DEN [ TESFACTEONQ :1. GA 10H ’11 .1. ,L- :7- Lu. "~‘3"|‘bf~ a '7.” I‘m”? \‘timltttlt‘ttlt“\‘t\\t\t\ - ‘ . t University E. mm This is to certify that the thesis entitled A Study of Factors Related to Satisfaction Among 30phomore Engineering Students at Michigan State University presented by Keith Herbert Asplin has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _rLIi-D~_ degree in .. Eduga t i on 4 / \' Major? professor DateOE/E/‘C’v/ /[/ éqéf 0-169 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF FACTORS RELATED TO SATISFACTION AMONG SOPHOMORE ENGINEERING STUDENTS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By Keith Herbert Asplin Concern over the attrition of talented engineering students has been expressed by engineering educators. Studies conducted for the purpose of shedding light on the problem, while not solving it, have resulted in a recognition of the important part that student dissatis- faction plays in decisions to drop out of engineering. This study was designed to yield a more comprehensive and meaningful picture of satis- faction among engineering students than is presently available. A statement of theoretical assumptions was presented. It was theorized that satisfaction is a product of the interaction process between the needs of the student and the demands of the college environ- ment. It was hypothesized that the demands created by the curriculum of the College of Engineering, emphasizing as it does, achievement in the technical areas, would affect students such that those possessing higher numerical ability were more likely to be satisfied with their experiences. Likewise, it was hypothesized that students who possessed high verbal ability would be less satisfied with their experiences. It was further hypothesized that students would be dissatisfied with the Keith H. Asplin rigidity of the curriculum and the fact that there was little provision for meeting the developmental needs of students. Finally, it was hypothesized that satisfaction would be related to the congruence between student expectations and actual experiences. An experimental sample was chosen from among the sophomore engineering students at Michigan State University. Each subject com— pleted a questionnaire which included a satisfaction scale. The sample was divided into More Satisfied and Less Satisfied groups on the basis of their scores on the Satisfaction Scale. While the groups proved to be quite similar along some dimensions studied, they were found to be significantly different in the following ways: 1. The More Satisfied students reported spending more time studying than did the Less Satisfied students. 2. The Less Satisfied students expressed the belief that their first two years experience would have been more valuable if it had: a) provided more personal contacts with other classes. b) allowed more time for social activities. c) provided more personal direction in studies and course selection. d) provided more emphasis on liberal studies not related to any occupation. Keith H. Asplin The Less Satisfied students had lower expectations than did the More Satisfied students concerning: a) the level of achievement in non-technical courses. b) the amount of study required to earn a ”C” grade in all courses. The More Satisfied students reported feeling more competent and more mature than did the Less Satisfied students. The More Satisfied students expressed having better experiences than had been expected regarding: a) opportunities for participation in fraternities and other social groups. b) feelings of social ”know-how.” The Less Satisfied students reported attaining higher levels of achievement in non-technical courses than had been expected. The Less Satisfied students also reported having fewer opportunities to ”livewit—up” than they expected. Both the More Satisfied and Less Satisfied students reported that: 1. Their level of achievement in technical courses was significantly lower than expected. The curriculum contained significantly more theoretical material than expected. Keith H. Asplin 3. There were significantly fewer opportunities to apply their knowledge than they expected. 4. They felt significantly less competent than expected. 5. There were significantly fewer opportunities for boy- girl relationships than they expected. From the data it seemed clear that the groups differed in some important ways. Most important among them seemed to be differences in levels of expectancies. Implications were drawn for further research. A STUDY OF FACTORS RELATED TO SATISFACTION AMONG SOPHOMORE ENGINEERING STUDENTS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 7 By‘ at 6( Keith H. Asplin A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology . 1968 DEDICATED TO My Wife, Norma Jo My Sons, Mike, Terry and Chris My Daughters, Laura and Jennifer They seldom knew what it all meant, but they certainly know what it all means. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The investigator would like to acknowledge his gratitude to Dr. Louise M. Sause for her assistance in the preparation of this thesis and for her guidance throughout the doctoral program. Appreciation is also extended to Drs. Wilbur B. Brookover, Harvey E. Clarizio and Buford Stefflre for their assistance and helpful criticism. The investigator is also indebted to the Dean of the College of Engineering, Dr. Lawrence W. Von Tersch, the faculty members and students involved in the study. Without their permission and actual involvement in the study, the research would not have been possible. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Background . . . . . . . . . Research Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . Dissertation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . Studies of Student Satisfaction . . . . . . Studies Concerning Individual-Environmental Interaction . . . Studies of Factors Related to Transferring or Dropping Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. THE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statistical Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . The Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . College Qualification Test . . . . Grade Point Averages . . . . . . . . Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . Assumptions: Product Moment Correlation Assumptions: E—test . . . . . . . . Assumptions: Chi Square . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Report of the Findings . . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction Scale Data . . . . . . . . . . Descriptive Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . Institutional Goals . . . . . . . . Contributions to Development . . . . Recommended Changes . . . . . . . . . iv Page P" r—‘l—‘H I—‘I—‘OO‘U‘Il-l 13 l3 19 22 24 27 27 28 30 31 34 35 36 36 37 37 39 40 40 53 55 58 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued CHAPTER Expectancies and Experiences . . . Supplementary Data . . . . . . Testing the Statistical Hypotheses Summary . . . . . . . . . . V. DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS . . . . . . . Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . Descriptive Data . . . . . . Expectancies and Experiences . . . Supplementary Data . . . . Ability and Achievement Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES o The Problem . . . . . . . . . . Review of the Literature . . . . . Sample and Methodology . . . . . . Results of the Study . . . . . . . Conclusions and Implications . . Suggestions for Further Research . a n o o o o n o c o o o o o o n o o o o I o n n o a o o o n o n a Page 67 95 102 105 105 106 111 114 114 116 117 117 118 119 120 122 128 129 132 TABLE 4.10 LIST OF TABLES Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students on Satisfaction Scale items . . . . . . . . . Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students with respect to the number of weekends per term in which most of the time was spent in some activity other than study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students with respect to the number of dates per term . Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students with respect to the number having steady girl friends, being pinned, engaged and married . . . . . . . . Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students with respect to the number of times they went out with the boys during an average week . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison between More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students with respect to the number of ”bull sessions participated in during an average week . . . . . . . . . . Comparison between More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students with respect to the number of hours spent in study per week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of the amounts of sleep between More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students . . . . . . . . . . Comparison between More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students with respect to the amount of time spent on non-dating entertainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students with respect to other ways in which they spent significant amounts of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 42 46 47 48 49 50 50 51 52 53 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 Comparison of More students with emphasized by Comparison of More students with Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) regard to the goals they think should be the university . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) respect to contributions to development . . Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students with respect to contributions to enjoyment . . . Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students with regard to their opinion of what would have made their freshman and sophomore experience more valuable Comparison of More students regarding ment . . . . . . Comparison of More students regarding achievement . . . Comparison of More students regarding of curriculum . . Comparison of More students regarding knowledge . . . . Comparison of More students regarding tency . . . . . Comparison of More students regarding Comparison of More students regarding social groups . . Comparison of More students regarding Comparison of Mbre students regarding ships . . . . Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) expected and actual technical achieve- . O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) expected and actual non-technical Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) expected and actual theoretical nature 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) expected and actual application of O O O O C O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) expected and actual feelings of compe- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) expected and actual study required . Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) expected and actual participation in Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) expected and actual social "know-how" . Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) expected and actual boy-girl relation- vii Page 54 56 57 59 68 69 7O 71 72 73 74 75 76 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30 4.31 4.32 4.33 4.34 4.35 4.36 Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students regarding opportunities to "live-it-up" . . . . Comparison of Mbre Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students regarding expected and actual Opportunities to work and gain economic independence . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students regarding expected and actual freedom from parental contrOl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students regarding expected and actual feelings of maturity Comparison of expected and actual technical achievement of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students . . Comparison of expected and actual non-technical achievement of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students Comparison of expected and actual theoretical nature of curriculum for More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) S tUden ts O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Comparison of expected and actual opportunities to apply knowledge for More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) Students 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O C O I O 0 Comparison of expected and actual feelings of competency for More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students . Comparison of expected and actual required study for More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students . . . . . Comparison of expected and actual participation in social groups for More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) StUdentS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Comparison of expected and actual feelings of social ”know- how" for More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) Students 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O 0 Comparison of expected and actual opportunities for boy-girl relationships for More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) Students 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 viii Page 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 85 87 87 88 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 4.43 Comparison of expected and actual opportunities to "live- it- up” for More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of expected and actual opportunities for economic independence for More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of expected and actual freedom from parental control for More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of expected and actual feelings of maturity for More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students . . . Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students as to the discrepancy between their expectations and actual experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students on the basis of the College Qualifications Test (CQT) scores and accumulative grade point average (GPA). Simple correlations between measures of ability, academic achievement and activities related to how students allocate their time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Page 89 90 91 92 93 96 97 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A O The Questionnaire O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 O B. Table Bl Comparison of Sample Used in Study with Random Sample of SoPhomores Regarding College Qualification Test Scores and Accumulative Grade Point Average . . . . . . . C. Material Relating to Perceptual Differences Between the More and Less Satisfied Students . . . . . . . . . . Page 132 141 143 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Statement of the Problem Recent studies by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the National Science Foundation and by the Engineering Manpower Commission of the Engineers Joint Council not only predict shortages in our technically trained manpower pool during the coming decade but have also developed a widespread concern for the attrition of qualified students from engineering programs throughout the nation.1 In 1963 the Engineering Manpower Commission reported that among deans of a large percentage of our country's engineering schools, there seemed to be a large area of agreement that: "1. Large numbers of students who are well qualified for engineering are dr0pping out. 2. High attrition rates cause student disillusionment which reacts against engineering and is one of the principle causes of the declining freshman enrollments. In other words, ’Why take engineering if the odds are stacked against you?’ 3. There are effective ways of reducing student attrition if we would face up to the problem."2 1Bridgman, D. S. "Engineering Student Dropouts," Journal of Engineering Education, 50, 1960, pp. 611-619. 2EggineeringStudent Attrition. Engineering Manpower Commission, New York, April, 1963, p. 3. A recent investigation sponsored by the National Science Foundation and conducted by the American Society for Engineering Education seems to sub- stantiate the belief that over the past several years there has been a trend toward an ever increasing loss of high-quality engineering students to other fields. The ASEE Committee for the Analysis of Engineering Enrollment reports that the retention rates in engineering schools have decreased considerably since 1950. Of the engineering freshmen entering in that year, 63 per cent earned engineering degrees within six years. This percentage has decreased yearly until we find that of those freshmen entering in 1959, only 49 per cent had earned degrees in engineering by 1965. The study also reveals that the percentage of entering engineering freshmen who change majors and graduate in other divisions has steadily increased. Looking again at the 1950 freshman engineering class, 15 per cent went on to earn degrees in other fields. This percentage has in- creased yearly until we find that of the freshman engineers entering in 1959, 23 per cent earned degrees in fields other than engineering.3 Rather significantly, the first recommendation of the ASEE study group under the leadership of Professor Marvin A. Griffin, suggested "that a major effort be made to insure that a larger fraction of the students who enter engineering successfully complete the degree requirements."4 3American Society for Engineering Education, ECAC Committee on Analysis of Engineering Enrollment. Factors Influencing Engineering Enrollment, American Society for Engineering Education, washington, D. C., October, 1965, p. 33. 4"The Future Supply of Engineers." Engineering Manpower Bulletin, No. 6, Engineering Manpower Commission, New York, April, 1967, p. 3-4. The mounting concern among engineering educators and others interested in the manpower situation has resulted in an increasing number of studies of enrollment and attrition patterns. The bulk of these studies are primarily concerned, however, with projections and analysis of the supply and demand for engineers in the years ahead. The result has been a better understanding of manpower needs but little insight into what might account for declining enrollments and increasing attrition. As the proportion of students entering engineering has decreased, concern over the attrition rates has increased. As early as 1959 a committee of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) con- cluded that there was some foundation for the widespread belief that many qualified students were transferring out of engineering programs.5 The dimensions of the problem were drawn by Heather David in an article on the increasing shortage of engineers and scientists: ”. . . about half of each (engineering) class does not make--they flunk out, drop out, and an increasing number switch out."6 There are, therefore, considerable gains to be realized by a re- duction in these attrition rates. The ASEE study group, mentioned above, observed that - ”. . . if engineering attrition were reduced to the level of 1950, the effect would be the same as though freshman enrollment were increased by almost 20 per cent."7 5Bridgman, D. S. 10c, cit,, pp. 618-619. 6David, Heather M. "Scientist/Engineer Shortage Worsens," Missles and Rockets, 10, No. 1, January 1, 1962, 12. 7Ibid., p. 5. For almost a decade the College of Engineering at Michigan State University (MJS.U.) has been studying the problem of attrition. In 1959 J. D. Ryder, then Dean of the College of Engineering, began a three year survey aimed at assessing the reasons for students transferring out of the College of Engineering. This survey of students who dr0pped out of engineering identified several sources of dissatisfaction among them; the large number of credits required to earn a degree in engineering (212 credits versus 183 in most other majors), and the excessive number of hours of laboratory time re- quired per credit hour carried.8 After careful consideration of these complaints and the changing emphasis from applied to theoretical studies within the field of engineer- ing itself, certain modifications were made in the curricula of the college. The total number of credit hours required to earn a degree in engineering was brought more in line with other technical majors and courses requiring laboratory work were consolidated and reduced in number. It was hOped that these changes would result in greater student satis- faction and consequently, higher retention rates. Such was not the case, however, as no significant reduction in student attrition occurred.9 The surveys conducted by Dean Ryder, while not solving the problem of attrition, did result in a recognition of the important part that student dissatisfaction plays in decisions to drop out of engineering. 8Ryder, J. D. "Response of 1959 Engineering Freshmen to a Request for Information Covering Reasons for Drapout," College of Engineering, Michigan State university, East Lansing, Michigan, February, 1962. 9Interview with G. M. Van Dusen, Assistant Dean, College of Engineering, Michigan State university, January, 1968. But what of those students who remained in engineering? How satisfied are they? And what factors contribute to their satisfaction or lack of it? Those who counsel engineering students encounter many manifestations that not all students are equally satisfied with their college experience. While the nature of the statements students make may indicate something of his feelings regarding his college experience, they do not enable one to assess with any degree of certainty, the true extent of the feelings, the reasons for them, nor which may be more important, the extent to which they are characteristic of all students within the college. This study is designed to yield a more comprehensive and meaningful picture of satisfaction among students who are currently enrolled in the College of Engineering than is presently available. It is hoped that such a study will provide a more meaningful reference point from which the further study of student attrition can be undertaken. Purpose of the Study It is the purpose of this study to investigate satisfaction among sophomore engineering students at Michigan State University. Four goals consistent with this purpose have been established to guide the research: 1. To better understand the expectations and concerns of those students who choose engineering as their college major. 2. To identify factors which may be related to student satis- faction within the College of Engineering. 3. To determine what relationships, if any, exist among a student's level of ability, his level of academic achieve- ment and his level of satisfaction. 4. To formulate hypotheses, whenever possible, to serve as a basis for further investigations. A descriptive approach seems most appropriate in light of the lack of information available concerning satisfaction among engineering stu- dents. A statement of the theoretical background follows. Theoretical Background Psychologists, sociologists, educators and others are giving increasing attention to some of the subtle but highly significant factors related to student satisfaction. The develOpmental needs and concerns of the student, as well as the physical environment in which he lives and the social institutions and processes of which he is a part are examples of the new emphasis. Studies of these factors, such as those by Stern, Argyris, and Brown, increasingly emphasize the importance of the inter- action of these factors in an individual's adjustment.10’11’12 Argyris postulates that there exists a basic incongruency between the needs of healthy individuals and the demands of formal organizations. Although Argyris believes it unlikely that organizations and individuals can be completely congruent, he does think it possible that the congruence between an individual and his organization, in this case, his college, might challenge the individual to further growth. He sees individual 10Stern, George G. "Environment for Learning," The American College, Nevitt Sanford (Ed.), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York: 1962. 11Argyris, Chris. Integrating the Individual and the Organization, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York: 1964. 12Brown, Roberta D. Student Characteristics in Relation to Adjust- ment in Two Different College Environments, Dissertation Abstracts, 27 (3-A), 1966, pp. 596-597. frustration and dissatisfaction as the result of too high a level of incongruence, resulting in blocking of self expression. It is, therefore, theorized that the "satisfaction" or "dissatis- faction" of engineering students with their college experience is a product of an interaction process between the needs of the student and the demands of his college environment. It is a feeling that reflects how well an individual is able to resolve the conflicts which arise between his developmental needs and the environmental demands. This interaction of a student with his environment is conceptualized as a process of reciprocation. The environment acts upon the student and the student acts upon the environment; the action of each being influenced by the reaction of the other. This interaction process can be examined from two different points of View. From the student's point of view, satisfaction is a measure of how successfully he fulfills his conscious or unconscious needs and achieves his goals in the college environment. Although early personality theorists tended to neglect this period of time in the formation of personality, increasing interest in the ego functions, as well as, concern for the nature and structure of student discontent has resulted in greater appreciation of its importance among recent investigators. Erikson has described the issues of this period as identity versus identity diffusion, and intimacy versus isolation.l3’14’15 He feels that l3Erikson, Erik H. Childhood and Society, W. W. Norton & Co., New York: 1963. 14Erikson, Erik H. "Growth and Crisis of the Heathy Personality," in Kluckhorn, C. and Murray, H. (Eds.), Personality in Nature, Society, and Culture, 2nd Ed., Knoph, New York: 1953, pp. 185-225. 15Erikson, Erik H. "The Problem of Ego Identity,” Psychological Issues, Vol. 1, 1959, pp. 101-164. the individual must either grow towards an increased awareness of and confidence in who he is and where he is going or he will remain unable to define himself adequately or effectively deal with life. Sullivan also sees the issues during this period of life as center- ing around the need for intimacy, for heterosexual activity, and most 16’17 Growth important of all, the stabilization of the self system. towards maturity means acquiring an understanding of the limitations, interests, possibilities, and anxieties of oneself and others. The concepts of natural growth described by White also emphasize the importance of this period.18 He describes four directions of change: 1) A "Stabilizing of the Ego Identity"; 2) A "Freeing of Personal Relationships"; 3) A ”Deepening of Interests”; and 4) A "Humanizing of Values." All of these theorists see the clearer and more precise differen- tiation of self as the prime concern of this developmental period. They also recognize an increasing need for meaningful heterosexual relation- ships. In contrast to the above viewpoint, however, one might focus upon the environment as making certain demands upon the student. From this point of view, satisfaction can be interpreted as a measure of "fit" - or of how successful the student has been in meeting the demands imposed upon him. In this approach the environment can be conceptualized as a 16Sullivan, Harry S. Conceptions of Modern Psychiatry, W. W. Norton & Co., New York: 1940. 17Sullivan, Harry S. The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry, W. W. Norton & Co., New York: 1953. 18White, Robert W. Lives in Progress, Dryden, New York: 1952. culture; exhibiting certain patterns of belief and behavior. In effect the university exhibits two major cultural patterns, that of the adminis- tration and that of the student body, although many subcultural patterns exist within the different colleges, departments, and student groups. All of these cultural groups make demands upon the student. The demands of the administrative culture are usually quite formalized, having been written into rules and regulations. The demands of student groups or the peer culture are no less insistent, however. Decisions regarding pr0per dress, dating behavior, and study habits are not left completely to the discretion of the individual. The result of this interaction between the student and his environ- ment is that every university and college tends to develop a unique character of its own. Elements of this special character are recognized by non-members and become the basis for stereotypes. In as much as all students differ with regard to abilities, attitudes, it seems reasonable to assume that some will be better equipped to meet the demands of the environment. These students will experience less strain and stress in their adjustment efforts, will "fit” better than others, and therefore, should feel more satisfied with their experience. By the same token, the College of Engineering at M.S.U. by virtue of its own Special character and limitations, either provides or restricts the Opportunities that a student has to meet his various needs. It is recognized that the imminence of adult life focusing as it does, around the job and marriage, confronts the student with important and persistent questions concerning himself (”Who am 1?"), the nature of his vocational choice and.his heterosexual relationships. The nature of the interaction 10 between the student and his college environment will determine the extent to which he is able to provide answers to these questions and consequently, the level of satisfaction that results. It is, therefore, with the above orientation that the study of satisfaction among sophomore engineering students is undertaken. Research Hypotheses It is the purpose of this study to provide descriptive information concerning satisfaction among sophomore students in the College of Engineering. The following research hypotheses are suggested to test the underlying assumptions of the study. They are restated in operational form in Chapter III. 1. The curriculum of the College of Engineering, stressing as it does, achievement in the technical areas more than achievement in the non-technical areas will affect students in the following ways: a) Those students possessing higher numerical ability will be more satisfied with their experience than those with lower numerical ability. b) Those students possessing higher verbal ability will be less satisfied with their experience than those with lower verbal ability. 2. Dissatisfaction will be expressed concerning the rigidity of the curricular requirements and lack of provision for meeting the developmental needs of students, such as those mentioned by Erikson, Sullivan and White. 3. 11 The closer the college experience comes to meeting the expectations of the student, the more satisfied he will be. Limitations of the Study This study is limited in the following ways: 1. The study is limited to the study of 79 SOphomore engineering students enrolled during the 1967-68 academic year at Michigan State University. The study is limited to data gathered by means of a specially designed questionnaire that required the students to recall expectations they had two years previously. The study used as measures of ability; the Verbal, Numerical, and Total scores from the College Qualification Test. The study used as a measure of academic achievement, the accumulative academic grade point calculated by the Registrar's Office at Michigan State University. The study is limited to the use of the mean rating of three independent raters for the questions that inquired as to the student's expected and actual experiences. Dissertation Plan Chapter I has presented a brief statement of the need and importance of this study and has also provided a theoretical structure from which several research hypotheses were derived. A review of the literature pertaining to student satisfaction and student environmental interaction will be presented in Chapter II. 12 Chapter III will contain a description of the sample and instruments used in the study and will provide a statement of the statistical hypothesis and methods of analysis. The results of the study will be presented in Chapter IV, and a discussion of the findings will follow in Chapter V. Chapter VI will include a summary of the findings, a statement of the conclusions and suggestions for further research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The literature on student satisfaction is rather limited, especially in comparison to that which deals with worker satisfaction. Nevertheless, there are some studies that have dealt directly with student satisfaction. In addition to these there are studies which are tan- gentially related to the subject. Because it would be beyond the sc0pe of this study to cover all of the related literature, the review which follows will be limited to: l) a detailed review of closely related studies, 2) a survey of research concerning the interaction between students and their environment, and 3) a brief survey of studies tangentially related to the subject under investigation. Studies of Student Satisfaction One of the most extensive studies concerning student satisfaction has been done by Peterson.1 He derived four scales: satisfaction with (1) Faculty (SF); (2) Administration (SA); (3) Major (SM); (4) Students (SS); from the College Student Questionnaires and then related scores on these satisfaction scales to each other and to a number of personality 1Peterson, R. E. College Student: Some Hypotheses Based on Questionnaire Data, Unpublished Manuscript (Mimeo), Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey: 1965. 13 l4 and demographic variables. He then derived a number of hypotheses based on these relationships. Among his hypotheses were the following: 1. The Discontent-as-Global Hypothesis Educational discontent in college students is essentially a global characteristic, i.e., discontent with one aspect of ones condition at college tends to be related to discontent with other areas of this condition. 2. The Institutional Size Hypothesis Magnitude of student discontent varies directly with size of the student body. 3. The Grade Gettinngypothesis Magnitude of student discontent varies inversely with grade- getting ability. This hypothesis was based on a comparison of mean scores of the four satisfaction scales for two groups of students classified as "grade- getters" (n=115) (students with a cumulative grade point average of B+ or better), and "grade-non-getters" (n=118) (students with a cumulative grade point average of C- or less). The mean satisfaction scores of the "grade-getters" were significantly different from the "grade-non-getters" on three of the four satisfaction scales, SF (t=5.39); SM (t=3.97); SS (t=3.28). Davie utilized a sociological and statistical approach to the study of the problem of satisfaction with college.2 The purpose of his study 2Davie, James S. "Satisfaction and the College Experience," in Psychosocial Problems of College Men, B. M. Wedge (Ed.), Yale University Press, New Haven: 1958. 15 was twofold. From a practical viewPoint it sought to obtain a clearer picture of the undergraduate scene in order to better understand the student culture. His more technical purpose was to determine whether one could measure satisfaction with the college experience through questionnaire methods and if so, to identify some of the types of factors associated with different degrees of satisfaction. Davie sent questionnaires to random samples of the Yale classes of 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956 in the spring term of their senior years. The sample percentages for the study were 20, 40, 25, and 25 and the percen- tage of the samples returning the questionnaires were 80, 75, 79, and 78. The findings indicate that satisfaction at Yale is related to social and personal background factors as well as to characteristics of the student's experience at Yale. Those students who experienced the least discontinuity between their secondary school experience and college experience tended to be the most satisfied. In a study of student satisfaction at Pennsylvania State University, Lindsay and Marks presented a model for student satisfaction based on a modification of the Herzberg theory of worker satisfaction.3 They employed a 3 x 3 x 2 factorial design to assess the effect of different levels of motivators (achievement), hygienes (university rules and regu- lations), and n-achievement on overall student satisfaction. They found that motivators accounted for 8 times as much variance (.669) in overall satisfaction as did hygienes (.079), and concluded that a student's level of achievement is an important factor in his overall satisfaction. 3Lindsay, C. A. and Marks, E. Student Satisfaction: An Exploratory Study and Proposed Model, Student Affairs Research Report, No. 66-2, Un- published Manuscript (Mimeo), The Pennsylvania State University:. 1967. 16 In a more recent study, Lindsay examined the relationship between a single measure of overall student satisfaction with academic experiences, current academic achievement, and three routine predictors of college achievement--high school grade point average, aptitude, and n-achievement.4 No particular hypotheses were entertained, as it was an exploratory study, but the author did feel that the student satisfaction and achievement would be monotonically related. While admitting the limitations of a correlational design, the fact that the measure of satisfaction was a single question and subject to different interpretations by the subjects and the relatively small number (n=ll4) of subjects employed in the research, Lindsay offers the follow- ing conclusions. ”1. Reported feelings of satisfaction with academic exper- iences appearing to be related to both present and past achievement for college students. 2. Rather than attempt to explicate the causal relation- ship between satisfaction and achievement, it seemed most appropriate to regard the relationship of those two variables as a concomitant one. 3. While both aptitude and overall satisfaction are signi- ficantly related to achievement, aptitude and feelings of satisfaction are not significantly related. 4. Overall satisfaction with academic experiences bears a 4Lindsay, Carl A. Some Correlates of Overall Student Satisfaction and Achievement, Student Affairs Research Report, No. 67-3, Unpublished Manuscript (Mimeo), The Pennsylvania State University: 1967. ' l7 stronger relationship to current achievement than does aptitude.”5 Keith administered The College Characteristics Index and Activities Ipdg§ to a sample of undergraduate students who had completed at least four semesters of work in residence at the University of Alabama.6 His purpose was to determine what relationship, if any, the congruency of environmental press and student need systems had to reported student satisfaction and academic success. No significant relationships were found between the congruency index scores and academic success or reported personal satisfaction with the institution. Keith observed, however, that the congruency index scores were unusually low and that the variance and range were restricted and expressed the opinion that this may have caused the lack of significant correlation. In an exploratory study conducted at Sarah Lawrence College, Taylor attempted to identify factors which contributed to high or low morale.7 As subjects he chose a group of student committee members, members of the Student Council, the presidents of student houses, and a variety of other students. He found that when asked to list their most satisfying experiences, the majority of students mentioned such factors as ”intellectual exper- H ience" and general intellectual achievement.” Taylor had expected to 51bid., p. 12. 6Keith, James A. ”The Relationship of the Congruency of Environ- mental Press and Student Need Systems to Reported Personal Satisfaction and Academic Success,” Dissertation Abstracts, 25 (4), 1965, pp. 7081-7082. 7Taylor, H. Freedom and Authority on the Campus, in The American College, N. Sanford (Ed.), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York: 1962. 18 find a fairly large number of students who highly valued the degree of personal freedom granted on campus or the richness of the cultural life available, but only 3 per cent of the students mentioned activities out- side their courses as being their most satisfying experiences at the college. This dominant concern with the curriculum was re-emphasized when students were asked to list their least satisfying experiences. The sources of discontent were found to be in the same places as the sources of satisfaction—~in the work courses. Most often listed as least satis— fying experiences were disappointments in a course, in a teacher, or in social relationships. Phillips, using a random sample of 109 Dartmouth College students, examined the costs and gains resulting from deferring gratification in a college setting.8 He hypothesized that the greater the frequency of deferring social gratification, the greater would be the student's satis- faction with his academic experience at college. He further hypothesized that the greater the frequency of deferring social gratification, the poorer the student's mental health would be. Phillips' results supported both of these hypotheses. He pointed out, however, that difference between short—run and long-run perspectives might alter the results. In the short-run (that is, in one to four years of college) the disadvantages of deferring gratification from social sources seem to outweigh the advantages; the student gains more academic 8Phillips, Dereck L. "Deferred Gratification in a College Setting: Some Costs and Gains,” Social Problems, 13 (3), 1966, pp. 333-343. l9 satisfaction but at some cost to his social satisfaction and his mental health. It is his contention, however, that in the long-run, the defer- ring student may end up with a profit. For instance, because of his academic satisfaction he may continue longer in school, perhaps being . more anxious than other students to go on for advanced degrees, and thus eventually placing himself in an occupation where he enjoys greater job satisfaction, as well as, greater earnings than his non-deferring class— mates. It should be emphasized, however, that these last statements are purely supposition and not based on data collected within the limits of the study. Studies Concerning Individual-Environmental Interaction In an analysis of relationships between student personality needs and the psychological press of college environments, Stern concluded that there exists sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that the inter- action scheme is useful for the purpose of characterizing some of the important aspects of student ecology.9 Stern's data were based on a selected group of 32 schools, reflecting in equal degrees the character- istics of a small number of universities, denominational colleges, pri— vate liberal arts colleges, and technical schools, the latter including teacher preparatory, business administration, and engineering programs. Stern makes the further suggestion that student apathy might be the con- sequence of unfulfilled expectations in the transition from high school to college. 9Stern, George G. "Environment for Learning,” The American College, Nevitt Sanford (Ed.), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York: 1962. 20 Argyris reports a study based upon his theory that the degree of ”fit” between an individual and the institution in which he finds him- self will affect the individual's motivation, affective experiences, and performance.10 Quantitative indices for motivation and provision of self actualization, status, and social congruency were administered to a group of research scientists. It was found that measures of "objective con— gruence” (the individual's motive on a given dimension compared to the average perception of provision for that motive by members of his depart— ment) were not significantly correlated with motivation. Measures of "perceived congruence” (the individual's motive compared to his perception of the institution's provision for that motive) were significantly corre- lated with motivation, but neither measure was significantly correlated with performance. In a longitudinal study of 147 students at University College in London, Kelvin, Lucus, and tha examined the relationships between person- ality, mental health, and academic performance in university students.11 Utilizing data gathered from questionnaires (covering educational and academic record, class, social activities, parental relations, aspirations, etc.) intelligence tests, personality tests, clinical records, and records of academic performance, they attempted to show that there were some systematic relations between those scores and distress and performance. It was their contention that the ultimate behavior of a student is a function both of his own personality and the nature of the institution 10Argyris, C. 10c. cit., pp. 42-47. 11Kelvin, R. P., Lucus, C. J., and tha, A. B. "The Relation Between Personality, Mental Health and Academic Performance in University Students,” British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4 (4), 1965, pp. 244-253. 21 he attends. They concluded that psychological distress cannot be avoided in a student population and suggested that ”. . . such distress may merely be an unfortunate aspect of a quality which is in itself valuable but may ”12 A further conclusion was that it would be un—- go awry-high drive. desirable to eliminate distress on campus by careful selection of students, in as much as this would result in the elimination of some of the most promising potential students. They also found that distress did not necessarily interfere with the highest level of academic achievement. While distress is not deplorable as such, they concluded, it becomes de- plorable when it reaches excessive proportions resulting in unnecessary academic (and therefore, economic) wastage through lack of adequate manage- ment. Not all studies have supported the concept of individual-environ- mental interaction, however. Brown conducted a study comparing 169 students from two different schools, one public and one private, in an effort to see whether students might have greater potential development 13 The differences that she found were con- in one climate than another. gruent with the purposes of state supported schools to serve the general public and ambition of the private schools to serve a more select clien- tele. Tests of relationships and interaction, however, failed to reveal any subtle advantages or disadvantages of either environment for particu- lar types of students. 121bid., p. 253. 13Brown, Roberta D. loc. cit. 22 Studies of Factors Related to Transferring or Dropping Out Pervin conducted a study of Princeton dropouts from the classes of 1940, 1951 and 1960.14 Every dropout from these classes was sent a questionnaire that covered four areas: (1) reasons for withdrawal and services consulted prior to withdrawal; (2) immediate and long-term effects of withdrawal; (3) later academic performance and reasons for later academic failure or success; and (4) later personal and vocational success, physical and emotional health. One of the findings he summarized as follows: ”Academic ability alone appears to play a minor role in determining which Princeton students drop out and cannot be used effectively in attempts at prediction. We need to know more about motivational factors in relation to academic per- formance and dropping out. Two areas which would appear to be worthy of investigation are the effects of frustrated expectations on students, and the question of student - college fit leading to satisfaction or dissatisfaction with ones college.”15 In a more recent study of student dissatisfaction and college drop- outs, Pervin and Rubin hypothesized that the greater the extent to which a student sees himself asnot ”fitting in" to the college, the more he 14Pervin, Lawrence A. ”The Later Academia Vocational, and Personal Success of College Dropouts,” The Collgge Dropout and the Utilization of Talent, Pervin, L. A., et.al., (Ed.), Princeton, Princeton University Press: 1966. 151bid., p. 52. :1.— 23 will be dissatisfied with the college and consider dropping out.16 They further hypothesized that this relationship would be stronger for non- academic than for academic satisfaction and for dropping out for non- academic (personal) reasons than for academic reasons. Although their data supported these predictions, it should be noted that their data were based on the reported probability of dropping out rather than the actual behavior of dropping out. Augustine conducted an extensive study of freshman and sophomore engineering students at three midwestern universities.l7 It was the purpose of his study to identify factors causally related to persistence and change in major field of academically proficient engineering Students. As part of this study he conducted interviews with a total of 176 students- 104 persisters and 72 non-persisters. Among his reported findings are the following which are of particu- lar relevance to this study. ”1. Respondents indicate that the early years of their college programs are often frustrating and anxious periods during which they must work out a multitude of personal and social problems while clarifying their educational and career goals. 2. There is widespread dissatisfaction among students interviewed with the highly structured inflexible 16Pervin, L. A. and Rubin, O. B. ”Student Dissatisfaction with College and the College Dropout: A Transactional Approach,” Journal of Social Psychology, 72 (2), 1967, pp. 289-295. l7Augustine, Roger D. ”Persistence and Attrition of Engineering Students,” Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, August, 1966° 24 engineering curriculua. These feelings are expressed by both persisters and non-persisters.”18 Augustine also states that while non—persisters cite a variety of reasons for changing out of engineering, those most frequently mentioned include: "a) Students had mistaken impressions of the engineering field. b) Students were dissatisfied with the content of the required courses. c) The student's scholastic performance did not meet his self-expectations.”19 Disc—US$13 A review of the literature since 1955 revealed no study of satis- faction among engineering students. It also revealed that the subject of student satisfaction has only recently become a matter of concern as writers have been contributing increasing attention to it, especially during the last five years. Those studies which have dealt with relationships among aptitude, achievement, and satisfaction for college students were reviewed. These studies indicated that while both aptitude and satisfaction may be re— lated to achievement, there is little reason to believe that aptitude and feelings of satisfaction are significantly related. Rather than attempt- to explicate the relationship between achievement and satisfaction, it 181616., p. 63. 19Ibid., pp. 64-65. 25 was suggested that it might be appr0priate to consider the relationship as one of concomitance. In a further review of the literature, those studies concerning individual—environmental interaction were examined. These studies seemed to indicate that the relationship between personal needs and the demands of the environment might well influence a student's overall satisfaction. Support was also offered for the notion that student satisfaction might be the result of unfulfilled expectations in the transition from high school to college. Evidence supporting a relationship between congruence of expectation and actual experience to student satisfaction was also found in a survey concerning the sources of student discontent. Students most often listed as least satisfying experiences, disappointments in a course, in a teacher, or in social relationships. Support was also offered for the existence of a relationship between the frequency of deferring social gratification and ones level of satisfaction. Many of the studies reviewed referred to the importance of consider- ing the question of student-college fit and the interaction between them when exploring the question of student satisfaction. The review also demonstrated that the questionnaire approach to the gathering of data con- cerning student satisfaction has been widely used. Another conclusion drawn from the review is that the criteria of satisfaction chosen has varied as much as the settings in which they were conducted. They have apparently been chosen at the discretion of the researcher, and are probably a function of his own interests. 26 In Chapter III the overall design of the study will be presented and the research hypotheses will be stated in operational form. CHAPTER III THE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN This study was designed and directed toward securing information thought to be related to student satisfaction. After analyzing the problem to be studied and reviewing the related research, attention was directed as to what research procedures should be used. It was necessary to restate the research hypotheses in testable form, select the sample population, type of instrumentation to be used to gather the data, and decide upon the methodology and procedures to be used in collating and recording the data. Statistical Hypotheses The research hypotheses stated in Chapter I are presented in testable form below using information collected in the review of literature and being structured to apply to the experimental sample. In the following statements, the students who scored above the median for the group on the satisfaction scale will be referred to as the More Satisfied (MS) students and those students who scored below the median will be referred to as the Less Satisfied (LS) students. Hypothesis 1 Null Hypothesis: There will be no difference between MS students and LS students on the basis of numerical ability. 27 28 Alternate Hypothesis: Levels of numerical ability will be higher for MS students than for LS students. Hypothesis 2 Null Hypothesis: There will be no difference between MS students and LS students on the basis of verbal ability. Alternate Hypothesis: Levels of verbal ability will be lower for the MS students than for LS students. Hypothesis 3 Null Hypothesis: There will be no difference between MS students and LS students with regard to their opinions of what changes would have made their first two years experience more valuable. Alternate Hypothesis: LS students will express greater concern over the rigidity of the curriculum and its lack of provision for meeting non-vocational developmental needs of students such as those mentioned by Erikson, Sullivan and White. Hypothesis 4 Null Hypothesis: There will be no difference between MS students and LS students in terms of their expectations and actual experiences during their first two years as engineering students. The Sam le Several factors were considered in the selection of the sample for this study. First of all, in order to test the theoretical assumptions 29 of the study, it was necessary that the sample consist of individuals who had experienced, to the greatest extent possible, the same environ- mental conditions. In this case primary concern was for similarity of experience with course work and instructors. Discussions with Van Dusen, Assistant Dean for Student Affairs in the College of Engineering, revealed that the great majority of students take a similar course load, during their first two years of study.1 Upon acceptance into upper-college, however, students begin to pursue the more individualized programs of study, characteristic of the various majors within the college. The greatly varied nature of this experience resulted in a decision to exclude juniors and seniors from the sample. Students who had transferred from another institution were excluded for similar reasons. Further consideration of the population remaining (freshmen and SOphomores) resulted in a decision to choose a sample consisting of third term sophomores. Such a sample would be characterized by maximum exposure to the same curricular experiences. In an effort to minimize the loss of data resulting from incomplete or unreturned questionnaires, it was decided that the instrument would be administered during a regular class period. This course of action was taken on the recommendation of research consultants in the College of Education. Their experiences had revealed that returns from lengthy questionnaires administered by mail are very poor. Efforts to obtain a representative sample resulted in the selection 1Interview with George M. Van Dusen, Assistant Dean, College of Engineering, Michigan State University, April, 1968. 30 of a course in mechanics, required of sophomore students in Metallurgi- cal, Civil, Mechanical, and Agricultural Engineering. Having received the permission of the Dean of the College and the Departmental Chairman, the three instructors who taught the course were contacted and agreed to relinquish a class period during which the questionnaire could be administered. This provided a sample population of 103 students. The exclusion of off sequence juniors and transfer students from this population resulted in a final sample consisting of 79 students. Instrumentation A questionnaire was designed to gather data relevant to the pur— pose and goals of the study. The develOpment of this instrument was guided by the following objectives: 1. To assess the nature and importance of each student's expectations regarding his college experience: a. academic achievement -- the level aspired for and the amount of effort required to obtain passing grades. b. social opportunities -- the amount of heterosexual contact, whether it would be in groups or on an individual basis and the feelings of social ”know-how” that would result. c. maturational changes -- the meaning of increased emotional and financial independence and self-knowledge. 2. To assess the level of satisfaction and obtain information regarding factors which might be related to it: 31 a. social -- the impact of ”going steady,” or being engaged or married, the relationship of dating behavior and frequency of ''bull sessions” with other students. b. organizational -- the amounts of time allocated to sleeping, studying, entertainment, etc. 3. To assess the nature of the opinions expressed by students: a. goals of college -- the extent to which students see the goals as efforts to prepare them for vocation, integrate individuals into society, instill moral values and provide for better mental health. b. college life -— aspects that contribute to overall development and the extent to which it is enjoyable. c. curriculum -- the extent to which they perceived it as applied or theoretical, whether they saw it as rigid or flexible, the opportunities they had for extracurricular activities, etc. The Questionnaire The purpose of the questionnaire was to collect certain data from each subject. The questionnaire attempted to elicit the student's feel- ings about his experiences within the College of Engineering. The following is a detailed discussion of the rationale underlying each part of the instrument. It's development and format were guided by con- siderations offered by consultants from the office of Educational Research, in the College of Education at Michigan State University. A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix A. 32 The first section of the questionnaire (items 1-6) consisted of a satisfaction scale. The questions that composed this scale were based on Davie's hypothetical portrait of a satisfied student.2 Davie describes a satisfied student as ”. . . one who has been successful in handling internal needs and external pressures. . .” and possesses the following general characteristics: ”while in college he would not have considered leaving; he would not have felt uncomfortable or 'out of place'; and he would have been in good spirits most of the time.”3 Items 7 through 15 were concerned with the student's expenditure of time. The items were designed to elicit information regarding how much time was spent in activities other than study. Item 16, which was concerned with the goals a student thought a university ought to have, was included for descriptive purposes. The student's opinion as to the importance of various elements of the environment to his overall development, was examined in item 17, and the degree to which he found each of these elements enjoyable was con— sidered in item 18. In the third section of the questionnaire (items 19-33) a list of 15 possible recommendations for changes within the College of Engineering was presented. Students were asked to indicate how their experience might have been improved by stating whether or not they would approve of the recommended change. These items were included in an effort to learn what students felt to be some of the shortcomings of their experience. 2Davie, James S. loc. cit. 31bid., p. 31. 33 The final part of the questionnaire contained 26 open-ended questions concerning students' expectations about various aspects of undergraduate life and the degree to which these expectations were realized. Scores for these items were obtained by taking the mean ratings of three independent judges. The length of the questionnaire and the nature of the answers required gave rise to some concern about the length of time that would be required to complete it. Accordingly, a pilot study was done, using as subjects, 5 junior students. The times required to complete the questionnaire varied between 30 and 45 minutes. The pretest also showed the form of the questionnaire to be satisfactory for the purpose of this study. Therefore, no significant changes were made in the questionnaire. No problems were anticipated with students failing to complete the questionnaire as the class periods during which they were to be admin- istered were 50 minutes long. A word must be said concerning the reliability and validity of the information gathered by the questionnaire. Such an instrument relies heavily upon the investigator's ability to engender a cooperative attitude on the part of each subject and to elicit full and accurate responses to the questions posed. The professional experience gained through the advising and counseling of students in the College of Engineering was of great assistance in obtaining this cooperation. An analysis of the data from the pretest of the questionnaire suggested that the requirement of reliability had been fulfilled. It must be pointed out, however, that no statistical tests of reliability such as the familiar test-retest, odd-even, or split-half techniques were employed. 34 The most familiar procedure for determining validity of an instru- mant is the simple demonstration of a relationship between the measures made by the instrument and some criterion. The contention that the satis- faction scale is measuring satisfaction is supported by the findings that the MS students say that they are more satisfied with their college exper- ience than do the LS students and that in general they are satisfied, not dissatisfied people. It was decided, therefore, that the scale is valid for the prediction to the stated criterion, namely, satisfaction. College anlification Test (CQT) The CQT is administered to all incoming freshman students at Michi— gan State University. The results from this test are part of the student's permanent record at M.S.U. and, as such, were available for use in this study. The CQT is a test of academic aptitude. Tests of verbal ability, information based upon social studies and scientific knowledge, and numerical reasoning are included. The test thus provides three subscores and a total score indicative of academic aptitude. Validity studies on the CQT have been conducted in terms of its ability to predict the first term grade point averages of high school seniors entering college. An overall coefficient of .44 for men on the CQT total score has been reported.4 Test-retest and corrected Split- half methods of determining reliability have yielded coefficients varying from .89 to .97.5 4Bennett, G. K., Bennett, M..G., wallace, W. L., Wesmon, A. A. Collgge Opalification Tests: Manual, The Psychological Corporation, New York: 1961, p. 49. 5 Ibid., p. 53. 35 Grade Point Averages Accumulative grade point averages are computed by the registrar for all students at the end of each term. Access to student records made these data readily available for inclusion in the study. Analysis The analysis of the data in Chapter IV will be presented in two forms. The first form will consist of a descriptive analysis inter- spersed with tables to provide as meaningful a view of the data as possible. The second form will consist of tests of the research hypothesis found in Chapter I and restated in Chapter III in operational form. The .05 level of significance will be used as the criterion for rejection of the null hypothesis, except in those cases where tests of significance must be on the basis of mean ratings. The effect of grouping students on the basis of mean ratings is to reduce the number of students who are placed in the extreme groupings. The probability of obtaining differences that are significant at the .05 level is thereby reduced. In such cases and at the suggestion of Dr. G. Rao, research consultant in the College of Education at Michigan State University, the .10 level will be used as the criterion of significance. By doing so, the chance of making a Type II error, accepting the null hypothesis when it is false, is reduced. Although this increases the likelihood of making a Type I error, accept- ing the alternative hypothesis when the null hypothesis is true, it was felt that such a compromise was warranted. 36 The assumptions underlying the statistical models used in analyzing the data are presented and discussed below. Assumptions: Product Moment Correlation The use of the product-moment correlation assumes linearity of regression, homoscedasticity, and normal distributions of the variables.6 For the purpose of this study it is assumed that the experimental sample is representative of a population having the characteristic being studied, normally distributed within it. An informal inspection of the data did not indicate any radical departures from these assumptions. Assumptions: t-Test It is an implicit assumption when the p-test is used in the eval- uation of the difference between two means that the population variances from which the samples are drawn are equal. In addition, the use of the p-test involves the assumption of normal distribution of the ”numerator” variable. Edwards points out, however, that departures from normality are only of concern when sample sizes are small.7 The smallest samples involved in the basic use of the pftest in this study included 39 Subjects. With groups of this size, departures from normality should not invalidate the conclusions drawn. 6McNemar, Quinn. Psychological Statistics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2nd Ed., New York: 1955, pp. 122-143. 7Edwards, Allen L. Experimental Design in Psychological Research, Holt, Reinhart, and Winston, New York: 1960, p. 112. 37 Assumptions: Chi-Square The non-continuous data will be analyzed by means of a chi-square analysis. Careful consideration of the underlying assumptions suggested that it would be appropriate in this situation.8 Adequate sample size, independence of observations, a sound basis for categorizing results and other relevant attributes led to this conclusion. The chi-square test enabled the research to examine frequencies of the respective contingency tables to determine whether or not the two variables were independent. Summary A sample of 79 full-time sophomore students were tested with a 59 item questionnaire eSpecially constructed for this study. A group of 39 students were designated as More Satisfied (MS) and a group 0f 40 students were designated as Less Satisfied (LS) on the basis of their score on a satisfaction scale included in the questionnaire. For each individual the scores on the College Qualification Test and the accumulative grade point averages were collected. A series of 5 hypotheses concerned with student satisfaction were presented and will be tested through an analysis of the data collected. Product-moment, p-test and chi-square techniques will be used to test for significant differences between the groups with the criterion for significance being set at the 95 per cent level. Descriptive data 8MIcNemar, Quinn. Psychological Statistics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York: 1962, pp. 217-219. 38 will be presented in forms convenient to the presentation. The results of the study will be presented in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The information gathered in this study has been presented in tables designed to give the reader the clearest possible view of the data. These tables are accompanied by a narrative presentation in order to focus attention on the more significant descriptive statistics that are the basis for the conclusions and implications presented in Chapter V. Before turning to the findings, it is appr0priate to consider the question of how representative the sample used in this study is of the entire sophomore class. Academic aptitude scores from the College Quali- fication Test (CQT) and grade point averages were chosen as the basis for comparison. In as much as both of these dimensions will be examined in the study, it was decided that they would serve as the most stringent test of whether or not the study sample was truly representative of the total sophomore class. Accordingly, a sample (n=84) consisting of 25 per cent of the sophomore engineering students was selected at random and CQT total scores and accumulative grade point averages were obtained for each student. The results of the petests between the means of the sets of numerical scores are reported in Table B1 in Appendix B. No significant differences were found at the .05 level between either the academic aptitudes or the accumulative grade point averages of the two groups. It was, therefore, concluded that the subjects used in the study satisfactor- ily represented the population originally identified for the study. 39 40 Repgrt of the Findipgg The re8ponses to the questionnaire items were tabulated and will be reported at this time. In each instance where responses were of an appropriate nature, a chi-square was calculated to determine whether differences between responses of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students were significant. Where computation of a chi-square was not appropriate, a frequency count and percentage distribution was obtained. Percentages have been included in all of the following tables in order to facilitate comparisons between More Satisfied and Less Satis- fied students and to provide information regarding the total sample. APL/360 Computer facilities and programs were utilized to compute the chi-square,lp-tests and correlations referred to in this chapter. Access to these facilities was secured by utilizing a computer terminal installed in the research room of Erickson Hall at Michigan State Univer- sity. Satisfaction Scale Data As indicated in Chapter III, the questionnaire included certain items that comprised a satisfaction scale. Total satisfaction scores, obtained by simply adding the numerical values of the re5ponses to each question, were used as a basis for differentiating the more satisfied students from those who were less satisfied. After arranging the students on a continuum in terms of their total scores on the questions, a median Split was employed to divide the group. Such a technique was utilized because it was Considered a more stringent test than such an'alternative as comparing the extremes of the continuum. The top half of the group 41 thus divided shall hereafter be referred to as the More Satisfied and will be designated by the letters MS, while the bottom half of the group will be referred to as the Less Satisfied and will be designated by the letters LS. Table 4.1 provides a comparison of the responses of the MS and LS students with regards to the items on the Satisfaction Scale. Inspection of this table provides one with a clearer picture of the difference between MS and LS students. Although 32.5 per cent of the MS students said they never felt ”out of place" in engineering, only 5.2 per cent of the LS students made the same statement. The difference between the groups on this item are more graphically shown by the fact that while no MS student said he frequently felt ”out of place" in engineering, 33.3 per cent of the LS students indicated such a feeling. The question of whether they had ever considered changing their major showed that only 10 per cent of the MS students had ever considered it seriously. On the other hand, 56.4 per cent of the LS students had seriously considered such a move. Sixty per cent of the MS students describe their classroom exper- ience as usually satisfying while 15 per cent state that they were some- times dissatisfied. In contrast to this only 7.7 per cent of the LS students designated this experience as usually satisfying, with 46.2 per cent stating that it was either sometimes or usually dissatisfying. The question that examined students' interest in becoming engineers revealed that during their first two years of study, the interest of 100 per cent of the MS students increased somewhat (60.0 per cent) or greatly 42 TABLE 4.1 Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students on Satisfaction Scale items Variable ReSponses % MS Z LS Z Total 1. Have you ever felt a) No, never l3 2 15 32.5 5.2 18.5 ”out of place" in Engineering? b) Yes, but only 27 24 51 occasionally 67.5 61.5 64.5 c) Yes, frequently - 13 13 - 33.3 16.4 d) Yes, all of the - - - time - - - x2 = 21.234* df = 2 2. Have you ever con- a) No, never 10 3 13 25.0 7.7 16.5 sidered changing your present major? b) Yes, but not 26 14 40 seriously 65.0 35.9 50.6 c) Yes, seriously 4 20 24 10.0 51.3 30.4 d) Yes, and I am - 2 2 going to change - 5.1 2.5 x2 - 21.993* df = 3 3. How would you describe a) Usually satisfied 24 3 27 60.0 7.7 34.2 your attitude towards your classroom exper- b) Sometimes satis- 10 18 28 fied 25.0 46.1 35.2 ience during your ' freshman and sophomore c) Sometimes dissatisn 6 16 24 fied 15.0 41.0 27.9 years? d) Usually dissatis- - 2 2 fied - 5.2 2.5 22 = 26.311* df = 3 TABLE 4.1 CONT. :43 Variable Responses Z MS Z LS Z Total 4. How would you describe 8) Increased greatly l6 5 21 40.0 12.8 26.6 your interest in . b) Increased some- 24 19 43 becoming an Engineer, what 60.0 48.8 54.4 over the last two c) Decreased some- - l4 14 years? what - 35.8 17.7 d) Decreased greatly - 1 l - 2.6 1.3 x2 = 21.126* df 2 5. Which one of the follow- a) Enthusiastic 19 2 21 47.5 5.1 26.6 ing best describes your feelings about Engine- b) Hopeful 21 26 47 52.5 66.7 59.5 ering as you look for- ward to the last two c) Hesitant - 9 9 - 23.1 11.4 years of Engineering courses? d) Discouraged - 2 2 - 5.1 2.5 x2 = 25.545* df 2 6. How do you feel about 3) It's definitely 28 8 36 worth it. 70.0 20.5 45.6 the cost (time, efforg worry, money, etc.) of b) It's probably 12 27 39 worth it. 30.0 69.3 49.3 becoming an Engineer? c) It's probably not - 4 4 worth it. - 10.2 5.1 d) It's definitely - - - not worth it. - - - x2 = 20.871* df = 2 * Significant < .OOllevel Note: In each cell, percentages are - Represents zero frequency shown below corresponding frequencies. 44 (40.0 per cent). Sixty one and six tenths per cent of the LS students expressed similar increases in interest with 38.4 per cent of them indicating that their interest in becoming an engineer had declined. MS students have even more enthusiastic feelings about engineering as they look forward to their last two years of course work. Hopeful feelings are expressed by 52.5 per cent with 47.5 per cent stating that they are enthusiastic. LS students show a less optimistic view of the future with only 5.1 per cent of them expressing feelings of enthusiasm. Although 66.7 per cent of the LS group indicate some hope for the future, 28.2 per cent express some degree of hesitancy or discouragement. Question number 6 explored student attitudes towards the cost in- volved in becoming an engineer. The majority of the MS students (70 per cent) thought that becoming an engineer was definitely worth the cost, with the remaining 30 per cent indicating that it was probably worth it. Again we see that the LS students are not as convinced of the value of becoming an engineer. Although 20.5 per cent state that they think it is definitely worth it and 69.3 per cent state that it is probably worth it, 10.2 per cent felt that it is probably ppp worth it. As indicated in the table, chi-square tests of differences between the responses of MS and LS students to each of the items revealed that all 6 chi-squares were significant beyond the .05 level. In order to facilitate descriptions of the total sample, frequency distributions and percentages for each item were tabulated for combined groups of MS and LS students and included in Table 4.1. These results reveal that although the majority of students view their first two years experience with some degree of satisfaction, there is a considerable group 45 for which this is not the case. For example, 16.4 per cent of the total group indicated that they had frequently felt ”out of place” in engineer- ing, 32.9 per cent had seriously considered changing their major, 30.4 per cent expressed some degree of dissatisfaction, 19 per cent stated their interest had decreased somewhat, 13.9 per cent were hesitant or doubtful about their last two years of engineering courses, and 5.1 per cent felt that becoming an engineer probably wasn't worth the cost. These questions indicate that there is a great difference in the level of satisfaction between those students in the top half of the group, thus designated and those in the bottom half of the group. Descriptive Data Efforts were made to obtain information regarding how each student spent the major portion of his time. It was anticipated that the MS students would be characterized by the greater amount of time they Spent meeting the demands of their environment or in this case, the demands of the curriculum. Items 7 through 15 were directed at gaining information regarding the studenth allocation of time and the nature of his social activities. The data from items 7 through 14 were grouped and are expressed in terms of frequencies and percentages for descriptive purposes. pftests rather than chi-square techniques were used to examine differences between MS and LS students, however, in order to make full use of the data obtained. Item 7 asked students to indicate how often during an average term they had Spent most of the weekend in some activity other than study. Table 4.2 provides a comparison between MS and LS students with regard to this variable. No significant difference was found between the two groups. TABLE 4.2 Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) Students with reSpect to the number of weekends per term in which most of the time was Spent in some activity other than study* Item 7 0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 < More 2 ”7. ll 9 ll Satisfied 5.0 17.5 27.5 22.5 27.5 t = 1.298 Less 7 9 9 6 8 df = 77 Satisfied 18.0 23.1 23.1 15.4 20.5 Total 9 16 20 15 19 Sample 11.4 20.3 25.3 19.0 24.0 * Not statistically significant Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below correSponding frequencies. The table indicates, however, that the 23.5 per cent of the MS students stated that not more than three weekends were spent primarily in study as compared to 41.1 per cent of the LS students. On the other hand, 50.0 per cent of the MS students as compared to 36.0 per cent of the LS stu- dents state that they Spend 7 or more weekends per term in which most of their time goes for activities other than study. Examination of the percentage distribution for the entire sample reveals the following; 11.4 per cent report no weekends, 20.3 per cent report 1-3, 25.3 per cent report 4-6, 19.0 per cent report 7-9, and 24.0 per cent report that 10 or more weekends per term are Spent primarily in some activity other than studying. Each student was asked in item 8 to list the number of times they Went out on a date during an average term. Table 4.3 reveals that 22.5 47 TABLE 4.3 Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students with repsect to the number of dates per term* Item 8 0 1-4 5-8 9-12 13 More 9 l6 3 6 6 Satisfied 22.5 40.0 7.5 15.0 15.0 t = .195 Less 4 l9 8 7 1 df = 77 Satisfied 10.3 48.7 20.5 18.0 2.5 Total 13 35 11 13 7 Sample 16.5 44.3 13.9 16.5 8.9 * Not statistically significant Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below corresponding frequencies. per cent of the MS students did not go out on any dates during the average term. Only 10.3 per cent of the LS students indicated such a lack of dating behavior. Worthy of note is the fact that while more MS students than LS students report a total lack of dates, more of the MS students date with greater frequency than do LS students; 15 per cent of the MS students having 13 or more dates per term as compared to 2.5 per cent of the LS students. The p-test between MS and LS students was not significant, however. As indicated in the table, the sample as a whole did little dating, 16.5 per cent having no dates at all and a total of 60.8 per cent having less than 4 dates. Item 9 elicited information concerning the heterosexual relation- ships of the students. The comparison between MS and LS students is shown in Table 4.4. Approximately 40 per cent of both groups reported 48 TABLE 4.4 Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students with respect to the number having steady girl friends, being pinned, engaged and married* Item 9 Yes No Engaged Pinned Married More 17 23 1 2 3 Satisfied 42.5 57.5 2.5 5.0 7.5 t = .515 Less 15 24 3 3 3 df = 77 Satisfied 38.5 61.5 7.7 7.7 7.7 Total 32 47 4 5 6 Sample 40.5 59.5 5.1 6.3 7.6 * Not Statistically significant Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below correSponding frequencies. having ”steady” girl friends. Of the total group 11.4 per cent reported being engaged or pinned and 7.6 per cent reported being married. No significant difference was found between the More Satisfied and Less Satisfied students. Item 10 questioned students as to the number of times they went out with the boys during an average week. Table 4.5 permits comparison between More Satisfied and Less Satisfied students with reSpect to this variable. It is noteworthy that while almost half of both groups report no such activity, 18 per cent of the Less Satisfied students compared to 2.5 per cent of the More Satisfied reported that they went out with the boys twice a week. The difference between More Satisfied and Less Satis- fied students did not reach Significant levels, however. In item 11 Students were asked how often they particpated in "bull 49 TABLE 4.5 Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students with re- spect to the number of times they went out with the boys during an average week* Item 10 O l 2 More 18 21 l Satisfied 45.0 52.5 2.5 t = -.391 Less 19 13 7 df = 77 Satisfied 48.7 33.3 18.0 Total 37 34 8 Sample 46.8 43.0 10.1 * Not statistically significant Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below corresponding frequencies. sessions" during an average week. In Table 4.6 a comparison is made between More Satisfied and Less Satisfied students in terms of their responses to this question. As indicated in the table, no significant difference was found. Item 12 requested each subject to indicate the number of hours he spent in study each week. The data are compared in Table 4.7 and indicate that the More Satisfied students Spend more hours in study per week than do the Less Satisfied students. Differences between the two groups were found to be Significant beyond the .05 level of probability. Examination of the data concerning the total sample reveals that 27.8 per cent of the students Spend only 4 to 16 hours per week in study, while 26.6 per cent of the sampled students reported spending 33 hours or more in study. TABLE 4.6 Comparison between More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students with reSpect to the number of "bull sessions" participated in during an average week* Item 11 O 1 2 3 4 More 5 13 9 6 7 Satisfied 12.5 32.5 22.5 15.0 17.5 t = -.515 Less 7 9 13 3 7 df = 77 Satisfied 17.9 23.2 33.3 7.7 17.9 Total 12 22 22 9 14 Sample 15.2 27.9 27.9 11.3 17.7 * Not statistically significant Note: In each cell, percentages are Shown below corresponding frequencies. TABLE 4.7 Comparison between More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) Students with reSpect to the number of hours Spent in study per week Item 12 4-16 17-24 25-32 33-42 434< More 7 3 l6 9 5 Satisfied 17.5 7.5 40.0 22.5 12.5 t = 3.006* Less 15 7 10 5 2 df = 77 Satisfied 38.5 18.0 25.6 12.8 5.1 Total 22 10 26 14 7 Sample 27.8 12.7 32.9 17.7 8.9 1’6 Significant < .01 level Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below correSponding frequencies. 51 In item 13 students were asked to report the average number of hours they Spent in sleep each night. The reSponse of the Mbre Satisfied and Less Satisfied students are comparied in Table 4.8. No significant difference was found between the two groups. Looking at the sample as a whole reveals that 44.3 per cent of the students average 7 hours of sleep, 31.6 per cent average 6 hours or less, and 24.1 per cent average 8 hours or more Sleep per night. TABLE 4.8 Comparison of the amounts of sleep between More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied students* Item 13 5 6 . 7 8 9 More 1 10 18 10 l Satisfied 2.5 25.0 45.0 25.0 2.5 t = 1.279 Less 2 12 17 8 - df = 77 Satisfied 5.1 30.8 43.6 20.5 - Total 3 22 35 18 1 Sample 3.8 27.8 44.3 22.8 1.3 * Not statistically significant - Represents zero frequency Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below correSponding frequencies. In item 14 an effort was made to obtain information concerning how much time was Spent on forms of entertainment beyond that Spent dating. Table 4.9 provides a comparison between More Satisfied and Less Satisfied students with regard to this variable. Differences between the two groups did not reach significant levels. Data on the total sample reveal that 48 per cent of the students report that they average less than 1 hour per 52 TABLE 4.9 Comparison between More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students with respect to the amount of time Spent on non-dating entertainment* Item 14 0 1-6 7-12 13-19 20 More 4 16 14 2 4 Satisfied 10 40.0 35.0 5.0 10.0 t = -.463 Less 4 l4 l3 4 4 df = 77 Satisfied 10.3 35.9 33.3 10.3 10.3 Total 8 30 27 6 8 Sample 10.1 37.9 34.2 7.6 10.1 * Not Statistically significant Note: In each cell, percentages are Shown below corresponding frequencies. day on such forms of entertainment as movies, television, athletics, fraternities, etc. Only 17.7 per cent of the students reported Spending over 13 hours per week on such forms of entertainment. Item 15 was included for the purpose of ascertaining if the students thought there were other ways in which they expended Significant amounts of time. Table 4.10 permits a comparison of the More Satisfied and Less Satisfied students with reSpect to their answers to this question. Sixty eight and four tenths per cent of the total group felt that there were no other ways in which they spent significant amounts of time beyond those already mentioned. Seventeen and seven tenths per cent of the total group did state, however, that they spent significant amounts of time Reading and card games accounted for another 13.9 working at some job. per cent of the students. y. 53 TABLE 4.10 Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied_(LS) students with respect to other ways in which they spent significant amounts of time Item 15 WOrking Reading Cards No Others More 8 4 2 26 Satisfied , 20.0 10.0 5.0 65.0 Less 6 2 3 28 Satisfied 15.4 5.1 7.7 . 71.7 Total 14 6 5 54 Sample 17.7 7.6 6.3 68.4 Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below correSponding frequencies. Institutional Goals An effort was made to examine student opinions concerning what edu- cational goals they thought a university should emphasize. Students were asked to indicate whether they thought a selected list of goals were Highly Important, of Some Importance, or of Little Importance. A mean rank was then computed for each of the six goals. Table 4.11 contains the Mean Ranks and Rank Orders for the MS and LS students and the com- bined groups. It is readily discerable that Students who chose engineering as their college major have a vocational orientation whether they are satis- fied with their experience in college or not. MS and LS students differ with respect to what they see as the second most important goal. Those students who were less satisfied with their experience in college felt that the university should develop your 54 TABLE 4.11 Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satis- fied (LS) students with regard to the goals they think should be emphasized by the university Total Item 16 Goals MS LS Sample Provide vocational training; develop 1 l 1 skills and techniques related to career 1.88 1.95 1.91 Provide you with a basic general edu- 2 3 2 cation and appreciation of ideas 2.64 2.76 2.69 Develop your ability to get along with 3 2 3 different kinds of people 3.00 2.54 2.77 Develop your knowledge and interest in 4 4 4 community and world problems 3.83 3.78: 3.81 Help develop your moral capacities, 5 5 5 ethical Standards and values 4.65 4.76 4.70 Prepare you for a happy marriage and 6 6 6 family life 5.00 5.22 5.11 Note: In each cell, mean ranks are Shown below corresponding rank orders. ability to get along with other people and that a basic general education and appreciation of ideas was not as important. The MS students reversed this order of importance, ranking a basic general education as number 2 and ability to get along with different kinds of people as number 3. Mean rankings for the total group on these two goals provided a rank order that was in agreement with that of the MS students. The remaining three goals, development of knowledge and interest 55 in community and world problems, development of moral capacities and ethi- cal standards, and preparation for a happy marriage and family life, received rank orders of 4, 5, and 6, respectively, from both the MS and LS students and the total group as well. Contributions to Development In another effort to explore some of the common elements to which all undergraduates are exposed, six of the more salient features were selected and presented in the questionnaire. Students were asked to rate them in the order of the relative contribution each had made to their overall development and preparation for life after graduation. A mean rating was then computed for each item and rank order profile constructed by listing the six items in order of decreasing size of the mean rating of the total group. Table 4.12 again reveals the vocational orientation of the students. Technical courses were consistently regarded as contributing the most to the students' overall development. Roommates and friends received the next highest rating of importance. Non-technical courses and personal social activities were rated next in importance with both MS and LS students giving the latter item identical ratings. Athletics and sports and organized extracurricular activities received the lowest ratings from both groups of students. These findings reinforce the impression one gets from the "goals" questions in Table 4.11 - namely, that for the group as a whole there is a prime concern with vocational preparation, but that interpersonal relationships play an important role in students undergraduate develop- ment. 56 TABLE 4.12 Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students with reSpect to contributions to deve10pment Total Item 17 Contributions MS LS Sample Technical Courses 1 l l Roommates and Friends 2 2 2 Non-technical Courses 3 3 3 Personal Social Activities 4 4 4 Athletics and Sports 5 5 5 Organized Extra- 6 6 6 curricular Activities 4.12 4.05 4.08 Note: In each cell, mean ratings are shown below corresponding rank orders. It was of interest to know how enjoyable students found each of these experiences. Therefore, in item 18 students were asked to rate each of these six features of undergraduate life in terms of how enjoy- able it was. AS Table 4.13 indicates, both MS and LS students felt that personal social activities were the most enjoyable experiences. Identical ratings were given by both groups to the second most enjoyable aspect of under- graduate life - namely, roommates and friends. The third and fourth 57 TABLE 4.13 Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students with respect to contributions to enjoyment Total Item 18 Enjoyment MS LS Sample Personal Social Activities 1 1 1 1.97 1.81 1.89 Roommates and Friends 2 2 2 2.00 2.00 2.00 Athletics and Sports 3 3 3 2.15 2.42 2.28 Technical Courses 4 4 4 2.55 3.05 2.80 Organized Social Activities 5 6 5 3.02 3.41 3.21 Non-technical Courses 6 5 6 3.52 3.38 3.45 Note: In each cell, mean ratings are shown below corresponding rank orders. highest ratings were given to athletics and Sports, and technical courses reSpectively, by both MS and LS students. The only difference between MS and LS students appeared with regard to whether non-technical courses, or organized extracurricular activities should receive the lowest rating. MS students gave non-technical courses the lowest rating, while the LS students thought organized extracurricular activities were the least enjoyable. Mean ratings of the total groups resulted in a rank ordering of the items identical to that of the MS students. 58 Recommended Changes A concerted effort was made to examine student opinion concerning what they thought to be the shortcomings of their freshman and sophomore experience. One way in which this information was gathered was to ask each student to agree or disagree with Statements of recommended changes within the College of Engineering, on the basis of whether he thought such changes would have made his freshman and sophomore experience more valuable. A comparison of MS and LS student replies to these questions is provided in Table 4.14. AS is Shown in this table, only a slim majority of students (54.5 per cent) feel that they wouldn't have benefited if they had been allowed more time for other "intellectual" pursuits. Although a majority of the LS students (53.8 per cent) felt they could have benefited by such exper- iences, the difference between them and the MS students, 37.5 per cent of whom felt the same way, did not reach the .05 level of significance. Significant differences were found, however, between MS and LS students on the question of whether or not more personal contacts with other classes would have been valuable. Almost twice as many LS stu- dents as MS students, 82.1 per cent compared to 47.5 per cent, felt that such contacts would have been an improvement on their own experiences. The total sample reflected this same opinion with 64.6 per cent of them voicing agreement. Such an attitude being voiced by a majority of Stu- dents would seem to imply that the curriculum does not now provide for such interaction. The majority (60.7 per cent) of the students also felt that they would have benefited if their classes had contained fewer lectures and 59 TABLE 4.14 Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students with regard to their Opinion of what would have made their freshman and SOphomore experience more valuable 22.8 Would experience have been Strongly Strongly more valuable if it had: Group Disagree Disagree Agree Agree (19) MS 2 23 12 3 5.0 57.5 30.0 7.5 2 Allowed more time for x = 3.877 other "intellectual" LS 2 16 13 8 5.1 41.0 33.3 20.5 pursuits df = 3 Total 4 39 25 11 5.1 49.4 31.6 13.9 (20) MS - 21 18 1 - 52.5 45.0 2.5 Provided more x2 = 12.834* personal contacts LS - 7 26 6 - 17.9 66.7 15.4 with other classes df = 2 Total - 28 44 7 - 35.4 55.7 8.9 (21) MS - 19 16 5 - 47.5 40.0 12.5 Contained fewer x2 = 6.395 lectures, more LS 2 10 18 9 5.1 25.6 46.2 23.1 discussions df = 3 Total 2 29 34 14 2.5 36.7 43.0 17.7 (22) MS - 8 24 8 - 20.0 60.0 20.0 Provided more x2 = .936 personal contacts LS - 5 24 10 - 12.8 61.5 25.6 with the faculty df = 2 Total - 13 48 18 - 16.5 60.7 TABLE 4.14 Continued 60 Would experience have been Strongly Stronglfl more valuable if it had: Group Disagree Disagree Agree Agree (23) MS 3 28 7 2 7.5 70.0 17.5 5.0 Allowed more time x2 = 9.906* for social LS - 19 16 4 - 48.7 41.0 10.3 activities df = 3 Total 3 47 23 6 3.8 59.5 29.1 7.6 (24) MS - 17 20. 3 - 42.5 50.0 7.5 Given more personal x2 = 6.087** direction in studies LS - 15 13 11 - 38.5 33.3 28.2 and course selection df = 2 Total - 32 33 14 - 40.5 41.8 17.7 (25) MS - 17 15 8 - 42.5 37.5 20.0 Permitted greater x2 = 1.276 freedom in course LS l 15 13 9 2.6 38.5 33.3 23.1 selection df = 3 Total 1 32 28 17 1.3 40.5 35.4 21.5 (26) MS 1 23 15 1 2.5 57.5 37.5 2.5 2 Allowed more time for x = 2.494 extracurricular LS - l9 l7 3 - 48.7 43.6 7.7 activities df = 3 Total ,1 42 32 4 1.3 53.2 40.5 5.1 TABLE 4.14 (Continued 61 Would experience have been Strongly Strongly more valuable if it had: Group Disagree Disagree Agree Agree (27) MS - 13 22 5 - 32.5 55.0 12.5 Provided more x2 = .893 personal contact LS - 16 20 3 - 41.0 51.3 7.7 with classmates df = 2 Total - 29 42 8 - 36.7 53.2 10.1 (28) MS 7 24 7 2 17.5 60.0 17.5 5.0 2 Provided more emphasis x = 9.959* on liberal studies L8 3 l4 l9 3 7.7 35.9 48.7 7.7 not related to any df = 3 occupation Total 10 38 26 5 12.7 48.1 32.9 6.3 (29) MS 2 13 21 4 5.0 32.5 52.5 10.0 Placed more emphasis on x2 = 5.108 occupational or pro- LS - 19 19 1 - 48.7 48.7 2.6 fessional preparation df = 3 Total 2 32 40 5 2.5 40.5 50.6 6.3 (30) MS 3 22 14 1 7.5 55.0 35.0 2.5 Allowed more time for x2 = 3.185 activities and social LS l 19 15 4 2.6 48.7 38.5 10.2 life df = 3 Total .4 41 29 5 5.1 51.9 36.7 6.3 TABLE 4.14 Continued 62 Would experience have been Strongly Strongly more valuable if it had: Group Disagree Disagree Agree Agree (31) Ms 7 28 5 .. 17.5 70.0 12.5 - 2 x = 2.059 Required more work L8 11 24 4 - in courses 28.2 61.5 10.3 - df = 2 Total 18 52 9 - 22.8 65.8 11.4 - (32) MS 1 18 18 3 2.5 45.0 45.0 7.5 Provided greater x2 = 5.188 assistance in choosing LS - 12 18 9 - 30.8 46.2 23.1 a major within df = 3 engineering Total 1 30 36 12 1.3 37.9 45.6 15.1 (33) MS 12 26 2 - 30.0 65.0 5.0 - x2 = 1.053 Emphasized theory more LS 15 21 3 - than application 38.5 53.9 7.7 - df = 2 Total 27 47 5 - 34.2 59.5 6.3 - * Significant ‘< .01 level ** Significant < .05 level - Represents zero frequency Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below corresponding frequency. 63 more discussions. Again it was found that the LS students felt more strongly about this than did the MS students, although a majority of both groups were in agreement. The difference between the MS and LS students was not significant, however. In addition to feeling that they would have benefited from more discussions, the vast majority felt that there should have been more per- sonal contact with the faculty. Eighty seven and one tenth per cent of the LS students and 80.0 per cent of the MS students indicated such a preference. Only 16.5 per cent of the total group expressed the belief that nothing would be gained by such contacts. The table points out the great difference of opinion that existed between MS and LS students concerning the question of whether they Should have been allowed more time for social activities. Seventy seven and five tenths per cent of the MS students felt that sufficient time had been allowed, while 51.3 per cent of the LS students expressed a need for more time. The difference between the groups was found to be significant beyond the .05 level. Considering the group as a whole reveals that 63.3 per cent of them felt that adequate time had been provided for social activities. A desire for more personal direction in studies and course selection was indicated by 59.5 per cent of the total group of students. Although a majority of both the MS and LS students were in agreement concerning this item, significant differences were found between the two groups. It is of interest to note that while 57.5 per cent of the MS Stu-- dents felt there should have been more personal direction in course selection, an identical percentage felt they should have had greater 64 freedom in course selection. LS students also showed a similar pattern, although the percentage desiring greater freedom of selection was slightly lower. Selections of the total group followed the same pattern with 56.9 per cent of them stating that they preferred more personal direction in their course selection. At first glance these two items appear to be mutually exculsive. The distribution can be explained, however, if student reSponse to the question concerning more personal direction is viewed as a desire for more "personalized” interaction. Such an interpretation would be in agreement with student responses to those questions that concerned more personal contacts with other classes and faculty and more class dis- cussions. The reSponse to item 25 could then be taken at face value, namely, a desire for greater freedom in course selection. Item 26 posed the question of whether having more time for extra- curricular activities would have been valuable. The majority of the total group felt that their experience would not have been more valuable if such time had been available._ LS Students more often than MS students indicated that additional time would have been valuable, but differences between the groups did not reach significant levels. A majority of students, however, did think that an increase in stu- dent interaction would have brought a corresponding increase in the value of their experience. It is interesting to note that the MS students felt more strongly about the importance of this interaction than did LS stu- dents. This appears to be as much an increased valuation of the impor- tance of student interaction on the part of the MS students as it is a 65 reflection of a lower level of interest on the part of LS students for any more interaction with other engineering students than they already have. This explanation is supported by the fact that although the major- ity of MS students did not support the previous questions concerning increased student contact, 80 per cent of them are in favor of increased contact with other engineering students. On the other hand, over 80 per cent of the LS students had been in favor of increased contacts with other classes but that percentage falls to 59 per cent when the increased con- tacts are limited to other engineering students. The apparent interest of the LS students in ideas and peOple out- side of engineering is also evident in the answers to item 28. The table shows that 56.4 per cent of the LS students felt that they would have benefited from an increased emphasis on liberal studies not related to any occupation. Only 23.5 per cent of the MS students thought that such an experience would have been more valuable than what they had. This dif- ference between the MS and LS students was found to be Significant beyond the .05 level. In spite of this difference, however, 60.8 per cent of the total group felt that nothing would be gained by such a change in emphasis. Item 29 questioned whether more emphasis Should have been placed on occupational or professional preparation. Although the majority of Stu- dents felt that the increased emphasis would have been valuable, the MS Students were considerably more enthusiastic than the LS students. Dif- ferences between the groups, though not reaching significant levels, did provide further indication of a basic difference between the two groups. In a further effort to explore this difference, an item (30) was included that was a combination of two items (23 and 26) that appeared 66 earlier in the questionnaire. ReSponses to this question revealed that the MS students react less negatively to the idea of more social life when it is used in its broadest sense. LS students who had been equally divided on the previous two questions, again responded in the same manner, indicating that they saw social activities and other "extracurricular" activities as equally desirable. One of the few items on which both MS and LS students were in close agreement was item 31. This item raised a question concerning the value of increasing the amount of required work in each course. Only 11.4 per cent of the students felt that their experience would have been more valuable if more work had been required of them. Of those who disagreed with this suggestion, over a third of them felt strongly that it would not have added to the value of their experience. Because the different areas within the field of engineering offer such a wide range of experiences, it was thought that student satisfaction might be related to whether the student feels he has made the correct choice. In order to explore this possibility, item 32 was included in the questionnaire. This item asked students if they thought they might have benefited if the college had provided greater assistance to them in choosing a major within the field of engineering. The majority of the students sampled felt that more help would have been valuable. As the table shows, 69.3 per cent of the LS students as compared to 52.5 per cent of the MS students answered the question in the affirmative. The differences between the MS and LS students approached but did not reach significance. The final item in this section of the questionnaire explored student 67 feelings concerning a theoretical versus an applied curriculum. As the table reveals, 93.7 per cent of all the students felt that their curricu- lum should not have emphasized theory more than application. On no other item in this section of the questionnaire was their such a consensus of opinion. As expected, there was no Significant difference between MS and LS students in terms of the way they answered this question. Expectancies and Experiences The final section of the questionnaire was included in order to explore the nature of student expectations and the extent to which they are realized. It was believed that Student satisfaction might well be related to the extent to which college experiences meet or exceed expectations. The following analysis explores differences between the MS and LS students regarding what expectations they held concerning their curriculum and performance during the first two years. Table 4.15 presents the data concerning the expected and actual technical achievement of the students questioned. AS is Shown in the table, the majority of both the MS and LS Students expected above average achievement in technical courses. It also shows that only slightly more than half of those students actually achieved at that level. It is note- worthy that virtually none of the students expected to achieve at below average levels and for the most part, none did. Of course, those students who failed to meet at least average levels of attainment would not be encouraged to continue in the college. The table is, therefore, repre- sentative only of those students who achieve at average or better levels in technical courses and who remain in engineering. NO significant 68 TABLE 4.15 Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students regarding expected and actual technical achievement* Below Above Average Average Average (34) MS 1 8 30 Expected 2.6 20.5 76.9 x2 = 1.964 Technical LS - 12 27 df = 2 Achievement - 30.8 69.2 (35) MS 1 19 18 Actual 2.6 50.0 47.3 x2 = .218 Technical LS 1 21 16 df = 2 Achievement 2.6 55.3 42.1 * Not statistically significant - Represents zero frequency Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below corresponding frequencies. differences were found between MS and LS students with respect to expected or actual achievement in technical courses. Students were also asked to indicate the level of achievement they expected and actually attained in non-technical courses. The answers to these questions were tabulated and are contained in Table 4.16. Although both the MS and LS students had lower expectations of their non-technical achievement than of their technical achievement, the difference between the two groups was found to be significant at the .05 level. Those stu- dents who comprised the MS group had a wider range of expected achieve- ment than did the LS students with 55.0 per cent of them expecting above 69 TABLE 4.16 Comparison of Mere Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) Students regarding expected and actual non-technical achievement Below Above Average Average Average (36) MS 3 15 22 Expected 7.5 37.5 55.0 x2 = 6.988* Non-technical LS - 22 17 df = 2 Achievement - 56.4 43.6 (37) MS 2 21 17 Actual 5.0 52.5 42.5 x2 = 2.085 Non-technical L8 3 15 21 df = 2 Achievement 7.7 38.5 53.8 * Significant 41.05 level - Represents zero frequency Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below correSponding frequencies. average achievement. By way of contrast, none of the LS students expected below average achievement and 56.4 per cent of them expected to do no better than average. The table further reveals that the MS students did less well than they had expected. Although the LS students did better than expected as a whole, a few achieved at below average levels. Dif- ferences in non-technical achievement between the MS and LS students did not reach significant levels, however. It was believed the shifting emphasis in engineering education from applied to theoretical Studies might have a Significant impact on student satisfaction if students were unware of this change. Students were, 70 therefore, asked to indicate what they expected regarding the theoretical nature of their curriculum. Table 4.17 reveals that the majority of both TABLE 4.17 Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students regarding expected and actual theoretical nature of curriculum* About >Ha1f Half (Half (42) MS 17 13 10 Expected 42.5 32.5 25.0 x2 = .325 Theory LS 13 13 8 df = 2 Content 38.2 38.2 23.5 (43) MS 8 13 19 Actual 20.0 32.5 42.5 x2 = .556 Theory LS 5 13 18 df = 2 Content 13.8 36.1 50.0 * Not statistically significant Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below corresponding frequencies. the MS and LS students expected that theoretical material would not con- stitute more than half of the curriculum. Both groups relate that half or more of the material actually was theoretical in nature, however. Some indication of how students felt about this unexpected emphasis on theo- retical material is gained by a re-examination of Student response to item 33 in Table 4.14. In this item Students were asked if they thought their freshman and sophomore experience would have been more valuable if it had emphasized theory more than application. The table Shows that 93.7 per cent of the total group When one considers that curriculum actually did reasonable to interpret faction with the amount significant differences of these questions. 71 did not think it would have been more valuable. over 80 per cent of the Students stated that the emphasize theory more than application, it seems student reSponse to item 33 as one of dissatis- of theoretical material in the curriculum. No were found between the MS and LS students on any Two other questions related to the curriculum were those that con— cerned expected and actual opportunities to apply their knowledge. 4.18 contains the data from these two questions. Table It Shows that MS and LS TABLE 4.18 Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students regarding expected and actual application of knowledge* Few Some Many (44) MS 9 14 17 Expected 22.5 35.0 42.0 x2 = .174 Application LS 9 ll 16 df = 2 of Knowledge 25.0 30.5 44.4 (45) MS 20 8 9 2 Actual 54.0 21.6 24.3 x = 1.958 Application LS 23 9 5 df = 2 of Knowledge 62.2 24.3 13.5 * Not statistically significant Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below corresponding frequencies. 72 students had common expectations regarding how many opportunities they thought they would have. A common pattern is also present when they report their actual experiences. Both groups support having fewer oppor- tunities to apply their knowledge than they expected to have. Again there were no Significant differences between the MS and LS students. It was also of interest to examine students' expected and actual feelings of competency in engineering. Table 4.19 shows that the major- ity of both the MS and LS students expected to feel above average in competence. Although the MS students did not feel quite as competent as they expected, the table shows that they felt significantly more competent than did the LS Students. Only 5.6 per cent of the LS students had above TABLE 4.19 Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students regarding expected and actual feelings of competency Below Above Average Average Average (46) MS 5 12 23 ‘ Expected 12.5 30.0 57.5 x2 = .784 Feelings of LS 5 13 18 df = 2 Competency 13.9 36.1 50.0 (47) MS 5 21 14 Actual 12.5 52.5 35.0 x2 = 12.916* Feelings Of LS 15 19 2 df = 2 Competency 41.7 52.8 5.6 * Significant <:.01 level Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below corresponding frequencies. 73 average feelings of competency, whereas 41.7 per cent of them expressed feelings judged to be below average. Of the MS Students, however, only 12.5 per cent expressed below average feelings of competency, while 35 per cent of their statements were judged to be above average in feelings of competency. Other items related to this area concerned the expected and actual amounts of study that would be required to earn at least ”C" grades in all courses. Table 4.20 Shows that there were significant differences between MS and LS students regarding their levels of expectation. The Less Satis- fied students expected that less would be required than did the More Satisfied students. No differences were noted between the groups, however, TABLE 4.20 Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students regarding expected and actual Study required Not Fair Quite Much Amount A Lot (38) MS 12 21 7 Expected 30.0 52.5 17.5 x2 = 4.683* Study L8 21 14 4 df = 2 Required 53.8 35.9 10.2 (39) MS 15 18 6 Actual 38.5 46.1 15.4 x2 = 1.427 Study LS 16 13 9 df = 2 Required 42.1 34.2 23.6 * Significant ¢:.10 level Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below corresponding frequencies. 74 with regards to the actual amount of study required. The MS students did find that a little less was required than they expected, while the LS stu- dents found that a little more was required than was expected. In addition to exploring students' expectations and experiences regarding topics related to curriculum, certain questions were asked that concerned the areas of social interaction and other matters related to the developmental needs of college students. A comparison of MS and LS students in terms of their expected and actual participation in social groups during their freshman and sophomore It reveals that the level of expectation years is given in Table 4.21. for the LS students was not significantly different from that of the MS TABLE 4.21 Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students regarding expected and actual participation in social groups* Below Above Average Average Average‘ (40) MS 16 13 10 Expected 41.0 33.3 25.6 x2 = .284 Social LS 18 ll 10 df = 2 Life 46.2 28.2 25.6 (41) MS 9 10 20 2 Actual 23.1 25.6 51.3 x = 1.057 Social LS 12 10 16 df = 2 Life 31.6 26.3 42.1 * Not Statistically significant Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below corresponding frequencies. 75 students. No difference was noted between the two groups with regards to their actual experience, either. Both groups did report more parti- cipation than expected, however. An effort was also made to determine how competent students felt in social situations. Item 48 requested information regarding the kind of feelings of social ”know-how" they expected to have and item 49 asked them to relate the feelings they actually had. Table 4.22 shows that there were no differences between MS and LS students on these two questions. Students were also asked to comment on the opportunities for form- ing heterosexual relationships that they expected to find and those that TABLE 4.22 Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students regarding expected and actual social "know-how"* Below Above Average Average Average (48) MS 12 17 9 Expected 31.5 44.7 23.7 x2 = .032 Social LS ll 17 9 df = 2 ”Know-how" 28.9 44.7 23.7 (49) MS 8 14 15 Actual 21.6 37.8 40.5 x2 = 1.348 Social LS 10 16 10 df = 2 ”Know-how" 27.7 44.4 27.7 * Not statistically significant Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below correSponding frequencies. 76 they actually found. Table 4.23 contains the data from the replies to these questions. As the table Shows, 80 per cent of the MS and 69.2 per cent of the LS students expected to find many opportunities, but only 37.5 per cent and 35.9 per cent of the MS and LS students respectively, report actually having many opportunities. NO significant differences were noted between the MS and LS Students with regard to either their expectations of or actual Opportunities for forming such relationships. TABLE 4.23 Comparison of Mbre Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students regarding expected and actual boy-girl relationships* Few Average Many (50) MS 3 5 32 Expected 7.5 12.5 80.0 x2 = 1.408 Boy-Girl LS 3 9 27 df = 2 Relationships 7.7 23.0 69.2 (51) MS 16 9 15 Actual 40.0 22.5 37.5 x2 = 1.873 Boy-Girl LS 11 14 14 df = 2 Relationships 28.2 35.9 35.9 * Not statistically significant Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below correSponding frequencies. Table 4.24 provides a comparison of MS and LS students regarding their expected and actual opportunities to ”live-it-up." It Shows that 55.0 per cent of the MS and 63.2 per cent of the LS students expected many such opportunities. It is also noteworthy that the MS students 77 TABLE 4.24 Comparison of Mere Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) Students regarding opportunities to "live-it-up"* Few Average Many (58) MS 9 9 22 2 Expected 22.5 22.5 _ 55.0 x = 3.153 Chances to L8 3 11 24 df = 2 ”Live-it-up” 7.9 28.9 63.2 (59) MS 6 9 25 2 Actual 15.0 22.5 62.5 x = 2.970 Chances to LS 11 10 17 df = 2 "Live-it-up” 28.9 26.3 47.2 * Not statistically significant Note: In each cell, percentages are Shown below corresponding frequencies. report actually having more opportunities to ”live-it-up” than they expected, whereas the LS students report having fewer such opportunities. Of the 28.9 per cent of LS students who report having few opportunities to "live-it-up,” only 7.9 per cent of them had so few opportunities. Here again, differences between the MS and LS students did not reach signifi- cant levels. In another effort to gain information regarding student concerns during this developmental period, students were asked what opportunities to work and gain economic independence they expected to have. The largest group of the MS students said that they expected few such opportunities. By way of contrast, the largest group of the LS students indicated that L. 78 they expected many opportunities. It is also interesting to note that the MS students report that they found more opportunities than they expected, while the opposite is true of the LS students. Differences between the two groups approached but did not reach Significance at the .10 level, as Shown in Table 4.25. TABLE 4.25 Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students regarding expected and actual opportunities to work and gain economic independence* Few Some Many (52) MS 17 6 15 Expected ' 44.7 15.8 39.5 x2 = 3.133 Work and L8 10 6 22 df = 2 Independence 26.3 15.8 57.9 (53) MS 10 . 9 21 Actual 25.0 22.5 52.5 x2 = 4.066 WOrk and LS 18 7 l4 df = 2 Independence 46.2 17.9 35.9 * Not statistically significant Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below correSponding frequencies. Students were also questioned as to the amount of freedom from parental control they expected to have while in college. As shown in Table 4.26 the vast majority of students expected nearly complete free- dom. It is interesting that with this very high level of expectancy that the actual experiences of the students actually exceeded what they 79 TABLE 4.26 Comparison of Mbre Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students regarding expected and actual free- dom from parental control* Very Nearly Little Average Total (54) MS 3 1 36 7.5 2.5 90.0 x2 = 1.14 Expected Freedom L8 3 3 33 df = 2 7.7 7.7 84.6 (55) MS 1 1 38 2.5 2.5 95.0 x2 = .000 Actual Freedom LS 1 l 37 df = 2 2.6 2.6 94.8 * Not statistically significant Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below correSponding frequencies. expected. AS the table indicates, 95.0 per cent of the total group experienced nearly complete independence from parental control during their first two years of college. There were, of course, no significant differences between the MS and LS students on these items. In addition to those items that made indirect inquiry as to the level of maturity of the students, an item was included that directly asked the Student what kind of feelings about being "grown-up" and mature he expected to have as an undergraduate. Table 4.27 reveals that the majority of both MS and LS students expected to feel quite ”grown-up" and mature. It is of considerable interest that while the expectancies of 80 TABLE 4.27 Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students regarding expected and actual feelings of maturity Below Above Average Average Average (56) MS 6 11 22 15.4 28.2 56.4 x2 = 3.881 Expected Maturity LS 2 12 22 df = 2 5.6 33.3 61.1 (57) MS 2 7 30 5.2 17.9 76.9 x2 = 7.096 Actual Maturity LS 8 8 20 df = 2 22.2 22.2 55.6 * Significant ¢:.05 level Note: In each cell, percentages are Shown below corresponding frequencies. the LS students were slightly higher than those of the MS students, the feelings that they report they actually had were considerably lower. As the table shows, the MS students had significantly higher feelings of being ”grown-up” and mature than did the LS Students. A further analysis of the data from items 34 through 59 was under- taken in order to determine how accurate the expectations of the Students were regarding the experiences they would have as undergraduates. An explanation of this analysis follows. Although Table 4.15 revealed that the MS and LS students had similar expectations and actual achievement in technical courses, an examination of Table 4.28 reveals that for both of these groups, the actual level of 81 TABLE 4.28 Comparison of expected and actual technical achievement of Mere Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students Below Above Average Average Average (MS) (34) 1 8 30 Expected 2.6 20.5 76.9 x2 = 7.588* Technical Achievement (35) l l9 l8 df = 2 Actual 2.6 50.0 47.3 (LS) (34) - 12 27 Expected - 30.8 69.2 x2 = 6.189* Technical Achievement (35) 1 21 16 df = 2 Actual 2.6 55.3 42.1 * Significant <:.05 level Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below corresponding frequencies. achievement in their technical courses was significantly lower than they had expected. In as much as technical courses make up the bulk of an engineering Student's course work, it seems reasonable to answer that for many students this comes as something of a disappointment. Earlier we found that a significant difference existed between the MS and LS students with regard to their expectations of achievement in non-technical courses. A re-examination of Table 4.16 reveals that although the MS students expected to achieve at a significantly higher level, there were no differences between the groups in actual achievement in those courses. An inspection of Table 4.29, however, reveals that the 82 TABLE 4.29 Comparison of expected and actual non-technical achievement of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students Below Above Average Average Average (MS) (36) 3 15 22 Expected 7.5 37.5 68.1 x2 = 1.841 Non-technical Achievement (37) 2 21 17 df = 2 Actual 5.0 52.5 42.5 (LS) (36) - 22 17 Expected - 56.4 43.6 x2 = 4.748* Non-technical Achievement (37) 3 15 21 df = 2 Actual 7.7 38.5 53.8 * Significant <:.10 level - Represents zero frequency Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below corresponding frequencies. level of expectation among the MS students, though found to be signifi- cantly different from that of the LS students, was none the less the more accurate of the two. The LS students were found to have done both better and worse than expected with the difference between their expect- ations and actual achievement being significant at the .10 level. A comparison of differences between what students expected and what they actually found regarding the theoretical nature of the curriculum is found in Table 4.30. It Shows that both the MS and LS students expected Significantly less theoretical material than they actually found. For both groups, differences were significant at the .05 level. 83 TABLE 4.30 Comparison of expected and actual theoretical nature of curriculum for MOre Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) Students About >Ha1f Half (Half (MS) (42) 17 13 -10 Theoretical Expected 42.5 32.5 25.0 x2 = 6.032* Nature of. (43) 8 13 19 df = 2 Curriculum Actual 20.0 32.5 47.5 (LS) (42) 13 13 8 Theoretical Expected 38.2 38.2 23.5 x2 = 7.275* Nature of (43) 5 13 18 df = 2 Curriculum Actual 13.8 36.1 50.0 * Significant <:.05 level Note: In each cell, percentages are Shown below corresponding frequencies. Comparisons were also made of the expected and actual opportunities that students found to apply their knowledge. As is shown in Table 4.31 both the MS and the LS students reported having fewer opportunities for such application than was expected. Differences for the MS students were significant at the .05 level. Differences between expected and actual opportunities were even greater for the LS students and were found to be significant at the .01 level. The earlier comparison of MS and LS students concerning their expected and actual feelings of competency showed that the LS students actually felt significantly less competent than the MS students. 84 TABLE 4.31 Comparison of expected and actual opportunities to apply knowledge for More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students Few Some Many (MS) (44) 9 14 17 Opportunities Expected 22.5 35.0 42.0 x2 = 8.258* To Apply (45) 20 8 9 df = 2 Knowledge Actual 54.0 21.6 24.3 (LS) (44) 9 11 16 Opportunities Expected 25.0 30.5 44.4 x2 = 12.073** To Apply (45) 23 9 5 df = 2 Knowledge Actual 62.2 24.3 13.5 * Significant <:.05 level ** Significant <:.Ol level Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below correSponding frequencies. A further examination of this data is contained in Table 4.32 and shows that both the MS and LS students actually felt significantly less competent than they expected to feel. The differences for the LS students were significant at the .001 level as compared with a significance level of .10 for the differences of the MS students. Table 4.33 provides a comparison between expected and actual amounts of study required to earn a "C” in all courses for both the MS and LS stu- dents. It reveals that both groups of students have quite accurate con- ceptions of how much study would actually be required. A re-examination of Table 4.20, however, Shows that there was a significant difference TABLE 4.32 Comparison of expected and actual feelings of 85 competency for More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students Below Above Average Average Average MS (46) 5 12 23 Expected 12.5 30.0 57.5 x2 = 4.644* Feelings of Competencies (47) 5 21 14 df = 2 Actual 12.5 52.5 35.0 LS (46) 5 13 18 2 Expected 13.9 36.1 50.0 x = l8.933** Feelings of Competencies (47) 15 19 2 df = 2 Actual 41.7 52.7 5.5 * Significant < .10 level ** Significant < .001 level Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below correSponding frequencies. TABLE 4.33 Comparison of expected and actual required study for More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students* Not A Fair Quite Much Amount A Lot MS (38) 12 21 7 2 Expected 30.0 52.5 17.5 x = .842 lRequired Study (39) 15 18 6 df = 2 Actual 38.5 46.1 15.4 LS (38) 21. 14 4 2 Expected 53.8 35.9 10.2 x = 2.348 lRequired - Study (39) 16 13 9 df = 2 Actual 42.1 34.2 23.6 * Not statistically significant Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below correSponding frequencies. 86 between the MS and LS students in terms of how much study they expected would be required. These findings would seem to be in conflict. Further examination of Table 4.20 provides an explanation, however. As the table shows, the MS students found that slightly less study was actually required than expected and the LS students found that slightly more study than expected was required. The result was that differences between the MS and LS stu- dents regarding the actual study that they report was required to earn a ”C", were not significant. Further analysis of the data from those items concerning social interaction also resulted in some noteworthy findings. For example, no significant differences were found between the MS and LS students concern- ing the questions of expected and actual Opportunities for participation in social groups. An examination, however, of differences between expected and actual opportunities for the two groups as shown in Table 4.34 revealed that the MS students found significantly more opportunities for such par- ticipation than they expected. Differences between expected and actual opportunities for the LS students did not reach significant levels. An analysis of differences between expected and actual feelings of social "know-how” for both groups of students is presented in Table 4.35. Again the MS students report that their actual feelings concerning their social competence were better than expected. Differences were significant at the .01 level. No significant differences between expected and actual feelings were reported by the LS students, however. An earlier comparison of MS and LS students regarding their expected and actual opportunities for heterosexual relationships revealed no 87 TABLE 4.34 Comparison of expected and actual participation in social groups for More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students Below Above Average Average Average MS (40) l6 13 10 2 Participation Expected 41.0 33.3 25.6 x = 5.685*‘ in Social (41) 9 10 20 df = 2 Groups Actual 23.1 58.9 51.2 LS (40) 18 ll 10 2 Participation Expected 46.1 28.2 25.2 x = 2.609 in Social (41) 12 10 16 df = 2 Groups Actual 31.6 26.3 42.1 * Significant < .10 level Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below correSponding frequencies. TABLE 4.35 Comparison of expected and actual feelings of social "know-how" for More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students Below Above Average Average Average MS (48) 12 17 9 2 Feelings of Expected 31.5 44.7 23.7 X = 10.957* Social (49) 8 14 15 df = 2 "Know-how" Actual 21.6 37.8 40.5 LS (48) 11 17 9 Feelings of Expected .28.9 44.7 23.6 x2 = .127 Social (49) 10 16 10 df = 2 "Know-how" Actual 27.7 44.4 27.7 * Significant (.01 level Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below correSponding frequencies. 88 significant differences between the two groups on either of the two variables. Table 4.36 contains the comparison of expected and actual opportunities for such relationships for both the MS and LS students. It reveals that both groups found significantly fewer Opportunities for heterosexual relationships than they had expected. Differences for the MS students were found to be significant at the .001 level, while dif- ferences for the LS students reached the .01 level of significance. TABLE 4.36 Comparison of expected and actual opportunities for boy-girl relationships for More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students Few Average Many (MS) (50) 3 5 32 Opportunities Expected 7.5 12.5 80.0 x2 = 25.246* for Boy-Girl (51) 16 9 15 df = 2 Relationships Actual 40.0 22.5 37.5 (LS) (50) 3 9 27 2 Opportunities Expected 7.7 23.0 69.2 x = 9.780** for Boy-Girl (51) ll l4 l4 df = 2 Relationships Actual 28.2 35.9 35.9 * Significant <:.001 level ** Significant <:.01 level Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below corresponding frequencies. 89 Comparisons of expected and actual opportunities to I'1ive-it-up" appear in Table 4.37. It shows that the LS students found approximately what they expected to find. The LS students, however, report having significantly fewer opportunities than they expected to have. Dif- ferences were significant at the .10 level. TABLE 4.37 Comparison of expected and actual opportunities to "live-it-up” for More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students Few Average Many (MS) (58) 9 9 22 2 Opportunities Expected 22.5 22.5 55.0 x = .792 to (59) 6 9 25 df = 2 ”Live-it-Up" Actual 15.0 22.5 62.5 (L8) (58) 3 11 24 Opportunities Expected 7.9 28.9 63.2 x2 = 5.814* to (59) ll 10 17 df = 2 ”Live-it-Up" Actual 28.9 26.3 44.7 * Significant <:.10 level Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below correSponding frequencies. Student reSponses to questions concerning the expected and actual opportunities to work and gain economic independence were reported pre- viously in Table 4.25. Differences in reported opportunities between MS and LS students were marked and approached, but did not reach significance at the .10 level. The differences between expected and actual opportuni- ties for working and gaining economic independence are given in Table 4.38. 90 TABLE 4.38 Comparison of expected and actual Oppor- tunities for economic independence for More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students* Few Some Many (MS) (52) 17 6 15 Opportunities Expected 44.7 15.8 39.5 x2 = 3.379 fOr'Economic (53) 10 9 21 df = 2 Independence Actual 25.0 22.5 52.5 (LS) (52) 10 6 22 Opportunities Expected 26.3 15.8 57.9 x2 = 4.222 for Economic (53) 18 7 l4 df = 2 Independence Actual 46.1 17.9 35.9 * Not statistically significant Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below corresponding frequencies. Here smaller differences are noted. The MS students expected fewer opportunities to work than they actually found, but the difference was not significant. The LS students, however, expected more opportunities than they found. The difference between expected and actual opportunities for the LS students approached, but did not reach significance level. The great degree of agreement between MS and LS students ing both the expected and actual freedom from parental control in Table 4.26. It was, therefore, no surprise that Table 4.39 no significant differences between expected and actual freedom by both groups of students. at the .10 concern- was noted revealed as reported 91 TABLE 4.39 Comparison of expected and actual freedom from parental control for More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students* Very Nearly Little Average Total (MS) (54) 3 1 36 Freedom Expected 7.5 2.5 90.0 x2 = 1.054 From (55) l l 38 df = 2 Parents Actual 2.5 2.5 95.0 (LS) (54) 3 3 33 2 Freedom Expected 7.7 7.7 84.6 x = 2.228 From (55) l l 37 df = 2 Parents Actual 2.6 2.6 94.9 * Not statistically significant Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below corresponding frequencies. Comparisons between expected and actual feelings of maturity for the MS and LS students are given in Table 4.40. Differences between expected and actual feelings of maturity for both groups approached but did not reach significance. An additional analysis of the data was undertaken in order to deter- mine whether significant differences existed between the MS and LS stu- dents regarding the discrepancy between their level of expectation and their actual experience. Table 4.41 contains these data. The table reveals that the two groups differ significantly in terms of the discrep- ancy between their expectations and actual experiences on the following variables: opportunities for social life; feelings of competency; 92 opportunities to work and gain economic independence; feelings of maturity; and chances to live-it—up. In each of these comparisons in which a significant difference was found between the MS and LS students, it can be observed that the MS students more often reported having better experiences than anticipated, than did the LS students. TABLE 4.40 Comparison of expected and actual feelings of maturity for More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students* Below Above Average Average Average (MS) (56) 6 11 22 Feelings Expected 15.3 28.2 56.4 x2 = 4.118 of (57) 2 7 30 df = 2 Maturity Actual 5.1 17.9 76.9 (LS) (56) 2 12 22 Feelings Expected 5.5 33.3 61.1 x2 = 4.496 of (57) 8 8 20 df = 2 Maturity Actual 22.2 22.2 55.5 * Not statistically significant Note; In each cell, percentages are shown below corresponding frequencies. 93 TABLE 4.41 Comparison of More Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students as to the discrepancy between their expectations and actual experiences* Less than As More than Expected Expected Expected MS 17 17 5 2 Technical 43.6 43.6 12.8 x = .392 Achievement LS l8 l4 7 df = 2 46.1 35.9 18.0 MS 7 27 6 2 Non-technical 17.5 67.5 15.0 x = .916 Achievement LS 7 23 9 df = 2 17.9 58.9 23.2 MS 13 18 9 Required 32.5 45.0 22.5 x2 = 1.241 _Study LS 12 l3 l3 df = 2 31.6 34.2 34.2 MS 9 ll 39 Social 23.1 28.2 48.7 x2 = 4.7674. Life LS 7 l6 l4 df = 2 18.9 43.2 37.8 MS 8 14 18 Theory 20.0 35.0 45.0 x2 = .540 Content LS 5 13 18 df = 2 13.9 36.1 50.0 MB 17 16 6 2 Application 43.6 41.0 15.4 x = .461 of Knowledge LS 16 17 4 df = 2 42.1 44.7 10.5 TABLE 4.41 Continued 94 Less than As More than Expected Expected Expected MS 19 9 12 Feelings of 47.5 22.5 30.0 x2‘= 5.507* Competency L8 20 15 4 df = 2 55.5 42.9 11.1 Feelings of MS 7 18 12 18.9 48.6 32.4 x2 = .505 Social "know-how" LS 8 l9 9 df = 2 22.2 52.8 25.0 MS 24 13 2 Boy-Girl 61.5 33.3 5.1 x2 = 1.386 Relationships LS 19 18 2 df = 2 48.7 46.2 5.1 MS 9 16 14 work and 23.1 41.0 35.9 x2 = 11.956** Independence LS 12 23 3 df = 2 31.6 60.5 7.9 MS 3 30 7 Freedom from 7.5 75.0 17.5 x2 = .457 Parents LS 4 30 5 df = 2 10.3 76.9 12.8 MS 8 17 15 Feelings of 20.0 42.5 37.5 x2 = 5.254* Maturity L8 13 15 7 df = 2 37.1 42.9 20.0 ' 95 TABLE 4.41 Continued Less than As More than Expected Expected Expected MS 8 20 11 Chances to 20.5 51.3 28.2 x2 = 4.764* ”Live-it-up" LS 16 15 7 df = 2 42.1 39.5 18.4 * Significant (.10 level 95* Significant (.01 level Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below correSponding frequencies. Supplementary Data In addition to that information gathered in the questionnaire, additional data was obtained on each student concerning their ability and academic achievement. This data was necessary in order to provide a more complete description of differences between More Satisfied and Less Satisfied students. It was also necessary in order to test several of the research hypotheses posed in the study. Table 4.42 compares the MS and LS students with regards to their ability as measured by the College Qualifications Test, and their academic achievement as indicated by the students' accumulated grade point averages. It can be noted that the LS students had somewhat higher mean scores on the verbal tests than did the MS students. Somewhat higher mean scores were obtained by the MS students on the numerical tests, however. Measures of total ability did not differ for the two groups. 96 TABLE 4.42 Comparison of Mbre Satisfied (MS) and Less Satisfied (LS) students on the basis of the College Qualifications Test (CQT) scores and accumulative grade point averages (GPA) Mean Score Mean Score Variables MS LS Eftest df CQT Verbal 43.51 1 48.63 -0.824 77 CQT Numerical 78.56 71.69 1.756 77 CQT Total 63.69 63.67 .005 77 G.P.A. 2.68 2.56 1.041 77 p.10 = 1.670 The table also shows that the MS students had somewhat higher grade point averages than did the LS students. Although no differences significant at the .05 level were found between the two groups on any of the variables, the difference between the two groups in numerical ability was found to be significant at the .10 level. In a further effort to obtain the greatest possible amount of infor- mation from the data obtained on each of the subjects, simple correlations 'were obtained between measures of the students' satisfaction; verbal, numerical, and total ability; and academic achievement; and the data obtained from those items that asked students to designate how they Spent their time. These correlation coefficients are shown in Table 4.43. The number of hours a student studies is seen to be related to satisfaction and at the .01 level. The table also reveals a significant relationship between a student's numerical ability and the number of 97 om. u 3oo.e xxx mm. u 3o.o xx NN. u mo.o x @3. » o3.o mo. ucme ICHmunucm— 03. m3. eoo3m muse: mo.- ~3.- xxmm. spasm muaom o3.- No.- mo. m3.- oco3ooom 33cm 33. 33.- 3o. co. 33. oxen nu32 coo co xx3m.- ~3.- oo. oo. 83.- mo.- 3u3u mvmoum xon. No.- xmw. m3.- N3. 50. oo.- ocean xx3m. co. m3. w3. xxxme.- ao. m0.- m3. . occcxcoz bosom oz «3. oo. M3.- mo. 83.- m3. mo.- so. m3. «do xxem. c3. 30.- 33. 3o. «3.- 80.- No.- 33.- 3o. x8333c< 3ocoa xxxmm. xx3m. xmm. No.- so. mo. m3. 30. oo. mo. o3. a“333333 Hmowu0EDZ xxmm. xxxwm. xam. N3. mo. 33. No. mo.- 03.- No.- m3.- 83.- a83333< 3ocpo> zufiflwn< zuwawn< wuom cam .ucwEo>oH£om oesopmom .xuflaflnm wo wou3mmoE coozumn mcowumamuuoo wHaEHm md.¢ mqm