can mymcmm .mua >3 amm0yw>m© mmyym::0yymmsv mo mmyymm a mo cOyymoyyyooa w my >m>ynm wwayyo ym20yymnycmmno myne .mmmcw>yyommmm yacOyymoswm can m>yymyymycysmm myy m>oumEy omImmmo 6cm moymmo myymmm< ycmcsym may gym: amo ymsy coyymEHOMCy :ymyno oy cmnmymmc my myymccOyymwsv myny mo yymm ccoomm was .< HH yuwm I mGOyyomyyo h zmom 1376 cmyuc >um> :myuc nmEyyoEom aymuqz :myuOINum> cmyuo amEyymEom aymuaa Have yaauc gym < 020m oyauyg >um> < muaso >uo> flmoc ynouu yyn < meow myyyya aym> < myyso auo> .Ny muoyuyymycyecs .my .yy hnyUMu ymayo .yy .oy mycmcsym .oy um>yynomm9m can xyvcmyyu ayymymcmm mm may30yy0u may no y0y>mama may mmm sea 00 :myuo 30: .a muoymyyuycyfivm .m .o ayysomu “mayo .m .h mycmcsym .h ">2 m>yyuommzm can hyocmyuu ayyoymcmw mu cmmm u0y>oama use» my :myuo 30: o w mMOubHumflCH-EUQ .9 .m auysomu “mayo .m .e mucocsyu .v "30% Cy m>ma mcy30yy0u may ow ymsuy cam mocmCyucoo aose 3o: .amyymuwt mmmcymzm yew ycmymymma may mam mama :0» cv ymsyy cam mocmvyucom aosE 30: 177 amyyo mmm> :mymo mmEyymEom >ymymm ymma ymmyo yym a meow myyyyq >Hm> 4 myyso >Hm> mmym mmym mmym mmym wym> myyso ymaBmEom yoz mama mmym MWMM mWHm I >Mm> myyso ymasmfiom yoz .vm .mm .NN .ym .om .my .my .by .my .my .vy .my myoymyywyaysvm .vm zyysmmm ymayo .mm myamcsym .mm “yo mmmvy may mm: cam xmmm 50> on amymo 30m myoymyymyCyEUm .ym myyaomm ymayo .om myamcsym .my "xyoz Hymay 0y vmymymy mEmyaoym ayy3 Emay myma 0y maymyy mum so» ymay ymmm mayBOyy0y may 06 acne 3o: mHOymyymyayfiwm .my myysomm ymayo .hy myamwsym .my "xyoz Hsow 0y amymymy mEmyaoym ysoam mcy30yy0m may 0y xymy 0y ymmy so» 06 mmym 30m myoymyymyayficm .my wyysmmy ymayo .vy myamwnym .my. ”xyoz Hymay 0y CmymHmy mEmya0ym ysoam 50> 0y xymy oy ymmm may30yy0w may on mmym 3oz 178 y m: Jaymz yymz yymz >Hm> myyso ymaBmEom yoz ammo ymmuu yym a agom myyyyq >um> a myyso >Hm> ymma ymmHuI yymta mfom my yyy aym> a myysc >Hm> amymo aym> amywo mmEyymEom aymymm .mm .mm .vm .mm .mm .ym .om .mm .mm .hm .mm .mm mHOymyymyayfiwm .wm myysomm ymayo .mm myamGSym .vm "ayoz use» ay momm so» ymay mEmyaoym may Boax may30yy0m may 00 yym3 30m myoymyymyayficm .mm myysomy .Nm mycmcsum .ym "acyysyyymay myay mo mmyyy>myom ychyy Immswm may no m>ma mysoam may30yyom may xayay no» 00 moamsymay amse 30m myoymyymycyficm .om ayysomy .ym mycmnsym .mm "amyyzyyymay myay mo mmyyy>yyom yma0yymoscm may :0 m>ma may30yy0y may ow moamnymay acne 30m myoymyymyayfivm .nm myysmmm Hmayo .om myamwSyw .mm "mmmwy use» mm: can xmmm may30yy0m may on amymo 3oz I F". > Ln‘ :6 >3 imp» Izmmwaria «.53 32.2 3.3 ...:3 3:: I~.' A: 1 l: V \ 1‘ I h N‘ In I I II. r ~ ~ \ I with flux.) 3. .~I..l-v- In r~ y 5v: W>vc H. Had-“ adv: I9. \afiu NULIshV~sS 179 fl ymmyo _ myamumcym_ mEom myyyyq y mym> Iaou >Hm> # ymmnw myamymvym_ mEom _ myyyya >Ho>, IaCU >HU> I..._.. ymmuo myamymcym meow myyyya mym> Iaoo >Hm> m.me may» myym Iuaymwmyymm maaxymaymm >Hm> myyso ymazmsom .yoz. yym3 yymz H m3 H rmz >um> myyso ymazmeom yoz .mv .Nv .yv .ov .am .mm .hm mayoz Hymay 0y @mymymy ma0ymymm© :y myamvsym m>yo>ay no» on ycmyxm yma3 09 .mv mymayoam mao ayy3 mymymmmoo 0y Emay maymmuaooam ha myamcnym mym>yyOE 0y any so» 06 yamyxm yma3 OB .mq mymayoam mao ayyB mymmfioo 0y Emay maymmynouam ha myamvsym mym>yy0E 0y any 90% om yamyxm yma3 OB .yv ma0yysyyymay myay ym ayo3 Mach my oayhmmyymm 30m .ov myoymyymyayfimm .mm myysomy umayo .mm myamusym .wm "xyoz Hymay ay mayzoyyom may an cmomm mEmyaoym may 3oax 50% cc yym3 30m 180 T . mmyommya INoyyom co Um>y0mmz cmyoamy HH< oocwyymm an yoz yam . ayymsm: no nayyom ©m>yommm wmymmmmaI. IymyaH am ©m>y0mmm mym>mq mym>mq mym>mq mym>my ymmm W ayoyomm amym ooe amym 008 may yd Imyymm yd yma3mE0m yHm> 4 myyso _ hym> amymo >ym> amymo mmEyymEom .lINymHmm _ v a .mv .mw .hv .mv .mv .vv m©m>yommy Myymsmn mym5©y>ycay yo museum amm3yma myoyymaoo mum 30a .aoyysyyymay myay aH .mv «amyyayyymay myay mo muameyomymm m>yyommmm you mym>my ymma may ym momE ma0ymyomw my< .mv mmyyomym Hymay mymaycuooo cam ymaymmOy amym :0yy5yyymay myay ay manoym yamymmmyc ow aonfi 3o: .>¢ myoymyymyayfiom .wv ayysomm .mq myamUSym .vv "mmnmmy yma0yy Inyyymay ayy3 ymmw oy may>yom Emyaoym mnoym mms mayzoyyom may on amymo 3o: ddfiwllbllfiudlll I}; >yllu> hHSp-un v "In '5 HI J l’, I: .v— .u\/ 181 : a .mm myoymyymyayawm .mm .mm >yy50mm ymayo .hm .mm myamc5ym .mm ym5ya ymsya :0y0yam5m aoyowmm5m ymmuu ayyz msom ayyz mEOm ayyz ymmuw any Um3my> _ vmzmy> ©m3mfl> cmamy> "Sony a0yym0ya5EE00 3my> 50> 00 30: I ma0yy5yyymay . : myay ay_mmmmmm m30ym ymay omm COHfiMEHOMCH mnfl mfl mpmgvmgm 305 .mm mymmmmcd mym5mm©< mymmmw0< mym5vm©< >um> myy50 ymazmfimm yoz , m50yy5yyymay a myay cy cumscsom macaw ymay III _ .wm COyymEHOMCy may my mymsvmwm 30m .vm mym Umvm mym50m©¢ mym50mU< mym5 m©< >ym> myy5o yma3mfiom yoz m>mw mayxyo3 H50> .mm 0y wymzyom x00y 50> on a05E 30m .mm ymmyw myamymmMm mEom myyyya >ym> I000 >ym> .Nm myoymyymyayEUm .Nm .ym >yy500y ymayo .ym a .om myam©5ym .om ym nu mammymoym meow myyyyq "mm5vyaaomy ymc0yym05©m yamymymmm cam >ym> Iaoo >um> m>yyomyum myoe maym0ym>m© ay ©m>y0>ay mm5oym mcy30yyoy may mum yamyxm ymaz 09 182 ymmyu myamymmwm mEom myyyyy >ym> Iaou >Hm> . _ ymmyo myamymcym mEom myyyyq >Hm> I200 >ym> ymma mme yym < m myHyya >Hm> a myy5o >ym> y I 1 03Emma yQIlMHdaadeI ma hymmymm\aym ymma ymmym m0 yym a mEOm uom acmumm >ym> a myyso >ym>m .mm .hm .mm .mw .vm .mm .mm .ym .0@ .mm myoymyymyayfiwm .mw >yy50mm .nw myamm5ym .mm "mymyymE yooaom ymymamm 0y omymymy ma0ymyom© ay nm>y0> Iay way30yy0m may mum yamyxm ymaB 09 myoymyymyayficm .mw >yy50mm ymayo .vm myam©5ym .mm ”00m mymaEmE >yy50mm ammzyma vyoamo cam ammo a0yym0ya5fifiou my yamyxm yma3 09 my0ymyymyayE©m .Nm >yy50mm “mayo .ym myam©5ym .cm "05m mymaEmE >yy5omm ammzyma mymay my a0yyomymyay ao5E 30m mxHOBEmmy m>yymymm000 mymay my yo =yymmyma\8ya you aOmHmm >ym>m= yy my a0yy5yyymay myay CH .mm 183 _ ymmyc myamyowym 050m myyyyq >ym> Iaou >ym> ymmyo myamymuym mEom myyyyq >Hm>w I200 >ym> ymmyo myamymuym meow myyyyq >ym>I Iaou >ym> r 3.7 1 ymmyu myamymcym meow myyyya >uo> Icoo >um> .mw my0ymuymyayEnm .mh .nn ayysomy .FB .05 myam©5ym .mh . "mmoy50mmy ymyoamaym m0 mm5 ycmymymym 0am m>yy0mymm may you aymoaom >Mymmy© mayzoyy0w may 00 yamyxm yma3 09 «mayaymmy y5oam wmyyoxm ymmm .mh myam05ym y50> 00 yamyxm yma3 08 .mn .vn myoymyymyayficm .vn 0MB >HHSUNM oMN. .Nh myamw5ym .Nn ":0yy5yyymay myay ym ©m>mya0m my moamyymoxm ymaOyym05©m ymay maymmm How myaymaommmy ymmm may30yy0m may 00 yamyxm yma3 08 .yh myoymyymyayficm .yh .on >yy50my .on .mw myam©5ym .mm "mymyymE yooaom ymymamm 0y cmymHmu maoymyomv ay ©m>y0>ay ma ©y50am may30yy0y may ymay xayay 50> 00 ycmyxm ymas 09 184 a Show myay .mcyymm Muoyomowmm Hy0>ay my mmyymo \ymmym myymmym yam©5ym may aoya3 ay xy03 may m0 >am m0 mmmam>Hy0mMMm yo >yymmm0ma may y50am mama 0y amyB 50> m00yymmmm5m no myamEEOO amyyyyz yma0yyy©Um >c< .Q .aoyymyyommc aomm m0 yamyy mmm 0y aE5y00 mao cam yymy may 0y aE5y00 mao >y:0 xomao mmmmym cam .ma0yymm5w yym ymBmam mmmmym .U .DmImmmU ym 0m0y>0ym my yy mm my Emymoym\m0y>ymm ymay m>yy0mymm 30a «0 .moamyymmxm 0am :0yym>ymma0 :30 u50> :0 nmmma .yamEmU5m y50> myomyymy >ymymy500m ymOE ymay a0yymyy0mm0 ammm m0 yamyy may 0y aE5y00 may ay x cm mmmym .m .amImmmU ym Emymoym yma0yym05cm ymyoy may 0y my Emymoym\m0y>ymm ymay NMmmmmoma 30a yo yamEm©5n y50> myomyymy >ymymy500m ymOE ymay a0yymyy0mm© aomm m0 ymmy may 0y aE5y00 may ay x cm momym .a .myamymymm< m>yymyy Imyayema yam©5ym cam mmyymymyomm may05yoay .moymyo myymmmd yam©5ym may :y xy03 0a3 ymmym yyomm5m >am 5am .ymyymymmm may .ymoymyo Uy< ymyoamaym may .ymmyymo m50ymmyEva may .Aamav myymyya yam05ym you amma may 0y mummmy gmyymmya yam©5ym= .myymGCOyymm5v myay m0 mmmomy5m may Mom .omImmmu ym mm0y>ymm\Emymoym myymmma yam©5ym may no ma0yymyyommc m0 mmyymm m 0y mmmaommmy 03y m>ym 0y 50> mxmm yymm ymyym mas .myymm 03y ay my mHymaaOyymm5v myae y yymm I m:0yyomyya .myma y50> How 50> xamae .>©5ym myay yo m50yymoyymmy my5y5y you mymma may ma yyy3 mam :0yymymeoo 0005 >yya5EEOU myyyam may 0y myQMyym>m ma yyyB >©5ym myay m0 myy5mmy maB .mym>ymam mymc yo mmomy5m may you >ya0 cmwom mum mmyyma I00yymm5v may uymyyamUyyaoo mum mmmaommmy yy< .mnmy .m ma5h >a mmyyyo myymym< yam©5ym may 0y yy ay5ymy 0am 30yma ma0yy0myy© may 0y maywyoomm myymaaoyymm5v myay mymymaoo 0y mmy5ayE 3mm m mxmy mmmmym .Umma m3 xmmawmmm may ymm m5 myma 0y .myoymyymyayecm 0am .>yy50mm .myamo5ym .a0yymymm000 y50> MOM mayxmm mnm m3 .m5QEmo myay How mayow my yy non may mym5ym>m moyyyo myymyy< yamc5ym may myma 0y cmvamyay my myymaaOyymm5v may30yy0y mas a0yy05©0yy5H d Smom myay .mcyumm wuoqomuwmm AdZOHmmmmOmm m0 AOOEUm m>ym mumm> y50m mumm> mmyae mymm> 039 yam» mco "amummmm oy m0y>ymm yo aymamq OZ mm> mmmyyyyyaymaommmy m>yymyymyayE©m mm yymB mm ym50yy05yymay m>ma 50> 00 ymayo UmEmaIy5m amyammm amymyyyoay2 .Ill mymEmm .U Ill.mym: "xmm myma wa5oymx0mm < ZmOh .fl 187 x .mycmc5ym ayy3 0am yew myymmwm momamyy< .y < . 02 m2 .2: E. w: aw; m moymyoxmymym 35mm: ycmusym 9:. Oz 22 2:2 ,5 22 H; z< 3 311‘ 3V 431‘ r ham/..Nv Mir/..IIIJ .IH.,Ie/.I.NV wmumwmuw “.33 my my“? 7,1331% 0. SireueJePO/Aee U s S 539951.80 I 3 DI.D/38/‘. 3] I S Sl.$/$S$ v.3] %. ,H .+% qun+% N n?“ 0. % %Aw%.4 k.% w 9.M 4 I./4 4.1. A. L ,3 J/. 4%- we a 344/ a 9% e a onsmmpo mama/ca A /././ x 4% / xA/ - Jammy myay mEHOMHmm moyym0\..ymmym myymywa yamw5ym may m>yyomwym 30a 0:5 >ymmmm0m: 30a yo 50yaymo y50> myomyymy ymay yawyy may 0y can. ymmy may 0y mmconamoy 0 omooao I coyumm50 mymdem .mmmUOHm maOymmyEGm may aym>0m ymay mmy5©mooym 05m mmyoyyom may mmmy>my cam maymyaymz .m .yamo5ym aomm m0 mmyo Iamyoyymc oyEmwmom may mmayEymyma .m .mmymyym5v yam©5ym 3m: aomm amyas MOM AymHOyoovlmym yo .ymymmz .mymymmE Imymv ym>my >yyam may mmayEymymo .v .EmymOHQ omImmmu may 0y cmyyysvm cam cmammyom mum myamoyymmm aoyas >a Amayzmy>ymyCy yamoyymmm mam maycmmy :0yym0yymmmv 8 N mmmmoym may mymymyayfivm cam mamHm .m .omImmmU 0y >ymmm 0y mmyyymym>ya5 0am mmmmyyoo mmym ym00y Eoyy myamU5ym myy5yomm .m .Emymoym omImmmo may y50am myamoyymmm ymyyamyom mmmy>0¢ .y 02 m2 m__2 mm m: m> w< . o .o QUHMMO\MMMUm MHHMHHAN UCQUSHW $59 02 22 7:: Zn_ 2: Z> Z< 3 N N NJ. N4 NV fiemfiyme “mum: mummmmfdmmyiq I.0 J4JI.JI.J 61.121. I. 94313.5.6DS493 U mo eumude%,3/.%9 u S %I.SUSSS Sm w a m3-mmu an 3.: 33:3mmy mm u m mum may 33 u 3 and «a: 3m 9,4 LW ,4 LN A momImmmo momImmmo ym Emymoym ym vmcy>0ym my yy mm m0y>ymm \Emymoym myay my m>yy0myym 30m ymaOyym05om ymyoy may 0y m0m>ymm \smymoym myay my >ymmmmoma 30m 189 .mmmooym vym ymymamaym may aym>00 ymay mmy50m00ym cam mmyoyyom may mmmy>my 0am maymyaymz .my .ym>my 0mma mcyEymymw 0y myamoyymmm 0ym ymyo lamayw ayy3 m3my>ymyay myo5©a00 .yy .oym ymyoamaym How m50yym0yymmm yam©5ym mmym5ym>m mam mm>ym0mm .oy .mmoy50m may0a5m y50am a0yymEH0m Iay mmy5ayyymy0 cam ~mayymma5oo vym ymyoamcym ymymamm mmwy>oym .m .yaE5ym m5mEmu ayy3 ymmyaoo maymyaymE cam mmyMyyyaH .m .ymymmEyHy yymm ammm myamo5ym 3m: How Emymoym a0yymy Iamyyo am myamEmymEy cam mQOym>m0 .h . ... moymmomymmym myymmmm ycmmsym may 190 .COyymMymy Iayeom M0 >yy50mM 0y wmyammmMmmM ma 0y 0mm: >may ymmM 0a3 myamc I5ym MOM mym00>0m am mm mm>Mmm .ammoov aOyym5ym>m yam©5ym :0 mmyny IEOU may >a Mmm> aomm Omym5ym>m >yym0yEm©m0m mMm my0m©5ym aoya3 >a mmmOOMm may mMOyyaOE mam manym A.Oym .cchQOMc .Mm>ym3 .moamyymaov mmmOOMm mUMoomM\aOyymMymymmM may aMm>Om ymay mmM50mOOMm 00m mmyO Iyyom may mmym©m5 0am maymyCymz .MmymmEyMy aomm mmmM5OO ay 0m IyyOMam mMm myam©5ym aOya3 >a mmmO IOMQ may y50 mmyMMmO cam mmymcmb .mMOy ImMymyayEUm mymmeOMmmm MOM 0am .MOmy>0m >yy50mM m.yam©5ym may .yam05ym may MOM UMoomM OyEmUmom yamamEMmm may Oy mmmoom mm0y>OMm .maOyyom m>yyMMymyayfiwm cam .maOyyom OyEmcmom .amvymyMOmCMMy may©5y0ay .cMoomM OyEmomom yam: ImEMmm m.yam05ym aomm maymyaymz .wy .hy .oy .my .wy mOyMMO\MMmym mMymMM< yam©5ym yam©5ym may MO >m3 >a myam©5ym Oy yamyMomEy aOyymEMOMay mmymuya5EEOU .mm .cMmOm ayymyy5m mMymMM< .vm .mMm: mmm: any guys: guys myoyyMaOO OyEmcmom MO ymaOmMmm may>ma.mMm 0a3 myam©5ym mymma5OU .ammmmOOOMm :Oyy5y0mmM ymEMOM 0am ymEMOMay mayv mM5©mOOMm aOyy5yOmmm moam>myMw may mam AMMmym cam mMOy .myamc5ymv m50me> m0 myO< .mm .ayy50mM mmyoam5yyymaoo m5QEmO mymaOym amm3yma aOmymyy may 3 GOyymyOOmm< mayayMME ay ImmMOMm may .aoyymNyammMO yam05ym m5mEmo may MOM yMomm5m MO mOM50m m mam 0y :0mymyy m mm mm>Mmm 191 .myam05ym >a ©m>ymOMmQ mm 0:ymy>mm .ym .om MO >yyym50 may 05020 >yy505M 0y xomacmmM mm©y>OMm 0am mmM5mmmz .mMOmy>©m >yy50mM Mymay 0y cocaymmm mMm myam05ym aOya3 >a mmmOOMQ may mmymyyyyomM 0am mmymayUMOOU 3 . N Ii .N . N N uflew %%%W%%W%M%MW 0%; M4$WMIMMMLMM ...“. %%.%KJ. m“. DW 0.“. m“. MI I. 44 ”Ad (M .w‘. Au lu be In. Al /. 192 .myMyMQOMmmm mMm ymmM 50> ymay moyMMO\MMmym mMymMM< yam05ym may MO mmmam>yyomMMm may M0 >yymmm0m: may Mmayym y5oam ma0yymmmm5m M0 myamEEOO amyyyMB ymaoyyyvcm >am mama mmmmym I myamEEOU ymaoyyy©©< yomMyw MO >m3 >a myam©5ym 0y yamyMOQEy aOyymEMOMay mmymOya5EEOU .hN .yomyaOO .mN .mUCMMOEmE _ amyyyMB MO >m3 >a myam©5ym 0y yamyMomEy aOyymEMOMay mmymOya5EEoo .mm 02 m2 m_2 m: < . . . mOyMM0\MMmym mMymMM< yamwsym maE oz 22 z_z 20 22 z> 2< J! N V}: NANINV emf“: 7 am @3332??? I, [-1, I, I’I? loos¢ounaioope as P .69 u s % 1.8 N .w.a s A S m m. ...“. swk; Scum. %n 9 9 u 3 e I 3 4 4 3 uqfl IN, 14914 I X. Al .4 . x mMOymMymyayscm .m X . KAHHSUMM . N x myam05ym .y ymmo ymme .yym a mEOm myyyyq . um>ma may30yyOM may 00 maOymyomU >Mm> a myy5o >Mm> yamcammmway mama 0y 800mmMM a05E 30m .a0yymm5v myay y50am aOyaymo M50> myommeM >ymyMM500m ymOE ymay yamyM may 0y mmaommmM m mm00a0 I aOyymm5O mymmem .COyymm5v aomm MOM mmaommmM maO >ya0 aomau 193 .COyymm5U ymay mamesmam nyO .aOyym5yym M50> 0y myamoyymmm yo: my aOyymm5U m My .mmaommmM M50> mmayMOmmc >mema ymos ymay yamyM may 0y xoa may ay x cm mOMym .mmmaommmM myaymmom yamym mma GOyymm50 aomm .yy m>ym0Mmm 50> mm aOyyommM MO aOyym5yym mmmMm>m may 0y mawaomom maOyymm5U may Mmzmam mmmmym .yMMmamm ay mMOyMMymyayawm cam .>yy50mM .myam05ym y50am cmxmm mMm maOyymm5v amaz .myaymmom mm >yxamMM 0am >yy5Myav5an mm :Oyymm5v aomm Mm3mam 0y 50> MOM yamyMOQEy my yy .y5Mmyma ma 0y myy5mmM mmmay MOM MmcMO aH .ammyamyz .MoaMm aa< ay mmymyOOmm< mexyA mymamm MO mexyq mama cam mymamm .mMQ >a 0m00ym>m0 mmMymaCOyymm50 MO mmmem m M0 aOyymOyMyOOE w my >m>M5m mymEyyO ymaOyymNyammMO myae .mmmam>yy0mMMm ymaOyym05©m cam m>yyMMymyayE©m myy m>OMQEy omImmmu cam mOyMMO mMymMM< yam05ym may myma amO ymay aoyymEMOMay aymyao 0y cmamymmc my mMymaa0yymm5v myay MO me0 vaoomm maB .m .m .0 .4 HH mem I ma0yyOmMyo ANZEOM 1194 amyuc >Mm> cmuMc moEyyOEom >youcm1 :myMO >Mm> amyMo mmEyymEOm >ymMma Home uomum uym < oeom oayyyg . >Mm> < mya5o >Mm> flmmc yaOMu yy: < 050m myyyya >Mm> < myyso >um> .Ny mMOymMymycyEvm Mmayo .Ny .MM auysuuy .MH .oM nycmmayu .oy um>yyMomm5m 0am >y0amyMM >yymMmamm mm oay30yy0M may M0 M0y>mama may mmm 50> 00 amyMO 30: .m mMOymMymycyemm Mmayo .m .m auMsomm .m .h mycmo5ym .5 u>a m>yyuomm5m can >y0amyMM mm ammm MOy>mama M50> my amyMO 30: .m mMOymMymycy80m MmayO .m .m ayyauoy .m .v myam05ym .v "50> ay m>ma mayzoyyOM may 00 ym5My cam moamcyMaOO aO5E 30: .AmMymMM4 mmmCym5m MOM yaMymymm< may can mmyy50mM .m .y aOyy5yyymay myay ym myam05ym .y nay m>ma 50> 00 ym5My 0cm mmamoyMaoo aO5E 3O: .-.I...‘ «......M. ~...~>a... .- . : .I s . 0 _ m CIZ. .-IIIL 3:... . . L I II 3.1:.5—nhflbn‘h. h ..t.‘ F,I~.|...III. .I, III ’1 LI-Iuy ..r "JP I [l.‘ll' 19S amyMO >Mm> amyMO mmEyymEOm >ymMmm ymma ymmMu yym < mEOm myyyyy >Mm> a myy50 >Mm> mmMm mmMm mmMm mmMm >Mm>3 myy5O ymaBmEOm yoz mmMm mmMm mmMm mmMm >Mm> myy5o ymaszOm yoz .vm .mm .mm .yN .om .my .my .hy .wy .my .vy .my mMOyMMymyayfiom MmayO .vm >yy5OMM .mm myam05ym .mm "MO mmmcy may mm5 0am ammm 50> 00 amyMO 30m mMOyMMymyayeom MmayO .ym >yy5OMM .cm myam©5ym .my ”aM03 Mymay 0y mmyMHmM mEmyaOMm ayy3 Emay myma 0y mcy>My mMm 50> ymay ymmM mayzoyyOM may 00 aO5E 30m mMOymMymyayfiwm MmayO .my >yy50mM .ny myam©5ym .my uaMO3 M5O> 0y OmyMymM mEmyaOMm y50am mayBOyyOM may 0y xymy Oy ymmM 50> 00 mmMM 30m mMOyMMymyayEUm MmayO .my >yy5omM .vy myam05ym .my "aMoz Mymay 0y omymymM mEmyaOMm y50am 50> 0y aymy Oy ymmM may30yy0M may 00 mmMM 305 A a ~an Iv UAW. hl P,li': ~ Es . zuu .1. a Two-... ._ u I» y \A, I~I l O - ENV- .omOI 196 yymz 4 m3 Hymz yymz >Mm> myy5o yma3mEOm yoz Mama ymmym yym a maom myyyyq >Mm> < myy50 >Mm> we ymme yym a mmom my yyq >Mm> a myy50 >Mm> I IIL cmyMOJflHm Gmymyo mmfiyymfiom >Hmumm .mm .mm .vm .mm .Nm .ym IgoMHOM .cm .am .wm mMOyMMymyayaam MmayO .mm >yy5OMM .mm mycm05ym .vm "xMO3 M50> ay momM 50> mEmyaOMm may 300x may30yy0M may 00 yym3 30m mMOymMymyayEom .mm MyMsomy .mm myam05ym .ym uaOyy5yyymay myay M0 mmyyy>yy0m ymaOyym050m may :0 m>ma 5y50am may may xayay 50> 00 mOam5yMay aO5E 3cm mMOymMymyayfiwm .om >yy5OMM .mm myam05ym .mm "acyy5yyymay myay MO mmyyy>yy0m ymaOyym050m may :0 m>ma may30yyOM may 00 moam5yMay aO5E 30m mm5 myoymyymycyamm umayo .ym myysomm .mm myamc5ym .mm "mmmwy M5O> mam xmmm mayBOyyOM may 00 cmyMO 30m 197 maM03 % — M50> 0y wmymymM maOymyomn :y .mv Um>y0>ay 50> mMm yamyxm yma3 09 .mv ymme _ myaMMmaymfl mEOm myyyyy VI >Mm> I IaOU >Mm> . . m:0yy5yyymay myay ay MOym>yy0E _ m>yy0mMMm am my aOyymMmQOOO .Nv xayay 50> 00 yamyxm yma3 OB .Nv ymme mHLMMmUym_ mEOm myyyyy >Mm> I000 >Mm3 maoyy5yyymay myay ay MOym>yyOE m>yy0mMMm am my GOyyymeEOo . .yw xayay 50> 00 yamyxm yma3 OB .yv ymmMU myamvaym mEOm myyyyy ~AHO> ICOU >H0> maOyy5yyymay myay _ I I .ov ym xMOB MDO> my mayhmmyymm 30m .ov . Mmyym cay> myym NVay>Mmyymm waa>MmHymm >Mm> myy5o yma3mEOm .yoz. .cm mMOyMMymyayecm MmayO .mm 1 .mm >yy5OMM .mm .mm myam©5ym .5m 3m: 3m: M m3 y m: 3:63 Mymay 5 935:8 may 3 >Mm> myy5o yma3mEOm yoz 0mOMM mEmyaOMm may 300a 50> 00 yym3 30m III..II|IIII I||| I ~... 11,1- 1. - ‘I rII‘I.‘ ii’IMI‘ ...... 198 r 1 amyomMMm >0yy0m no 0m>y0mmm a UmMoamH yy< moamyymm >m yoz y5m p >yym5mD . Mo cOyyon 0m>y0mmm mmymmmma : IMmyaH >m 0m>y0mmm I AI fl 1 mym>my mym>mq mym>mq mym>ma ymmm w >M0y00M amym OOB amym 009 may ya Imyymm ya yma3mEOm ymr a052 ya 1 1 . Mama ymmym yym a 1 macm myyyyq >Mm> a myy5o _ 3 >Mm> 1 amyMO >Mm> amyMO mmEyymEOm >ymMmm 1 1 .ov .m¢ .hv m0m>y0mmM mym50y>y0ay MO mm50Mm amm3yma myoyyM Iaoo mMm 30a .aOyy5yyymay myay aH .mv m:0yy5yyymay myay M0 moamEMOMMmm m>yyOmMMm MOM mym>my ymma may ym mama maOymyomo de .mv mmyMOMMm Mymay mymavaOOO 0am Mmaymmoy amym aOyy5yyymay myay ay mm50Mm yamMmMMyU 00 aO5E 30m .nv mMOyMMymyayEUm .ov >yy50mM .mv myam05ym .vv ”mm5mmy ymaOyy I5yyymay ayy3 ymmw 0y may>y0m Emyaoym 050Mm mm5 may30yy0M may on amyMo 30m flurvlfini PGI—Iexfya, P v-I: 199 . .mm mMOyMMymyayficm MmayO .mm .hm >yy500M .hm . .mm myam05ym .mm ym5Me ym5Ms aOyonm5m aoymymm5m ymmMu ayy3 mEOm ayy3 mEOm ayy3 ymme ayy Um3my> . 0m3my> Um3mfi> 0m3my> "EOMM aOyymOya5EEOO 3my> 50> 00 30a ma0yy5yyymay myay ay ©Mm3m5 m30yM ymay .mm aOyyMEMOMay may my mym5wmcm 30m .mm mym5mm0m mymnwm0< mymmwmmé mym5vm0¢ >Mm> myy5o yma3mE0m yoz ma0yy5yyymay y . a myay ay UMm3a300 m3OyM ymay H _ .vm COyymEMOMcy may my mymswmvm 30m .vm mym.mm0m mymficmoa mMM50m0< mym5wm0a >Mm> myy5o yma3mEOm ; yoz m>m0 mayaM03 M5O> .mm 0y 0Mm3MOM aOOy 50> 00 aO5E 30m .mm ymmMm myaMMmUym mEOm myyyya >Mm> IaOU >Mm> 1 .mm mMOymMymyayeam MmayO .mm .ym >yy50mM .ym 1 .om myam05ym .om ymnMU myamwmcym mEOm myyyyy “mm5vyaa0my yma0yym05©m yamyOyMMm 0am >Mm> Iaoo >Mm> m>yy0mMMm mMOE may00ym>mo ay 5m>y0>ay mm5OMm may30yyOM may mMm yamyxm yma3 OB 200 ymmMm myamMmcym mEOm myyyyq >Mm> Iaoo >Mm> . 1 1 1 ymmMm myaMMmcym mEOm myyyyq >Mm> Iaoo >Mm> ymmakymme yym m 0m myyyyy >Mm> 4 myy5o >Mm> M03Emma M0 3M0 ma ymmMmm\Eym ymma ymme MO yym 4 mEOm Mom aOmMmm >Mm> a myy5o >Mm>m .mm .hw .mm .mm .vw .mw .mm .yw .om .mm mMOymMymyayfiwm .mm >yy50mM .mm myam05ym .mm "mMmyymE yooaom ymMmamm 0y amyMymM mCOymyomU :y 0m>y0> Icy may30yyOM may mMm yamyxm yma3 OB mMOyMMymyayfivm MmayO .mm >yy5OMM .vm myam©5ym .mo ”0am mMOyMMymyayEUm amm3yma vycamo 0am ammo a0yym0ya5EEOO my yamyxm yma3 OB mMOymMymyayficm MmayO .Nw >yy5OMM .ym myamUDym .ow “cam mMOyMMymyayEGm amm3yma mMmay my aOyyomMmyay a05E 30m maMO3Emmy m>yymMmQOOO mMmay my MO :MymmMma\Eya MOM aomMmm >Mm>m= yy my .20yysyyymcy myay :M .mm 201 yMWMm myamMmcym mEOm myyyyq >Mm> I500 >Mm> ymmMm myQMMmcym mEOm myyyyq >Mm> Ia00 >Mm> _ ymmM0 myaMMmmym mEOm myyyyy >Mm> I500 >Mm> rlllllllllll1 . 1 ymmMU mHQMMmUym mEOm myyyyq \AHO> ICOU >Mm> .mh mMOymMymyayevm .mn .55 Myysomm .55 .05 myammsym .05 ”mmOM5OmmM ymyuamayM MO mm5 yamyoyMMm may MOM aMmoaom >mymmy0 05y30yy0M may MO aomm 00 yamyxm yma3 OB 5:0yysyyymcy myay ay mayaMmmy y50am cmyyO .mn Ixm myam05ym mMm yamyxm yma3 09 .m5 .vh mMOyMMymyayEUM .vn .m5 >yy50mM .m5 .Nh I myam05ym .mh ":0yy5yyymay myay ay 0m>mya0m my mOamyymoxm ymCOyymO50m ymay maymmm MOM myaymaommmM ymmM may30yy0M may 00 yamyxm yma3 OB .yh mMOymMymyayfiom .yn .o5 >yy=onM .05 .mm mysmmsym .mm "mMmyymE yooaom HMMmCmm mayyomMMm maOymyOm0 :y 0m>yo>cy my mflmmam mayBOyyOM may xeyay 50> 00 ycmyxm ymaS OB APPENDIX B COVER MEMORANDA, INITIAL QUESTIONNAIRE MAILING APPENDIX B COVER MEMORANDA, INITIAL QUESTIONNAIRE MAILING TO: All Students FROM: Michael Pittenger, Dean for Student Affairs/fl RE: Student Affairs Questionnaire DATE: May 19, 1978 The Student Affairs office would like to ask you for your help. We have developed the attached questionnaire for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of this office as it is currently functioning at CSPP-SD. I'm asking you to take about fifteen minutes during the next few days to complete the attached questionnaire. All responses are confidential. When you have completed it, please return it to the Student Affairs office by using the attached envelope or return it directly the next time you are on Campus. I really appreciate your help with this project. We hope that this evaluation effort (which will be repeated yearly) can be the basis for improving the services the Student Affairs office is able to offer. On a more personal level, this data will be helpful to me in the work I am doing on my dissertation. I look forward to getting your completed questionnaire by June 5. Thanks a lot. Attachment MP/cah 202 APPENDIX C COVER MEMORANDA, FOLLOWUP QUESTIONNAIRE MAILING 209 MEMORANDUM TO: Some Administrators FROM: Michael Pittenger, Dean for Student Affairs/fl RE: Student Affairs Questionnaire - FOLLOW—UP DATE: 7 June 1978 Because your completed copy of the Student Affairs Questionnaire has not yet arrived in the Student Affairs Office, I am sending you the enclosed second copy for your convenience. As you may remember, the purpose of this questionnaire is to supply the Student Affairs Office with feedback about the impact it is having on the CSPP-SD community and to give me a data base for the work I am doing on my dissertation at Michigan State University. In order for the results of this questionnaire to be available for both of these tasks, it is important that we get a very high return rate. Therefore, I am asking you to take a few minutes in the next few days to complete this questionnaire and to return it to the Student Affairs Office in the enclosed envelope, or return it directly the next time you are on Campus. We would like to have your input by June 20. Please remember that this questionnaire is coded for follow-up purposes only; the code number on the cover will be removed before any data processing is attempted. All responses will be kept strictly confidential and in no case will responses be connected with the names of individual respondents. If you have any additional questions about the methodology used in this study, feel free to review my dissertation proposal avail- able in my office or through the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects. The success of this study, both for the Student Affairs Office and for my dissertation, depends in some measure on you. I really appreciate your help with this project. MP/cah Enclosure SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Arbuckle, Dugold. Student Personnel Work in Higher Edu- cation. New York: McGraw Hill, 1953. Campbell, Donald T., and Stanley, Julian C. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago, 111.: Rand McNally, 1963. Caplow, Theodore, and McGee, Reece J. The Academic Market Place. New York: Basic Books, 1958. Corson, John J. Governance of Colleges and Universities. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. Etzioni, Amitai. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: Free Press, 1961. Feder, Daniel D.; Bishop, Joan Fiss; Dysinger, Wendell, 8.; and Jones, Leona Wise. The Administration of Stu- dent Personnel Programs in American Colleges and Universities. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1958. Fitzgerald, Laurine E. "Faculty Perceptions of Student Personnel Functions." In College Student Per- sonnel: Readings and Bibliographies. Edited by Laurine E. Fitzgerald, Walter F. Johnson, and Willa Norris. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1970. Gardner, Donfred H. Student Personnel Services. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936. Halpin, A. William. Theorygand Research in Administration. New York: MacMillian Press, 1966. Kerr, Clark. The Uses of the University. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963. Likert, Rensis. The Human Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. 210 211 Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. Millet, John. The Academic Community. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co., 1962. Morris, Charles Eugene. "Evaluation of the Student Per- sonnel Program." In Student Personnel Work as Deeper Teaching. Edited by Esther Lloyd-Jones and Margaret Ruth Smith. New York: Harper Brothers, 1954. Pace, C. Robert. Education and Evangelism. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972. Parsons, Talcott. The Social System. New York: Free Press, 1951. Stern, George G. People in Context. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1970. Tagiuri, Renato, and Litwin, George H., eds. Organi- zational Climate: Explorations of a Concept. Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1958. Williamson, E. G. Student Personnel Work in Colleges and Universities. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. Wrenn, C. Gilbert. Student Personnel Work in College. New York: The Ronald Press, 1951. Periodicals Bowen, Donald D., and Kilmann, Ralph H. "Developing a Comparative Measure of the Learning Climate in Professional Schools." Journal of Applied Psy- chology 60 (February 1975): 71-79. Brumbaugh, A. J., and Smith, Lester C. "A Point Scale for Evaluating Personnel Work in Institutions of Higher Learning." Religious Education 27 (1932): 230-35. Cassel, Russell N., and Becker, William F. "Assessment of Organizational Climate of Colleges in Wisconsin for Student In—Put to Decision Making." College Student Journal 7 (September-October 1973): 26-37. 212 Doi, James J. "Organization and Administration, Finances and Facilities." Review of Educational Research 35 (October 1965): 347-67. Hopkins, L. B. "Personnel Procedures in Education: Observations and Conclusions Resulting from Visits to Fourteen Institutions of Higher Learning." Educational Record, Supplement 7 (October 1926): 1-26. James, Lawrence R., and Jones, Allan P. "Organizational Climate: A Review of Theory and Research." Psyphological Bulletin 81 (1974): 1096-1112. Johnson, Davis G., and Hutchins, Edwin B. "Doctor or Dropout? A Study of Medical Student Attrition." Journal of Medical Education 41 (December 1966): 1113-1204. Noeth, Richard J., and Dye, H. Allan. "Real and Ideal Perceptions of a University Environment." Journal of College Student Personnel 6 (November 1974): 502-08. Olive, Betsy Ann. "The Administration of Higher Edu- cation: A Bibliographical Survey." Administra- tive Science Quarterly 11 (March 1967): 671-77. Pascarella, Ernest T. "Informal Interaction and Faculty Projections of Student Ratings of the Institutional Climate." Research in Higher Education 75 (1975): 383-91. . "Students' Perceptions of the College Environ- ment: How Well Are They Understood by Adminis- trators?" Journal of College Student Personnel 15 (September 1974): 370-75. Pervin, Lawrence A. "A Twenty-College Study of Student x College Interaction Using TAPE (Transactional Analysis of Personality and Environment): Rationale, Reliability, and Validity." Journal of Educational Psychology 58 (1967): 290-302. Pfeifer, C. Michael. "Relationship Between Scholastic Aptitude, Perception of University Climate, and College Success for Black and White Students." Journal of Applied Psychology 61 (1976): 341-47. Pfeifer, C. Michael, and Schneider, Benjamin. "University Climate Perceptions by Black and White Students." Journal ongpplied Psychology 59 (1974): 660-62. 213 Wrenn, C. Gilbert, and Hamm, Robert B. "A Procedure for Evaluating a Student Personnel Program." School and Society 67 (April 3, 1948): 266-69. Dissertations Abbott, Bernard J. "A Study of Faculty, Student, and Student Affairs Staff Perceptions of Selected Student Personnel Services at the Medical College of Georgia." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1976. Bailey, Dallas Barnett, Jr. "An Evaluation of Student Personnel Services in a College as Perceived by the Formal Organization Units of the College Community." Ph.D. dissertation, Kent State Uni- versity, 1966. Bauer, Gene Edward. "Performance and Satisfaction as a Function of Person/Environment Fit." Ph.D. dis- sertation, University of Missouri, 1975. Bechard, Joseph E. "The College of Education at Michigan State University as an Organization: A Survey of the Perceptions of Its Students, Faculty, and Administrators." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Borrevik, Berge Andrew. "The Construction of an Organi- zational Climate Description Questionnaire for Academic Departments in Colleges and Universities." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon, 1972. Pick, Dorcas Jane. "A Comparison of Campus Climates of a Multi-Campus University as Measured by the College and University Environment Scales." Ed.D. dis- sertation, Columbia University, 1967. Fitzgerald, Laurine E. "A Study of Faculty Perceptions of Student Personnel Services." Ph.D. disserta- tion, Michigan State University, 1959. Gardner, Carroll A. "Faculty Participation in Depart- mental Administrative Activities." Ph.D. dis- sertation, University of Michigan, 1971. Gelwick, Beverly Prosser. "The Adult Woman Student and Her Perceptions and Expectations of the University Environment." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri, 1975. 214 Gray, Clarence Jones. "An Evaluative Study of the Student Personnel Program for Men at the University of Richmond." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Virginia, 1962. Harry, Ormsby L. "A Study of Student Personnel Services at Michigan College of Mining and Technology." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1960. Hodges, Joseph Daniel. "Perceived Organizational Char- acteristics and Organizational Satisfaction in an Engineering College." Ph.D. dissertation, Uni- versity of Michigan, 1973. Johnson, Walter Michael. "Faculty Perceptions of Student Personnel Services." Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado State College, 1968. Kasper, Elizabeth Ann. "An Investigation of the Perception of College Climate Among Students of Varying Ability: Comparisons Within the Albion College Climate and Across Types of College Climate." Ed.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1966. Lasher, William F. "Academic Governance in University Professional Schools." Ph.D. dissertation, Uni- versity of Michigan, 1975. Laughlin, Richard Allen. "A Study of Organizational Climate as Perceived by Faculty in Colorado Com- munity Junior Colleges." Ed.D. dissertation, University of Colorado, 1973. Lindemuth, Marvin Harold. "An Analysis of the Leader Behavior of Academic Deans as Related to the Campus Climate in Selected Colleges." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1969. Mahler, Clarance A. "A Study of Student and Faculty Reactions to Student Personnel Work." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1955. Parrott, Leslie. "A Study of Student Personnel Services at Six Liberal Arts Colleges." Ph.D. disser- tation, Michigan State University, 1958. Peterson, Glen E. "The Perceptions of Student Personnel Administrators, Faculty Members, and Students of the Student Personnel Programs of the Senior C01- leges of the American Lutheran Church." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968. 215 Rackham, Eric N. "The Determination of Criteria for Evalu— ation of Student Personnel Services in Institu- tions of Higher Learning." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1951. Rankin, Gary Edmond. "Graduating Senior Perceptions of Student Personnel Services at Colorado State College." Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado State College, 1968. Reagan, James H. "An Analysis of Graduate Student Satis- faction with Selected Aspects of the Academic Environment in the School of Humanities, Social Science, and Education at Purdue University." Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, 1975. Ross, Margaret Ann. "Administration, Faculty, and Student Personnel Workers Evaluation of Student Personnel Functions." Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio University, 1967. Shigley, E. Harold. "An Evaluation of Student Personnel Services at Marion College." Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1958. Smith, Albert B. "Role Expectation for and Observations of Community College Department Chairmen: An Organizational Study of Consensus and Conformity." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1971. Tamte, James A. "How Faculty, Student Personnel Workers, and Students Perceive Student Personnel Services at the University of Denver." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Denver, 1964. Taylor, David Stanton. "A Study of Institutional Climate at Western Illinois University as Perceived by Selected Junior Class Students." Ph.D. disser- tation, Michigan State University, 1969. Troesher, Carol Mabel. "A Descriptive Study of the Per- ceptions Held by Students, Faculty, and Student Personnel Administration of the Student Personnel Services at Rock Valley College." Ph.D. disser- tation, Indiana University, 1969. Vestermask, Mary J. "A Critical Investigation of Person- nel Policies and Services for Graduate Students in American Institutions of Higher Learning." Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1966. 216 Zimmerman, Elwyn E. "Student Perceptions of Student Per- sonnel Services of Michigan State University." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963. Additional Materials California School of Professional Psychology-San Diego Mooney, Raines, Rensis, Campus. Self Studnyeport, 1976. Ross L., and Gordon, Leonard V. Manual to accom- pany the Moonenyroblem Check List. New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1950. Max R., ed. Conference to Plan Research on Junior College Student Personnel Programs. University of Chicago, 1964. Likert Associates, Inc. Profile of a College or University. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Rensis Likert Associates, Inc., 1977.