ABSTRACT AN INVESTIGATION OF THE COLLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL PERCEPTIONS OF PROSPECTIVE COLLEGE FRESHMEN AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO THE CHOICE OF A COLLEGE OR.UNIVERSITY by Charles F. Abbott It is generally acknowledged that there are many factors involved in the choice of a college by pro- spective college freshmen. This particular study had as its major concern, the influence of the student’s perception of the college environment on his choice of a college. There were four basic objectives of this study. A. Do prospective college freshman students differ in their perceptions of the environmental characteristics of a college in which they have shown a definite interest? B. What environmental characteristics do pro- spective college freshman students perceive as desirable or undesirable in the college of their choice? C. Are the prospective college freshman student’s perceptions of the college environment influenced by the factors of sex, college major, campus visi- tation experiences and geographical location? Charles F. Abbott D. Do the prospective college freshman student’s college choice, his perception of the college envi- ronment, and his perception of a desirable or unde- sirable college environment have any relationships to each other? The principal instrument used in this study was the College and University Environmental Scales developed by C. Robert Pace. All respondents were asked to react to the items of the instrument twice. The first step was to answer "yes" or "no" as to whether they believed the statements listed on the instrument were truly character- istic of the environment of Ball State Teachers College. The second step was to repeat the test indicating the degree of desirability or undesirability of each of the statements listed on the instrument as a characteristic of the college or university they wish to attend. The respondent was given the opportunity to rate the item as "very desirable," "desirable," "undesirable," or "very undesirable." The population consisted of all those Indiana sec- ondary school seniors who had submitted Scholastic Apti- tude Test scores to Ball State Teachers College. A ran- dom sample of students was secured selecting 200 indi- viduals, 100 males and 100 females, from decks of cards containing SAT-V scores. Charles F. Abbott The data were analyzed by electronic data proces— sing equipment using the Analysis of Variance and the "t" test techniques to determine significant differences among the group mean scores. The following general conclusions can be stated as a summary of the specific findings of this investigation. A. The perceptions of the Ball State Teachers Col- lege environmental characteristics were different as reported by selected groups of prospective col- lege freshmen included in this study. B. Prospective college freshmen included in this study differed in their perceptions of the desira- bility of the environmental characteristics of the college or university of their choice. C. The factors of sex, vocational objective, cam- pus visitation experience and geographical location of residence do influence the perceptions of a col— lege environment and its desirable characteristics as reported by the prospective college freshmen included in this study. D. There is a direct relationship between the pro- spective college freshman’s perception of the college environment and his college choice. 'When other factors are equal, the perception of the college environment may be a determining factor in the college choice. AN INVESTIGATION OF THE COLLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL PERCEPTIONS OF PROSPECTIVE COLLEGE FRESHMEN AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO THE CHOICE OF A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY By Charles FlfiAbbott A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education 1967 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The investigator wishes to express appreciation to the many individuals who gave him their assistance during the completion of this research study. A special thank you is extended to: Dr. Walter F. Johnson for his encouragement and guidance during the graduate program and research study. Dr. John.X. Jamrich, Dr. James Costar and Dr. Max Raines for their assistance as members of the Committee. Dr. Robert Koenker, Director of Graduate Programs, Ball State University for his assistance with the sta- tistical design of the study and the analysis of data. My wife, Phyllis Ann Abbott, for the many hours spent in typing the manuscript and for her devoted confidence in the completion of this study. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE LIST OF TABLES............................... v Appendix B................................. vii LIST OF FIGURES.............................. x I. THE PROBLEM.................................. IntrOdUCtionOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Statement of the Problem................... Limitations and Scope of the Study......... Objectives of the Study.................... Theory Of the sdeOOOOOOOI.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Importance of the Study.................... Definition Of TermSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOO 1'2 Null Hyp0theseSOOOOOOOOOOOOCOIOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1'3 Plan Of the SdeOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1'7 \lm-PUII-‘H I—' II. THE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................. 20 IntrOduCtion...OOCOOOOOOCOOOOCCOCOOOCOOO... 20 An Historical Review of the Study of the Measurement of the College Environ- mental Characteristics................... 22 A Description of Unique Research Studies... 25 A Review of the Development of the College and University Environmental Scales...... :8 6 summary.OOOOCCOOOOOOOOCOOOOOO0.00.00.00.00. III. THE DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY...... 47 The Design.................C............... 47 sample SeleCtion...C....................... 48 Measuring Instruments...................... 50 Scoring of Instruments..................... 52 COlleCtion Of Data............C...‘........ 53 Analysis of Data........................... 55 BaSiC Assumptions-cocoa...ooooooooooooooooo gs summary.OOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.00... IV. THE ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH RESULTS............. 58 Description of the Population.............. 58 Results of the Analysis of Statistical Data.‘0.0.0.00000000...00.0.0...0.0.0.... 70 Analysis of the College and University Environmental Scales..................... 71 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (Con.) CHAPTER PAGE Analysis of the Desirability Character— istics Scales............................ 78 Analysis of the Undesirability Characteristics Scales................... 82 Relationships Between Perceptions and DeSireSCOOOOOCOOOOOCOOCOOOICCOCCOOOOOOOOO 90 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..... 97 Summary of the Research.................... 97 Findings and Conclusions................... 103 Recommendations for Future Research........ 114 BIBLIOGRAPHYOOOOIOOOOOOOOO0......O...00...... 117 APPENDIX A000...0.0.0000...000.000.000.000... 123 cover Letter-o.oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 124 Personal Data Formoooooooooooooooooooo0.... 125 Measuring Instrument....................... 126 Fellow-up Letterooooooococo-00.000.000.000. 134 APPENDIX B00000...0.0.0...ooooooooooooooooooo 135 TABLE I. II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. XI. LIST OF TABLES PAGE Summary of Responses....................... 55 The Distribution of Respondents According to College Choice, Sex and Expected COllege MajorOCOOOOOCCOOO00......0.0.0... 6]- The Distribution of Respondents According to SAT-V Scores and High School Rank in ClassOOOCOOCOOOOOOOOOOO00......O.00...... 6]- The Distribution of All Respondents’ Parents According to Formal Educational Level........................ 63 The Distribution of All Respondents’ Parents According to the Type of Post-Secondary Institution Attended-0.0.0.0000...0.000....0.0.0.0.... 63 Summary of the Respondents’ Indications of the Significant Persons Involved in Their Decision Concerning a College ChOiceOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC0.0.0... 65 Summary of Respondents’ Indications of the MOst Important Subjective Reasons for Their Choice of a College............ 67 Summary of Respondents’ Indications of the Pre-Admissions Activities completed...OCCCCOOCOOOOOOOOCOOOOOI0.0... 69 Analysis of Variance of the Group Mean Scores Obtained on the C.U.E.S........... 74 Analysis of the Variance of the Group Mean Scores Obtained on the C.U.E.S. for Respondents Grouped According to College Choice........................... 77 Analysis of Variance of the Group Mean Scores Obtained on the D.C.S............. 81 o n V g - . a . ,. . ’\ g - - r I o - - A .. - . ' . u a o a o a Q o 0 fl 0 9 O O '- - N I- ‘ < - 4 a - - - V n o a . o \ ‘ n I’ - . n n . 1- .. ‘ n n . , r I‘ . a I- u n I l u A a g n g o I . . n. n ., ,I a . Q o o n o g g n . .. n g - . . a -. q . g a ., 1 , ‘ u n -. ~ . a Q n «, v o a Q ~ n o I u g u 'p - n v a v a 0 u r ’3 a l‘ o I O ‘I O F - s g n r' . ~ A a u c a 'I u h c w» - o m a o - n. a o A c .A .- p u - o o v v vi LIST OF TABLES (Com) TAB LE XII. Analysis of Variance of the Group Mean Scores Obtained on the D.C.S. for Respondents Grouped According to COllege ChoiceOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOCOOOOOOOOOOO XIII. Analysis of Variance of the Group Mean Scores Obtained on the U.C.S............. XIV. Analysis of the Variance of the Group Mean Scores Obtained on the U.C.S. for Respondents Grouped According to College Choice........................... PAGE 85 87 89 TABLE I. II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. vii APPENDIX.B PAGE Results of the "t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores on the C.U.E.S. for Respondents Grouped According to College Choice............................ 136 Results of the "t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores on the C.U.E.S. for Respondents Grouped According to seXOOOO.‘OCOOOOOCCOOCOCOCOCOOOOOCCCCOOCCOC 1-37 in... Results of the "t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores on the C.U.E.S. for Respondents Grouped According to Cfllege Major.OO00......OOCCOOOOOOOOOOOCOO 1-38 Results of the "t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores on the C.U.E.S. for Respondents Grouped According to Geographical Location..................... 139 Results of the "t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores on the C.U.E.S. for Respondents Grouped According to Campus Visitation Experiences............. 140 Results of the "t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores Obtained on the Five C.U.E.S. for Respondents Grouped According to College Choice and seXOOOOOO.COCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0... 14]- Results of the "t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores Obtained on the Five C.U.E.S. for Respondents Grouped According to College Choice and COllege MajorOOOOOOOO0.000.000.0000... 1-42 Results of the "t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores Obtained on the Five C.U.E.S. for Respondents Grouped According to College Choice and Campus Visitation Experiences.................... 143 Results of the ”t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores Obtained on the Five C. U. E. S. for Respondents Grouped According to College Choice and Ogggranhigal_ngatign................. 144 TABLE X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. viii APPENDIX B (Con.) PAGE Results of the "t" Test of the Differ- ence Between Group Mean Scores on the D.C.S. for Respondents Grouped Accord- ing to College Choice.................... 145 Results of the "t" Test of the Differ- ence Between Group Mean Scores on the D.C.S. for Respondents Grouped.Accord- ing to seXOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00...... 1-46 Results of the "t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores on the D.C.S. for Respondents Grouped According to C011€ge Major...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1-47 Results of the "t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores on the D.C.S. for Respondents Grouped According to Geographical Location.................... 148 Results of the "t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores on the D.C.S. for Respondents Grouped According to Campus Visitation Experiences............ 149 Results of the "t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores Obtained on the Five D.C.S. for Respondents Grouped According to College Choice and Sex...... 150 Results of the "t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores Obtained on the Five D.C.S. for Respondents Grouped According to College Choice and College Major...OCOCOOOOOOCOOOOOCOOOOO0.0.0.000... 15]. Results of the "t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores Obtained on the Five D.C.S. for Respondents Grouped According to College Choice and Campus Visitation Experiences................... 152 Results of the "t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores Obtained on the Five D.C.S. for Respondents Grouped According to College Choice and Geographical Location.................... 153 TABLE XIX. XXII. XXIII. XXIV. XXVI. XXVII. ix APPENDIX B (Con.) PAGE Results of the "t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores on the U.C.S. for Respondents Grouped According to College Choice........................... 154 Results of the "t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores on the'U.C.S. for Respondents Grouped According to sex.00.00.00.000...0.0.0.0...0.0.0.000... 155 Results of the "t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores on the U.C.S. for Respondents Grouped According to COllege MajorOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0.0... 156 Results of the "t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores on the'U.C.S. for Respondents Grouped According to Geographical Location.................... 157 Results of the "t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores on the'U.C.S. for Respondents Grouped According to Campus Visitation Experiences............ 158 Results of the "t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores Obtained on the Five U.C.S. for Respondents Grouped According to College Choice and Sex...... 159 Results of the "t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores Obtained on the Five U.C.S. for Respondents Grouped According to College Choice and College Major...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOO 160 Results of the "t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores Obtained on the Five U.C.S. for Respondents Grouped According to College Choice and Campus Visitation Experiences................... 161 Results of the "t" Test of the Difference Between Group Mean Scores Obtained on the Five U.C.S. for Respondents Grouped According to College Choice and Geographical Location.................... 162 FIGURE 1. LIST OF FIGURES Profile of Group Mean Scores Obtained on the C.U.E.S. and the D.C.S. for Respon- dents Who Chose Ball State Teachers COllegeOCOOOOO00......OOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOO Profile of Group Mean Scores Obtained on the C.U.E.S. and the U.C.S. for Respon- dents Who Chose Ball State Teachers COllegeOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Profile of Group Mean Scores Obtained on the C.U.E.S. and the D.C.S. for Respon- dents Who Did Not Indicate A College ChOiceOOOOOO0......OOOOOOCOOOOOOIOIOCOO Profile of Group Mean Scores Obtained on the C.U.E.S. and the U.C.S. for Respon- dents Who Did Not Indicate A College ChOiceOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCO0.0.0.0....0... PAGE 93 94 95 96 . . a 4 A ‘ a c a a n . . A u a o a v v o n n . c r a s o a a . a 0 w o r u 0 I I O n o I I A o r U o .. u a p a o o \ . . o o A u c - Q - _ . . o o o n D _ . I o I i o a 1 c - v . . s a . Q o a o . e a a H u A a o a v n. a a o q a . ‘ :- ‘,“-,- (L‘Aflrflfi A CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction During the past decade, a number of dedicated researchers have been waging a determined battle to open new frontiers for study in the measurement of the college environment. Through their efforts and the design of instruments, it is now possible to attempt meaningful, rigorous investigation and iden~ tification of the various characteristics of the college campus environment, and to describe them in understandable terms to students, parents and profes- sional counseling personnel. The investigator has been employed as a college personnel worker for several years and has seen the need for such infor- mation by both the prospective college freshman and the colleges and universities. It is the combination of this felt need and the desire to be part of a very new area of research that has prompted this research project. Statement of the Problem This study concerns itself basically with the /,«vr dynamics of college choice. It is generally acknowl- Mi" am PM. .4 WNW... , edged that there are many factors involved in the 2 choice of a college by prospective college freshmen. This particular study has as its major concern, the influence of the student’s perception of the college environment on his choice of a college. To study this problem, it is necessary to determine the stu- dent’s perception of the environmental character- istics of the college of his choice, his perceptions of a desirable or undesirable college environment and the significance of the factors which may influ— ence his perceptions. The problem selected for this study requires answers to the following specific questions. A. How do prgspective college freshmen students differ in their perceptions of the environmental characteristics of a college in which they have; shOwn a definite interest? B. What environmental characteristics do pros- peetive college freshmen students perceive as desirable or undesirable in thewcollege or uni— versity of their choice? C. Are the prospective college freshmen students’ perceptions of the college environment influenced by the factors of sex, college major, campuswvisia tationwexperienceswand geographical location? D. Do the prospeetive college freshman student’s 3 cellegewchoiceyuhis perception of the college environment, and his perception of a desirable or undesirable college environment have any 1 relationships m Laehééfih255“ ~--:;.;» Limitations .a_n_<_1 £2922 _o_f_ £15 _S_t_u_dy The questions to which this research study has attempted to find answers are very broad in context and of importance to the total field of education. It is necessary to place limitations on each investi- gation in order to obtain adequate data in sufficient quantity to form generalizations from the results of many studies of a similar nature. In this particular situation, three basic limi- tations were imposed on the study. A. The investigation was limited to the study of the student’s perception of the college envi- fronment. \W.(L-u "“7 ' B. Ball~State Teachers College was the only “ ',‘\(\A 0 specific college or university represented in the study. 1 a , (1’ ‘ 1"\ "‘I. .132 I“ W"‘ L3 I ."' _-:\ V" ‘ d f n' .- C. All respondents were In ' ; “O1 seniors who had indicated an interest in attending college by completing the entrance examinations and submitting the test scores to Ball State Teachers College. 4 There were further restrictions applied to the selection of the sample population, and to the col- lection of data which are explained in detail in Chapter III. Objectives of the Study The general objectives of this study were: To provide evidence of the effectiveness of the College and University Environmental Scales used in this study in measuring the environmental character— istics of a college or university. To suggest further areas of research needed in the measurement of college environments. To Provide additional.” wrghme‘videflge .f‘orflt‘he study of college choices by prospective college fresh- men. The following are specific objectives of this study: 1 To determine the environmental characteristics Hun rm. Tc of Ball State~Teachers College as reported by groups of/prospeetive college freshmen., :!A, , ,To determine the desirable and undesirable envi- ronmental characteristics of a college or university as reported by groups of prospective college freshmen. = To determine the influence of selected factors on the prespeetive college freshman’s perception of (H . ‘: .-' the Ball~StatewTeeehers~Gollege environment. To determine the influence of selected factors on the prospective college freshman’s perception of a desirable or undesirable college or university environment. To discover any existing relationships between the prospective college freshman’s perception of the Balligézge—Teaahers—Cbllege environment, his per- ception of a desirable or undesirable college envi- ronment and his chOiéeLOE?a~cOliege:ormuniversity. There were also some very pertinent supplimentary objectives of this study which supplied valuable infor- mation and assistance in interpreting the research data. These objectives were satisfied by the collec- tion of subjective data to suppliment the statistical data. The objectives were: To discover the prospective college freshman’s stated reasons for his college choice. To discover the significant persons involved in the college choice of prospective college freshmen. 3.1% 0" ~°unm8 '- To determine the extent and type oérpre—aémissions activities completed by prospective college freshmen ¢¢".¢ m \nuugmb ’w. u..- muts ou‘asm as part of their efforts to choose an appropriate col- lege or university. Theory of E M In recent years, a new approach has come into focus with a psychological base of operation. This new approach is the identification of the college environmental characteristics as perceived by the students living in the environment. Several instru- ments have been designed by various researchers to accomplish this goal in various ways. If these in- struments can truly identify these characteristics, the information gained can be of value to institu— tions in self-evaluation as well as to students at- tempting to make an appropriate callege seleztion to meetitheir individual needs. It is understandable that this area of investi- gation has been slow in developing because of the difficulty of measuring abstract perceptions. The de- scription of the academic requirements and prediction of academic success are well developed and an accepted part of the process of college choice. Stzzess in the non-academic areas of college life is not so easily de- termined. Most college student personnel workers have been quick to realize that personal dissatisfaction and attrition might be reduced if there were an adequate way to coordinate the prospective student’s perception of the institutional environmental characteristics with 7 those perceptions held by the students in attendance at the institution. The investigator believes that before any valu— able practical applications can be made of measurement of the college environment, more attempts must be made to determine if the prospective student’s perception of the environmental characteristics of a college or O O O O “h“M.‘ un1vers1ty 13 actually one of the factors 1n the col- 9““, ,1. m... *9 WC lege choice of prospeclive college freshmen. The study and identification of factors influencing the prospective freshman’s perception of the environmental characteristics of colleges and universities must also be accomplished. ‘When these important steps have been completed, the path will be open for meaningful use of such information by students, counselors and college M“ A fl-w'w-n, 0* “'5" “WW“ personnel in the mutual choice of colleges by students, mt, M+ fiucw‘dud 754% much and students, by colleges. Institutional self-study and the comparison of institutions with each other promises to be one of the most beneficial areas of discovery in recent years concerning the evaluation and improvement of institutions of higher education. Importance of the Study The rapid expansion of the pOpulatian of college Nuke, «M «an a. age youth, the increase in the numbers of occupations .“M . . made poss1ble by the advances of sc1ence and technology 8 and the increased emphasis placed on advanced training and education by society have increased the importance of solving three basic questions which have been causing difficulties for many years. Colleges and universities which have no desire to become selective in their admissions policies are being forced to screen candidates much more carefully and to practice, at least, delayed or deferred admissions. At the same time, students are being advised to choose institutions of higher education which most nearly meet their indi- vidual needs. The basic questions referred to are as follows: ‘What motivates a student to seek higher education? ‘What factors influence his choice of a college or university? ‘Why do approximately one-half of all college fresh- men leave college prior to graduation? Sociologists and psychologists have accomplished much research in the area of the motivation of students for college entrance. Some of the most significant studies are those reported by Havighurst(20). Kahl(20) and Hill(18). The results of Havighurst indicate peer values are the major factor in the student’s decision to attend a college or university. Kahl and Hill in two separate studies found that the parents’ dissatis- faction with their own life and their desires for a 9 college education for their children were potent fac- tors. WiseCSS) believes that a variety of factors influence the student’s decision to attend college but in varying different patterns of magnitude for each individual. Trent(51), in a nation-wide study of 10,000 young adults over a five-year period, says: Among the factors related to college atten- dance, we found the youths’ socioeconomic sta- tus a bigger determinant of whether they enter- ed college than their level of ability. Several researchers have approached the question of seemingly excessive attrition rates shown by our American colleges and universities. Summerskill(20) has completed an exhaustive review of 35 different studies concerning the college dropout problem. He reports that the average American college loses ap- proximately half of its students in the four years following their matriculation. Nearly 40% graduate on schedule and approximately 20% graduate at another institution or at a later date. This situation has not changed for nearly 40 years. In a University of California study, TrentCSl) reported that the following factors differentiated students who remained in college compared with drop- outs and bright non-college students. 10 The early decision to attend college. The importance attached in high school to attending and completing college. The willingness to study. The endorsement of the ideal over the practical purpose of college. 9“ NH 0 0 Many possible factors and combinations of factors have been identified as being responsible for the attri- tion of college students but the evidence is incomplete and inadequate to answer the question. It seems to the investigator that securing adequate information about the factors which influence the col- lege choice of a student may also answer questions con- cerning motivation for college entrance and reasons for dropout. It is entirely possible that these are not ,three separate questions, but rather are interrelated areas of concern. The dynamics of college choice are many and varied and would seem to play an extremely important role in the decision to attend college and the decision to leave college. Many colleges and universities have practiced selective admissions for years and have had reasonably adequate information in terms of scores, academic achievement records, personal recommendations and so- cial activity accomplishments to make fairly valid decisions. Students who wish to select a college or university have found little or no assistance available. 11 Pace(30), in a recent College Board Review article, says that: The selective student, by contrast has far fewer data to help him judge whether a college is fit for him. His counselor and the college catalogue will give him some information. Visiting the campus (if he can) and talking with people who have been there (if he knows any) may provide some more. But when it comes to the question, "What is life at this college really like?", he is virtually in the dark. The same type of situation was found to be true by TrentCSl) in the University of California Five- Year Study. In our early interviews, students showed a conspicuous lack of involvement with the colleges of their choice and a marked lack of information about colleges in general. “With the exception of a small minority attending a few select institutions most of our college students picked their insti- tutions first for proximity, second because of peer pOpularity and third out of a gen- erally ill-conceived notion of their insti- tutions prestige. Perhaps the most significant research study in recent years attempting to isolate reasons for college choice was a study by Holland(l9) of 1402 National Merit Scholars and parents and Certificate of Merit winners and parents. The results were a complex set of forces including student goals, abilities and per— sonalities which interact with parental values, 12 education, socioeconomic status and parent image of the best and ideal college. Another of his conclusions was that colleges receive talent supplies which differ in academic ability, personality and values. There appeared to be a great range of potential for various kinds of achievement with different groups being sub- jected to different parental pressures for different goals and achievements. Hammond(20) also reported the factors of type of institutional support, student body composition, size, and physical facilities as basic influences on the choice of a college or university as a result of his research study. From the available research data, it appears that most studies of the reasons for college choice have employed the direct survey method of obtaining opinions from prospective college students. Definition'gf'ggrmg One of the most difficult aspects of writing a research report is making certain that the terms used in reporting data and results are understandable and have common meanings for those persons reading the material. The following terms are used in this study and are basic to understanding the procedures used and the results obtained. 13 C.U.E.S. - College and University Environmental Scales - This was the principal instrument used to measure the college environmental character- istics. It was developed in 1962 by C. Robert Pace. D.C.S. - Desirability Characteristics Scales - Tfie C.U.E.S. were administered with a different set of responses designed to yield a degree of desirability score for each item. This instru- ment was developed and named the Desirability Characteristics Scales by the investigator. U.C.S. - Undesirability Characteristics Scales - The same set of above responses to the C.U.E.S. was designed to supply an undesirability score for each item. This instrument was developed and named the Undesirability Characteristics Scales by the investigator. Prospective Colle e Freshman - In this study, these individuaIs were aII Indiana secondary school seniors who had submitted Scholastic Apti- tude Test scores of 500 or above to Ball State Teachers College. Null Hypotheses In this study, three principal sets of results are yielded by the measuring instruments and nine factors are used in the analysis of the data. Thus, there are twenty-seven separate hypotheses to be tested. In addition, there are four hypotheses to be tested relevant to the relationship between the perception of the college environment and the per- ception of the college environment and the perception of the desirability or undesirability of the environ- mental characteristics of a college or university. The following list of null hypotheses are those l4 concerned with this study. A. Null Hypotheses Related to the Measurement of the Perce tion 2: tEe EnVIronmental Character- istics of BaII State Teachers College 1. There are no differences between group mean scores on the C.U.E.S. which can be attributed to the declared college choice of the respon- dents. 2. There are no differences between group mean scores on the C.U.E.S. which can be attributed to the sex of the respondents. 3. There are no differences between group mean scores on the C.U.E.S. which can be attributed to the declared college major of the respondents. 4. There are no differences between group mean scores on the C.U.E.S. which can be attributed to the Campus visitation experiences of the respondents. 5. There are no differences between group mean scores on the C.U.E.S. which can be attributed to the geographical location of the respondents. 6. There are no differences between group mean scores on the C.U.E.S. which can be attributed to a combination of the declared college choice and sex of the respondents. 7. There are no differences between group mean scores on the C.U.E.S. which can be attributed to a combination of the declared college choice and the declared college major of the respondents. 8. There are no differences between group mean scores on the C.U.E.S. which can be attributed to a combination of the declared college choice and campus visitation experiences of the respon- dents. 9. There are no differences between group mean scores on the C.U.E.S. which can be attributed to a combination of the declared college choice and geographic location of the respondents. 15 Null Hypotheses Related to the Measurement of the Perception 2i tEe EnVIronmental CharactE?- ‘IEEics Which 535 DEEIrable in 3 College 23 Un1vers1ty 1. There are no differences between group mean scores on the D.C.S. which can be attributed to the declared college choice of the respon- dents. 2. There are no differences between group mean scores on the D.C.S. which can be attributed to the sex of the respondents. 3. There are no differences between group mean scores on the D.C.S. which can be attributed to the declared college major of the respondents. 4. There are no differences between group mean scores on the D.C.S. which can be attributed to the campus visitation experiences of the respondents. 5. There are no differences between group mean scores on the D.C.S. which can be attributed to the geographical location of the respondents. 6. There are no differences between group mean scores on the D.C.S. which can be attributed to a combination of the declared college choice and sex of the respondents. 7. There are no differences between group mean scores on the D.C.S. which can be attributed to a combination of the declared college choice and the declared college major of the respondents. 8. There are no differences between group mean scores on the D.C.S. which can be attributed to a combination of the declared college choice and campus visitation experiences of the respondents. 9. There are no differences between group mean scores on the D.C.S. which can be attributed to a combination of the declared college choice and geographic location of the respondents. l6 Null Hypotheses Related to the Measurement 2f tHe Perception of theEnVIrafimental‘Character- T‘s—tics which Eli-U-Ifisfrable in _a_ College E Un1vers1ty 1. There are no differences between group mean scores on the U.C.S. which can be attributed to the declared college choice of the respondents. 2. There are no differences between group mean scores on the U.C.S. which can be attributed to the sex of the respondents. 3. There are no differences between group mean scores on the U.C.S. which can be attributed to the declared college major of the respondents. 4. There are no differences between group mean scores on the U.C.S. which can be attributed to the campus visitation experiences of the respon- dents. 5. There are no differences between group mean scores on the U.C.S. which can be attributed to geographical location of the respondents. 6. There are no differences between group mean scores on the U.C.S. which can be attributed to a combination of the declared college choice and sex of the respondents. 7. There are no differences between group mean scores on the U.C.S. which can be attributed to a combination of the declared college choice and the declared college major of the respondents. 8. There are no differences between group mean scores on the U.C.S. which can be attributed to a combination of the declared college choice and the campus visitation experiences of the respon- dents. 9. There are no differences between group mean scores on the U.C.S. which can be attributed to a combination of the declared college choice and geographic location of the respondents. 17 D. Null Hypotheses Concerning the Relationships BeEween the Perception ngfiVIronmental Char- acter1stIEE'ggg Their Desirabilityigr'Unde- Sirability 1. There are no relationships between the pro- file patterns of group mean scores obtained on the C.U.E.S. and the D.C.S. for those respon— dents who declared Ball State Teachers College as their first college choice. 2. There are no relationships between the pro— file patterns of group mean scores obtained on the C.U.E.S. and the U.C.S. for those respon- dents who declared Ball State Teachers College as their first college choice. 3. There are no relationships between the pro- file patterns of group mean scores obtained on the C.U.E.S. and the D.C.S. for those respon- dents who did not declare a first college choice. 4. There are no relationships between the pro- file patterns of group mean scores obtained on the C.U.E.S. and the U.C.S. for those respondents who did not declare a first college choice. Plan.2£ the Study The investigator has organized this study in the normal prescribed pattern for educational research reports. All chapters have specific purposes and this plan illustrates the organization of information and data within each chapter. Chapter I - The area of concern, the theoretical background, the statement of the problem and its ob- jectives are discussed and stated in this chapter. Another extremely important item in this chapter is the statement of the null hypotheses. Chapter II - The current research and writing in 18 the area of measurement of college environments is reviewed in Chapter II. An historical review of the area of concern, a review of recent research and doctoral dissertations are included with a detailed review of the development of the College and Univer- sity Environmental Scales. Chapter III - The methodology of the study, in- cluding the design of the study, the description of the measuring instruments, the sample selection and collection of data are presented in Chapter III. Chapter IV - This chapter presents a description of the population, the tabulated subjective data and the statistically treated data in table form. Chapter V - The interpretation of the data pre- sented in Chapter IV is given by the investigator in this chapter. Conclusions are drawn from the data to satisfy the objectives of the study and recommen- dations for further research are discussed. Appendix A - This section includes copies of all instruments and materials used in the study as well as supplimentary data not necessary in the presen- tations made previously in Chapter III. Appendix B - All data which is not essential to the adequate presentation of the Analysis of Data in Chapter IV is included in Appendix B. The results 19 of the "t" test computations are presented in table form to facilitate easy referral from the body of the study to additional information. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction The importance of measuring the environment of the college campus has long been mentioned as a nec- essary ingredient of the successful study of college student behavior and achievement. It is easy to find references to the subject in the periodicals and books of the recent past. Until the late 1950 era, very little significant effort was given to the problem of developing instruments and research procedures for proving or disproving the existing theories. It is logical that this area of investigation has been de- layed until the measurement of intelligence, interest, aptitude and achievement was well deveIOped and accepted because of the degree of difficulty of measuring ab- stract perceptions. In recent years, many significant advances have been made in measuring differences in college environments. The approaches which may be taken toward the study of college environments are many and vastly different. Pace(35) discussed this dilemma in the Teachers College Record. Among the many approaches, he indicated the following ones as representing the major attempts made in recent years by researchers. 21 1. Educational approaches 2. Inventories of resources and features such as accreditation reports, directories and etc.. 3. Alumni studies which usually result in an estimate of scholarly productivity or possible evaluation studies in which the emphasis is upon how well the adult behavior of former students exemplifies the ideal of an educated man, a good citizen and etc.. 4. Evaluation studies emphasizing student achieve— ment of important educational objectives such as acquisition of desired interests, attitudes and values. 5. Sociological approaches which view the college as a social system with emphasis on peer groups, role behavior, and communication networks. 6. Management surveys stressing fiscal and admin— istrative affairs. 7. Psychological approaches including personality development and individual differences within and between college student bodies and the student’s perception of the college environment. Many research studies may be found concerned with these various approaches as categorized by Pace. For purposes of the study only, those studies using the 22 psychological approach which differ significantly in objective or design will be discussed. The investigator has chosen to organize the Review of Literature by dividing the chapter into three sec- tions. The first section will present a history of the subject area including the theories and ideas presented in the literature by early investigators and theorists. A second section will report significantly different research projects carried out in recent years which attempt to measure the college environment. The last section will be a presentation of research completed in which the C.U.E.S. was used as a measuring instrument. An Historical Review of the Stud of the Measurement of CBllege Environmental—Character1st1cs_ Contemporary authorities in the field of environ- mental measurement such as George Stern and Charles Pace pay tribute to the theories of Henry Murray as the guiding source of thought for their work. Pace(32) says that: The concepts of need and press were first pre- sented in Murray’s personality theories. The concept of need represents the significant deter- minants of behavior within the individual while the concept of press represents the significant determinants of behavior in the environment. A press is-a feature of the environment which is relevant to the satisfaction of frustration of a need. 23 Stern(43) also gives credit to the work of Lewin in the comparison of democratic, autocratic and laissez- faire group atmospheres as being a prime factor in the development of interest in environmental measurement. In 1951, Wispe’(43) completed some significant research concerning the value of student-centered group instruc- tion as compared to subject-matter-centered instruction methods. Since there were no significant differences between effectiveness of thetwo methods, it appeared that the success of the learning process might depend on the best combination of teaching technique and stu- dent need. Stern, Stein and Bloom(45) in 1956 at the Univer— sity of Chicago made the first investigations of the relationships among situation, personality and learning in higher education. The instruments used categorized students into four groups; authoritarians, antiauthori- tarians, irrationals and rationals. Initial results indicated that institutions varied considerably in the relative proportions with which each type of person was represented. A number of other comparisons were also carried out using this research data. An extension of these studies was also carried out at Syracuse Uni- versity adding much more validity to previous findings. (42) 24 Research in the area of environmental measurement was greatly aided by funds provided through the Col— lege Entrance Examination Board and the Ford Foundation. One result of this financial assistance was the devel— opment in 1957-58 of the College Characteristics Index. This instrument, developed by Pace and Stern,(4l) was the initial instrument of its kind to be developed and rigorously tested and validated. The basis for the instrument was the belief that a college environment may be viewed as a system of pressure, practices and policies intended to influence the development of stu- dents toward the attainment of important goals in higher education. A significant research project was reported in 1959 by ThistlewaiteC46) on the use of productivity measures in determining the effectiveness of under- graduate colleges to stimulate students to seek Ph.D. Degrees. Separate measures of productivity were yielded in the natural sciences and the arts, humanities and social sciences. The conclusions reached indicated that these productive measures have value and emphasize the importance of faculty behavior in stimulating or inhibiting intellectual achievement. One of the most recent attempts to develop instruments for the measure- ment of college environment has been research by Astin and Holland.(l9) A study of 33 variables and 335 g 25 institutions was made to determine by factor analysis, the principle dimensions along which institutions of higher education differ. Six factors emerged from the analysis: affluence, size, private or public support, masculinity, realistic emphasis and homogenity of the environment. This method of measurement was named the Environmental Assessment Technique (EAT). The orig- inal study was reported in 1961 and further research completed in 1963. Pace, one of the original authors of the College Characteristics Index, has completed further research resulting in the refinement of the previous instrument into a new instrument. It is called the College and University Environmental Scales and has been chosen for use in this study. A complete description will be given in the third section of this chapter. A Descri tion 2§;Uni ue Research Studies Utilizing Var1ed Pschologic I Approaches tO—Efieqfieasurement of 'COIIEEe EnVironments -_'-——' _—' The only significant progress in the specific area of college environmental characteristics measure- ment has occurred since approximately 1956. Until this time, efforts were more directed toward the devel- opment of a theoretical framework from which good basic research projects could be isolated and tested. The investigator believes much of the credit for the 26 progress made recently should go to the efforts of Stern, Stein and Bloom(45) for their initial study of the relationships among situation, personality and learning. Although this investigation was much broader than the measurement of the college environment alone, it served an extremely important function in aiding future research. A complete review of the literature has revealed six studies completed since 1956 which have used vary- ing approaches to the measurement of college character— istics. In this section, these six approaches will be described as background for the discussion of research projects involving the CUES in the next section of this chapter. The College Characteristics Index and the Activities Index Perhaps the most recognized and utilized instru- ment designed to measure the characteristics of the college environment is the College Characteristics Index developed at Syracuse University by Stern and Pace.(4l) It is a result of Stern’s interest in per- sonality assessment and the interests of Pace in evalu— ation and measurement in higher education. The basis for this research and development had as its base the work previously referred to by Stern, Stein and Bloom(45) at the University of Chicago 27 concerning the relationships among situation, per- sonality and learning and Murray’s(26) needs-press theory. A research proposal was submitted to the College Entrance Examination Board by the authors and a re- search grant was offered to them. Further research was supported by the Carnegie Corporation and the Cooperative Research Branch of the United States Office of Education. The instruments developed were designed to be used in gathering two different types of data. Thirty environmental press scales were devised to measure the environmental characteristics of the institution as perceived by students and/or faculty. This instrument was named the College Characteristics Index. Another instrument to be used in the gathering of counter-part information was developed using the list of personality needs reported by Murray. It also contained 30 scales and was named the Activities Index. The first version of the test was administered using five colleges. The results were reported by Pace and Stern(3l) in 1958. Further significant research has been accomplished in the refinement and testing of this instrument but it still remains the most widely used instrument for the study of the relationship of student needs and college 28 environments. Studies utilizing the CCI and the results obtained will be presented later in this section. The Environmental Assessment Technique This approach to the measurement of the differ- ences between institutions was devised by Astin and Holland.(2) The results of their research was initi- ally reported in 1961 showing the principal dimensions along which institutions of higher education differ. .A.factor analysis using 33 variables and a large nation- wide sample of 335 institutions yielded six significant factors. 1. Affluence 4. Masculinity 2. Size 5. Realistic emphasis 3. Private or public 6. Homogenity of the support environment The research design was well planned and this approach and the instrument devised are well accepted as one approach to the measurement of differences in college environments. Astin(3) recently has reported additional research adding to the validation of the initial research. .A Description 2f Junior Colleges While many studies of four-year degree institu- tions have been attempted, the literature shows only 29 one study of the environmental characteristics of the Junior College or two-year institutions. Richards, Ran and Rand(37) recently completed a research study of 581 Junior Colleges and the results were published by the American College Testing Programs, Research and Development Division. The authors intercorrelated 36 major attributes of the Junior Colleges. In essence, it is a replica- tion of the study completed by Astin(6) in 1962 using four-year colleges and universities and a comparison of the results is made with.Astin’s results. The con- clusions reached indicate that Junior Colleges are different from four-year colleges and a different classification scheme must be devised for the Junior College. It suggests the following six factors be used to develop profiles in the comparison of Junior Colleges with each other. 1. Cultural affluence 4. Business. or1entation 2. Technical specialization 5. Size 3. Transfer emphasis 6. Age This study appears to have made an initial contri- bution to the study of the environmental characteristics of the Junior College but more research is desperately needed to establish its validity and reliability. 30 College Environments 2E§.EHE Development 2f Talent A different approach to the study of differences in college environments and its effects was developed and tested by Thistlewaite.(46) In 1958-59, he selec- ted a sample of 916 National Merit Scholars and Cer- tificate winners currently studying at 36 colleges and universities. The main instrument used was the Col— lege Characteristics Index. Students were asked to recall what their expectations were for college envi- ronments at the time they entered college and also what their perceptions were as experienced members of the student body. He reports the following results: 1. The press of different colleges vary con- siderably. 2. Expectations held for the college environ- ment are consistent with the perceived college press. 3. College environment is an important factor in the student’s motivation to seek advance intel- lectual training. AstinC3) challenged Thistlewaite’s research meth- ods and statistical treatment of data. He believed that student recall of expectations pould not be used as valid data because of the influence/of actual col- 1ege attendance. In an attempt to answer these charges, 31 Thistlewaite(50) reported additional research in a study of 2405 undergraduate men students at 140 insti- tutions across the country. He reported that there was no evidence to dispute his previous results. An additional refinement of the data revealed that men students who report that their teachers exert weak press for compliance tend to raise their aspirations for advanced intellectual training more than men who do not report such a press. Faculty Status and Changing Institutional Press An interesting research project was reported by Chickering(l3) in 1965 as a result of a Ford Founda- tion sponsored study of college curriculum organiza- tion at Goddard College, Plainfield, Vermont. This was a longitudinal approach to the study of the col- lege environment and its pattern of change. The Col- lege Characteristics Index was used as the measuring instrument. A total of eighty-four students divided by class were used in the study with selected groups being tested before entering college and at the end of each grade level over a two-year period. The evidence shows very clearly that there is a major shift in the stu- dent’s perception of the college as he moves through 32 it. The institutional image is quite different for the entering student, and for the student at each grade level. The greatest differences occur in the intellectual climate but the climate also appears dif- ferent in the non-intellectual areas. A unique aspect of this study was the inclusion of faculty perceptions of the college characteristics as measured by the College Characteristics Index, and their correlation by profile with the results of the student testing. The authors report that the stu- dent’s perception of institutional press is greater than the faculty at college entrance, about the same after two years and lower than the faculty at gradu— ation. Therefore, it appears that at Goddard College, the students shifting perceptions of the college envi- ronment approximates more and more closely with the faculty view. The point of view is offered that stu— dent culture may be more easily changed than faculty views of the institution and that greater attention should be given to this concern. The recommendation is also given that additional research should be de- voted to the examination of institutional press at different grade levels and to the absolute levels of different kinds of press. 33 A Biographical Inventory An entirely new and unique approach to the pre- diction of college academic success based on the re- lationships between college environment and student biographical characteristics was designed and reported by Anastasi, Schneiders and MeadeCl) in 1960. The student body at Fordham was used for the research. The students used in the research were identified and placed in groups designated as positive, average or negative. The positive group represented the type of person this college wants to develop. Students making satisfactory adjustment but did not show any outstanding characteristics were called, average. The negative cases showed concrete evidence of emotional maladjustments or poor social behavior and were judged unsatisfactory students. Five top administrators were asked to list the objectives of the college as they saw it and this was used as a form of reporting the environment of the institution. The four objectives of this institution were: 1. Intellectual development 2. Formation of character 3. Training for leadership 4 . Promotion of personal growth 34 Nine sources of criterion information were used with which the students were nominated for membership in one of the three groups. 1. Faculty rating 2. Faculty advisor reports 3. Reserve officer training corp reports 4. Honors program 5. Student government records 6. Extra-curricular honor society 7. Office of Psychological Services records 8. Dean of Men records 9 {Academic records The authors report that it is feasible to develop a scoring device for use with certain biographical data in predicting college success and that the use of biographical data analysis can be productive in predicting the adjustment and accomplishments of stu- dents. The study also contributed to the identifi— cation of some of the salient characteristics of the successful and unsuccessful students within a particu— lar college environment. Other Research Studies Concerned with the Measurement of the Co IIe ege Env1ronment There are a considerable number of doctoral dis- sertations completed and reported in the dissertation abstracts since approximately 1960 which have dealt 35 generally with the student’s perception of the college environment as a member of the student body at that specific college and the effects of the student’s per- ception on academic achievement or other variables. Although none of these studies are directly related to the problem presented by this research, it seems highly desirable to point out their results at this point. A study of 57 Amhurst College seniors in 1958-59 conducted by Brincy and Taylor(8) attempted to estab- lish the nature of various attitudinal-behavioral pat- terns which distinquish between college seniors. The variables established were ability, talent, orientation to college and the reinforcement patterns provided by the college. Bloland(9) developed and validated a Survey of Student Opinion in 1959 at the University of Minnesota. The purpose of his study was to develop an objective means of measuring the attitudes of beginning univer- sity students toward selected concepts in higher edu- cation and to investigate the relationship between measure and peer judgements of related behavioral characteristics. Campbell(l2) studied student perceptions of the environment of Lansing Community College using the College Characteristics Index. 36 Two related studies were completed on the Master’s level at Brigham YOung University in 1961 and 1962 by Fisher(l5) and Standing.(40) These are reported by Pace(36) in the CUES manual bibliography. Details are not available on the methods employed. Fisher studied the relationships between anticipated environmental press and student satisfaction, achievement and attri- tion, while Standing compared the environmental charac- teristics anticipated by entering students with those of the student body. A study by McFee(25) in 1961 of the relationships of student needs to the College Characteristics Index failed to find any correlation between scale scores of the individuals on the College Characteristics Index and parallel scores on the Activities Index. Eighty- eight per cent of the College Characteristics Index items were independent of the parallel needs of the respondent. Nunnally, Thistlewaite and Wolfe(28) studied a sample of University of Illinois freshmen and sopho- mores in an attempt to develop factors relating to student perception of college environments. Twelve major factors were determined. 1. Systematized energy of faculty 2. Toughness of faculty 37 . .Availability of faculty to students Interestingness of lectures Faculty interest in arts and humanities Vocational emphasis Intellectual drive of students Personal appearance and manners \O m \l 0 U1 p U o . Competition 10. Science interest 11. Pressure against scholarly activities 12. Interest in visiting speakers In 1963, Wood(54) studied 132 female freshmen stu- dents at the University of Georgia. His purpose was to determine the relationship of the College Character- istics Index to selected variables. Students were com- pared using the C.C.I. Heston Personality Adjustment Inventory, Kuder Preference Record - Vocational, Cali- fornia Reading Test and the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Significant relationships were discovered between the C.C.I. and the following: 1. Some areas of the Heston Inventory 2. Some areas of the Kuder Record 3. Number in the high school class 4. Number of siblings 5. Family religious preferences No relationships were found between the C.C.I. 38 and the Scholastic Aptitude Test, the predicted grade point average and the place of residence. The College Characteristics Index was used by Rock(39) at Pace College to determine the environ- mental features of the college. Scale scores on the C.C.I. were compared for several groups including college seniors, entering freshmen, faculty and secon- dary school counselors. He reports significant differ- ences between the groups and urges further study. Huntington College, a local Indiana private col- lege was the situation used by Charles B. Cureton(l3)/ to study the needs of students and the teaching envi- ronment with relation to academic achievement. Fresh- men and faculty were tested using the College Charac- teristics Index and the Activities Index. The results indicated that students with needs similar to the teaching environment as seen by the faculty do achieve significantly higher than students with dissimilar needs. A Review of the Development of the College and ‘Un1vers1tf—Environmental ScaIEs and Its Use in Recent Research The College and University Environmental Scales was developed by C. Robert Pace, published and copy- writed in 1963. It is the newest of the instruments designed to measure the college environment by 39 identifying those characteristics of the college which appear to be representative of the institutional envi- ronment. This instrument is the outgrowth of the Col- lege Characteristics Index developed by Stern and Face in 1958. Pace(36) describes the nature of the instrument as follows: CUES consists of 150 statements about col- lege life--features and facilities of the campus, rules and regulations, faculty, cur- ricula, instruction and examinations, student life, extra-curricular organizations, and other aspects of the institutional environ- ment which help to define the atmosphere or intellectual-social-cultural climate of the college as students see it. Students who take the test are asked to say whether each statement is generally TRUE or FALSE with reference to their college: TRUE when they think the statement is generally character- istic of the college, is a condition which exists, an event which occurs or might occur, is the way most people feel of act; and FALSE when they think the statement is generally not characteristic of the college. The test is, therefore, a device for obtaining a de- scription of the college from the students themselves, who presumably know what the en- vironment is like because they live in it and are part of it. 'What the students are aware of, and agree with some unanimity of impression to be generally true, defines the prevailing campus atmosphere as students perceive 1t. The C.U.E.S. consists of 150 items which are di- vided into 5 scales for the purpose of analysis. The scales are identified and described by Pace in the C.U.E.S. manual. 40 Scale 1. Practicality. This combination of items suggests a practical, instrumental emphasis in the college environment. Pro- cedures, personal status, and practical bene- fits are important. Status is gained by knowing the right people, being in the right groups, and doing what is expected. Order and supervision are characteristic of the administration and of the classwork. Good fun, school spirit, and student leadership in campus social activities are evident. The atmosphere described by this scale appears to have an interesting mixture of entrepreneurial and bureaucratic features. Organization, system procedures and super- vision are characterlstic of many large enterprises, both public and private, in— dustrial, military, and governmental, but they are not limited to large agencies. Such hierarchies as exist, however, may be interpersonal as well as organizational, so that it is not only useful to understand and operate within the system but also to attain status within it by means of per- sonal associations, and political or entre- preneurial activities. There are, of course, many practical les- sons to be learned from living in an envi- ronment that has these characteristics and opportunities. Certainly such character— istics and opportunities. Certainly such characteristics are encountered widely in the larger society. Scale 2. Community. The combination of items in this scale describes a friendly, co- hesive, group-oriented campus. The environ- ment is supportive and sympathetic. There is a feeling of group welfare and group loyalty which encompasses the college as a whole. The campus is a community. It has a congenial atmosphere. The small college in a small town immedi- ately comes to mind as a prototype--with friendly and helping relationships among the students and between the students and the faculty. Some large universities, however, 41 manage to have a strong sense of community; and some small colleges have an atmosphere that is better characterized by privacy, per- sonal autonomy, and cool detachment than by a strong sense of togetherness. On the whole, however, bigness tends to beget im- personality but not necessarily unfriendli- ness 0 If the organizational counterpart of "practicality" was the bureaucracy, perhaps the counterpart to "Community" is the family. Scale 3. Awareness. The items in this scale seem to reflect a concern and emphasis upon three sorts of meaning--personal, poetic, and political. An emphasis upon self-under- standing, reflectiveness, and identity sug- gest the search for personal meaning. A wide range of opportunities for creative and ap- preciative relationships to pointing, music, drama, poetry, sculpture, architecture, etc., suggest the search for poetic meaning. A concern about events around the world, the welfare of mankind, and the meaning and idealistic commitment. What seems to be evident in this sort of environment is a stress on awareness, an awareness of self, of society, and esthetic stimuli. Perhaps in another sense, these features of a college atmosphere can be seen as a push toward expansion and enrichment--of personality, of societal horizons, and of expressiveness. Scale 4. Propriety. The items in this scale suggest an enVironment that is polite and considerate. Caution and thoughtful- ness are evident. Group standards of de- corum are important. 0n the negative side, one can describe propriety as the absence of demonstrative, assertive, rebellious, risk-taking, inconsiderate, convention- flouting behavior. Conventionality, in the sense of generally accepting and abiding by group standards, is 42 in some respects a good term for the items in this scale, although so—called rebellious groups, beatniks for example, have strong conventions to distinquish them from what they think is conventional in others. Per— haps, the word, propriety, is a better term than conventionality. In any event, the atmosphere on some campuses is more mannerly, considerate, and proper than it is on others. Scale 5. Scholarship. The items in this scale descr1be an academic scholarly envi- ronment. The emphasis is on competitively high academic achievement and a serious in- terest in scholarship. The pursuit of knowledge and theories, scientific or phil- osophical, is carried on rigorously and vigorously. The C.U.E.S. statements are designed to sample the general atmosphere of the institution, the social and intellectual climate and the style of life on the campus. It may be scored and analyzed by the opinion poll method of consensus of opinion or by statistical methods using group mean scores and standard deviations. The validity of the C.U.E.S. was established by correlating the C.U.E.S. scores obtained from specific colleges with scores on the Productivity Indexes de— veloped by Thistlewaite(46) from the same colleges. The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation method was em— ployed. Correlations were found to exist between the C.U.E.S. scores and other institutional features and the data is presented in the C.U.E.S. manual.(36) 423 Further validation was accomplished by comparing C.U.E.S. scores and the factors developed by.Astin.(2) Thirty-four institutions used in both studies were used in the comparison. The rank order of Astin’s factors were closely correlated with the rank order of the C.U.E.S. scores. These correlations are shown in the C.U.E.S. manual.(36) Reliability of the C.U.E.S. scores was tested by the use of the Kuder-Richardson formula 21 and the split-halves corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula. The reliabilities are all uniformly high and are re- ported in the C.U.E.S. Manua1.(36) The author stipu- lates that usual methods of obtaining reliability coef- ficiants are inappropriate for the C.U.E.S. except when applied to the scores obtained from different institu- tions. Pace(36) states that: In this circumstance one hopes to have test scores which are widely dispersed in order to maximize the discrimination between institutions and thus, by definition, produce high reliability coefficients. Because of the recent origin of the C.U.E.S., the investigator can find only a few research efforts completed using the instrument. Pace reports one use of the C.U.E.S. to establish a profile which appeared in the Antioch College Bul- letin, l965-66.(30) It is a written description of 43 how the upperclassmen of the college view the envi- ronment in terms of the five C.U.E.S.. The Educational Testing Service has organized a project in Indiana called the Indiana Central Predic- tion Study. In previous years, data has been collected and analyzed for presentation in manual form to secon- dary school counseling personnel. The Manual 2f.§£g§h- man Class Profiles contains predictive composites for the various colleges and universities in Indiana. In 1965, a new dimension was added to the description of eleven of the institutions included in the manual by using the C.U.E.S. to gather data concerning the envi- ronmental characteristics of the institution. It is felt that this type of information can be of valuable assistance in aiding prospective college freshmen in making appropriate institutional choices. In a recent issue of College Board Review, Pace(30) reports on a study in Los Angeles. In one study, selected seniors from three Los Angeles high schools were asked to answer CUES according to what they expected would be true of college. A similar group as asked to answer in view of what they hOped would be true. Both sets of answers-the expected and the ideal—were nearly identical. And both differed substantially from the actual profiles of the colleges they hoped to enter. 44 One of the dissertations reported in the disser- tation abstracts was conducted in California by Sylvia B. Tucker(52) in 1964. This was a study of 527 California Junior College students selected for the project according to their ability to enter public institutions of higher education upon high school grad- uation, as stipulated by California State law. The C.U.E.S. was the basic measurement instrument used. Students enrolled in College "A" were asked to be reporters about their college environment. College "B" students were asked to respond as if they were in an ideal environment. All students were given the Omnibus Personality Scales. A comparison of mean scores was made using the environmental perception (C.U.E.S.), intellectual disposition (O.P.S.), creative disposition and grade point average. The results indicated no major differences between group mean scores. Actual perception differed slightly from the "ideal" percep- tion. No differences were found in intellectual or creative disposition. In the Winter 1965-66 College B2239 Review, Pace (30) cited another California study which used the C.U.E.S. in a comprehensive unique approach on enter- ing college freshmen. 45 In another study, incoming freshmen at a junior college, two small liberal arts col- leges, and two large universities were given CUES during orientation week. Their re— sponses were compared with those of upper- classmen from each institution. Again, the differences between the freshman and upper- class responses were substantial-especially on the scholarship, awareness, and community scales. The freshmen expected none of the five in- stitutions to rate lower than seventy-ninth percentile for scholarship and awareness, where-as the actual ratings by the upper- classmen ranged as low as the forty-third percentile for the former and the twenty- first for the latter. 0n the community scale, the freshmen expected no lower than fiftieth percentile; the upperclassmen ranked one institution down in the twelfth. By alerting students to discrepancies as wide as these between expectation and reality, CUES might well be able to save them con- siderable cultural shock. The latest reported use of the CUES was by John Conner(55) at Southern.Methodist University in 1966. He studied the relationship of the college environmen- tal perception to the attrition or retention of fresh- man students at Southern Methodist University. The CUES was given to all entering freshmen at the Univer- sity in 1964. These students were followed through the year and drop-outs were identified. The drop-out indi- viduals were grouped according to sex, type of resi- dence, parental college affiliation, transfer or non- transfer status. No differences were found between groups concerning their perception of the college envi- ronment as measured by the CUES. The conclusions reached 46 indicated that the perception of the college environ— ment has no relationship to the retention or attrition of freshmen at Southern Methodist University. Summary In summarizing and evaluating the effectiveness of the research which has been completed in the area of college environment measurement, it might suffice to say that it is unorganized, inadequate and is most cer— tainly in its initial stages of development. This does not mean that efforts in this direction should be a- bandoned. Research efforts of this type are very simi— lar to basic research in other fields which requires a variety of approaches to the solution of the basic prob- lems before more refinement and organization of research efforts can be formulated. This review of literature has shown that while no sensational advances have been made until the present, a new frontier Of investigation has been penetrated. It will be necessary now to proceed to test the theories and instruments developed by the pioneers in this area of study. The purpose of this research study is to provide further evidence of this nature. CHAPTER III THE DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY Design 2f the Study ,In this chapter, the design of the study will be reported, including the sample selection, collection of data, the measuring instruments, the scoring proce- dures and the methods of analysis. A list of objectives was presented in Chapter I but there is one basic objective which should be re- peated here as justification for the choice of the design of this research project. This study, from its inception, was to be a comparative study of two inde- pendent groups of Indiana secondary school seniors who were also prospective college freshmen. The basic comparisons were to discover any differences between the group perceptions of a college, their perceptions of what characteristics may be desirable or undesirable in a college and any influence these perceptions and desires may have on the college choice of the students. The basic procedures making up the design of this investigation included the selection of two stratified random samples of individuals, the collection of data by mail using appropriate instruments, the analysis of the data in terms of the objectives of the study and the formulation of conclusions and recommendations which Ewan? 1-2-341, 48 could apprOpriately be drawn from the research re- sults. Sample Selection The population from which the two random samples were selected consisted of all those secondary school seniors who had submitted Scholastic Aptitude Test scores to Ball State Teachers College. Two random samples of students were secured by using the Table of Random Numbers and selecting 100 individuals, 50 males and 50 females, from each of two decks of cards containing SAT—V scores. The first sample was drawn from a deck of 635 cards with.SAT-V scores of 500 or above who had identified Ball State Teachers College as their first choice college or university in Indiana. All students who apply for scholarship assistance to Indiana colleges and universities are required by the Scholarship Association of Indiana Colleges and Univer- sities to choose an institution as their first choice and supply that institution with a standard form re- questing to be considered for financial aid. The second sample was selected from a deck of 3965 cards with SAT-V scores of 500 or above submitted to Ball State Teachers College by students who did not request scholarship consideration or indicate a college choice. Thus, the total population consisted of 4600 49 individuals and the sample selected for this study in- cluded exactly 200 individuals. \ As part of the Design of the Study, the following restrictions were placed on the members of the samples. A. The SAT-V score must be 500 or above. B. The SAT-V score must have been received by Ball State Teachers College prior to March 1, 1964. 0. Foreign students and non-resident students were excluded. The minimum score of 500 was chosen because it represented the lowest possible score which can be submitted by a student who wishes to be considered for a scholarship at Ball State Teachers College and also indicates a verbal skill capacity adequate to complete the materials needed by this research project on a competent level. The date of March 1, 1964 was the second restric- tion selected because it was the deadline for a fresh- man scholarship application to be received in the Office of Financial Aid at Ball State Teachers College. By this same date, approximately 90 per cent of all test scores which will be received from students are avail- able. This percentage was assumed to be adequate for the purposes of this study. Foreign students and non-resident students were excluded mainly because they represented only about 1%?!( Pl: 3! o . p t. .I‘. .A1 50 5 per cent of the total student body and obtaining adequate numbers for research purposes would be very difficult. The investigator acknowledges the probability of a degree of contamination within the samples. There are probably some students who submitted SAT scores to Ball State Teachers College without naming the College as their first choice college because they did not need or want financial assistance. These students are in- cluded in the unknown college choice sample population even though, in truth, they did rank Ball State Teachers College as their first choice college. The Measuring Instruments The principal measuring instrument used in this study was the College and University Environmental Scales. (C.U.E.S.) A detailed description of the de- velopment and validation of the C.U.E.S. has been pre- sented in the Review of Literature and no further ex- planation will be given at this_time. . It should be pointed out that the use of the instru— ment in this study is not the use for which it has been designed. Pace says,(36) The test is, therefore, a device for obtain— ing a description of the college from the stu- dents themselves, who presumably know what the environment is like because they live in it and are part of it. What the students are aware $2-11!...” 51 of, and agree with some unanimity of impres- sion to be generally true, defines the pre- vailing campus atmosphere as students per— ce1ve 1t. The individuals selected for this study have not attended college and have not had the experience of living in the environment. As reported in Chapter 11, some research has been completed with this instrument to determine the perceptions of prospective college freshmen but the results are not adequate to be significant in deter- mining its effectiveness. One of the most pertinent objectives of this study is to determine the effective- ness of this type of instrument in measuring the per- ceptions of students who have gained their image of an institution without having lived in the environment. Regardless of the difference of purpose, the investi— gator believes the C.U.E.S. to be the best instrument available for the collection of data for this study. Copies of the instruments used to collect the data are included in the Appendix A. A personal data sheet was the first item to be completed by the re- spondent. The purpose of this form was to collect personal and family data not available from other sources and subjective data concerning college and career planning activities completed by the student. 52 Items "two" and "three" to be completed were answer sheets for the use of the respondent in report- ing on the items of the C.U.E.S.. A11 respondents were asked to react to the items of the instrument twice. The first step was to answer "yes" or "no" as to whether they believed the statements listed on the instrument were truly characteristic of the environment of Ball State Teachers College. The second step was to repeat the test indicating the degree of desirability or undesirability of each of the statements listed on the instrument as a charac- teristic of the college or university they wish to at- tend. The respondent was given the opportunity to rate the item as "very desirable", "desirable", "undersirable". When the C.U.E.S. is used in this manner, it is referred to as the Desirability Characteristics Scales (D.C.S.) or the Undesirability Characteristics Scales (U.C.S.). Scoring £22 Instruments The data obtained by administering the College and University Environmental Scales to determine the respondent’s perception of the environmental charac- teristics of Ball State Teachers College were tabu- lated by counting the number of statements reported correctly as keyed by the author for each respondent and computing the individual’s raw score. The group 53 mean scores were computed using all the individual raw scores. 0n the second administration of the C.U.E.S., the responses were given assigned values and a desirability raw score and an undesirability raw score was computed for each respondent. Each response was assigned the following value: Very desirable + 2 Desirable + l Undesirable + 1 Very undesirable + 2 Group mean scores were computed using the indi- vidual desirability raw scores and the individual un- desirability raw scores. The investigator is indebted to Dr. Robert Koenker for his assistance in devising this method of scoring as well as other statistical methods used in this study. Collection pf Data The procedure for collecting the data for this study was extremely important. Because the data sought were mostly of a very subjective type, the timing was an important element. It was necessary to wait until after March 1, 1964 to identify the members of the sample groups and to have the materials returned before April 25, 1964, which was the date for the announcement of scholarship awards by Ball State Teachers College. 54 On March 8 and 9, 1964, a packet of materials was mailed to the guidance counselor of each school in which members of the samples were enrolled. The coun- selor was asked to distribute, collect and return the items indicated in the cover letter. The normal prob- lems were encountered which caused a few days delay in getting returns from some schools. Two schools indicated that this type of request was against their policy and indicated that each student would have to be contacted personally. In these few cases, a person- al mailing was made. The other problems involved were caused mainly by the counselor trying to interpret what the research was attempting to do and not follow- ing written instructions. Perhaps the investigator was at fault if the instructions were not clear enough. A follow-up letter was sent to those counselors not submitting returns and this procedure did increase the percentage of responses. Summary pf Responses Table I shows the responses received and included in the Analysis of Data. Only data received by April 25, 1964 was included. Late and incomplete responses were deleted. 55 TABLE I SUMMARY OF RESPONSES , Non .LItem Group I Group II, Total Incl Returns__ No. %. No- % No- %,.Nn.,%r No- % Personal .Data, 29, 7Q 56 56 135 67-5U0 -000 65 32-5 ClfllEls- I 79 79 .56 56 135 67-5 1 4003, 64, 3215 W 77 52 152.3529 60-5 2 -012 49 39-5 Analysis pf Data The data collected were analyzed in three differ- ent ways apprOpriate to the type of information desired. The statistical techniques were selected with the aid of Dr. Robert Koenker, Director of Graduate Programs, Ball State Teachers College. The data were analyzed by use of the IBM "604" computer at Ball State Teachers College. Personal data and subjective Opinions supplied by the personal data form were coded and prepared to facili- tate transfer to punch cards. The answer sheets with responses to C.U.E.S. were graded and this information added to the individual punch cards. The personal data information was tabulated by a simple frequency count of the responses and put into table form for presentation and analysis. The "F” 56 test to determine any differences between group mean scores were the statistical methods employed to com- pare the mean scores of independent groups and dis- cover any significant differences. A partial run of the cards was made and checked against the results of a sample computation completed manually by the investi- gator. The model used to prepare the program used in the computer analysis is explained in detail by Garrett. (12) To show relationships between results on the dif- ferent instruments, the use of profile patterns was chosen because of their clarity. There are cases where no significant differences can be demonstrated but the unanimous agreement within the group is worthy of re- porting. ‘§2§12.Assumptions In all research, certain basic assumptions must be made and accepted before analysis of the data can be attempted. Listed below are those which were con- sidered particularly noteworthy. A. All respondents did answer all items to the best of their ability. B. The responses of the members of the random sample represent the total population. 0. An attempt was made to control all pertinent 57 factors affecting the results of this research. Summary This research study was designed to compare two stratified random samples of prospective college fresh- man students with respect to their perceptions of the environmental characteristics of Ball State Teachers College and their perceptions concerning the desira- bility or undesirability of the environmental character- istics of a college or university. An attempt was also made to determine the influence of selected factors on these perceptions and the relationships of perceptions and desires which a student holds to his choice of a college or university. Statistical procedures were used to analyze data and accept or reject null hypotheses. The Analysis of Variance and the "t" test were the statistical techni- ques used, and the analysis of data was completed by the computer. Subjective data were gathered and analyzed by frequency counts of the responses for the purpose of describing the sample population and providing person- a1 opinion information of a non-statistical nature. CHAPTER IV THE ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH RESULTS Analysis pf Research Results The results of the research are presented and analyzed in this chapter. There are basically three kinds of data, thus this chapter has been divided into three sections: A. A description of the sample population as determined through the subjective responses of students on the personal data form. B. The analysis of the statistically treated data secured through the administration of the C.U.E.S.. C. The analysis of relationships among student perceptions, desires and college choices. A. Description pf the Population The investigator believes it is necessary to describe the population because it is not a normal dis- tribution of high school seniors, but rather a select group of students possessing the following common char— acteristics: 1. All respondents were Indiana high school seniors. 59 2. All respondents achieved a Scholastic Aptitude test score of 500 or more on the verbal portion of the test. 3. All respondents indicated an interest in Ball State Teachers College by submitting Scholastic Aptitude Test scores to the Office of Admissions. The data shown in Tables II and III serve to de- scribe the population in terms of its distribution by several factors. Eighty-one or 58 per cent of the respondents indicated Ball State Teachers College as their first choice institution while 59 or 42 per cent of the respondents did not name a first choice insti- tution. The difference in numbers is explained by the fact that a greater return was received from the total sample by those indicating Ball State Teachers College as their first choice. The division of the respondents by sex was nearly equal, with 67 or 48 per cent being males and 73 or 52 per cent being female. This ratio closely approxi- mates the actual total enrollment ratio by sex normally experienced at Ball State Teachers College. Ninety- five or 68 per cent of the sample respondents indicated teaching as a college major while only 37 or 26 per cent indicated other major interests. This ratio of teaching to non-teaching majors is also representative 60 of the Ball State Teachers College student enrollment. Since the total population from which the sample was taken included only students submitting SAT-V scores of 500 or more, the distribution according to test scores and high school seniors or college stu- dents. One hundred twenty-two or 73 per cent of all the respondents submitted SAT-V scores of between 500 and 600. Accordingly, the class rank of the respon— dents showed 90 or 65 per cent ranked in the upper 20 per cent of their high school classes. 61 coca .1. 05. o 55 ms em ,Hs on o n sq «a .wm me we oqa «a 0 ma Hm mm an o o n o om on no .02 Haney .osH som sou Row soo soo ..oaH com oms cos omo ooo omm 1 -o -om -os now u>on< Hms Hos Hmo Hoe Hmm com xamm mmmao Hoonom amam mmuoom >neneopm .>Hum mumpm :oz s.>oum .Aanm mumum Hmfiuuwv ,, HOSudZWw QMDZHBH< ZOHHDBHBmZH.MMdQZOOMMnfimom ho mmNB mm& 09 OZHQMOUO< mBme MAmHA AH mam<fi .u I}! -1.- 64 As a part of the subjective data gathered, students were asked to indicate the persons they believed to be significant influences in their decisions concerning a college choice. Table VI shows the distribution of the responses. Forty-eight or 34% of all the respondents indicated the parents as the most significant persons involved. Secondary school counselors were rated sec- ond and teachers were indicated third among the first choices of the respondents. The parents were also indicated among the three most important persons involved in their decisions con- cerning college choice by 96 or 58% of all the respon- dents. A considerable number of respondents, 49 or 35% did not name a third choice indication. This could be interpreted to mean that not many persons are sig— nificantly involved in decision making concerning col- lege choice except parents and counselors. 65 mm mm ad 0H NN . .ocH no MA ma Ha be u o guano N a N o o o o opmsmmmao c N m N m o o m>wu¢aom AA A H m m o m o>fiumucomoaomm owoaaoo on m h a Ma S o pGOUSHm mwoaaoo ma N n m h N m aoumwm ho hospOHm Ho Ha ma ma mN ma HN hmcomoy mu NH SH SH 0N mN Nm poammfisoo co ma mN 0H mN on mo mufionmm R .02 g .oz g .02 AmuOH oowoco OOHocU oowoco comaom erase vacuum “mesa samoamaawam MUHOEU mmeAOU <.OZHZ¢MUZOU ZOHmHUmm MHmmH ZH QH>AO>ZH mzommmm BZ m4mHfiomhmbm .mfizmnzommmm ho Mm¢223m BZ MHm 00H qu m H mm om Ho ow oodonomfioo owOHHoo psouu< 03 oi. m e m n ma m3 353%: e355 emmm a _ .02 a .02 a _ .02 a .02 aufiéuoa. HOHOH OpOHmEoozH OOHOHQEOU uoz pmumHmEoo QMHHHWZOD WMHBH>HBU< mZOHmmH2Q MHm Coll. Choice 8.56 13.17 .65 1-126 Accept .3 Sex . .57 13.23 .04 1-126 Accept 3.. College M33- ll.69 12.73 .92 1-120 Accept 8* Campus Visit. 22.54 12.67 1.78 1-124 Accept a Geo. Loc. 80.13 12.47 6.42 1-120 Reject I Coll. Choice 110.56 24.94 4.43 1-126 Reject g Sex 37.67 25.52 1.48 1-126 Accept '3 College Maj. .20 26.23 .01 1-120 Accept '23 Campus V1s1t. 26.76 25.52 1.05 1-124 Accept (93,: Geo. Loc. 69.22 24.37 1-120 Accept 2.84 82 3. Results of the Anal sis of Data Concerning the PerceptiEfi'Efitfie UndesiFEbllity of the Envi:_ ronmentaIICEEracteristics'gfia CoIIe§E_or UniVersity -_' Data obtained from the second administration of the C.U.E.S. yielded an undesirability group mean score for each scale. These weighted mean scores were computed as explained in Chapter III and used in the determination of any significant differences between the group perceptions of the undesirability of the environmental characteristics of a college or university. The same factors were used in this analysis as were used in the previous sections. Results of the "F" test are presented first, followed by the "t" test results in Appen- dix B. These undesirability group mean scores were also used in the investigation of the relationships between the students' perception of the environ- mental characteristics of Ball State Teachers Col- lege and their perception of the undesirability of the environmental characteristic of a college or university. 83 Table XII presents the data obtained from the analysis of variance of the mean scores for respon- dents grouped according to college choice in com- bination with each of the four major factors used in the analysis. The null hypotheses of no sig- nificant difference in the variability of the mean scores obtained on the D.C.S. for respondents grouped by college choice and college major on the Awareness and Scholarship Scales were rejected. All the other null hypotheses were accepted. Table XVI, Appendix B, shows five comparisons of group mean scores where significant differences were found as a result of the "t" test. The following groups believe that a campus environment high in Awareness Characteristics is more desirable than the group with which they have been compared. a. Respondents who chose B.S.T.C. and who do not plan to teach compared with respon- dents who chose B.S.T.C. and who plan to teach. b. Respondents who did not indicate a college choice and plan to teach compared with re- spondents who did not indicate a college choice and do not plan to teach. 84 c. Respondents did not indicate a college choice and plan to teach compared with respondents who chose B.S.T.C. and plan to teach. Two comparisons were also found on the Schol- arship Scale which yielded significant differences as shown by the "t" test. a. Respondents who did not name a college choice and who plan to teach believe that a campus environment high in Scholarship Char- acteristics is more desirable than respon- dents indicating no college choice who do not plan to teach. b. Respondents who did not indicate a college choice and plan to teach also believed a cam- pus environment high in Scholarship Charac- teristics is more desirable compared with respondents who chose B.S.T.C. and who plan to teach. TABLE XI I 85 ANALYSIS OF THE VARIANCE OF THE GROUP MEAN SCORES OBTAINED ON THE D.C.S. FOR RESPONDENTS GROUPED ACCORDING TO COLLEGE CHOICE *p( 0511; 9 57 Mean Square Variance {Among ‘Within NUIl Scale Group Cond. Cond. F* df Hypo. ' Sex . 10.61 18.37 .58 3-124 Accept 14, 5. College Maj. 4.63 19.14 .24 3-118 Accept 014 Campus ViSit. 27.85 18.14 1.54 3-122 Accept gr; Geo. Loc. 8.52 18.36 .46 3-118 Accept o >. ;fi Sex . 44.64 27.39 1.63 3-124 Accept a College Maj. 21.18 26.88 .79 3-118 Accept E Campus V1s1t. 50.41 25.57 1.97 3-122 Accept 8 Geo. Loc. 25.09 24.88 1.01 3-118 .Accept m . g Sex . 73.39 33.15 2.21 3-124 Accept 5 College Maj. 112.78 32.43 3.48 3-118 ‘Reject 8 Campus ViSit. 47.56 33.79 1.41 3-122 Accept 3 Geo.‘Loc. 41.76 33.96 1.23 3-118 Accept B. 0 Sex . 3.21 13.37 .24 3-124 Accept '2 College'Maj. 7.20 12.87 .56 3-118 Accept 8' Campus V181t. 10.28 12.81 .80 3-122 Accept E Geo. Loc. 27.81 12.66 2.20 3-118 .Accept ; Sex . 56.14 24.87 2.26 3—124 Accept '3 College Maj. 85.09 24.52 3.47 3-118 Reject 23 Campus Visit. 43.41 25.09 1.73 3-122 Accept (25 Geo. Loc. 43.18 24.28 1.78 3-118 Accept 86 The analysis of variance between group mean scores obtained on the U.C.S. yielded no signifi- cant differences as determined by the "F" test. Table XIII indicates that all null hypotheses were accepted for respondents grouped and compared on the five factors being investigated by this study. Tables XIX thru XXIII, Appendix B, show the results of the "t" test although none of the results are valid because of the acceptance of the null hypotheses of no differences in the variabil- ity of the group mean scores. TABLE XIII ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE GROUP MEAN SCORES OBTAINED ON THE U.C.S. 87 Al; *F(.05) = 3.84 Mean Square Variance Among Within Null Scale Group Cond. Cond. F* df Hypo. Coll. Choice 2.35 8.88 .27 1-126 Accept . Sex . 30.14 8.66 3.48 1-126 Accept 33 College Maj. 16.82 8.12 2.07 1-120 Accept 8:: Campus ViSit. 1.40 8.12 .17 1-124 Accept 613 Geo.'Loc. 8.23 8.11 1.01 1-120 Accept % Coll. Choice 2.16 10.13 .21 1-126 Accept ;3 Sex 1.62 10.13 .16 1-126 Accept s College Maj. 4.84 9.73 .50 1-120 Accept a Campus Visit. 14.07 9.49 1.48 1-124 Accept g Geo. Loc. 14.37 9.75 1.47 1-120 Accept L) w Coll. Choice 3.39 5.20 .65 1-126 Accept 3 Sex 9.36 5.15 1.82 1—126 Accept g College Maj. 11.78 5.23 2.25 1-120 Accept a Campus Visit. 3.97 5.20 .76 1—124 Accept g 1Geo. Loc. .55 5.03 .11 1-120 Accept .L .51 Coll. Choice 0.00 15.73 .00 1—126 Accept 0 Sex 32.12 15.47 2.06 1-126 Accept '3 College Maj. 15.84 14.87 1.06 1-120 Accept 8. Campus ViSit. 15.40 15.26 1.01 1-124 Accept 61 Geo. Loc. .33 15.65 .02 1-120 Accept Coll. Choice 10.92 9.97 1.10 1-126 Accept L Sex . 5.10 10.01 .51 1—126 Accept '3 College Maj. .77 10.41 .07 1-120.Accept 0;; Campus ViSit. 1.07 10.11 .11 1-124 Accept ‘53! Geo. Loc. 21.83 10.06 2.17 1-120 Accept U) m 88 The results of the analysis of variance of the mean scores for respondents on the U.C.S. did not yield any significant differences to be ana- lyzed further by use of the "t" test. All null hypotheses of no significant differences in the variability of the group mean scores were accepted. The results of the analysis of data supplied by the data processing program are presented for inspection in Tables XXIV through.XXVII in Appen- dix B but are not analyzed because of the results of the analysis of variance. ANALYSIS OF THE VARIANCE OF THE GROUP MEAN SCORES TABLE XIV 89 OBTAINED ON THE U.C.S. FOR RESPONDENTS GROUPED ACCORDING TO COLLEGE CHOICE Mean Square Variance *F'Cifi'i) = 2 6:2 Among Witfiin Null S cale Group Cond . Cond . F* df Hypo . Sex 15.28 8.67 1.76 3-124 Accept .l. ,5, College Maj. 9.77 8.15 1.20 3—118 Accept 433;; Campus V1s1t. 4.99 8.14 .61 3-122 Accept a; Geo. Loc. 5.80 8.17 .71 3-118 Accept it: o 3’ Sex 2 58 10 24 25 . . o o 0 3-124 ACCe t '3 College Maj. 6.60 9.77 .68 3-118 Accegt a Campus V1s1t. 8.28 9.56 .87 3-122 Accept 53 Geo. Loc. 14.58 9.67 1.51 3-118 Accept U] to Sex 4.70 5.19 .91 3-124 Accept 2 College Maj. 8.06 5.21 1.55 3-118 Accept 3 Campus ViSit. 3.92 5.22 .75 3-122 Accept g Geo. Loc. 2.29 5.06 .45 3-118 Accept 41 p. 45 Sex . 11.73 15.70 .75 3-124 Accept .,.. College Maj. 12.32 14.94 .82 3-118 Accept ‘5. Campus ViSit. 5.29 15.50 .34 3-122 Accept g Geo. Loc. 2.89 15.84 .18 3-118 Accept pl I {a Sex . 7.86 10.03 .78 3-124 Accept '6 a. College Maj. 16.83 10.16 1.66 3-118 Accept :44 Campus V1s1t. 3.06 10.21 .30 3-122 Accept 0.5; Geo. 1.00. 15.54 10.02 1.55 3-118 Accept 90 C. The Relationships Between the Perceptions of the College Environment and the Perceptions of t e DeSirable Characteristics of a College —_l"‘-"' —— EnVironment One of the primary objectives of this study was to discover any relationships between the per- ception a student holds of a college or university, their perceptions of the characteristics which are desirable or undesirable in a college or univer- sity and the college choice of the student. This section will report the results of the comparison of group mean scores obtained on the measuring instruments by means of profiles. First, the perceptions and desires of those respondents who chose B.S.T.C. as their first col- lege choice are compared for relationships and then the comparison is repeated for respondents who did not indicate a college choice. There can be no statistical comparisons of these mean scores because they were not determined by the same process. The relative pattern of scores does present significant information for investigation. 91 The relative patterns of group mean scores reported by those students who chose B.S.T.C. as their first choice college on the measuring instru- ments are shown in Figures one and two. Respon- dents were very consistent in their agreement con- cerning the perceptions which they held of the B.S.T.C. environmental characteristics and their perceptions of the desirability and undesirability of the environmental characteristics of a college or university. The profile pattern of mean scores is very similar in most comparisons. In Figure 1, it is apparent that among students who chose B.S.T.C., the perception of B.S.T.C. is similar to their perception of the desirable college envi- ronment. The only variation is on the Propriety Scale where the difference between them is very small. There is also a consistent reverse relation- ship between what the B.S.T.C. respondents perceive as being undesirable in a college environment and their perception of B.S.T.C.. The Propriety Scale again offers a variation from the normal pattern of agreement. This is shown by the group mean score profile pattern in Figure 2. 92 The same profile pattern is clearly apparent among the students who did not name a college choice. Figure 3 shows that they agree in all cases that their perception of the environmental characteristics of B.S.T.C. are also desirable characteristics in a college or university. Only one variation is shown on the Propriety Scale where the difference in mean scores is small. A reverse profile pattern of group mean scores similar to Figure 4 shows the agreement concerning the undesirability of the environmental character- istics of a college or university and the percep- tions of B.S.T.C.. The Propriety Scale is again the exception to the general pattern. It appears that there is considerable confusion concerning propriety and the characteristics which identify this type of situation among the respon- dents, regardless of the college choice they have indicated. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH The Problem It is always desirable to review the purposes of research before presenting the findings and conclusions drawn from the research results. Since replication was not planned, there is danger in generalizing that these findings can be applied to other situations of a simi- lar nature. This study was conceived and executed primarily for the purpose of contributing to the knowledge of the measurement of the college campus environment. The need for such study has long been recognized and encouraged but only recently have measuring instruments been avail- able to the researcher. In Chapter II, the Review of Literature presents evidence of the lack of research in this area of investigation. It is hoped that the findings of this study may help in some way to erase this deficiency. The problem selected for this study requires an- swers to the following specific questions. A. How do prospective college freshman students differ in their perceptions of the environmental characteristics of a college in which they have 98 shown a definite interest? B. What environmental characteristics do prospec- tive college freshman students perceive as desirable or undesirable in the college or university of their choice? C. Are the prospective college freshman student's perceptions of the college environment influenced by the factors of sex, college major, campus visi- tation experiences and geographical location? D. Do the prospective college freshman student’s college choice, his perception of the college envi- ronment, and his perception of a desirable or unde- sirable college environment have any relationships to each other? Instrumentation The principal instrument used in this study was the College and University Environmental Scales developed by C. Robert Pace, published and copywrited in 1963. It is the newest of the instruments designed to measure the college environment by identifying those characteristics of the college which appear to be representative of the institutional environment. This instrument is the out- growth of the College Characteristics Index developed by Stern and Pace in 1958. Pace(32) describes the nature of the instrument as follows: 99 CUES consists of 150 statements about college 1ife--features and facilities of the campus, rules and regulations, faculty, curricula, instruction and examinations, student life, extracurricular organizations, and other aspects of the institutional environment which help to define the atmosphere or intellectual-social-cultural climate of the college as students see it. Students who take the test are asked to say whether each statement is generally TRUE or FALSE with reference to their college: TRUE when they think the statement is generally char- acteristic of the college, is a condition which exists, an event which occurs or might occur, is the way most people feel or act; and FALSE when they think the state- ment is generally not a device for obtaining a description of the college from the stu- dents themselves, who presumably know what the environment is like because they live in it and are part of it. What the students are aware of, and agree with some unanimity of impression to be generally true, defines the prevailing campus atmosphere as students per~ ceive it. The C.U.E.S. consists of 150 items which are divided into 5 scales for the purpose of analysis. The scales are: A. Practicality B. Community C. lAwareness D. Propriety E. Scholarship All respondents were asked to react to the items of the instrument twice. The first step was to answer "yes" or "no" to whether they believed the statements listed on the instrument were truly characteristic of 100 the environment of Ball State Teachers College. The second step was to repeat the test indicating the degree of desirability or undesirability of each of the statements listed on the instrument as a char- acteristic of the college or university they wish to attend. The respondent was given the opportunity to rate the item as very desirable, desirable, undesirable. In addition to the CUES, a personal data sheet was completed by the respondent. The purpose of this form was to collect personal and family data not available from other sources and subjective data concerning col- lege and career planning activities completed by the student. The Sample The population consisted of all those Indiana sec- ondary school seniors who had submitted Scholastic Apti- tude Test scores to Ball State Teachers College. As part of the design of the study, the following restric- tions were placed on the members of the samples. A. The SAT-V score must be 500 or above. B. The SAT—V score must have been received by Ball State Teachers College prior to March 1, 1964. C. Foreign students and non—resident students were excluded. Two random samples of students were secured by using the Table of Random Numbers and selecting 100 101 individuals, 50 males and 50 females, from each of two decks of cards containing SAT-V scores. The first sample was drawn from a deck of 635 cards with SAT-V scores of 500 or above who had identified Ball State Teachers College as their first choice college or uni- versity in Indiana. The second sample was selected from a deck of 3965 cards with SAT-V scores of 500 or above submitted to Ball State Teachers College by stu- dents who did not indicate a college choice. Thus the total population consisted of 4600 individuals and the samples selected for this study included exactly 200 individuals. Methodology The procedure for collecting the data for this study was extremely important. Because the data sought was mostly of a very subjective type, the timing was an important element. A packet of materials was mailed to the guidance counselor of each school in which members of the samples were enrolled. The counselor was asked to distribute, collect and return the items indicated in the cover letter. The data obtained by administering the College and University Environmental Scales to determine the respon- dent’s perception of the environmental characteristics 102 of Ball State Teachers College was tabulated by counting the number of statements reported correctly as keyed by the author for each respondent and com- puting the individual’s raw score. The group mean scores were computed using all the individual raw scores. 0n the second administration of the C.U.E.S., the responses were given assigned values and a desirability raw score and an undesirability raw score was computed for each respondent. Group mean scores were computed using the indi- vidual desirability raw scores and the individual undesirability raw scores. All data were analyzed by use of the IBM "604" computer at Ball State Teachers College. Personal data and subjective opinions supplied by the personal data form were coded and prepared to facilitate transfer to punch cards. The answer sheets with responses to CUES were graded and the results added to the individual punch cards. _ The "F" test for the analysis of variance and the ”t” test to determine any differences between group mean scores were the statistical methods used in the analysis. 103 Findings and Conclusions The design of this study provided for thirty- one null hypotheses to be tested. A review of the data indicates that eleven of the total number were rejected. In addition, each respondent provided some personal data to be analyzed and studied. Since there are five basic sets of data which were analyzed, this report of the findings is given in five sections as follows: 1. Perception of Ball State Teachers College environmental characteristics. 2. Perception of the desirability of the environ— mental characteristics of a college or university. 3. Perception of the undesirability of the environ— mental characteristics of a college or university. 4. Relationships among the perception of Ball State Teachers College, the desirability or undesirability of the environmental characteristics of a college or university and the college choice of prospective college freshmen. 5. The subjective reasons given by prospective college freshmen for their college choice and the influences which may have played an important part in their decisions. 104 l. The Perception of Ball State Teachers College EnvironmentaliCharacteristics a. Findings The C.U.E.S. was administered as the measuring in— strument to obtain information concerning the perception of the Ball State Teachers College Environmental Char- acteristics as reported by the respondents. Significant differences were found to support the following state— ments. (1) Respondents who chose Ball State Teachers Col~ 1ege as their first college choice held a more favorable perception of Ball State Teachers College on the Community Scale than the respondents who did not indicate a college choice. (2) Respondents who plan to teach held a more fa- vorable perception of Ball State Teachers College on the Community Scale than the respondents who do not plan to teach. (3) Respondents who had campus visitation experi— ences held a more favorable perception of Ball State Teachers College on the Community Scale than respon- dents who did not have campus visitation experiences. (4) Respondents who chose Ball State Teachers Col- lege and who plan to teach held a more favorable perception of Ball State Teachers College on the Community Scale than respondents with an unknown 105 college choice who do not plan to teach. b. Conclusions The findings of this study yield evidence to sup- port the general conclusion that there are differences in the perception of the Ball State Teachers College campus evnironmental characteristics as reported by the prospective college freshmen included in this investi- gation. Several specific conclusions can also be drawn from the findings and these are listed below. Among the prospective college freshmen included in the study, those individuals who: (1) Chose Ball State Teachers College as their college choice believe the campus environment to be higher in community characteristics than the other prospective freshmen. (2) Plan to teach, regardless of college choice, believe the Ball State Teachers College campus environment to be higher in community character- istics than the other prospective freshmen. (3) Have had campus visitation experiences, re- gardless of college choice, believe the Ball State Teachers College campus environment to be higher in community characteristics than the other pro- spective freshmen. 106 2. Perception 2f the Desirability 2f the Environmental Characteristics Q; a College 23 University a. Findings To determine the respondent’s perceptions of the desirability of the environmental characteristics of a college or university, a second administration of the C.U.E.S. was completed but with a different set of re- sponses. There were significant differences in several cases which support the following statements. (1) Respondents who had campus visitation experi— ences believed it was more desirable for a college environment to be high in community characteristics than the respondents who did not have campus visi- tation experiences. (2) Respondents who lived more than twenty~five miles from Ball State Teachers College believed it was more desirable for a college environment to be high in propriety characteristics than respon- dents who lived less than twenty-five miles from the campus. (3) Respondents who did not indicate a college choice believed it was more desirable for a college environment to be high in scholarship character- istics than respondents who chose Ball State Teach- ers College. (4) Respondents who chose Ball State Teachers ., ,_ mail-A 107 College and who do not plan to teach believed it was more desirable for a college environment to be high in awareness characteristics than re- spondents who chose Ball State Teachers College and who plan to teach. (5) Respondents who did not indicate a college choice and who plan to teach believe it is more desirable for a college environment to be high in awareness characteristics than respondents who did not indicate a college choice and who do not plan to teach. (6) Respondents who did not indicate a college choice and who plan to teach believed it was more deSirable for a college environment to be high in awareness characteristics than respondents who chose Ball State Teachers College and who plan to teach. (7) Respondents who did not indicate a college choice and who plan to teach believed it was more desirable for a college environment to be high in scholarship characteristics than respondents who did not indicate a college choice and who do not plan to teach. (8) Respondents who did not indicate a college choice and who plan to teach believed it was more desirable for a college environment to be high in 108 scholarship characteristics than respondents who chose Ball State Teachers College and who plan to teach. b. Conclusions It can be generally concluded that the prospective college freshmen included in this study have different perceptions of the desirability of the environmental characteristics of the college they wish to attend. Further analysis of the findings reveal several specific conclusions. Among the prospective college freshmen included in this study, those individuals who: (1) Had campus visitation experiences perceived a college campus high in community environmental characteristics to be more desirable than other prospective freshmen. (2) Resided more than twenty-five miles from the Ball State Teachers College campus perceived a college campus high in propriety environmental characteristics to be more desirable than other prospective freshmen. (3) Chose Ball State Teachers College as their first college choice and who plan to teach per- ceived a college campus high in awareness environ— mental characteristics to be more desirable than other prospective freshmen. /7fi/110 (4) Did not indicate a college choice and who plan to teach perceived a college campus high in awareness environmental characteristics to be more desirable than those who chose Ball State Teachers College and plan to become teachers. (5) Did not indicate a college choice and who plan to teach perceived a college campus high in awareness environmental characteristics to be more desirable than those who chose Ball State Teachers College and plan to become teachers. 3. Perception g; the Undesirability gf the Environ- mental Characteristics gf'a College 23 UniverSity The second administration of the C.U.E.S. also yielded perceptions of the undesirability of the envi- ronmental characteristics of a college or university. A11 comparisons of groups concerning the undesira- bility of the environmental characteristics of a college or university revealed no significant differences, and therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from the results of the analysis of data. These findings are believed to be the effects of two conditions which were recognized as limiting factors when this study was designed. a. All the prospective college freshmen included in this study were originally interested in Ball State Teachers College at least as a possible col- lege choice. This positive attitude toward the 111 institution may have negated attempts to identify undesirable characteristics. b. The individuals in this study were all students who had been accepted or who may have planned to be accepted in the future as freshmen at Ball State Teachers College. This intent may have caused reservations about the giving of any undesirable characteristics of the campus environment. 4. Relationships Amgng'thg Perception 2: Ball State TEachersCollege,.the Desirability gg'UfidesIFEBility 'Ef—EH€_Env1ronmentEITCharacteristics of*a Go11e e ‘3? University and the College Choice:§§'Prospective 'CCllege Freshmen There is a direct relationship between the respon- dent’s perceptions of Ball State Teachers College and their perceptions of the desirability of the environ- mental characteristics of a college or university. Those respondents who chose Ball State Teachers College and those who did not indicate a college choice were in clear agreement that the characteristics they believed desirable in a college were perceived as being character- istic of the Ball State Teachers College environment. This was to be expected since all members of the sample initially had shown some degree of interest in Ball State Teachers College. The reverse pattern of agreement is also shown by the respondents' perception of Ball State Teachers College and their perception of the character- 112 istics which are undesirable in a college or university. Both groups, regardless of their college choice, were in very close agreement as to their perception of the undesirability of the environmental characteristics of a college or university. Since there were very little differences found between the groups as shown by the profile patterns, no positive conclusions can be drawn from the data. 5. The Subjective Reasons Given 2y Prospective Colle e Freshmen for Their Colle e ChOice and Their Opinions of the Influences Which gay ave PIayed an Important part in These DeciSions Respondents were asked to complete a personal data form as part of the process of collecting data. A num- ber of questions were asked and the responses were tabu- lated and presented as part of the Analysis of Data. The following conclusions can be drawn from these responses. a. Parents, counselors and teachers were ranked by the respondents as the three most important per— sons involved in the college choice. b. The program of study, the geographical location of the college and the financial factors were the first three most important reasons for the college choice. c. The activities in which most of the respondents engaged as part of their investigation of colleges were reading printed materials and discussing the 113 institution with classmates and counselors. It is interesting that approximately one-third of the respondents did not attend a college confer- ence program or visit the campus. The college choices in these cases were made without personal contact with the college or one of its official representatives. Summary It is desirable to summarize and generalize from the conclusions reached as a result of this research to make the findings more meaningful to readers. The following general conclusions can be stated as a summary of the specific findings and conclusions presented in this chapter. 1. The perceptions of the Ball State Teachers College environmental characteristics were dif— ferent as reported by selected groups of prospec- tive college freshmen included in this study. 2. Prospective college freshmen included in this study differed in their perceptions of the desira- bility of the environmental characteristics of the college or university of their choice. 3. The factors of sex, vocational objective, campus visitation experience and geographical location of residence do influence the perceptions of a college 114 environment and its desirable characteristics as reported by the prospective college freshmen in- cluded in this study. 4. There is a direct relationship between the prospective college freshman's perception of the college environment and his choice of a college or university. 5. There are many factors which influence the per- ception of the college environment and the choice of a college or university made by prospective col— lege freshmen. The perception is one of these in- fluencing factors but not the most or least impor— tant. ‘When all other factors are equal in impor- tance, the college choice may be made based on the college environmental perception. Implications for Further Research The first recommendation which must be given after reviewing this study is to encourage many more studies of a basic nature. Many studies must be completed which can serve as building blocks for the organization of meaningful research to be accomplished in the future. As a result of this research, several challenging and valuable studies are immediately apparent to the investigator. An attempt will be made in this section to generally define two or three of these possibilities. 115 Major universities offering professional and graduate curricula should investigate the differences in the perception of the campus environment as reported by the students who declare an intention to seek edu— cation beyond the bachelor’s degree and those students who do not intend to seek such programs. Results of such research could be of great value to prospective students and to the institution in building a prOper environment. Small colleges and universities could derive great value from studying the perceptions of students enrolled at their own and other institutions who have special abilities in the fields such as music, art, dramatics or athletics. The information gained could assist the college in developing an environment which would attract these types of students and give the institution a unique reputation in the fields which they desire to develop. Another area of investigation which should be re- searched is concerned with the effects of orientation to college programs on the student’s perception of the environment in which they are matriculating. Differ- ences between perceptions of students accepted for ad- mission and currently enrolled students could be deter- mined and used to design specific orientation programs for differing groups as they go through the on—campus orientation programs. A second step to this type of 116 study could be to measure the differences in the per- ception of the college environment before and after the orientation experience to determine any changes which may have occurred in the perceptions of the students. Further investigation of the factors which deter- mine the perceptions which students develop of the col— lege environment and the methods which are effective in altering student perceptions is also of primary concern to the successful use in the measurement of college en— vironments. To accomplish these purposes, repetition of this research study under different circumstances would be valuable. Researchers will have little difficulty finding adequate situations for valuable studies in the future. The investigation of the measurement of the college environment promises to be one of the most fruitful areas of research ever developed. 10. BIBLIOGRAPHY Anastasi, Anne; Meade, Martin J.; and Schneiders, Alexander A.. The Validation of a Bio ra h- ical Inventory as a Predictor Bf'a o ege Success. New York? College EnEFahce Exam- ination Board, 1960. Astin, Alexander W. and Holland, John L.. "The Environmental Assessment Technique: A Way to Measure College Environments." Journal of Educational Psychology, 1961, 52, 308-316: Astin, Alexander W.. ”A Re-examination of College Productivity." Journal of Educational Psy- chology, 1961, 52, I73-178. Astin, Alexander W.. "Influences on the Student’s Motivation to Seek.Advanced Training: Another Look." Journal of Educational Psychology, 1962 , 53‘3'63'3, - 0'9‘. Astin, Alexander W.. "Productivity of Undergraduate Institutions." Science, 1962, 136, 129-135. Astin, Alexander W.. "An Empirical Characterization of Higher Educational Institutions." Journal 2f Educational Psychology, 1962, 53, 224-235. Astin,.Alexander W.. "Differential College Effects on the Motivation of Talented Students to Obtain the Ph.D." Journal of Educational Psychology, 1963, 54, 63-717_ Birney, Robert C., and Taylor, Marc J. "Scholastic Behavior and Orientation to College." Journal .2; Educational Psychology, 1959, 50, 266-274. Bloland, Paul A.. .223 Development and Validation of an Instrument for Measurin Attituaes Toward ‘Szlected Conceptsfzfi Hi her Efiucation. UnpuB- liShed Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1959. Brown, Donald R.. "Personality, College Environment, and.Academic Productivity." Chapter 16, pages 536-562 in The.American Colle e, Sanford, Nevitt (Editor). NewhYork: ‘WiIey, I962. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 118 Bushnell, John H.. "Student Culture at Vassar." Chapter 14, pages 489-514, in The American College, Sanford, Nevitt (Editor). New York: ‘Wi ey, 1962. Campbell, Paul S.. Personality Needs of Community College and University Students gig Their Perceptions 2f the Press of Their Institutions: an Experimental Investigation. Unpublished 'Ph.D. Dissertation,‘MiChigan State University, 1964. Chickering, Arthur W.. Faculty Perceptions and Chan in Institutional Press. Goddard CoIlege, May, I965. CMimeographe Cureton, Charles B.. The Relationship of the Students’ Needs gig—the EnvironmefitthfAca- demic.Achievement. Ufipublished Ed.D. DIE: sertation, University of Tennessee, 1964. Fisher, M. Scott. .Thg Relationship 2; Satisfac- tion, Achievement and.Attrition to Anticipated Env1ronmenta1 PresET— Provo, Utah? Brigham YoungUniversity, M;S. Thesis, 1961. Garrett, Henry E.. Statistics in Ps cholo and Education. Longmans andGreen, I958. Heist, Paul. "Diversity in College Student Char- acteristics." Journal of Educational Soci- ology. 1960, 33—7", 2 9-291'. Hill, G.E.. "College Proneness, A Guidance Prob- lem," Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1954, 33, 70-73. ‘— Holland, John L.. "Determinants of College Choice." College and University, 1959, 35, 11-28. Hollinshead B.S.. ‘Who Should Go to College? New York: McGraw W957.— Hughes, Everett C.; Becker, Howard S.; and Gear, Blanche. "Student Culture and.Academic Effort." Chapter 15, pages 515-530 in The American Colle e, Sanford, Nevitt (EditBFT. New York: 1 ey, 1962. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 119 Jencks, ChristOpher S. and Riesman, David. "Pat- terns of Residential Education: A Case Study of Harvard." Chapter 22, pages 731-773 in The American Colle e, Sanford, Nevitt (Editor). NEW’YOrk: Wiley, 1962. McConnell, Thomas R. and Heist, Paul. "The Diverse College Student Population." Chapter 5, pages 225-252 in The American College, Sanford, Nevitt (Editor). NewIYor : W1 ey, 1962. McConnell, Thomas R. and Heist, Paul. "Do Students Make the College?” College and University 1959, 34, 442—452. """ ’ McFee, Anne. "The Relation of Students' Needs to Their Perceptions of a College Environment." Journal 2f Educational Psychology, 1961, 52, Murray, H.A.. Explorations in Personality, New York, Oxford University—Press, 1938. Newcomb, Theodore Ms. "Student Peer-group Influ- ence." Chapter 13, pages 469-488 in The American College, Sanford, Nevitt (Editor). New York: ‘Wiley, 1962. Nunnally, J.C.; Thistlethwaite, Donald L.; and 'Wolfe, Sharon. "Factored Scales for Measuring Characteristics of College Environments." Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1963, Pace, C. Robert and Stern, George G.. “An.Approach to the Measurement of Psychological Character- istics of College Environments." Journal 2f Educational Psychology, 1958, 49, 269:277. Pace, C. Robert. "When Students Judge Their College." College Board Review. Winter, 1966, No. 58, pp- -27- Pace, C. Robert. "Five College Environments." College Board Review, 1960, 41, 24-28. Pace, C. Robert and McFee, Anne- ."The College Environment." Review 2; Educational Research. 1960, 30, 311-320. ' 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 120 Pace, C. Robert. "Evaluating the Total Climate or Profile of a Campus." Pages 171-175 in Cur- rent Issues in Hi her Education 1961, Smith, G. Kerry (Editor). ‘Washington, D.C.: Nation- al Education Association, 1961. Pace, C. Robert. "Diversity of College Environ— ments." Journal of the National Association of Women Deans and—Counselors,1961, 25, 21-26. Pace, C. Robert. "Methods of Describing College Cultures." Teachers College Record, 1962, 63, 267-277. Pace, C. Robert. College and University Environ- ment Scales. New Jersey: E ucationaI Testing Service, I963. Richards, James M., Jr.; Rand, Lorraine M.; and Rand, Leonard P.. ‘A Description 2: Junior Colleges. Iowa: American CCIlege Testing Program, No. 5, July, 1965. Riesman, David and Jencks, Christopher. "The Viability of the American College." Chapter 3, pages 74-192 in The American Colle e, Sanford, Nevitt (Editor)._—New York: WiIey, 1962. Rock, Robert W.. Features 2f the Pace Colle e Image as Identified gy thE_CoIIe e racter- istics_Index. Unpub isth .D. Dissertation, CqumE a University, 1963. Standing, G. Robert. A'Stud '2; Egg Environment at Bri ham Youn UniverSity as PerceiVed by its Stuéents an__§§.AnticipatEH éy Enterin §EE' dents. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, M.S. Thesis, 1962. Stern, George G.. Preliminary Manual: Activities Index - College Characteristics Index. Syra- cuse: Syracuse Psychological Research Center, 1958. Stern, George G.. "Continuity and Contrast in the Transition from High School to College." Pages 33-58 in Orientation to Colle Learnin -~A Reappraisal, Brown, NEFman C. (E itor . ‘WEsh— ington, D.C.: .American Council on Education, 1961. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 121 Stern, George G.. "Environments for Learning." Chapter 21, pages 690-730 in The.American College, Sanford, Nevitt (Editor). New York: ‘Wi ey, 1962. Stern, George G.. "Characteristics of the Intel- lectual Climate in College Environments." Harvard Educational Review, 1963, 33, 5-41. Stern, George G.; Stein, M.I.; and Bloom, B.S.. Methods in Personality.Assessment. Glencoe, IIIinOis: Free Press,1956. Thistlethwaite, Donald L.. "College Environments and the Deve10pment of Talent." Science, 1959, 130, 71-76. " Thistlethwaite, Donald L.. "College Press and Student Achievement." Journal 2; Educational Psychology, 1959, 50, 183-191. Thistlethwaite, Donald L.. "College Press and Changes in Study Plans of Talented Students." Journal 2f Educational Psychology, 1960, 51, Thistlethwaite, Donald L.. "Fields of Study and Development of Motivation to Seek Advanced Training." Journal 2; Educational Psychology, 1962, 53, 53:647‘7‘ Thistlethwaite, Donald L.. "Rival Hypotheses for Explaining the Effects of Different Learning Environments." Journal of Educational Psychol- ogy, 1962, 53, 3I023I57"' Trent, James'W.. ”A New Look at Recruitment Poli- cies." College Board Review. ‘Winter, 1965-66, No. 58, pp. - 1. tial of Selecte Junior College Students. Un- puEIiEhea EH.D. Dissertation, UniverSity of California, 1964. Tucker, Sylvia B.. College and University Poten- Wise,‘W;M.. They Come for the Best of Reasons: College Students Toda . Washington, D.C.: American COunCil on Egucation. 122 54. Wood, Paul. The Relationship pf the Colle e Char- acteristics Index to Achievement ana Certain Other Variables fo?_FreShmen Women at the Col- lege ofEducation'gp the'UniverSityféf Geor ia. Unpuinshed Ed.D. Dissertation, Un1vers1ty of Georgia, 1963. 55. Conner, John. The Relationship Between College Ep- vironmentaI Press and Freshman Attrition at Southern Methodist University. Unpublishhd Ed.D. Dissertation, Southern Methodist Univer- sity, 1966. APPENDIX A 124 April 8, 1964 Dear Counselor, One of the main functions of a college admissions program is to provide prospective students, parents and counselors with an adequate and correct interpretation of the collegiate institution and its characteristics. In order to satisfy this obligation, it has become nec- essary for us to determine: 1. The characteristics of Ball State Teachers Col- 1ege as perceived by our prospective students. 2. The characteristics which are perceived as de- sirable in a college by prospective students. This information will be used to improve our in- formational publications and to aid us in interpreting our institution to students during the orientation program. The students listed below have indicated an inter- est in Ball State by submitting Scholastic Aptitude Test scores to us. 'We are asking your help in collect- ing this data because we do not have the home addresses of all the students. Please ask each student to complete the personal data sheet and the testing program. This will involve answering the same items twice using the two different answer sheets provided. The entire pro- cess should not take more than 45 minutes. we would appreciate your assistance in having the data returned by April 24, 1964. If I do not hear from you by that time, I will contact you personally. If you do not wish to participate in this study, please return these materi- als to me. . ‘We have appreciated your c00peration in the past. The information supplied by this study will be of signif- icant value in helping your students succeed at Ball State in the future. Thank you. Sincerely, ,\ .. Charles F. Abbott Name Sex 1'1 F Class rank (jé)Upper lO__ 2O 1. 2. 3. ll ' O 5. 70 l._ ,;:22;€1”1‘47117vfl/ZF;2féze2/LZZ11:2~936444~9 E726. _"L/ 125 5C Personal Data 30___ L:O___ 50— Lower 50_ My college major area of study will be I hope to obtain a teaching license. Yes No List in the order of their importance three persons who helped you make your college selection. Name Title 2. 3s Check (/) those pre-admissions activities below in which you engaged as part of ycur investigation in selecting a college. Obtained and read printed materials from colleges. Attended sessions conducted by college representatives at local or nearby high schools. Visited two or more college campuses. Discussed college plans with high school counselor. Discussed college plans with former classmates now in college. Other. (Explain the activity) Circle the number of years of education which your parents completed. mother 9 10 11 l2 13 14 15 16 Masters Degree Doctoral Degree Father 9 10 ll 1? l3 1% 15 16 Masters Degree Doctoral Degree List colleges or universities which your parents attended. List your major reasons for choosing the college of your first choice over your second choice. 1. 2. 3. l2 6- 129 The College and University Environmental Scales used as the measuring instrument in this study is not included in the Appendix because of ethical consider- ations. It is a new, experimental instrument and, in the opinion of the investigator, it should not be avail- able to the general public. Individuals desiring to obtain a copy of the instru- ment should consult with a local college or university testing officer or write directly to: Education Testing Service Princeton, New Jersey 130 Instructions Step I There are 150 statements in this booklet. They are statements about college life. They refer to the curricu- lum, to college teaching and classroom activities, to rules and regulations and policies, to student organi- zations and activities and interests, to features of the campus, etc.. 'We are interested in knowing which of these apply to Ball State Teachers College. Since you have never attended Ball State, you cannot know which statements are in fact characteristic and which are not. However, you do have some idea of what it must be like from things you have read or been told. What we want you to do is to tell us what you have been lead to ex- pect will be true of Ball State Teachers College-e325 what you might personally prefer or wish it might be. You won't know the answer to many of these state- ments, because there may not be any really definite in— formation on which to base your answer. Your response will simply mean that in your opinion the statement will probably be true or probably be false about Ball State Teachers College. Do not omit any item. Ybu are to mark each statement as "true" or "false" using the answer sheet given you for this purpose. Do not write in this booklet. Sample Item: 1. Students are generally pretty friendly on this campus. T F X0147” C 00 '0 0| . O. .0 ‘ 0. CI '15.1 m — 55091 25 2507.1 55 5506 as 2209 as 5508 3 g E 4 .1. 4 4. 4 .1. 4 .1 .4. .1. g E m £5671 ii §§6ll E? §§68 §§ 5369 2: ma .5; g . .4 J. .4 J. .4 J. .4 J. 4 .L 5‘2 2 i €§sr1 é? £3311 E: 2388 E: §§89 éé 2:13am 31 .4 .1. .4 .1 4 .1. 4 .1 4 .1. - g E §§2r1 i: Eém ii §§£8 ii €249 ' ii 2:17. a. 4 .1. .4 .1. 4 .1. .4 .1 .4 .1. g §§971 3% §§911 ii §§98 E? 3:99 éi §§9z g .4 J. .4 J. al J. .4.J. .4 J. 3 3:91‘71 E1911 ii §§98 E: 899 ii aész g .4 J. .4 J. ‘ .4 J. .4 .L .4 .L éérrl §§ éém , ii Eire ‘ E? 1:79 , é? éévz D __ .4 J. .4 J. 4 J. .4 J. ‘ .4 J. 5; Han i: hit“ 3% §§€8 ' . E? 1:29 ii iécz .4 .L .4 J. 4 .l. .4 J. .4 J. éézvl ii §§z11 ii ééza éé iizs ii iézz .I. .4 .I. .4 .l. .4 J. .4 .l. 1171 ii §§111 §§18 E? 3119 ii §§1z «5 J- 4 .L .4 J. .4 .l. .4 J.' £10171 é: 3:011 . ii §§08 ‘ ii éios ééoz -|- 4 .1 4 .1 4 .1 4 .1. i368[ ii §§601 E? §§6l ii §§67 ii §§61 J. .4 J. .4 .L :l .l. .4 .l. D aownr D 801N213 0199 w i1 Eisel ii §§801 é: €581] ii éiev é: §§8l 4' J- 4 .1 .4 .1. 4 .1 4 .1 2,? ss E§48l ii 3:201 ii iéu 3: Mr E: 3:21 5 g E". 4 .1 ~ A 1 4 .1. 4 .1. 4 .1. E g E as 5598 1, E? §§901 :3 EM é: €397 3% 3291 6‘1 '33 J J- 4 .1 4 .1. .4 .1. 4 .1 E] 3 ”gym pun Mygu up ”you: 41104 was on "' $3981 ii §§901 :3 3:92 3% Eisr 5% §§91 E; , -" -'- .4 .1. 4 .1. 1 4 .1. 4 .1. g f- g is Ewen ii iévm 5% im 3: EM :1 £371 3 F" .‘f .’: .. 1 . * 4' * -" t =0 ii £5881 ii §§€01 EE 3381 EE €587 ii §§£1 z a d J- 5 .1 .4 .1. 4 .1. .4 .1. g 3; " 52:81 1 ii §§z01 ii Eizz ii iézv é? éiu o “ j -'- . .4 i .4 .1 4 .1. .4 .1 8 353181 E? £5101 ii §§l£ ii Eéw §§ §§11 E 1: :: . d J. .J J. - .d :L 9 d L E] g 1:081 ii s§001 a? 5501 as 5207 5501 H .. .4 .I. .4 .I. .4 J. .4 J. 1:621 1% éioo ‘ ii §§69 ii Eioc .. 3:6 .. H .4 J. .4 J. .4 .l. .4 J. 3881 E: §§86 E: 2389 ii éiec .I iée a .. ..» .4 J. .-.l J. .4 .1 4| J. z 3 3:431 §§ iizo ii €329 ii EELS .. M 02 == :: " f. .‘I .‘2 f'. f. “. f. Q 1% 1: 3921 E? 2596 as 2299 a: 5598 .. 529 F]; =::: ”f 31.". if. "'..*. (232—— 1: 3921 ii 896 25 2299 p a: 5398 .. 529 Z‘ :2 g: 4 .1 .4 .1 .4 .1. .4 .1 2 ‘; {g’t1 E? 1:76 E? 1:79 E? 2378 II 337 ” 1: .1 =' * d * " ‘ ‘1 f. g 1831 §§€6 - E? §§89 2% Has .. sac . * . f. :1 i =1 f. ‘1 2221 ii Eizo 3% 55:9 as 5338 Hz l-Z .4 .l. .4 .I. 4| .1 .4 121 E? 1:16 i? £119 a: :21: .4 .I. .4 .l :l .l J I W804 I- III: 132 _s__t_e2_I_I. It is important that each prospective college stu- dent is aware of his preferences in a college. We are interested in knowing the desirability of the 150 items in this booklet as characteristics of the college you want to attend. There are no correct or incorrect answers. What we want you to do is to tell us how de- sirable it is that the college of your choice possesses each of the listed characteristics. You are to mark each statement as "very desirable", "desirable", "un- desirable", "very undesirable" using the answer sheet given you for this purpose. Do not write in this booklet. Sample Item: 1. Students are generally pretty friendly on this campus. 0) 0) .-1 H 0) Q) .0 .0 .—1 .—1 <11 <11 .0 .0 54 L1 6.1 <0 -.-1 'rl $4 $4 a) w >~.~.—1 -.-1 <1) >~.q1 s... (I) m 'U 1413 Q) 111 (D 1:: 0) 1:: >1: D :1 :>2 ., 1111.16,.“ IIIII OOOOO ...... lllll 1111 ...... lllll <1), a}: a); q; <1) 1 . L3 .2111 1 3 ‘ ‘r1 3 wim‘g' m mfg 3 j QZo' pf 3 m o g 8 8881:8888 88 8888 888 .88. .. 8.8 b? . 136 1 71. 1813 I :37- 1 72- 1824 ‘ 138. . 73. 1834 ‘39. g 78. 1888 80. 75. 1851 81. 76. 186. 82. 77. 187 83. 78. 188 88. 9. 189 85. 80. 150_ ”w. 86. 81. 47. 82. 88. 83. 89 88. 501 -,- >_ 7 _85:- Slj 86. 52 87. w 23.1 22: I 551 90. 7 56. 91. l 57 92. 58. 93. 59 98. 601 95. E 614 96. l 624 97. . 633 98. 1 68.‘ 99. 1 1651 100. ‘ ‘66J 101. 1 67} 102. 1 68. 103. g 69. . 108. 1 .76. I 1 .105. vUndZsirable 134 Office of Admissions Ball State Teachers College Muncie, Indiana May 6, 1964 Dear You should have received recently a packet of materials from me with a request to assist me in ob- taining some research data from students enrolled in your school. I am writing to you because I have not heard from you or the students as of this date. 'We are quite aware that many of the students may not be planning to attend Ball State but we value their Opinions as much as those who do plan to attend. The materials sent to you were quite expensive and are needed for additional research on our students. If the students in your school do not wish to partici- pate or this type of activity is against school policy, we would like to have these materials returned. If your students do wish to participate, we would appreci- ate having the completed materials returned as soon as possible. If you have questions concerning this pro- ject, please feel free to call me collect. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Phone number: Sincerely, 285-4248 Charles F. Abbott Assistant Director of Admissions APPENDIX B 136 ummoo< umaoo< poohom uomnom powwom mamonuoazm :mmwa mo.a mo.H mo.H mo.a Amo.wmwm hd.H mo. Nb.H N¢.N dh.H 05Hm> :u: mm. «mm. mm. us. on. cmm .NH.ON m¢.HN «N.©H No.0H mo.om m¢.NN No.0N om.am mm.ma mm.oa com: mm _ on mm .05 mm on mm on mm on :2: oowono UHmm mowono 05mm oowono 03mm mowono 09mm moaono 09mm anonu EBOGMSD G3occh fi3ofixfib :BOchD caonxcb mwnmumaosom huoHQQOMA mwodohm3<. hpwadsaoo zuwamowuomhm mamom HUHOmU WGHAAOU OB GZHQmOOU¢ DmmDQmw mBzmmzommmm mom .m.m.D.U mmfi ZO mmmOOm Z 2p: 66. 3. Na. 1&1 mm. 8mm a 3.8 3.3 832 i 86 i .86 i. 8.6 i «o E «c :z: onEmm mam: oamsom mam: mamsom was: mamsmm mam: mamamm mamz. macho mwnmhmaoaom mwownmopm mmmdoum3< huflnsesou muwamowpompm mamom me OH OZHDMOUU< Dmmbomw mHzmazommmm mom .m.m.D.U HEB ZO mmmoom z :p: _wIWo.H9 -,6o. . oo.H om. on. .mmm NN.HN ,om.om mo.©H qa.ma NN.NN mo.HN mm.HN @¢.ow «N.oa om.wH Goo: wm11. 8m «6 sm «6 mm mm mm mm 8n :2: .H6 mm .H5 mm .wE mm .HE mm .wE mm .wE mm .H5 mm .wE mm .H5 mm .wE mm mocha .hm>o pops: uo>o nova: ho>o thfiD . hw>o hops: . po>o Moon: mwfimhmaonow. muothOMm mommapm3« huwfisfisoo huwHwowHOMQW mamom ZOHBH MAm¢B 140 #5004 poo. -m u. ooo< pom. -m p. 0004 . , Hasz mo.41. mo.» mm44w .mmdd mud; Amo.vzp: 6o88, qmqm @4481 «dqmw, .d¢.H onHm>.mr. mum sum: 88 oo 88 om 88 oo 1188 1mm, 88 co :2: . . . . . . . . . . .u. .u. . .> @395 Icoz Ifioz unoz unoz ..fio unmammogm ududuudadlllluufiddaadul m+msmdfiuud88 mamom nldflnuuuaonum WOVEN—”mag ZOHH mg OB GZHQMOOU< QmmDOMU mfizmnzommmm mom .m.m.D.U mam. ZO mmmoom 24m: mbomw meBHmm muzmmmmmHO NIH. mo Emma”. :9: NSF mo mBADmm—m > mamdd. TABLE VI RESULTS OF THE "t" TEST OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GROUP MEAN SCORES OBTAINED ON THE FIVE C.U.E.S. FOR RESPONDENTS GROUPED.ACCORDING TO COLLEGE CHOICE.AND SEX 141 Key: Male (M) Female (F) "t"(05) = 1.68 Scale Factor "N" Mean SEE. "t" Null Hyp. >, B.S.T.C.(M) 37 19.22 4.: B.S.T.C.(F) 44 19.05 .85 .21 Agggpz I} Unknown (M) 27 19.59 8 'Unknown (F) 30 18.20 .90 194 4A22§2:__ .4 n. s .‘1‘. U. (M) 37 19 .22 _ 3 Unknown CM) 27 19-59 .96 .39 Accept g 8.5.1.0.(F) 44 I?.US* 0. Unknown (F) +130 18-20 1.91. 1.38 Agggp; B.S.T.C.(M) 37 20.89 . B.S.T.C.(F) 44 21.77 1.07 .82 Accept 5> 'Unknown (M) *27 19.81 . .H Unknown (F) 30 20.87 1.14 .79 Accept g B.S.T.C.(M) 37 20.89 5 'Unknown ‘M 27 19.81 1.22 .88 .Accept o B.S.T.C.éF; 44 21.77 . 0 Unknown (F) 30 20.87 1.28 1.82 Reject B.S.T.C.(M) 37 22.30 B.S.T.C.(F) 44 21.66 '1.19 .53 Accept w UHEHOWR (M) 27 20. 7 '3 Unknown (F) 30 21.97 1.42 .92 Accept 5 ms .120. (m 37 22 .30 3 Unknown (M) 27 20.67 1.35 1.20 Accept 3 BlS.T.U.(F) 44 . ¢ Unknown_(F) 30 21.97 1.27 I24 Accept B.S.T.C.(MD 37 16.22 B.S.T.C.(F) 44 15.50 1.13 .63 Accept 3* WM) 27 1537 ,3 Unknown (F) 30 16.67 1.35 Lg;; Accept $5. B.S.T.C.(M) 37 16.22 o Unknown (M) 27 16.37 1.29 .12 Accept é: B.S.T.C.(F) 44 15.50 Unknown (F) 30 16.67 1,20 .97 Accept B.S.T.C.(M) 37 21.27 .9 B.S.T.C.(F) 44 20.73 1.26 .43 Accept .c: Elm—(M) 27 20.59 _ :3 Unknown (F) 30 20.37 1.33 .27 Accept g B.S.T.C.(M) 37 21.27 _. . o Unknown (M) 27 20.59 1.43 .48 Accept "E, B.S.T.C.(F) 44 20.73 ‘0 Unknown (F) 30 20.37 1.49 .15 Accept 142 TABLE VII RESULTS OF THE "t" TEST OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GROUP MEAN SCORES OBTAINED ON THE FIVE C.U.E.S. FOR RESPONDENTS GROUPED ACCORDING TO COLLEGE CHOICE AND COLLEGE MAJOR Key: Teaching (T) Non—Teaching (N) "t"(05) = 1.68 Scale Factor "N" Mean SED. "t” Null Hyp. 5» B.S.T.C.(T) 62 19_55 -H B.S.T.C.(N) 15 18 97 1 1n 1 1s Accent 3 Unknown (T) 32 18.34 - .3 Unknown (N) 21 18 86 1 08 43. Accept o BTS.T;C.(T) 62 19.55 8 Unknown (T) 32 18 34 83 1 44 Aooopt & B.S.T.C.(N) 15 18.27 Unknown (N). 21 12 as 1 90 45. Accept B.S.T.C.(T) 62 22.16 B.S.T.C.(N) 15 20.53 1-36 1.19 Accent 3. Unknown (T) 32 20.06 -4 Unknown (N) 21 19.14 1.5; .QQ Agggp: g B. . . . T 62 22.16 g Unknown (T) 32 20.06 1.03 2.04 Reiect o B.S.T.C.(N) 15 20.53 0 Unknown (N) 21 19.14 1-59 .87 Accept B.S.T.C.(T) 62 22.47 B.S.T.C.(N) 15 21.40 1.56 .68 Accept a Ufikfifififi‘fTU“EEF—‘§Ifab 2 Unknown (N) 21 19.81 1.53 1.23 o . . . . 22. 7 8 Unknown (T) 32 21.69 1.18 .66 Accept g B.S.T.C.(N) 15 21.40 .. Unknown (N) 21 19.81 1-84 -87 Accept.— B.S.T.C.(T) 62 16.39 B.S.T.C.(N) 15 15.27 1 46 Acce t 3’ Un own T 16.22 .3 Unknown (N) 21 15.48 1 42 52 Acce t H B.S.T.C.(T) 62 16.39 8‘ Unknown (T) 32 16.22 1_10 .15 Accent a B.S.T.C.(N) I3 15.27 Unknown (N) 21 15.48 1.71 .12 Accept B.S.T.C.(T) 62 21.55 .38 B.S.T.C.(N) 15 20.13 1.61 .87 Accept .r: 13% (T) 32 19. 2 Unknown (N) 21 19.71 1.58 .08 Accept g B.S.T.C.(T) ‘62 21.55 2 Unknown (T) 32 19.84 1.22 1.40 Accept 8 B}S.TZC.(N) 15 20.13 Unknown (N) 21 19.71 1,§2 _22 Accept 143 TABLE VIII RESULTS OF THE "t" TEST OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GROUP MEAN SCORES OBTAINED ON THE FIVE C.U.E.S. FOR RESPONDENTS GROUPED ACCORDING TO COLLEGE CHOICE AND CAMPUS VISITATION EXPERIENCES Key: Visitation (V) No VisitationsCN) "t"(05) = 1.68 Scale Factor "N" Mean SED "t” Null Hyp. is B.S.T.C. (V) 56 19.36 ..8 B.S.T.C.(N) 23 19.30 1.01 52 Acce t *3 n nown 5 18.83 3 Unknown (N) 21 17,33 1,13 1.32 Accept 3 B.S.T.C.EV; 56 19.36 Unknown V 35 18 83 88 60 Acc t a, . ._ - £2.— E B.S.T.C.(N) 23 19.30 Unknown (N) W B.S.T.C.(V) 56 22.52 B.S.T.C.(N) 23 |2I§| I .2: 2‘ 37] ‘7' Reject 4:3. Unknown (V) 35 19,91 .H 'Unknown (N) 21 18-76 1.37 .84 Accept g B.S.T.C.(V) 56 22.52 E Unknown (V) 35 19.9L 1-07 MEL—— 0 W. . . . 23 19.61 ' U unkrlom (N 2]. : o ' A - . B.S.T.C.(V) 56 22.71 B.S.T.C.(N) 23 20.91 1.39 1.29 3 11W no EV) 35 20.46 Accent q) Unknown N) 21 20.94 1.55 .28 A fig 5 B.S.T.C. $1?) 56 22.71 CC t :4 Unknown V) 35 20.46 1.21 1.86 R jg g 8.8.1'.U.f1\f) 23 211.9r e Ct B.S.T.C.(V) 56 16.80 B.S.T.C.(N) 23 14.35 1.27 1.96 Reject 3. 11171811251111 (V) .55 16.46 a, Unknown (N; 21 14.71 1.4g 1,23 Accept .2 0k. 0 O V 16. O 0. Un nown (V) 35 16.46 1.11 .31 Agggp]: 2 B.S.T.C.(N) 23 ' 14.35 94 Unknown (N) 21 14.71 1.55 :23 Agggp: B.S.T.C.(V) 56 21.71 - H BSTC(N) 23 19 83 144 . . . . . ., 1-31 .A t '5 UT—‘n nown (V) 35 19.46 amp :3 Unknown (N) 21 20.10 1. 60 -39 Accept.— .3 B.S.T.C.(V) 56 2 . 5 Unknown (V) 35 19.46 1.25 1.80 Reipct (g B.S.T.C.(N) 23 19.83 ' Unknown (N) 2]. 20.;0 1-76 '15 W RESULTS OF THE TABLE IX 144 "t" TEST OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GROUP MEAN SCORES OBTAINED ON THE FIVE C.U.E.S. FOR RESPONDENTS GROUPED ACCORDING TO COLLEGE CHOICE AND GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION Key:Less than 25 miles(L) MOre than 25 miles(M) "t"(05) = 1.68 Scale Factor "N" Mean SE9 "t" Null Hyp. >. B.S.T.C.(L) 23 18.57 .t.’ B.S.T.C.(M) 57 19.33 .89 .86 Accept '3 Unknown (L) 14 19.36 0 Unknown (M) 35 19.08 1.14 .24 Accept t3 B.S.T.C.(L) 23 18i57 8 Unknown (L) 14 19.36 1.22 .65 Accept n B.S.T.C.(M) 57 19.33 m Unknown (M):_35 19.08 .77 .32 Accept___ B.S.T.C.(L) 23 20.39 B.S.T.C.(M) 57 21.82 1.14 1.25 Accept >, Unknown CL) 14 20.575 ;3 Unknown (M) 35 20.51 1.46 .04 Accept fi . . . . 23 20.39 g Unknown (L) 14 20.57 1.51 .11 Accept g . . . . 57 21.82 0 Unknown (M) 35 20.51 .99 1.32 _Accept B.S.T.C.(L) 23 20.39 B.S.T.C.(M) 57 22.14 1 27 -59 .Accept 3 Unknown (L) 14 20.43 ‘ 2 Unknown (M) 35 22.46 1.63 1 24 A9232; g B.S.T.C.(L) 237 220.39 g Unknown (L) 14 20.43 1.75 ‘55 4Accept 3 B.S.T.C.(M) 57 22.14 ‘< Unknown (M) 35 22.46 1-10 -90 Accept B.S.T.C.(L) 23 14.17 B.S.T.C.(M) 57 16.60 1.22 1.99 Reject %. Unknown (L) 14 [6.11 '”"""' ‘5 Unknown (M) 35 16.74 1.56 .02 Accept '2 B.S.T.C.(L) 2.5 14.1F a Unknown (L) 14 16.71 1.67 1.52 .Accept g B.S.T.C.(M) 57 15759 In Unknown (M) 35 16.74 1.05 .14 AcceEE B.S.T.C.(L) 23 20.48 - .3' B.S.T.C.(M) 57 21.09 1.34 .46 Accept g Ufik‘n‘b‘w‘fi (L) 14 20.00 p Unknown (M) 35 21.43 1.71 .83 Accept ,3 B.S.T.C.(L) 23 20.48’ '2 Unknown (L) 14 20.00 1.83 .26 Accept o B.S.T.U}KM} 37' 21.09 ‘0 Unknown (M) 35 21.43 1.16 .22 Agggp: if: Diwali ,E ..h . 145 ,nWmonum. m _ HHHZ m©.H mowa acta mo.a nodal Amo.v:p: "H.N Ame \AMaA 00m. no. 05Hm> :u: co. co. no.4 on. E4 dmm . m m u u . u . . . .. 5 com: Hm up am pm an 5N (Hm, nu Am 55 :z: ooaono 09mm cowono 09mm oowofiu mHmm oowonu 08mm mowono 09mm @5090 nzocxflp, azogxzb czofififib aBocst ,I.c3o¢xs3 awnmpmaofiom huoHpmohm mmoamhm3< huwfinaeoo huHHmUMHUMQm oaoom HUHQZU mQHAHOO OB OZHQMOUU< QmmDQmw mhzmnzommmm mom .m.U.D WEB ZO mmmoom Z mu: ._ om! . «o. mo.H .mm. mm. (Cmm «fiommoagfluflwgaogm 36m «NAN «new can: mo 00 we ow we on mo 00 mm on :2: onEom oaoz mamaom oaoz. oHoEom can: oHoEom oaoz. onEom man: @5090 WMOHQQOMm mmocohm3<. hpfifiSEEoo Nwflamowuomhm oamom awnwhmaonom E xmm OB UZHQMOUU<_DmmDomw mhzmnzommmm mom .m.U.Q mmB zo mumOOm zml poms: ho>o nous: no>o noon: wmocopm3< Nuwm155oo (Nuwaoowuoopm ho>o nova: awnmhmaonom ho>o nova: huofihmoum ZOHH :u: mmB ho mfiflbmmm 149 unwoo¢ unooo< “@0004 uoufiom uaooo< wwmonuomhm 0:; 1 HHdzl mOoH mOoH mOoH . MbcH .MOoH AMOovzflz I||.mc_...ar _ mm. A 34 ol.la m mm. A 633, :6... no. mo. NH.H nan «mm. wcmm mqemm no.0m m¢.na wm.wH oa.mm om.om oa.mm manna oauqm 0H.mm coo: ow om ow cm 06 cm 06 cm 06 cm :2: uwmw> uflmfi> pwmfl> wmw> pwmw> uwmw> uwmw> uwmw> uwmw> paww> \mflohw unoz . acoz nacz unoz scoz oaoom mozmHmwmxm ZOHH mDmZHX Mdm<fi RESULTS OF THE TABLE XV 150 "t" TEST OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GROUP MEAN SCORES OBTAINED ON THE FIVE D.C.S. FOR RESPONDENTS GROUPED ACCORDING TO COLLEGE CHOICE AND SEX MIMfldF) "t"(05) = 1.68 Scale Factor "N" Mean SED "t" Null Hyp. 5’ B.S.T.C.(M) 35 24.46 ..4 B.S.T.C.(F) 42 24.93 .98 ‘ ‘.48 Accept 1;; Unknown (M) 25 24.36 3 Unknown (F) 26 25.73 1.20 1.14 Accept .p B.S.T.C.(M) 35 24.46 0 Unknown (M) 25 24.36 1 12 87 Accept m - O O S..: B.S.T.C.(F) 42 24.93 m Unknown (F) 26 25.73 1.07 .75 Accepp..._ B.S.T.C.(M) 35 26.69 B.S.T.C.(F) 42 26.62 1.19 .06 Accept f; Unknown (M) 25 24.52 .,.. Unknown (F) 26 27.65 1.47 L14 Re ieg1:__ G ”B.S.T.C.(M) 35 26.69 E Unknown (M) 25 24.52 1.37 1.58 Accept O B.S.T.C.(F) 42 26.62 0 Unknown (F) 26 27.65 1.31 -30 Accept B.S.T.C.(M) 35 28.14 B.S.T.C.(F) 42 28.74 1.32 .45 Accept a, Unknown TM) 25 27 .92 3 Unknown (F) 26 31.50 1.61 2.22 ngggz 5 B.S.T.C.(M) 35 28.14 5.. Unknown (M) 25 27.92 1.50 -15 Accepp g B. .0. . F 42 28.74 <1: Unknown (F) 26 31.50 1.44 1-92 Re iect B.S.T.C.(M) 35 17.71 B.S.T.C.(F) 42 17.95 .84 .29 Accept is Unknown (14) 25 18.36 .3 Unknown (F) 25 18.38 1.02 .02 Accept H W 1/.'/]_ % Unknown (M) 25 18.36 .96 .67 Accept 3: E. b {13TH (F) ‘FZ IT. 95 Unknown (F) 26 18.38 .91 .47 Jccept Q B.S.T.C.(M) 35 24.51 «4 B.S.T.C.(F) 42 26.24 1.14 1.51 Accept “F. UfiEfiown (M) 25 27.20 p Unknown (F; 26 27.50 _1.40 -21 Accent :3 . . . . M 5 24.51 ' 5: Unknown (M) 25 27.20 1.31 2.96 Reject..— .g B.S.T.C.(F) 42 26.24 Unknown (F) 26 22.59 1.24 .LJL—Acgepj; q a a u c . u . . o o n a . . n u w . a o . . _ . influns Outloflflij . c . . c c . c 1 a n a o , / . c a . a o . u I u . . . RESULTS OF THE TABLE XVI 151 "t" TEST OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GROUP MEAN SCORES OBTAINED ON THE FIVE D.C.S. FOR RESPONDENTS GROUPED ACCORDING TO COLLEGE CHOICE AND COLLEGE MAJOR Key: Teaching (T) Non-Teaching (N) "t"(05) = 1. 8 — 1 Scale Factor "N" Mean SEn "t" Null Hyp. 5. B.S.T.C.(T) 63 24.63, . :3 B.S.T.C.(N) 11 25.73 1.43 .76 Accept '3 m ('1‘) 28 25.11 . _ 0 Unknown (N) . 20 25.10 1.28 .01 Accept I! B.S.T.C.(T) 63 24.63 3 Unknown (T) 28 25.11 .99 ..48 Accept $4 B.S.T.C.KN} 11 25.73 .. 9* Unknown (N) 20 25.10 1.64 . .38 Accept B.S.T.C.(T) 63 26.75 B.S.T.C.(N) 11 27.64 1.69 .53 Accept 3» Wm (13) 28 2576? ..4 Unknown (N) 20 25.00 1.52 1.08 Accept a B.S.T.C.(T) 63 26"]: E Unknown ('1‘) 28 25.5f} 1.18 .09 Accept o BEJIKU. (N) 11 4’ 00“ 0 Unknown (N) 20 25.00 1.95 35 Acce t B.S.T.C.(T) 63 27086 B.S.T.C.(N) 11 31.73 1.86 2.28 Reject g U'r'fl'c'rToTv-n (T) 28 Egg: 6) Unknown (N) 20 . 1.67 1.94 Re 'ect 5 B.S.T.C.(T) 63 21.86 ‘1‘“— :3 Unknown (T) 28 31.39 1.29 2.73 Reject 3 B.S.T.C.(N) 11 31.T1 4 Unknown (N) 20 28.15 2.13 p.57 Accept B.S.T.C.(T) 63 17.78 . B.S.T.C. N 11 19.18 1.17 1.20 Accept 43’ Unknown (1') 28 18.29 a Unknown (N) 20 18.35 1.05 -06 Accept p. . . . . 3 17.78 8 Unknown (T) 28 18.29 .81 .52 Accept 9. B.S.T.C.(N) 11 19.18 L Unknown (N) 20 18.35 1.35 .§] Accept S. B.S.T.C.ET; 63 25.10 ‘ B.S.T.C. N 11 . 27.63 1.62 1.40 Accept '51 Unknown (T) 28 28.57 . (‘3 Unknown (N) 20 25.65 1.45 2 02 Reject '3 B.S.T.C.(T) 63 25.10 .5 Unknown (T) 28 28.57 1.12 3.09 Reiect m B.S.T.C.(N) 11 27.63 ’ '— Unknown (N) 20 25.65 1.86 -92 Accept 152 TABLE XVI I RESULTS OF THE "t" TEST OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GROUP MEAN SCORES OBTAINED ON THE FIVE D.C.S. FOR RESPONDENTS GROUPED ACCORDING TO COLLEGE CHOICE AND CAMPUS VISITATION EXPERIENCES Key: VisitationCV) No VisitationsCN) ntn(05) = 1.53.— Scale Factor "N" Mean SE1) "t" Null Hyp. I. f; B.S.T.C. (V) 54 25.39 .1. B.S T.C. N 22 23 14 e'ec '3 Unknown (V) 32 24.84 3 ‘Unknown (N) 18 25,27 1.25 .35 Accept 4., B.S.T.C.(V) 54 25.39 3 Unknown (V) 32 24,84 .95 .57 Accept as: B.S.T.C.(N) 22 23.14 Unknown (N) 18 2L27 1.35 1.58 Accgpp B.S.T.C.(V) 54 27.24 ,7. B.S.T.C.(N) 22 25.91 1.28 1.04 Accept {>5 Unknown (V) 32 27.09 .4: Unknown (N; 18 24.11 1.49 2.00 Re'iect g B. . . . V 54 27.24 Unknown (V) 32 27.09 1.13 .13 Accept é TB. .T.C.(N) 22 25.91 0 Unknown (N) 18 24.11 1.61 1.11 Accent B.S.T.C.(V) 54 28.44 B.S.T.C.(N) 22 28.14 1.47 .21 Accept 32) 'U'n'kfiown'” (V) 32 3U./1 q) Unknown (NL 18 28.06 1.71 1.55 Accept 5 B.S.T.C.(V) 54 28.44 (:5 Unknown (V) 32 30.71 1.29 1.75 Reject f3 B.S.T.C.(N) 22 28.14 ‘ 41 Unknown (N) 18 28.06 1.85 .04 Accept B.S.T.C.(V) 54 18.30 >‘ B.S.T.C.(N) 22 17.09 .91 1.33 Accept 1, Unknown (V) 32 18.53 .3 Unknown (N) 18 17.94 1.05 .55 Accept B. B.S .T. U .( V) 511 18 . 30 0 Unknown (V) 32 18.53 .80 .29 Accept E B.S.T.C.(N) 22 17.09 Unknown (N) 18 17.94 ‘ 1.14 .25 8999.21: B.S.T.C.(V) 54 25.74 ,& B.S.T.C.(N) 22 294473 1.27 .79 Accept '5, Unknown (V) 32 27.69 ‘4 Unknown (N) 18 26.39 1.47 .88 Accept :3 W . . . 54 25.74 2 Unknown (V) 32 27.69 1.11 1.74 Reject o 22 24.73 S B.S O I I COKE!) Unknown (N2 18 26.39 1.59 1,04 Accept TABLE XVIII RESULTS OF THE "t" TEST OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GROUP MEAN SCORES OBTAINED ON THE FIVE D.C.S. FOR RESPONDENTS GROUPED ACCORDING TO COLLEGE CHOICE AND GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION Key:Less than 25 miles(L) More than 25 milesCM) "t“(flj) = 1-58 Scale Factor "N" Mgan SEn "t" Null Hyp. B.S.T.C.(L) 22 23.86 B.S.T.C.(M) 54 25.09 1.08 1.13 Accet >. 4.) 2:} . 8 Unknown 3M) 33 24.76 1 fig 28 Accept 'l'l B.S.T.C.(L) 22 23.86 ‘5’ Unknown gL) 13 25.15 1 29 85 8992121: 2 B.S.T.C.(M) 5 25.09 m U own gM) 33 24.76 .95 .35 Accept T.C.(L) 22 25.91 T .C.(M) 54 27.24 1.26 1.96 AQQEDL' own 26.62 11 nknown (M) 33 25.42 1.63 .73 Ac eDt :S.T.C.(L) 22 25.91 U B Unknown (L) 13 26 . 62 l , 7 5 .40 Accent _ B 5 27 24 Unknown (M) 33 25:4_2 1411 155 wk B.S.T.C.(L) 22 27.05 B.S.T._C.(M) 54 28.89 1.47 1.25 Acc_ept m U known (L) 13 28.38 g; Unknown (M) 33 30.10 1 91 Acc O O o O 22 0 § Unknown (L) 13 28.38 2,04 155 Annpnt A Unknown (M) 33 30:10 ] .22 93 Accept B.S.T.C.(L) 22 16.55 B.S.T.C.(M) 54 18.52 .90 2.19 Reiect 3 Unknown (L) 13 17.15 .3 Unknown (M) 33 18.64 1.17 1.27 Accept p B.S.T.C.(L) 22 16.55 ‘3‘ Unknown (L) 13 17.15 1.24 .49 Accept & ‘B.S.T.C.(M) 54 18.52 Unknown (M) 33 18.64 .79 .15 Accept a B.S.T.C.(L) 22 24.59 '3 B.S.T.C.(M) 54 25.80 1.25 .97 Accent :3 Unknown (L) 13 25.08 (’3 Unknown (M) 33 27.48 1.61 1.49 Accept 3 B.S.T.C.(L) 22 24.59 ,5 Unknown (L) 13 25.08 1.72 .28 Accept m B.S.T.C.(M) 34 25.80 Unknown (M) 33 27.48 1109 1 85 Accent 154 u. w.00< . . u. @004 . . u. 000< u. GOO¢ u. @004 . munmwflub m 1‘ . 22oz no.2 no.2 no.2 , no.2- no.2 Ano.vzu: mmd42 . co. ,_ 2o. . . on. . . ,2n., . oo2o>.:c: hm. HNN. . «2.2. mm. on. cam oo.W2:ooqm2:|dd.m2_mdno2 nwem._.wmeo oo.o coqm no.~2 oo.~2 coo: Ian en \ran up 12n nu +12n he 2n en 6:2: oo2oso 09mm 6.620 comm oo2ono oamm ooHoco oemm oo2oco oamm csooo 22305225 93022an 22305225 2505225 2505225 own. .1 o. . no . 1 ... v.4 ..z... . r . -.Hm OHQOW HUHOZU MUHHHOU OH. UZHQmOUU< QmmDOmw mHZMonmmmm mom .m.U.D HEB ZO mmmoom ES mbomw zmmém muzwmmthn— "NEH. m0 Emma. :u: HEB mo mfiflbmmm NHN HAmfiH 155 xx mgm<fi poooo< pooood uaoooo. poooo< pooflom mHmQfiREm . , . . , w . 22:2 . ;non2 . no.2 no.2 . no.2 no.2 Ano.veu: 2n. 6612 nnm2 on. nmq2 ooam>.mrr onq on. co. on. 12w: com oo.~2 2&7: now: oo oo oo oo oo oo .mm. co oo do :2: 82228.22 8282 82.28.22 362 02868.22 8.282 82.85922 mam: 82888.22 8232 22.90.26 finmhmaofiom 30.29925 mwmanHBoB< NuHfiDEEoo huflHUUHuomnm oamom me on o22cmooo< ammoomo mnznczommnm mom .m.o.: one zo mnmoom zonz.moomo zmmsnnm nozmmnnn2c one no some co: mun no ms2omnm 156 uadoo4 208004 . HmUoQ< unmou4 unwoo¢ no221 no.2 noq2 no.2 .nom2 IIMM1, no.2 cn.2 .22. oosa noq, om. ooq, no. on. an n2‘mnnnw o- n w.:«. no." .1 . .n . u . n .. ..., IAN 2o 2m 12... 2m fin 2% 2o 2n 2m 22,2: 26. .8. .... .3 .3 .r .-. .. 12202 122072 1202 12.202 12.202 223% >2oflj§3< >§nm oamom M20222 mwmflfloo OB UZHQmOOU¢ QmmDOmU mBZm—onmmmm mom .m.U.D MPH. ZO mwmoom 242mg mbomw meBBmm mozummmthD may. mo Hmmm. :u: HEB mo mBQDmmm ”30a mummfih 157 umooo< , umooo< 208004 um0004 . . unvoo¢ mwmofipomzm 1 , A-.: , A 2252 no.2 no.2 no.2 no.2 no.2 Amo.v:u: no.2 m2. mm. 2N.2 00.2 os2o> :2: no. 00. no. no. hm. cum mo.M2 on.m2 mm.h2 #0.h2 b0.m 22.0 mm.0 00.0 mm.N2 «0.22 cmoz_ mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm um nn :2: .25nm.25 nm .25 nw .25 nm .25 nm .25 nm .25 nm .25 nm .25 nm .25 nm .25vo pooo.ooodo no>o noon: nm>o noon: oo>o noon: no>o Mood: 025mMM2onom 1N2822m02m woodonm3< hu2fidfisoo m222mowuomom o2oom ZOHH :H: 2o. nu. co. on. nn. mum mM.MH Nm.MH o¢.bH maowH om.a No.m MH.OH 26.0 mmomH m¢.NH fimoz .Od -Om O¢ 0m CG om o¢ 0m O¢ 0m :2: pHmH> pHmH> uflmfl> #HmH> uHmfl> uflww> uHmH> UHmH> #Hmfl> ufimH> QDOHU 15oz Icoz Icoz 15oz uaoz 02£m202onom uuowomoom mmoaohma< huwnnfisoo >222mowuomhm 0200m I| 1' |I‘ 1' mozmHmmmxm ZOHB¢BHmH> mDm2, B.S.T.C.(F) 42 18.57 ,9; 1.39 Accept 4; Unknown (M) 25 17.68 .,..| Unknown (F) 26 18.31 1.1]. .57 ACCQEt ‘5. ‘8. 331.0. (M) 33 17.31 8 Unknown (m) .25 17.68 1.04 .35 Accept m B.S.T.C.(F? 42 18.57* Unknown (F) 26 18.31 .99 .27 AQCQEI Q B.S.T.C. (M) 35 14.11 -H B.S.T.C.(gj 42 p1§.31 .73 1.11 Accept .5 Unknown (M) 25 13.00 - g Unknown (F? 26 13.15 .89 .17 Accept .-4 B.S.T.C. (M) 35 14.11 2 Unknown (M) 25 13.00 .83 1.34 Accept (2 B.S.T.C. (FY 42 13.31 I Unknown SFZ 26 13.15 .79 .20 Accept RESULTS OF THE TABLE XXV CHOICE AND COLLEGE MAJOR Key: Teaching (T) 160 "t" TEST OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GROUP MEAN SCORES OBTAINED ON THE FIVE U.C.S. FOR RESPONDENTS GROUPED ACCORDING TO COLLEGE Non-Teaching (N) "t"(05) = 1.68 Scale Factor "N” Mean SE11 "t" Null Hyp. f; B.S.T.C.(T) 63 12.52 I: B.S.T.C.(N) 11 11.09 .93 1.54 Accept :6 Unknown (T) 28 12.96 . .3 Unknown (N) 20 12.20 .84 .91 Accept 45 F.S .T. U.Cl‘) 53 12 .52 cu Unknown (T) 23 12.96 .65 .68 Accept 6: H-S.‘l‘.-U-KNI 11 11.09 Unknown (N) 90 121211 1-07 1.03 Accept B.S.T.C.(T) 63 9.57 >. B.S.T.C.(N) 11 8.73 1.02 .83 Accept 3:. Unknown ('1') 28 10 .25 s:- Unknown (N) 20 9.65 .92 .66 Accept E B.S.T.C.(T) 63 . o Unknown (T) 28 10.22 .71 .96 Accept U B.S.T.C.(N) 11 8.73 ,- Unknown (N) 29 9.65 1.17 .78 Accept B.S.T.C.(T) 63 9.02 B.S.T.C.(N) 11 7.91 .75 1.48 Accept g m ('1') 28 9.61 2 Unknown (N) 20 8.80 .67 1.21 Accept m 3:3.T.U.Vf) 03 9.02 3 Unknown (T) 28 9.61 .52 1.14 Accept 3 B.S.T.C.(N) 11 7.91 4 Unknown (N) 20 8.80 .86 1.04 Accept B.S.T.C.(T) 63 17.78 >. B.S.T.C.(N 11 18.00 1.26 .18 Accept {.3 Unknown (‘g—_T 28 18.46 {4* Unknown (N) 20 16.70 1.13 1.56 Accept o. B.S.T.C.(T) 63 17.78 8 Unknown (T) 28 18.46 .88 .78 Accept 9* B.S.T.C.(N) .. . 11 18.00 Unknown (N2 20 16.70 1.45 .89 Accept o. B.S.T.C.(T) 63 13.41 --I B.S.T.C.(N) 11 15.00 1.04 1.52 Accept ‘5; Unknown (T) 28 13.71 § Unknown (N) 29 12.40 .93 1.41 Accept '3' B.i.T.C.(T) 63 13.41 72 42 A t 5 Un nown (T) 23 13.71 . . ccep . (g B.S.T.C.(N) 11 15.00 . Unknown (N) 29 12.40 1.20 2.17 Reject Key: Visitation (V) TABLE XXVI RESULTS OF THE ”t" TEST OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GROUP MEAN SCORES OBTAINED ON THE FIVE U.C.S. FOR RESPONDENTS GROUPED ACCORDING TO COLLEGE CHOICE AND CAMPUS VISITATION EXPERIENCES No Visitations (N) 161 ”t"(05) = 1.68 Scale Factor ”N” Mean SEn "t" N911 Hyp. % B.S.T.C.(V) 54 12.16 .3 B.S.T;§.(N) 22 12.41 .72 .31 Accept r4 Unknown (V) 51 12.97 8 Unknown (N) 18 12.06 .84 1.08 Accept '3 B.S.T.C.(V) 5“ 12.16 g Unknown (V) 32 12.97 .63 1.23 Accept e B.S.T.C.(N) 24 12.41 9 Unknown (N) 18 12.06 .91 .39 Accept B.S.T.C.(V) 54 9.15 >, B.S.T.C.(N) 22 10.27 .78 1.44 Accept fl Unknown (V) 32 9.84 a Unknown (N) 18 9.94 .91 .11 Accept E B.S.T.C.(V) 54 9.15 E Unknown (V) 32 9.84 .69 1.01 Accept o B.S.T.C.(N) 22 10.27 Unknown (N) 18 9.94 .98 .33 Accept B.S.T.C.(V) 54 8.87 B.S.T.C.(N) 22 8.91 .58 .07 Accept 3 Unknown (V) 32 9.00 3 Unknown (N) 18 9.78 .67 1.16 Accept w B.S.T.C.(V) 54 8.87 8 Unknown (v) 32 9.00 .51 .25 Accept 3 B.S.T.C.(N) 22 8.91 < Unknown (N) 18 9-78 .73 1.20 Accept B.S.T.C.(V) 54 18.15 B.S.T.C.(N) 22 17.50 .99 .65 Accept 3' UnEnown (V) 32 18.16 .3 Unknown (N) 18 17.28 1.66 .76 Accept n ETEIT.C.(V) 54 18.15 ' 3 Unknown (V) 32 18,16 .88 .01 Accept E B.S.T.C.(N) 22 17.50 Unknown (N) 18 17.28 1.25 .18 Accept Q B.S.T.C.(V) 54 13.72 -H B.S.T.C.(N) 22 13.55 .81 .22 Accept i Unknown (V) 32 13.19 g ppknppn (N) 18 13.06 .94 .14 Accept 3 B.S.T.C.(V) 54 13.72 5 Unknown (V) 32 13.19 .71 .75 Accept g B.S.T.C.(N) 22 13.55 Unknown (N) 18 13.06 1.02 .48 Accept 162 TABLE XXVII RESULTS OF THE "t" TEST OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GROUP MEAN SCORES OBTAINED ON THE FIVE U.C.S. FOR RESPONDENTS GROUPED ACCORDING TO COLLEGE CHOICE AND GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION Key: Less than 25 miles (L) More than 25 miles (M) "t"(05) = 1.68 Scale Factor "N" Mean SED, "t" Null Hyp. % B.S.T.C.(L) 22 12.14 ;3 B.S.T.C.(M) 54 12.30 .72 .22 Accept .4 Unknown (L) 13 11.62 8 Unknown (M) 33 12.88 .94 1.35 Accept jg B.S.T.C.(L) 220‘ 12.14 0 Unknown (L) 13 11.62 1.00 .52 Accept g B.S.T.C.(M) 54 12.30 m U k own (M) 33 12.88 .63 .92 Accept B.S.T.C.(L) 22 9.50 B.S.T.C.(M) 54 9.46 .79 .05 Accept fi> Unknown (L) 13 8.31 'H Unknown (M) 33 10.39 1.02 2.05 Reject ‘3 B .S.T. C. (L) 22 9 .50 1 E U k own (L) 13 8.31 1.09 1.11 Accept o B.S.T.C.(M) 54 9.46 ‘9 U k own.(M) 33 10.39 .69 1.35 Acce t B.S.T.C.(L) 22 9.18 B.S.T.C.(M%__——f4 8.76 .57 .74 Accept 3 Unknown (L 3 9.00 2 Unknown (M) 33 9.30 .74 .41 Accept o B.S.T.C.(L) 22 9.18 {-3 Unk own (L) 1.13 9.00 .79 .23 Accept 3 B"."S"'."T"'."C.CM) 54 8.76 ‘< U known CM) 33 9.30 .50 1.09 Accept B.S.T.C.(L) 22 18.32 B.S.T.C.(M) 54 17.81 1.00 .49 Accept Unknown (L) 13 17.31 nknown (M) 33 17.85 1.30 .41 Accept .S.'1'.U. (L) 22 13:32 known (L) 13 17.31 1.39 .73 Accept S.T.C.CM) 54 17.81 k own (M) 33 17.85 .88 .04 Accept T.C.(L) 22 13.36 T (M) 54 _13.80 .80 .54 Accept wn (L) 13 11.69 wn M) 33 13,48 1.04 1.73 Reject L Propriety w dwdmd w CDC/J p 9 :Scholarship E Enczd ‘ Cl) 5 . o»o : .0 T ) 22 13.36 Unknown (L) 13 11.69 1.11 1.51 Accept S T.C.(M) 54 13.80 M 33 13 48 .70 45 Accept