WlE'S'TCZ Date 0-7639 _ h. Mfiggfigam @gflte Umfi‘vefiogfigy 1 This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF INSTITUTIONAL ENVIORNMENT AT KING ABDULAZIZ UNIVERSITY'AS PERCEIVED BY UPPER DIVISION STUDENTS presented by Abdulaziz A. Khayat has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Higher Education cl V ( Major professor April 21, 1981 his I! s yam a sum '5. ' ) 'isfiicmnV‘ 'V \ >~9nvnr ‘ 4 w R. 333 E OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per item RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: Place in book return to remove charge from circulat1on records A STUDY OF INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT AT KING ABDULAZIZ UNIVERSITY AS PERCEIVED BY UPPER DIVISION STUDENTS BY Abdulaziz A. Khayat A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1981 <;/7’5‘5“c>/ ABSTRACT A STUDY OF INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT AT KING ABDULAZIZ UNIVERSITY AS PERCEIVED BY UPPER DIVISION STUDENTS BY Abdulaziz A. Khayat Purpose The topic of institutional environment has been widely studied in the past thirty years. Researchers in higher education have been concerned with areas such as the impact of college on students, the description of the college environment, and the students-environment congru- ence. Many techniques and devices were deve10ped and used to serve the purpose of different studies. The purpose of the present study was to assess students' perceptions of the college environment at King Abdulaziz University in Mecca, and to investigate the influence of selected variables such as gender, field of study, citizenship, and socio-economic background on students' perceptions of that environment. Methodology The pOpulation of the study consisted of all upper division male and female students at King Abdulaziz Absulaziz A. Khayat University in Mecca (n = 1239). A 15 percent sample of male and female students was secured and represented all groups of students in their class standing (n = 186). An adapted version of the College and University Environment Scales was used to collect data for the study. The instrument is divided into five scales and consists of 100 items designed to determine the general atmosphere of the institution, the social and intellectual climate, and the style of life on campus. The data collected for the study were analyzed and eleven hypotheses were tested using several statistical techniques including mean and standard deviation, analysis of variance, multivariate analysis, and frequency distribu- tion for each item. Findings 1. Based on the perceptions of male and female students of their collegiate environment, no significant differences were found between the two groups regarding the items in the scholarship, community, awareness, and pr0priety scales. Significant differences between males and females were found on the practicality scale. 2. When comparing students by their major fields of study, there were no significant differences between students in the various fields of study, regarding the items in any scale of the CUES. Abdulaziz A. Khayat 3. No interaction effects were found between gender and major field of study when testing students' perceptions of their college environment on the five scales of the CUES. 4. In relation to the comparison of Saudi and non-Saudi students, significant differences were found in their perceptions of the items in the awareness scale. Perceptions of the items in the remaining scales--practi- cality, scholarship, community, and propriety—~were found not significantly different. 5. When testing the interaction effects between gender and nationality, they were found not significant on the five scales of the CUES. 6. When comparing students by father's education, no significant differences were found between students whose fathers had different levels of education on all five scales of the CUES. 7. Interaction effects between gender and father's education were found not significant on the five scales of the CUES. 8. It was found that students whose mothers had different levels of education did not differ significantly in their perceptions of the items in the five scales of CUES. Abdulaziz A. Khayat 9. When testing the interaction effects between gender and mother's education, it was found that they were not significant. 10. No significant differences were found on any scale of the CUES when comparing students' perceptions of their college environment between students whose families' incomes were different. 11. Interaction effects did not exist between gender and family's income when comparing students' per- ceptions of the college environment on CUES. I?‘——1r—”39E$E;L§L‘ “L5 IZzbéznanu:q{c£”ZJ;H&:mumfnunc¢hfandl£snmxfilfimgflaknt DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, my wife, and my lovely two sons Omar and Yasir, who made every effort possible to facilitate completing the study. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The investigator wishes to offer a sincere appre— ciation and thanks to his major advisor, Dr. Louis L. Stamatakos, and to his doctoral guidance committee members Dr. Richard Featherstone, Dr. Howard Hickey, and Dr. David Heenan, for their professional assistance and continuous support. Special thanks is offered to Dr. Walter F. Johnson and Dr. Walter Scott for their encouragement and assistance throughout the graduate study. Appreciation is offered to all of those faculty, instructors, and students at King Abdulaziz University in Mecca who made this study possible. The investigator also wishes to express his great- est appreciation and gratitude to his parents who have offered a great deal of concern, support, encouragement and prayers for many years, and to his uncle-in-law Shaikh Ahmed A. Al-Kazmi for his continuous care, encour- agement and prayers. Finally, the investigator extends his deepest gratitude and appreciation to his wife for much help, encouragement and emotional support, and to hhslittle sons, Omar and Yasir, who understood this work in their own way. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . Vi LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . xii Chapter I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . 1 Need for the Study . . . . . . . 7 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . 8 Questions for Investigation . . . . 9 Importance of the Study . . . . . . 10 Setting of the Study . . . . . . . 11 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . 20 Research Hypotheses . . . . . . . 21 Scope and Limitations . . . . . . 22 Methodology and Procedures . . . . . 22 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . 24 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . 25 Introduction . . . . . . . . . 25 Perceptual Approach . . . . . . . 25 Factual Approach . . . . . . . . 40 The Stimulus Approach . . . . . . 42 A Combined Approach . . . . . . . 43 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 46 III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . 48 Introduction . . . . . . . . . 48 Population and Sample . . . . . . 48 Instrumentation . . . . . . . . 52 Collection of the Data . . . . . . 58 Analysis of the Data . . . . . . . 59 Null Hypotheses . . . . . . . . 61 iv Chapter IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . Distribution of the Sample . . . . General Institutional Perceptions . Comparison of Students by Gender . . Comparison of Students by Major Fields Interaction Effects Between Gender and Major Field of Study . . . . Comparison of Students by Citizenship Interaction Effects Between Gender an Nationality . . . . Comparison of Students by Father's Education . . . . . . . . . Interaction Effects Between Gender and Father's Education . . . Comparison of Students by Mother' 3 Education . . . . . . . . . Interaction Effects Between Gender and Mother's Education . . . Comparison of Students by Family' 5 Income . . . . . . . . . Interaction Effects Between Gender and Family' 5 Income . . . . . . . Summary . . . . .' . . . . . V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions and Implications . . . Discussion and Speculation . . . Recommendations for Further Research APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . Page 63 63 64 67 70 76 83 84 9O 90 97 98 104 104 111 111 114 114 119 122 123 126 174 Table 1.1 4.4 LIST OF TABLES Page Faculty members divided by gender and citizenship . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Students population divided by gender and level of education . . . . . . . . 15 Total population divided by gender and field of study . . . . . . . . . 50 Total sample of students divided by gender and field of study . . . . . . . . 52 Reliability estimates: CUES, Second edition 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 54 Correlations between CUES scale scores and freshman input factors developed by Astin . 56 Correlations between CUES scale scores and EAT variables . . . . . . . . . . 56 Correlations between CUES scale scores and the institutional "factors" developed by Astin for 61 schools . . . . . . . 57 Total respondents and usable question- naires . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Distribution according to gender, field of study, class standing, and citizenship . 65 Distribution according to socio-economic background . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Mean and standard deviation presented by gender and field of study on the practi- cality scale . . . . . . . . . . 68 Mean and standard deviation presented by gender and field of study on the scholar— 69 ship scale . . . . . . . . . . vi Table Page Mean and standard deviation presented by gender and field of study on the community scale . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Mean and standard deviation by gender and field of study on the awareness scale . . 70 Mean and standard deviation by gender and field of study on the propriety scale . . 71 Mean and standard deviation for scale 1, Hypothesis 1 (Practicality) . . . . 72 Analysis of variance for scale 1, Hypothe- sis l (Practicality) . . . . . . . . 72 Mean and standard deviation for scale 2, Hypothesis 1 (Scholarship) . . . . . . 73 Analysis of variance for scale 2, Hypothe- sis 1 (Scholarship) . . . . . . . . 73 Mean and standard deviation for scale 3, Hypothesis 1 (Community) . . . . . . 74 Analysis of variance for scale 3, Hypothe- sis 1 (Community) . . . . . . . . 74 Mean and standard deviations for scale 4, Hypothesis 1 (Awareness) . . . . . . 75 Analysis of variance for scale 4, Hypothe- sis 1 (Awareness) . . . . . . . . 75 Mean and standard deviations for scale 5, Hypothesis 1 (Propriety) . . . . . . 76 Analysis of variance for scale 5, Hypothe— sis 1 (Propriety) . . . . . . . . . 76 Mean and standard deviation for scale 1, Hypothesis 2 (Practicality) . . . . . 77 Analysis of variance for scale 1, Hypothe- sis 2 (Practicality) . . . . . . . 78 Mean and standard deviation for scale 2, Hypothesis 2 (Scholarship) . . . . . . 78 vii Analysis of variance for scale 2, Hypothe- sis 2 (Scholarship) . . . . . . . . Mean and standard deviation for scale 3, Hypothesis 2 (Community) . . . . . . Analysis of variance for scale 3, Hypothesis 2 (Community) . . . . . . Mean and standard deviation for scale 4, Hypothesis 2 (Awareness) . . . . . . Analysis of variance for scale 4, Hypothe- sis 2 (Awareness) . . . . . . . . Mean and standard deviation for scale 5, Hypothesis 2 (Propriety) . . . . . . Analysis of variance for scale 5, Hypothe— sis 2 (Propriety) . . . . . . . . Multivariate test of major field by gender . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean and standard deviation for scale 1, Hypothesis 4 (Practicality) . . . . . Analysis of variance for scale 1, Hypothe- sis 4 (Practicality) . . . . . . Mean and Standard deviation for scale 2, Hypothesis 4 (Scholarship) . . . . . Analysis of variance for scale 2, Hypothe— sis 4 (Scholarship) . . . . . . . Mean and standard deviation for scale 3, Hypothesis 4 (Community) . . . . . . Analysis of variance for scale 3, Hypothe— sis 4 (Community) . . . . . . . . Mean and standard deviation for scale 4, Hypothesis 4 (Awareness) . . . Analysis of variance for scale 4, Hypothe- sis 4 (Awareness) . . . . . . . . viii Page 79 80 80 81 82 82 83 83 84 85 85 86 87 87 88 88 Page Mean and standard deviation for scale 5, Hypothesis 4 (Propriety) . . . . . . 89 Analysis of variance for scale 5, Hypothe- sis 4 (Propriety) . . . . . . . . 89 Multivariate test of nationality by gender . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Mean and standard deviation for scale 1, Hypothesis 6 (Practicality) . . . . . 91 Analysis of variance for scale 1, Hypothe- sis 6 (Practicality) . . . . . . . 92 Mean and standard deviation for scale 2, Hypothesis 6 (Scholarship) . . . . . 92 Mean and standard deviation for scale 2, Hypothesis 6 (Scholarship) . . . . . 93 Mean and standard deviation for scale 3, Hypothesis 6 (Community) . . . . . . 94 Analysis of variance for scale 3, Hypothe- sis 6 (Community) . . . . . . . . 94 Mean and standard deviation for scale 4, HypothesisES(Awareness) . . . . . . 95 Analysis of variance for scale 4, Hypothe- sis 6 (Awareness) . . . . . . . . 95 Mean and standard deviation for scale 4, Hypothesis 6 (Propriety) . . . . . . 96 Analysis of variance for scale 5, Hypothe- sis 6 (PrOpriety) . . . . . . . . 97 Multivariate test for fathers' education by gender 0 O O O O O O O O O O 98 Mean and standard deviation of scale 1, Hypothesis 8 (Practicality) . . . . . 98 Analysis of variation for scale 1, Hypothe- sis 8 (Practicality) . . . . . . . 99 ix Page Mean and standard deviation for scale 2, _ Hypothesis 2 (Scholarship) . . . . . 100 Analysis of variance for scale 3, Hypothe— sis 8 (Scholarship) . . . . . . . . 100 Mean and standard deviation for scale 3, Hypothesis 8 (Community) . . . . . . 101 Analysis of variance for scale 3, Hypothe— sis 8 (Community) . . . . . . . . 101 Mean and standard deviation for scale 4, Hypothesis 8 (Awareness) . . . . . . 102 Analysis of variance for sale 4, Hypothe- sis 8 (Awareness) . . . . . . . . 103 Mean and standard deviation for scale 5 Hypothesis 8 (Propriety) . . . . . . 103 Analysis of variance for scale 5, Hypothe— sis 8 (PrOpriety) . . . . . . . . 104 Multivariate test for mothers' education by gender . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Mean and standard deviation for scale 1, Hypothesis 10 (Practicality) . . . . . 105 Analysis of variance for scale 1, Hypothe- sis 10 (Practicality) . . . . . . . 106 Mean and standard deviation for scale, Hypothesis 10 (Scholarship) . . . . . 106 Analysis of variance for scale 3, Hypothe- sis 10 (Scholarship) . . . . . . . 107 Mean and standard deviation for scale 3, Hypothesis 10 (Community) . . . . . . 108 Analysis of variance for scale 3, Hypothe— sis 10 (Community) . . . . . . . . 108 Mean and standard deviation for scale 4, Hypothesis 10 (Awareness) . . . . . . 109 Table Analysis of variance for scale 4, Hypothe- (Awareness) sis 10 Mean and standard deviation for scale 5, Hypothesis 10 (Propriety) Analysis of variance for scale 5, Hypothe- sis 10 (Propriety) Multivariate test for family's income by gender xi 0 Page 109 110 110 111 LI ST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. An Apadpted Version of the College and University Environment Scales . . . . 127 B. Personal Data Questionnaire . . . . . 134 C. Frequency Distributions, Means and Standard Deviation for Each Item of the Questionnaire Presented by Gender and Total Sample . . . . . . . . . . 137 D. Mean and Standard Deviation for CUES Scales Presented by Citizenship, Father's Education, Mother's Education, and Family Income . . . . . . . . 148 E. Univariate F-Tests for CUES Scale by Citizenship, Father's Education, Mother's Education and Family Income . . 159 F- Faculty Administrators and Students in Higher Education Institutions in Saudi Arabia . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 xii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction The relatively recent concern for and support of college and university institutional research has been brought about mainly through the research activities of educators and social scientists who studied student life and who viewed the college as a unique community. Addi- tionally, and somewhat concurrently, institutional research was encouraged by administrators who were interested in "data" as a basis for making many of their institutional decisions. In his book, Institutional Research in the Univer- sity, Dressel stated: Institutional research, in the broadest sense, is certainly nothing new in higher education, but in recent years the attention given to it and the tendency to consolidate many formerly unrelated data collection and study activities into a single office have placed institutional research in a new light.1 In discussing the various subjects of institutional research, Dressel indicated that: 1Paul L. Dressel and Associates, Institutional Research in the University (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1971), p. xi. 1 The subjects of institutional research can be divided into three major topics: the institu— tional environment, the processes and operations carried on in that environment, and the ultimate outcomes achieved. The topic of "institutional environment" as a part of a broad institutional research has been studied widely and in different directions. Efforts have been made to obtain information about person-environment interaction, perception of actual and ideal environments, student sub— cultures, peer and faculty pressures, to name but a few areas. Eddy emphasized the total environment as an impor- tant influence on student character. He stressed the effect of both academic classroom and extra-curricular experiences as very influential factors.3 Jacob studied changes in the pattern of values held by students during their college years. He found that colleges do have distinctive climates, but there are no teaching methods, curricular offerings and features, or teachers that would and could insure changes in the values of students in college.4 21bid., p. 31. 3E. G. Eddy, The College Influence on Student Character (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Educa- tion, 1966). 4P. E. Jacob, Changing Values in College: An Exploratory Study of the Impact of College Teaching (New York: Harper, 1957). Pace and Stern constructed the College Characteris- tics Index (C.C.I.) as a way for administrators and faculty to analyze the institution. They suggested that a college environment may be viewed as a system of pressures, prac- tices, and policies intended to influence the development of students toward the attainment of important goals of higher education.5 Astin evaluated the widely-used Environmental Assessment Technique (EAT) on the basis of measures com- puted for 76 colleges and universities, using published data on size, intelligence level, and the major fields of student study, validation data were obtained for college seniors. He found that 14 of 18 environmental items were significantly related to EAT variables in the predicted direction; similarly, 15 of 21 of the perceived effects of the college environment were significantly related to at least one EAT variable.6 Another technique frequently utilized in institu- tional research is the College and University Environment Scales (CUES) developed by Pace. CUES was designed to SRobert Pace and George Stern, "An Approach to the Measurement of Psychological Characteristics of Col- lege Environments," Journal of Educational Psychology 49 (1958): 269. 6A. W. Astin, "Further Validation of the Environ- mental Assessment Technique," Journal of Educational Psychology 54 (1963): 225. describe the prevailing atmosphere or climate of the college campus, through a variety of measures.7 On the basis of the administration of CUES to approximately 9,000 students, Berdie concluded: The reliability cxf the CUES scales based on expec- tations appear quite adequate for purpose of group comparison but they are not sufficiently reliable perceptions and exceptions of individual stu- dents.8 The use of CUES in a college-wide assessment study by Rowe would probably tend to support the idea that CUES is a valid and reliable instrument for obtaining global insti- tutional assessments.9 In recent years the findings of transactional analysis have been adapted by researchers wishing to arrive at a more sophisticated understanding of individual— environmental interactions. The primary instrument, deve10ped by Pervin, is the Transactional Analysis of Personality and Environment (TAPE). In the last decade it has come into wide, and sometimes controversial, use. Pervin used TAPE in a study with 3,016 students from 7C. Robert Pace, College and University Environ- ment Scales, 2nd ed. (Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Services, 1967). 8R. R. Berdie, "Some Psychometric Characteristics of CUES," Educational and Psychological Measurement 27 (1967): 66. 9F. B. Rowe, "How Ten Years of Change Affected a College Environment," College Board Review 76 (1970): 28-29 0 21 colleges to analyze the following dimensions: "My College," "My Self," "Students," "Faculty," "Administra- tion" and "the Ideal College." As he demonstrated in his study, the primary thrust of TAPE is in measuring dis- crepancies among different groupings of such dimensions. Pervin found that discrepancies are co-related in ways predictable on the basis of transaction theory: for example, colleges with large mean discrepancies between perceptions of the actual and ideal also had high mean dissatisfaction scores among students. Pervin concluded that TAPE "represents a useful instrument for research into the measurement of environment-pe0p1e inter- actions."10 Upon entering college, students encounter an envir- onment that is usually different not only from the envir— onment in which they previously lived, but also from their expectations. Numerous studies have been made of the environmental "press," which Pace and Stern characterize as the implicit influence of environment on students.11 Yet the environments themselves differ widely. Hoyt studied some 79 junior colleges and found a striking amount 10L. A. Pervin, "The College as a Social System: Student Perception of Students, Faculty, and Administra- tion," Journal of Educational Research 61 (1968): 284. 11Pace and Stern, "An Approach to the Measurement of Psychological Characteristics of College Environments," p. 276. of variety: Academic diversity across colleges was found; student goals varied widely; entering classes differed widely with respect to the influence of parents, teachers, and counselors on their choice of college; there were wide differences found in the recognition afforded to out- of-class accomplishments; and such a consideration as the closeness of the school to home proved to have widely varying influences on the choice of school.12 Feldman and Newcomb, on the other hand, arrived at a general characterization of college environments and their effects on students. They found that personal developmental changes during the course of college careers occur uniformly at colleges and universities. While, according to their study, the characteristics of entering students were found to differ among types of universities, they found evidence of a surprising degree of maintenance of pre-existing values or attitudes within college. An equally surprising finding was the relative unimportance of faculty; that is, teachers did not appear to have a great deal of influence on students outside the classroom. With regard to student values and attitudes, a good deal of variety was found, as may be expected; in general, those attitudes which propelled students toward a 12D. P. Hoyt, "Description and Prediction of Diversity Among Junior Colleges," Personnel and Guidance Journal 46 (1968): 997. particular school or field of study appeared to be rein- forced during their college careers, while attitudes held at graduation seemed to persist through life.13 Need for the Study Accurate information about the college environ- ment is a critical addition to the knowledge of most decision makers about their institution. In discussing the need of different people for such information, Leonard Baird stated: A high school senior choosing college would like to know what they are really like. A college administrator would like to know how students and faculty feel about his college's programs and facilities so that he can make the needed changes. A student personnel worker who has organized an experimental living group program in the dormitor— ies would like to know if the college experiences of the students in his group are different from those of most students. A counselor working with students who are potential dr0pouts would like to know why these students have been turned off by the college. A college president who has brought in many reforms at his college would like to know if his reforms have changed the social and intel- lectural atmosphere of his college. Each of these pe0ple needs to know about the college community and the interplay among its people, policies, and facilities. In a word, they need to know about college "environments." Their purposes differ, of course, but their basic need for reliable, accurate information is the same.14 13K. A. Feldman and T. M. Newcomb, The Impact of College on Students, 2 vols. (San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, Inc., 1969). 14L. Baird, "Focussing on Measures of College Environments," College Board Review 86 (1973): 3. Efforts by researchers to assess and evaluate college and university environments in the United States have been made for many years. These studies have arrived at a wide array of determinations and conclusions which have proven useful to educational theorists and policy makers. In Saudi Arabia, as in other developing countries where formal higher education is relatively new phenomena, not much attention has been given to this kind of study. Data on college students and institutional environment among Saudi's Universities in general, and at King Abdula- ziz University in particular, are almost nonexistent. Hence, the investigator considered working toward this direction to be needed and very necessary, especially at a time when new campuses, colleges, and departments are being established and many changes in different aspects of higher education are taking place. Purpose of the Study Over the years, a number of methodologies, tech- niques, and approaches have been developed to assess and evaluate the college and university environment. One of these techniques is to obtain a description of the insti- tution by measuring the perceptions of students of their collegiate environment. The main purpose of the present study was to assess students' perceptions of the college environment at King Abdulaziz University in Mecca and to investigate the influ— ence of selected variables such as gender, major field of study, citizenship, and socio-economic background upon students' perceptions of that environment. The objective of the study is to provide adminis- trators and faculty at King Abdulaziz University in Mecca with information about how different groups of students perceive the university environment. Questions for Investigation According to the prupose of the study, the present research was undertaken to provide answers to the follow- ing questions: 1. What are the perceptions of students enrolled at King Abdulaziz University of their collegiate environment? 2. Do male students differ from female students in their perceptions of the collegiate environment at King Abdula- ziz University? 3. Do students who are majoring in different fields of study at King Abdulaziz University perceive their collegiate environment differently? 4. Do Saudi students differ from non— Saudi students in their perceptions 10 of the college environments at King Abdulaziz University? 5. Do students from different socio- economic backgrounds differ in their perceptions of the college environment at King Abdulaziz University? Importance of the Study The past decade has witnessed a rapid expansion of campuses, and the steadily increasing number of enroll- ments in most Saudi Arabia's colleges and universities. An understanding of how colleges and universities work, how they differ from each other, how their members per— ceive the realities, and how they react to these percep- tions is important for the decision makers in order to avoid actions that might be detrimental to their colleges and universities. Because Of the lack of information about the col- lege and university environments in Saudi Arabia, results of the present study could lay the groundwork for further research. Its findings could provide the basis for future comparison of institutional climate. Furthermore, the study's findings and conclusions could aid adminis- trators and faculty at King Abdulaziz University in bring- ing about change in the institution's curriculum, services, 11 and physical environment appropriate to achieving the goals of the institution and its students. Setting of the Study Since this study took place in a foreign culture, it is appropriate to provide some basic information about the setting in which the study was conducted. This includes a brief discussion about the background of higher education in Saudi Arabia, and a comprehensive descrip- tion of the university--its history and philosophy, its organization and administration, and finally, its facili- ties and services. Background Higher education in Saudi Arabia is a relatively new phenomena. The age of formal higher education in the country does not exceed three decades. Like all other aspects of contemporary life in Saudi Arabia, higher edu- cation has grown rapidly and in a way beyond all imagina- tion. In a period of thirty years, institutions of higher education have grown from a single college with only a few fields of study to six large universities (including almost all fields of study and specialization), as well as many junior and military colleges, and science and 12 mathematics centers.15 A11 higher education institutions are operated and financed by the government of Saudi Arabia, are geographically distributed in all the provinces of the country, and accommodate more than sixty thousand students. The rapid growth of higher education in Saudi Arabia largely parallels the rapid economic and technical development of the country. It also reflects the rising expectations of the peOple of Saudi Arabia, and the expanding opportunities for the country's youth. The University16 King Abdulaziz University (KAU) is one of six uni- versities operated and financed by the Ministry of Higher Education of Saudi Arabia. It is a semi-autonomous insti- tution operating under an independent University Board called the Supreme Council, with the Minister of Higher Education as chairman. It is a multi-campus university with colleges in Mecca, Jedda and Medina. King Abdulaziz University in Mecca is considered the oldest institution of higher learning in Saudi Arabia. 15Directorate General for the Development of Higher Education, Higher Education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Riyadh: Shemrakh Printing Press, 1980), p. 18. 16Most of the information in this section was derived from various Arabic publications issued by dif- ferent offices at the university. 13 It was officially established in 1949 and originally named the College of Shariah (Islamic Law). An initial class of 21 students was enrolled in the College of Shariah in the same year. The University conferred its first bachelor degrees in 1952. During that same year the Teachers College was established to provide the country with qual- ified teachers in various disciplines. In 1962 the College of Education was established as a logical next step in the growth and development of the Teachers College which, in turn, stOpped admitting new students in 1958. New programs, developed systems, and defined objectives were assigned to the College of Education at the time of its establishment. Subsequently, the institution rapidly expanded in enrollment, faculty, programs, and physical facilities. The largest growth of the institution occurred during the past ten years, when it became part of King Abdulaziz University in Jedda by a Royal Decree on March 31, 1971.17 The administrative structure of the Mecca campus includes the Vice Rector, Deans of Colleges, Dean of Admissions and Registration, Dean of Student Affairs, Dean of Library Affairs, as well as several directors of various administrative units and service centers. 17M. Hammad, "The Educational System and Planning for Manpower Development in Saudi Arabia" (Ph.D. disser- tation, Indiana University, 1974). 14 The academic organization of the University in Mecca includes fourteen undergraduate and six graduate academic departments. These departments are distributed into two colleges, the College of Shariah and Islamic Studies, and the College of Education. The undergraduate departments confer the bachelor degree in the arts and sciences, while the graduate departments confer the masters degree; only three departments confer the doctoral degree. King Abdulaziz University in Mecca has a multi- national faculty of approximately 343. Only 34 percent of the total number are Saudis.18 Table 1.1 presents the total faculty members divided by gender and citizen- ship. TABLE 1.l.--Faculty members divided by gender and citizen- ship Male Female Total Saudi 94 24 118 Non-Saudi 186 .32 225 TOTAL 280 63 343 18Qualifications of the faculty are said to be high; about 67 percent are Ph.D.‘s, 20 percent are Master's and 13 percent are bachelor's. King Abdulaziz Catalog, Mecca, 1979-80. 15 Although faculty are responsible for the insti- tution's basic programs of instruction, many are actively involved in services and consulting activities for govern- mental agencies or other groups outside the university. The University's enrollment totals approximately 5,000 students. About 13 percent of the total student p0pulation are graduate students, the remainder being enrolled in various undergraduate programs and in the Arabic language institute. Table 1.2 presents total students population divided by gender and level of educa- tion. TABLE 1.2.--Students population divided by gender and level of education Male Female Total Undergraduate 2164 1821 3985 Graduate 475 168 646 The Arabic Language Institute _283 __18 _§§l TOTAL 2922 2067 4992 Nearly 78 percent of the undergraduates are Saudis, with the majority coming from the surrounding areas of the University; of the non-Saudi students, most come from other Arabic and Islamic countries, while others are resi- dent immigrants. 16 The University is located in Mecca, in the western province of Saudi Arabia. The campus is about four miles from the Grand Mosque, and a half mile from the city of Mina. This location gives the University a special impor— tance and appreciation in the eyes of millions of Muslims because of its location close to the holiest site of Islam. This religious importance adds great responsibility to the University to serve the religious needs of many Muslims in the country and abroad. With the beginning of the next fiscal year (1981- 82) which begins on May 5, 1981, the University will enter a new developmental phase. As a result of the Royal Decree CH5 July 1, 1980,19 the Mecca campus of KAU will become an independent institution with a new name “Umm Al-Qura University." Accordingly the university will have its own budget and its own University and Supreme Council which will lead to great modifications and changes in the academic and administrative organization of the institu- tion. University Facilities and Services Recognizing the importance of public services, KAU in Mecca has established many facilities to benefit the academic community within the University as well as the surrounding society. The campus has expanded 19Al-Nadwa Dailerewspaper, Mecca, 2 July 1980. 17 steadily to meet the rising needs and demands for various services. In addition to classrooms, laboratories, and administrative offices, the University's facilities include the libraries, the instructional media center, the guidance and counseling center, the health center, the educational and psychological research center, the training progams center, the sports and recreation facilities, and the University mosque. The University libraries are divided into four basic collections. The central library, the library of the women's education center, the libraries of various centers, and the libraries of various departments. The central library occupies a modern air-conditioned build- ing and has a rapidly-growing collection of more than 257,000 volumes, 280 graduate theses and dissertations, 550 microfilms, and 3,000 government documents. The library subscribes to approximately 280 professional journals. The libraries are directed and administered by the Deanship of Library Affairs. This Deanship is a separate academic entity represented in the University council and has its own complete technical and administra- tive system. The instructional media center provides profes- sional facilities including motion picture films, graphic materials, and tape/slide programs. The center maintains an educational film library, and provides audiovisual 18 equipment and audio tape recording. The center provides faculty and students in student teaching programs all the needed instructional materials. The media laboratory contributes in the training of students in the college of education to use and develOp their own instructional materials. The guidance and counseling center is an integral part of the academic community. The center provides several types of professional assistance to students: educational services, vocational services, psychological services, and social and cultural services. Placement services are also available through this center as well for students during their senior year. The health center provides a full compliment of medical care for the entire university community. The health center employes physicians in most medical spe- cialities, nurses, and other health professionals. Its sephisticated medical facilities are fully equipped with a modern laboratory and pharmacy. The main services of the center include preventive medicine, outpatient treat- ment for illness, and health education. Pre-employment physical examinations for faculty and staff, pre-admission physical examinations for students, medical care, and dental services are among the services of the health center. 19 Student Personnel Services Recognizing the importance of the total develop- ment of the students and acknowledging that personal, social, physical, and intellectual development of stu- dents does not occur only in classrooms and laboratories, King Abdulaziz University provides several student person- nel services to assist students in making their college experiences more satisfying and beneficial. These services include admission, financial aids, housing, student activi- ties, religion, health, counseling, placement, graduation, and food services. Although the principal functions and activities of the personnel services at King Abdulaziz University are similar to those in most American universities, their organization and programs are somewhat different. Administratively the services are distributed into four administrative units, these are the deanship of admission and registration, the deanship of student affairs, the health center, and the guidance and counseling center. The Dean of Admission and Registration, the Dean of Student Affairs, and the Director of Health Center report directly to the Vice-Rector of the University in Mecca, while the Director of Guidance and Counseling Center reports to the Dean of the College of Education. 20 Definition of Terms College environment: A system of pressures, prac- tices, and policies intended to influence the development of students toward the attainment of important goals of higher education. Environmental press: A general label for stimulus, treatment, or process variables. Students: Male and female students enrolled as a full-time undergraduate student. Major field of study: Undergraduate major fields of study which are divided into four groups: (1) Arts and Humanities, (2) Education and Social Sciences; (3) Natural Sciences , and (4) Islamic Studies. Upper division: Junior and senior classes at King Abdulaziz University. Juniors are classified as students who have completed 60 credit hours with no less than 2.00 G.P.A.; seniors are classified as those students who have completed 90 credit hours with no less than 2.00 G.P.A. Citizenship: Saudi citizen or non—Saudi citizen. Socio-econqmic background: The family's socio— economic status which is defined by parental education and income. Perception: Awareness, observation, discernment, insight or feeling achieved through intellectual means. 21 Research Hypotheses From the objectives of the study and to answer the research questions, the following hypotheses were developed: Hypothesis 1: There are significant differences in the perceptions of the college environment between male and female students at King Abdulaziz University. Hypothesis 2: There are significant differences in the perceptions of the college environment between students majoring in the various fields of study at King Abdulaziz University. Hypothesis 3: There are interaction effects between gender and major field of study when comparing students' perceptions of the college environ— ment at King Abdulaziz University. Hypothesis 4: There are significant differences in the perceptions of the college environment between Saudi and non—Saudi students at King Abdulaziz University. Hypothesis 5: There are interaction effects between gender and nationality when comparing students' perceptions of the college environ- ment at King Abdulaziz University. Hypothesis 6: There are significant differences in the perceptions of the college environ- ment between students who their fathers' level of education are different. Hypothesis 7: There are interaction effects between gender and father's level of education when comparing students' perceptions of the college environment at King Abdulaziz Uni- versity. Hypothesis 8: There are significant differences in the perceptions of the college environment between students whose mother‘s level of education are different. 22 Hypothesis 9: There are interaction effects between gender and mother's level of education when comparing students' perceptions of the college environment at King Abdulaziz University. Hypothesis 10: There are significant differences in the perceptions of the college environment between students whose families' income are different. Hypothesis 11: There are interaction effects between gender and family's income when com- paring students' perceptions of the college environment at King Abdulaziz University. Scope and Limitations Scope The study is delimited to include only the Mecca Campus of King Abdulaziz University. The study is also delimited to include the sample of upper division students at King Abdulaziz University in Mecca. Limitations The study was limited by the factors inherent in the use of any questionnaire. These include the diffi- culties in tabulating, validating, securing the complete cooperation of the respondents, and developing adequate sampling procedures. Methodology and Procedures The population for the study consisted of all upper division male and female students at King Abdulaziz Uni- versity in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, a total of 1230 students 23 of both sexes majoring in various major fields of study. A cluster random sample of 15 percent were secured by identifying some university courses where the number of enrollments from juniors and seniors were large. An adapted version of the College and University Environment Scale (CUES II) was used to collect data for this survey. The CUES II consists of 100 items which are divided into five scales. The items were designed to sample the general atmosphere of the institution, the social and intellectual climate and the style of life on the campus. The instrument was adapted and translated into the Arabic language. Three steps were followed in the process of adaptation and translation to assure the accuracy, the appropriateness, and the clarity of the items. The instrument was pilot—tested with a group of twenty students at King Abdulaziz University and appro— priate modifications were made as a result of the pilot test. The data collected for the study were transferred onto computer cards to facilitate computer assistance in the analysis of the data. Several statistical procedures were used including frequencies and percentages for items of the instrument, mean and standard deviation, one—way analysis of variance to compare group differences, and 24 multivariate analysis to test the interaction effects between variables. A comprehensive review of the design of the study is found in Chapter III. Overview Chapter II includes a review of the literature related to the present study. It provides documentation from the research about various techniques and approaches which have been developed for the study of the college and university environments. The design and procedures employed in carrying out the study are fully described in Chapter III. These include the selection of the sample, the instrument used, the collection of data and the statistical analysis model. Chapter IV contains a presentation and analysis of the data collected from the survey. In Chapter V, the summary, findings and conclusions of the study are presented, as well as the recommendations for further research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Based on several theoretical orientations, a number of methodologies, techniques, and approaches have been developed to assess and evaluate the college and university environments. An extensive review of the literature revealed that environmental assessment techniques can be classified under four major approaches: (1)kPerceptua1 approach, (2; Factual approach, (3) The stimulus approach, and (4f A combined approach. Many of the instruments could be placed in more than one category, in that they contained elements of each approach. However, they are classified in the category that reflects their major empha— sis of approach. This chapter is divided into four sections, each of which presents certain approach of the environmental studies. Perceptual Approach This approach is based on personality theory that students' behavior depends on the interaction between his personality and the college environment. In this approach 25 26 those who study or work at the University are asked to respond to whether an item does or does not pertain to their institution. The items relate to various aspects of the college environment. Many instruments have been developed to assess students' perceptions of the college environment, and a great many studies have utilized them, instruments such as the College Characteristics Index and the College and University Environment Scales, to name a few. College Characteristics Index (CCI) The development of the College Characteristics Index by Pace and Stern in 1958 was considered one of the first attempts to measure the college environment. At Syracuse University Pace and Stern worked together in developing the CCI based on Henry Murray's "needs-press" theory.1 In 1938 Murray developed a "taxonomy" as a system of classifying the environmental pressures and how the individual strives to structure the environment for him- self.2 1Pace and Stern, "An Approach to the Measurement of Psychological Characteristics of College Environment," pp. 269-77. 2Henry Murray, Explorations in Personalipy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1938). 27 Utilizing Murray's "needs-press" theory, the CCI was designed to measure thirty kinds of press that char- acterize different types of institutions. The method of analysis of data for the CCI is based on understanding the press upon the individual in relation to his needs. It was intended that the CCI be used in conjunction with the Activities Index (A), the measure of individual student needs. Although the 300-item CCI considered of thirty 10-item scales, it was generally reported in terms of eleven factors. These are: aspiration level, intel- lectual climate, student dignity, academic climate, aca- demic achievement, self-expression, group life, academic organization, social form, play-work, and vocational climate. The CCI has been widely used since its development. Thousands of students have filled the questionnaire and hundreds of colleges and universities have utilized it; some of these studies are discussed here. Thistlewait (1959) selected a sample of 916 National Merit Scholars and certificate winners who were studying at 36 colleges and universities; and adminis- tered the College Characteristics Index to them. Students were asked to recall what their expectations were of college environments at the time they entered college and also what their perceptions were as experienced members of the student body. He found that (l) the press of 28 different colleges vary considerably; (2) expectations held for the college environment are consistent with the perceived college press; (3) college environment is an important factor in the student's motivation to seek advanced intellectual training.3 McFee (1961), in an effort to determine the rela- tionship between student personality needs and college environmental press, administered the CCI and AI to a sample of students enrolled in introductory psychology courses at Syracuse University (n = 100). He found no correlation between scale scores of individuals on the CCI and their parallel scores on the A.I.; nor did he find strong relationships between personality needs and the student's perception of environmental press.4 Standing and Parker used the CCI at Brigham Young University, and found that: (1) differences existed between freshmen and sophomores in their perceptions of the campus environment, (2) no differences were found in the perceptions of the expected university environment between nonarea residents and those who resided in the immediate university loCale, and (3) no differences were found in the perceptions on the college environment at 3D. L. Thistlewaite, "College Environments and the Development of Talent," Science 130 (1959): 71. 4Anne McFee, "The Relation of Students' Needs to Their Perceptions of a College Environment," Journal of Educational Psychology 52 (1961): 25. 29 the time of entrance between those students who drop out and those who persist. Pervin (1966) used the CCI (n = 670) at Princeton University. He concluded that expectations of college influence the experiences of students in college. Several expectations were found to be more or less consistently inaccurate. Students tended to overestimate the degree of press for intellectual understanding and learning that they would find in college; they also found less social cohesiveness and concern for group values than they expected. Pervin arrived at the important finding that students tended to overestimate their future academic per- formance .6 Stern (1966) administered the CCI to 3,000 enter— ing freshmen in four colleges. He found that the students were quite realistic in their idea of the degree of free- dom expected at their prospective college choices. How- ever, they were extremely idealistic in areas of intel- . . . . . 7 lectural, soc1a1 act1v1t1es and self-express1on. 6G. R. Standing and C. A. Parker, "The College Characteristics Index as a Measure of Entering Students Preconceptions of College Life," The Journal of College Student Personnel 6 (1964). GI” A. Pervin, “Reality and Nonreality in Student Expectations of College," Journal of Psychology 64 (1966): 41. '7G. G. Stern, "Myth and Reality in the American College," AAUP Bulletin 52 (1966): 408. 30 Baker compared honors freshmen with nonhonors freshmen at Wisconsin State University using the CCI. His findings indicate differences on six factors of the CCI. Accordingly, he concluded that the learning environ— ments within the same institution differ for honors as compared to nonhonors students.8 Johnson and Krupius, at the University of North Dakota, reported that students' perceptions of the intel- lectual climate decline over the two year period of the freshman year to junior year.9 Ivey, Miller, and Goldstein (1967) used the CCI to study perceptions of the Colorado State University environment held by student personnel staff, dormitory head residents, and the student body. Their data suggest that wide differences in perception of campus environment are possible among students and staff. In their study they found that students perceived the environment as possessing a greater degree of environmental characteris- tics valued by the academic community (aspiration level, 85. R. Baker, "A Comparative Study of Perceptions of a University Environment Between Honor and Nonhonor Freshmen Groups," Educational and Psychological Measure- ment 26 (1966): 973. 9 R. W. Johnson and W. J. Krupius, "A Cross- Sectional and Longitudinal Study of Student's Perceptions of Their College Environment," The Journal of College Student Personnel 8 (1967): 199. 31 intellectual climate, and academic achievement) than did other reference groups.10 Butler (1968) selected a random sample of students at both the junior college and university level to try to determine if the needs of perceptions of environment for junior college students differed from those of university students. The subjects completed the CCI and the AI. The junior college climate was perceived as providing less encouragement for leadership and self-assurance, and less exposure to diversity of experience, such as faculty, public discussion and innovation. On the nonacademic scale, the university was considered more collegiate because of its extra-curricular activities, group spirit, etc. The results of this study suggested a need for increased student personnel services at the junior college to provide more Opportunities for personal and social develOpment.ll 10A" E. Ivey, C. C. Miller, and A. D. Goldstein, "Differential Perceptions of College Environment: Student Personnel Staff and Students," Personnel and Guidance Journal 46 (1967): 17. 11'R.. R. Butler, "Differences in Need-Press‘Vari- ables as Perceived by University and Junior College Students," unpublished report, 1968. 32 College and University Environment Scales (CUES) The College and University Environment Scales is considered one of the most important instruments in the area of college environment measurement. C. Robert Pace developed the CUES in 1963. The purpose of the instrument is to measure the college environment by identifying those characteristics of the college which appeared to be representative of the insti- tutional environment. In 1967 Pace developed a greatly modified second edition of the CUES but with the same purpose as the original 1963 version. In describing the second edition and the reasons for producing it, Pace states: The second edition of CUES has the same purpose as the first edition: to aid in defining the atmos- phere or intellectual-social-cultural climate as the college students see it. The reasons for pro- ducing a second edition are three: In the first place, so many colleges and universities used the first edition that it became possible to develop new norms based on a larger and more representa— tive number of colleges and universities across the country, and we felt that this broader base for interpreting CUES should be made available. Secondly, we suspected that some of the original items were probably better than some others and we wanted to improve the instrument by identify— ing its best items and eliminating others. And, finally, we wanted to provide a basis for future revisions by introducing new items that would give a more balanced content and enable us to keep abreast of changes and trends in higher edu- cation. 12C. Robert Pace, College and University Environ— ment Scales (Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Ser- vices, 1962). 33 The CUES II consists of 100 items divided into five basic scales and two subscales. It also includes 60 experimental items not included in the scales at this time. The five basic scales are: practicality, commu— nity, awareness, prepriety, and scholarship. The two subscales are campus morale, and quality of teaching and faculty-student relationships. More details about the instrument's scales and its validity and reliability will be presented in the design chapter. CUES II has been utilized in several ways to assess students' perceptions of their college environment and to investigate any relationship between the perceptions and different variables. Some of those studies are briefly discussed. Berdie conducted two studies at the University of Minnesota using 7,000 freshmen students. In the first study, he found that expectations of the entering freshmen varied according to sex and college entered. He also found that CUES scores were unrelated to Minnesota scholastic test scores. Furthermore, they were independ- ent of personality characteristics measured by the Minnes- ota Counseling Inventory. The second study by Berdie at Minnesota involved 292 of the original 7,000 entering freshmen. They were re-tested and given a questionnaire concerned with living and transportation arrangements, participation in campus 34 activities, and social activities with other students. It was found that changes in students' perceptions of the university were unrelated to living and transporta- tion arrangements, high school grades or academic apti— tude. However, changes in scores on the CUES community and awareness scales were related to some college expe- rience.13 Berdie's findings based on the administration of the CUES test to approximately 9,000 students brought him to conclude that "the reliability of the CUES scales based on expectations appear quite adequate for purpose of group comparison, but they are not sufficiently reliable to allow one to make inferences regarding the perceptions and expectations of individual students."14 Rowe's use of CUES, in a college-wide assessment study, would probably tend to support the idea that CUES is a valid and reliable instrument for obtaining global institutional assessments.15 In a study done at a major, complex university, Centra compared students' major field of study 13R. F. Berdie, "College Expectations, Experiences, and Perceptions," Journal of College Student Personnel 7 (1966). 14R. F. Berdie, “Some Psychometric Characteristics of CUES," Educational and Psychological Measurements 27 (1967): 55-56. 15E. B. Rowe, "How Ten Years of Change Affected a College Environment," College Board Review 76 (1970): 28-29. 35 perceptions and total campus perceptions by using the CUES. One of his major findings was that students enrolled in different academic fields within a complex university.had diverse perceptions of academic dimensions of the total environment. The results also indicated that students' perceptions of the total setting are generally related to students' perceptions of their aca- demic discipline. The differences indicate that varia- tions of perceptions within a large university may be as great as variations between separate institutions.16 McPeek (1967) administered CUES to students, faculty, and administrators at Millikin University and found that perceptions between the three groups were strikingly similar.17 Heskett and Walsh (1969) administered CUES to residence hall student personnel staff, managers, and student government officers. They found that managers perceived a stronger press on all five scales.l8 Spence (1970) studied the perceptions of faculty and students of three different environments at Michigan 16J. A. Centra, "Student Perceptions of Total University and Major Field Environments" (Ph.D. disser- tation, Michigan State University, 1965). 17B. L. McPeek, "The University as Perceived by Its Subcultures," The Journal of the National Association of Women Deans and Counselors 30 (1967): 129. 188. Heskett and W. Walsh, "Differential Percep- tions of College Environment," Journal of College Stu- dent Personnel 10 (1969). 36 State University. Comparing a general undergraduate residence hall, a residential college, and an under- graduate academic college, he found that students not living in a residence hall demonstrated the lowest level of community (as defined by CUES) and campus morale.19 To determine the administrative, faculty, and student perceptions of selected aspects of a complex university, Gibson (1973) using CUES II, found that (1) students and faculty differed in perception, (2) stu- dents and administrators differed in perception, and (3) differences in perception existed between faculty and administrators.20 Using CUES to describe the nature of campus environment as perceived by students and faculty, Spoor (1973) found that women tended to report a stronger press than men for scholarship, social, and aesthetic sensi- tivity.21 19C. Spence, "Perceptions of Selected Faculty and Undergraduate Students of Three Different Environments at a Complex University" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970), 29B. P. Gibson, "An Analysis of the Intellectual- Social-Cultural Environment of a Complex University (Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1973), 21E. C. Spoor, "A CUES Assessment of the Perceived Environment of a Small Church-Related Liberal Arts College by the Various Groups Pertinent to Its Life" (Ph.D. dis- sertation, The University of Southern California, 1973), 37 Roussell (1974) used CUES II to determine the image perception of Dillard University as held by fresh- men and senior students, faculty, and administrators. He found that faculty and administrators tended to have a more exalted impression of that University than did experienced students.22 . Hechenberger (1974) used CUES II to analyze per- ceptions of students, faculty, and student personnel staff toward the college environment and found as in the study by McPeek, no significant differences in perception between groups.23 Transactional Analysis of Personality and Environ- ment (TAPE) The Transactional Analysis of Personality and Environment (TAPE) questionnaire is a semantic differ- ential instrument. Students are asked to rate certain concepts (college, self, students, faculty, and admin- istration) on 52 scales. Through rating, the students indicate their perceptions of their college. The 22N. Roussell, "Sub-populations' Perceptions of Dillar University" (Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1974), 23N. D. Hechenberger, "Perceptions of a University Environment Students, Faculty, and Student Personnel Staff" (Ph.D. dissertation, The Catholic University of America, 1974), ” 38 instrument was originally developed by Pervin as an attempt to investigate the person-environment congruency. In recent years the findings of transactional analysis have been adapted by researchers wishing to arrive at a more sophisticated understanding of individual— environmental interactions; the primary instrument which has been developed--Transactional Analysis of Personality and Environment--has come into wide, and sometimes, con- troversial use in the last decade. Pervin used TAPE in a study with 3,016 students from 21 colleges on the basis of the following dimension: "My College," "My Self," "Students," "Faculty," "Adminis- tration" and "the Ideal College." As he demonstrates in his study, the primary thrust of TAPE is in measuring discrepancies among different groupings of such dimen- sions as these, and Pervin indeed found that discrepancies were correlated in ways predictable on the basis of trans- action theory: for example, colleges with large mean discrepancies between perceptions of the actual and ideal also had high mean dissatisfaction scores among students. Pervin concludes that TAPE "represents a useful instru- ment for research into the measurement of environmental peOple interactions."24 In another study, Pervin 24L. A. Pervin, "The College as a Social System: Student Perception of Students, Faculty, and Administra— tion," Journal of Educational Research 61 (1968): 284. 39 obtained results which support the validity of the TAPE instrument; the study found that the discrepancy between perceptions of self and of the environment among respond- ents were related to dissatisfactions with the college.25 In his study, "The College as a Social System," Pervin found that students who perceive a large discrep- ancy between themselves and their college tend to be dis- satisfied and to consider dropping out; colleges with large mean discrepancies also have high mean dissatisfac- tion scores. In addition, as noted above, a student's expectations influence his experiences in college; if those expectations vary widely from the reality, then the student is more apt to consider dropping out.26 Pervin and Rubin have also determined, on the basis of a TAPE research study, that discrepancies between perceptions of the self and the college, between the self and other students, and between the actual college and the ideal college, are related to the probability of dropping 25L. A. Pervin, "Satisfaction and Perceived Self- Environment Similarity: A Semantic Differential Study of Student—College Interaction," Journal of Personality 35 (1967a): 623-634. 26 Ibid, p. 623. 40 out for nonacademic reasons and to nonacademic dissatis- faction with the college.27 Factual Approach In this approach a large number of readily- measured "objective" variables are reduced by factor analysis to a smaller number of relatively independent scales or factors which are labeled in a way which, hope- fully, communicates the overall meaning of the variables influencing the particular scale or factor. Astin and Holland appear to be the first to use this approach, and its development has been reported in a series of studies by Astin.28 Astin's evaluation of the widely-used Environ- mental Assessment Technique (EAT) was made on the basis of measures computed for 76 colleges and universities from published data on size, intelligence level and the major fields of student study; validation data were obtained from seniors. He found that 14 of 18 27L. A. Pervin and D. B. Rubin, "Student Dissatis- faction with College and the College Dropout: A Trans- actional Approach," Journal of Social Psychology 72 (1967): 285-295. 28A. W. Astin and J. L. Holland, "The Environmental Assessment Technique: A Way to Measure College Environ- ments," Journal of Educational Psychology 52 (1961): 308- 316; Astin, "Further Validation of the Environmental Assess- ment Technique," Journal of Educational Psychology 54 (1963): 217-226; and Astin, Who Goes Where to College? (Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1965b). 41 environmental items were significantly related to EAT variables in the predicted direction; 15 of 21 of the per- ceived effects of the college environment were signifi- cantly related to at least one EAT variable. "In general, the results seem to support the construct validity of EAT as a method for assessing the college environment."29 This finding tends to validate the underlying concept of EAT, which is that a major portion of environmental forces is transmitted through other peOple and that the dominant features of the environment are dependent on the typical characteristics of its members. Richards, Seligman, and Jones modified the EAT strategy to derive measurements of school environments by counting the number of courses and the number of faculty members rather than using the proportions of students in the six types of fields derived from Holland's theory. They derived similar measures for graduate school environ- ments.30 Another factual strategy originally used by Astin, is to employ the statistical techniques of factor analysis to examine and summarize institutional information found in college directories and fact books, such as tuition 29Astin, "Further Validation of the Environmental Assessment Technique," pp. 217-226. 30J. M. Richards, Jr., R. Seligman, and P. K. Jones, "Faculty and Curriculum as Measures of College Envir- onment," Journal of Educational Psychology 61 (1970): 324-32. 42 and the number of books in the library per student. Astin compared some thirty-three characteristics of four-year colleges and obtained six dimensions that accounted for many of the differences among the colleges.31 The Stimulus Approach This approach is designed to measure specific observable student behaviors such as time spent in study, number of social activities per week, or attendance at a concert. Astin appears to be the first to use this approach in the assessment of the college environment. He expressed this idea as follows: The "college environment" was considered to include anything about the institution that could be regarded as a potential "stimulus" for the student. A "stimulus“ was defined as follows: Any behavior, event, or other observable characteristics of the institution capable of changing the student's sensory input, the existence or occurrence of which can be confirmed by independent observation. Astin used this approach to develop the inventory of college activities (ICA). He asked students to respond to 275 relatively specific items concerning their own behaviors and the characteristics of their peers, 31A. W. Astin, "An Empirical Characterization of Higher Educational Institutions," Journal of Educational Psychology 53 (1962): 224—235. 32A. W. Astin, Manual for the Inventory of College Activities (Minneapolis, Minn.: National Computer Sys— tems, 1972a). 43 classrooms, college rules. They also responded to 75 items similar to CUES items so that their "image" of their college could be determined, the idea being that a college's climate may also act as a stimulus. By analyz— ing separately the items referring to peer, classroom, administrative, and physical environments, Astin found twenty-seven dimensions by which colleges differed. Analy— sis of the image items produced eight additional dimen— sions.33 Astin, in his study The College Environment, under- took a comprehensive survey of American colleges and uni— versities through the Inventory of College Activities (ICA): the ICA attempts to identify as many environmental stimuli as possible as reported by students in a question—y naire. Subsequently, Craeger's and Astin's analysis of 70 variables describing data obtained from 244 universities, through factor-analytic techniques, tended to undermine this method of research, at least for environmental stimu- lus factors, which were found to be uncorrelated.34 A Combined Approach It is difficult to make a general assessment of the methodological issues which arise, and particularly 33Ibid., p. 34A. Astin, The College Environment (Washignton, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1968a), p. 44 of the variety of indices and measuring techniques which have been developed. The ever—changing college environ- ment has made claims on the ingenuity of researchers who have sought to develop new instruments, or to "fine-tune“ existing ones. Although a ranking of indices according to validity and reliability is probably not feasible, one broad attitude seems to have arisen among researchers: that the complexity of the college environment and the variety of questions which researchers bring to it require a mix of approaches and methods.35 Baird stresses this in "focusing on Measures of College Environments," where he states that a variety of approaches is needed for any single purpose. Pace, after describing several ways of evaluating college environments, says: "The fullest advancement of understanding about college cultures and their impact on students will come not only from applying the most rigorous methods, but from using a variety of methods to explore the wisest questions we can formu- late."36 Centra, in "Comparison of Three Methods of Assess- ing College Environments," assesses three widely used methods--student preceptions, student self-reports, and 35L. L. Baird, “Focusing on Measures of College Environments," College Board Review 86 (1973): l—3ff. 36C. R. Pace, "Methods of Describing College (h11tures," in The College Student and His Culture: An Zhua]_ sis, ed.: K. Yamanoto (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968), p. 203. ‘_ 45 objective institutional data-~comparing them with the new technique of multidimensional factor analysis on the basis of 53 variables for 103 colleges. In effect, his study was an evaluation of standard factor analysis, which has been utilized for many years; he found that this method reported real differences among colleges for four factors: "female cultural" versus "male athletic" char— acteristics; faculty--student interaction; academic stimu- lation; and activism. In effect he vindicates the outcomes of much research which has utilizedaitraditional assessment technique.37 Marks tested the responses of twenty-one college freshmen to carefully selected and representative items. He wished to answer the question of what sources of vari— ance in environmental perceptions may legitimately be analyzed; his results indicate that variance associated with differences among individual respondents——"particu— larly naive respondents"——must serve as an important target for analysis. On the whole, Marks argues in favor of taking a variety of indices rather than a single index 37J. A. Centra, "Comparison of Three Methods of Assessing College Environments," Journal of Educational Psychology 63 (1972): 56-72. 46 such as a scale parameter as measures of a homogeneous attribute of an environment.38 Summary In this chapter recent research on the subject of the college environment have been reviewed. From the point of View of the methodological issues raised by such research, it is evident even on a cursory survey that the research conducted for the last several years has been in a state of flux. More sensitive and sophisticated indices, techniques and approaches have been developed, among the CUES and TAPE, to supplement the more straightforward instruments such as the CCI. Much of the research dealt with above was carried out on the basis of these new instruments, while some researchers have developed slight variations of them to deal more sensitively with specific issues. The approach or approaches chosen will also clearly be a function of the uses to which research is put. While great advances have been made in developing theoretical instruments to assess the college environment, much remains to be done in the way of making the results obtained through these instruments meaningful and practi- cal to administrators and other policymakers. This is 38E. Marks, "Individual Differences in Perceptions of the College Environment," Journal of Educational Psy- chology 61(1970): 277. 47 the point made by Derry, who states that the various ratings "do not yet have the prescriptive utility neces- sary for faculty to effect predictably the overall quality of the course or to improve instructor ratings."39 The subject of the college environment itself has come to be understood in more complex ways. In gen- eral, the available research recognizes the fact that the relationship between the student and the college environ- ment is a complex interaction, and that environmental impacts or "press" are most importantly transmitted through people——peers, teachers, and administrators. 39J. 0. Derry, "Can Students' Ratings of Instruc- tion Serve Rival Purposes?" Journal of Higher Education 50 (1979): 87. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction As indicated above, the objective of this study was to assess students' perceptions of the college environ- ment at King Abdulaziz University, and to determine the effects of different antecedent variables on these per- ceptions. The procedures used in this study include the following: (a) the adaptation and translation of the instrument, (b) the selection of two cluster samples of male and female upper division students; (c) the collec- tion of data by administering the instrument in selected University courses, and (d) the analysis of data in terms of the objectives of the study. This chapter will include detailed discussion of the basic procedures used in the study, as well as the hypotheses to be tested. Population and Sample Pace characterizes "any reasonable cross-section of students who have lived in the environment for two or 48 49 more years,"1 as qualified subjects for the study of institutional environment. Likewise, it is this investi- gator's belief that junior and senior students possess a greater amount of sophistication about and awareness of their collegiate environment because of their greater exposure to and use of its facilities and services. The population for this study composed of all upper division male and female students attending King Abdulaziz University in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, during the academic year 1979-80. The total population consisted of 1230 students of both gender majoring in various fields of study. To facilitate the procedures of sampling, coding, and analyzing the data, major fields of study were grouped into four categories. In Table 3.1 the total population divided by gender and groups of major fields of study are presented. A review of sampling designs revealed that four basic types of sampling strategies are available in survey research: (a) simple random sampling; (b) system- atic sampling, (c) stratified sampling, and (d) cluster sampling. The latter differs from the other designs in that the unit of sampling is not the individual, but rather, a naturally occurring group of individuals. It further 1C. R. Pace, College and University Environment Scales: A Technical Manual, 2nd ed. (Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1969), p. 10. 50 TABLE 3.l.--Tota1 pOpulation divided by gender and field of study Field of Study Male Female Total Arts and Humanities 115 117 232 Education and Social Sciences 131 158 289 Natural Sciences 102 263 365 Islamic Studies 259 94 353 TOTAL 607 632 1239 differs from the other methods in the selection of elements. Cluster sampling requires a listing of all clusters, i.e., groups. Thereafter, a random sample of clusters would be drawn from that list using a table of random numbers. All elements within each cluster are included in the sample. Simple random sampling, systematic sampling, and stratified sampling, on the other hand, require a listing of all elements (indivdiuals) of the defined population, with a random sample of all elements being drawn from that list. Schaeffer, et a1. defined cluster sample as "a simple random sample in which each sampling unit is a collection, or cluster, of elements."2 2R. Schaeffer, W. Mendenhall, and L. Ott, Ele- mentary Survey Sampling, 2nd ed. (North Scituate, Mass.: Duxbury Press, 1979), p. 59. 51 Cluster sampling was chosen because it appeared to be the most adequate design for the study. The prin- ciple advantages of this technique were the saving of time and money, the distribution of questionnaires to entire subgroups or clusters of elements, and the high rate of returns. A common application of this sampling method was suggested by Borg in his book Educational Research where he stated: "cluster sampling is sometimes used in educational research with the classroom as the unit of sampling."3 After listing all upper division university courses (300 and 400) and assigning a number to each course, a table of randon numbers was used to select some courses as the random sample of the university courses. This procedure was followed separately for both male and female sections of the campus. In discussing the sample size, Ary stated: "Descriptive research typically uses larger samples; it is sometimes suggested that one select 10-20 percent of the accessible population for the sample."4 Considering the above, care was taken that the sample size resulting from the cluster amounted to 15 percent of the total 3W. R. Borg and M. D. Gall, Educational Research—— An Introduction, 2nd ed. (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1963), p. 122. 4D. Ary, L. Jacobs, and A. Razavieh, Introduction to Research in Education (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1972). 52 subjects' pOpulation as shown in Table 3.2. The total sample consisted of 186 students of both gender who were majoring in different fields of study. TABLE 3.2.--Tota1 sample of students divided by gender and field of study Field of Study Male Female Total Arts and Humanities 17 18 35 Education and Social Sciences 20 24 44 Natural Sciences 15 39 54 Islamic Studies 39 14 53 TOTAL 91 95 186 Instrumentation An adapted version of the College and University Environment Scales, second edition (CUES II)5 was used to collect data for this study. The CUES II consists of 100 items designed to determine the general atmosphere of the institution, the social and intellectual climate and the style of life on campus. The instrument is divided into five scales for the purpose of analysis. These scales are identified and described by Pace in the CUES II manual as follows: 5Pace, College and University Environment Scales, p. 11. 53 Scale 1: Practicality. Items of this scale describe the environment in terms of enterprise, organiza- tion, material benefits, and social activities. The main emphasis is on perceived orderliness of the environment. Scale 2: Scholarship. Items of this scale describe the environment in terms of intellectuality and scholarship. The emphasis is on competitively high aca— demic acievement and a serious interest in scholarship. The degree to which pursuit of knowledge and theories, scientific or philosophical, is carried out rigorously and vigorously is determined. Scale 3: Community. The items of this scale describe the campus in terms of friendliness, cohesiveness and group-orientation. The degree to which there is a feeling of group welfare and group loyalty encompassing the college as a whole is determined. Scale 4: Awareness. The items of this scale determine the concern about and emphasis upon three types of meaning--personal, poetic, and political. Scale 5: Propriety. The items of this scale describe environment in terms of politeness and considera- tion. Caution and thoughtfulness are present, group standards of decorum are important, and demonstrative, assertive, argumentative, risk—taking activities are absent is determined. For a copy of the instrument, see Appen— dix A. 54 Reliability data for the CUES II were reported by Pace in the technical manual. The reliability estimates were based on Cronbach's coefficient alpha. This formula takes into account the sum of the variances of each item rather than the average or mean; also each item is scored in exactly the same manner as the total scale is scored——that is, +1, 0, or -1. These reliabilities range from .89 to .94 and, thus, provide evidence of a high degree of internal consistency for all of these scales. Table 3.3 lists the reliability estimates, based on Cronbach's coefficient alpha for CUES II scales. TABLE 3.3.--Reliability estimates: CUES, Second Edition Scale Coefficient Alpha Practicality .89 Community .92 Awareness .94 Propriety .89 Scholarship .90 In establishing validity data for CUES, Pace sug- gests that the behavior of the students should be exam- ined and compared with the general campus atmosphere to determine how closely the characteristics of students, 61bid., p. 42. 55 campus atmosphere, and activities are congruent.7 He reports that many studies utilized this form of examina- tion using the CUES II resulted in significant correla— tions. Tables 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6 present the various correlations between CUES scale scores and freshmen input 10 factors developed by Astin,9 EAT variables, and the institutional factors developed by Astin.ll The reliability and validity of the CUES have been reported in many studies. Some of those are briefly dis— cussed here. Grande and Loveless undertook a study which tends to question the purported objectivity of CUES and claim that it can be used to generalize about certain sectors or groups within a college-—for example, a student sub— culture.12 Berdie's findings on the basis of CUES test administered to approximately 9,000 students indicate that "The reliability of the CUES scale based on 71bid., p. 53. 81bid., p. 46. 91bid., p. 47. loIbid., p. 51. llIbid., p. 53. 12P. O. Grande and L. J. Loveless, "Variability in the Measurement of Campus Climate," College and Uni— versity 44 (1969): 244. 56 TABLE 3.4.--Corre1ations between CUES scale scores and freshman input factors deve10ped by Astin Freshman Input Practi- Commu- Aware- Pro- Scholar- Factors cality nity ness priety ship Intellectuality -.62 -.18 .28 -.33 .60 Estheticism -.45 .07 .36 .18 .27 Status -.38 .16 .53 -.28 .25 Pragmatism .14 -.52 -.29 -.45 .07 Masculinity f.02 -.08 -.12 -.57 .12 TABLE 3.5.-—Correlations between CUES scale scores and EAT variables Variables Practi- Commu- Aware- Pro- Scholar- cality nity ness priety ship Selectivity -.67 -.14 .36 -.26 .57 Size .24 -.69 .15 -.41 -.14 Realistic Orientation .12 -.50 -.23 -.30 .12 Scientific Orientation -.29 .08 -.08 -.17 .41 Social Orientation .24 .25 .09 .43 -.35 Conventional Orientation .32 .19 .03 -.29 -.20 Enterprising Orientation -.11 .13 .37 -.24 .08 Artistic Orientation -.17 .24 .41 .27 -.06 57 TABLE 3.6.--Corre1ations between CUES scale scores and the institutional ”factors" deve10ped by Astin for 61 schools Institutional Practi- Commu- Aware- Pro- Scholar- Factors cality nity ness priety ship Affluence -.65 .03 .46 -.38 .65 Size .22 -.65 -.01 -.27 -.08 Masculinity .15 -.26 -.24 -.30 -.02 Homogeneity -.32 .16 -.25 .28 -.14 Technical Emphasis .23 -.40 -.38 -.16 -.13 expectations appear quite adequate for purpose of group comparison."l3 Rowe's use of CUES, in a college-wide assessment study, would probably tend to support the idea that CUES is a valid and reliable instrument for obtaining global . Q 1 4 ‘V,"V\ A V if}, y .K ‘ institutional assessments. chV’j. The instrument was adapted and translated to Arabic by the investigator. Three steps were taken to assure the correcteness of the translation, the appropriateness of the instrument to be used at King Abdulaziz University, 13R. F. Berdie, "Some Psychometric Characteristics of CUES," Educational and Psychological Measurements 27 (1967): 55. 14F. E. Rowe, "How Ten Years of Change Affected One College Environment," College Board Review 76 (1970): 28. 58 and the clarity of the items for the respondents: (a) analysis and discussion of the translation with a group of five Saudi students at Michigan State University; (b) review of the adapted English version and of the Arabic translation of the CUES by a group of three faculty members in the Department of Psychology at King Abdulaziz University; (c) application of the questionnaire to a group of twenty upper division students representing four different disciplines at King Abdulaziz University for pilot-testing. Those students were not included in the sample tested. Appropriate modifications were made as a result of each step taken. All of these procedures reinforced the investi- gator's belief that the instrument was appropriate and applicable to measure the students' perceptions of their collegiate environment at King Abdulaziz University. Information about the independent variables such as gender, major field, and others for each student was collected by administering the personal data questionnaire (PDQ) prepared especially to serve the purpose of the study (see Appendix B). Collection of the Data The instrument was administered to the students in the classes assigned for this purpose according to the sampling procedure. The instructors of those classes 59 agreed to take the responsibility for the administration and subsequent return of the questionnaires to the inves- tigator. Each of the instructors was given a written set of instructions for administering the questionnaires. The instructions explained the purpose of the study and to whom the instrument should be administered. A total of 186 questionnaires were distributed among the instruc- tors according to the number of students in each class which was included in the sample. Each booklet of the questionnaires contained: (1) an introductory letter in which the objectives and purpose of the study were explained; (2) a copy of the modified version of CUES; and (3) a copy of the personal data questionnaire. Confidentiality was assurred for all responses. Of the total responses, 19.9 percent (n = 37) were unusable because they were not completed properly. A complete description of the number of respondents, usable questionnaires, and percentages of usalbe responses is found in Table 3.7. Analysis of the Data The data obtained by administering the instrument to assess the students' perception of their collegiate environment at King Abdulaziz University and to determine 60 TABLE 3.7.-~Total respondents and usable questionnaires Total Usable Field of Study Respondents Responses Percentage Arts and Humanities 35 28 80.0 Education and Social Sciences 44 36 81.8 Natural Sciences 54 42 77.8 Islamic Studies _53 _g; _81;1 TOTAL 186 149 80.1 the relationship between the students' perceptions of that environment and some selected variables were transposed to data processing cards to allow computerized statistical analysis. Statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS)15 was used to facilitate several statistical tech- niques, both descriptive and inferential. Descriptive statistics obtained included frequency distributions for each item, as well as mean and standard deviation for each scale. Inferential statistics included one-way analysis of variance to compare groups, and multivariate analysis to test interaction effect between variables. One-way analysis of variance was selected to compare means of more than two groups in order to deter- mine any differences. 15N. H. Nie, et a1., SPSS--Statistica1 Package for the Social Sciences (New York: McGraw Hill, 1975). 61 Multivariate analysis was selected to determine if interaction effects between independent variables on the dependent variable, i.e., the perceptions of students of their academic environment. To determine acceptance or nonacceptance of null hypothesis, the standard .05 level of significance was used for each test. Null Hypotheses For the purpose of statistical testing, the research hypotheses of the study were transformed into the null form. Hypothesis 1: There are no significant differences in the perceptions of the college environment between male and female students at King Abdulaziz University. Hypothesis 2: There are no significant differences in the perceptions of the college environment between students majoring in the various fields of study at King Abdulaziz University. Hypothesis 3: There are no interaction effects between gender and major field of study when comparing students' perceptions of the college environment at King Abdulaziz University. Hypothesis 4: There are no significant differences in the perceptions of the college environment between Saudi and non-Saudi students at King Abdulaziz University. Hypothesis 5: There are no interaction effects between gender and citizenship when comparing students' perceptions of the college environ- ment at King Abdulaziz University. Hypothesis 6: There are no significant differences in the perceptions of the college environment between students whose fathers' levels of edu- cation are different. 62 Hypothesis 7: There are no interaction effects between gender and father's level of education when comparing students' perceptions of the college environment at King Abdulaziz Uni— versity. Hypothesis 8: There are no significant differences in the perceptions of the college environment between students whose mothers' level of educa— tion are different. Hypothesis 9: There are no interaction effects between gender and mother's level of education when comparing students' perceptions of the college environment at King Abdulaziz Uni- versity. Hypothesis 10: There are no significant differences in the perceptions of the college environment between students whose families' income are different. Hypothesis 11: There are no intermediate effects between gender and family's income when com- paring students' perceptions of the college environment at King Abdulaziz University. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Introduction The main purpose of the study was to assess stu- dents' perceptions of their collegiate environment at King Abdulaziz University in Mecca, and to investigate the differences in the perceptions between various groups on campus. The population of the study was the upper division student body at King Abdulaziz University in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. A cluster sample of 15 percent of the population was secured and determined as representative of all groups of students on campus. The data for this study were collected by admin- istering an adapted version of the College and University Environment Scales (CUES) and the Personal Data Question- naire (PDQ) to the sample of students. The data collected was transposed onto punch cards to accommodate computer—assisted statistical analy- sis. Several statistical techniques were utilized, includ- ing descriptive and inferential. This chapter is devoted to a presentation and analysis of the data collected for the study. It contains 63 64 the distribution of the sample, the overall student per— ceptions of the institution, and the comparisons between various student groups by gender, major field, citizen— ship, and socio-economic status. Distribution of the Sample The data which were collected by application of the Personal Data Questionnaire is presented in Table 4.1. The results indicated that 48.3 percent of the reSpondents were males and 51.7 percent were females. In respect to major field, the data indicate that 18.8 percent of the respondents are majoring in arts and humanities, 24.4 percent are majoring in education and the social sciences, 28.2 percent are majoring in natural sciences, and 28.9 percent are majoring in Islamic studies. For class standing group, the data indicate that 45.6 percent of the respondents are juniors, and 54.4 per- cent are seniors. For the citizenship group, the data indicate that 76.5 percent of the respondents are Saudi citizens, and 23.5 percent are non-Saudis. Data about socio-economic background are presented in Table 4.2. In terms of the leve of education of par- ents, the data were grouped into three categories, high level of education indicates the bachelor degree and higher, medium level indicates the secondary school 65 Table 4.1.--Distribution according to gender, field of study, class standing, and citizenship Variable 3:223:52: Percentages s3 Male 72 48.3 Female 77 51.7 Class standing Junior 68 45.6 Senior 81 54.4 Citizenship Saudi 114 76.5 non-Saudi 35 23.5 Major Field of Study Arts and Humanities ' 28 18.8 Education and Social Science 36 24.2 Natural Science 42 28.2 Islamic Studies 43 28.9 66 TABLE 4.2.--Distribution according to socio-economic background High Medium Low Variable N % N % N % Father's Education 37 24°8 104 59-3 8 5.4 Mother's Family Income 30 20.1 74 49.7 45 30.2 diploma and lower, and low level indicates the elementary school diploma and lower. In terms of the annual income, the data also were grouped into three catetories. High indicates income over $27,000 a year, medium indicates income between $13,000 and $27,000 and low indicates income lower than $13,000. The data also indicate that 24.8 percent of the respondents come from families where the fathers' level of education are high, 69.8 percent come from families where the fathers' levels of education are medium, and 5.4 per- cent come from families where the fathers' level of education are low. In respect to mothers' education, the data indi- cate that no one of the respondents come from families where mothers' levels of education are high, 40.9 percent come from families where mothers' levels of education are 67 medium, and 59.1 percent come from families where mothers' levels of education are low. In respect to family income, the data indicate that 20.1 percent of the respondents come from high income families, 49.7 come from middle income families, and 30.2 percent come from low income families. General Institutional Perceptions This section is devoted to a presentation of the general perceptions of students of their collegiate envir- onment. C. R. Pace regards CUES as an opinion poll. The percent of students agreeing or disagreeing with an item decides if the item could be considered characteristic of the environment. Pace considers an item as characteristic if it was agreed on by two-thirds of the students (66 percent).1 Table 4.3 presents the mean and standard deviation for male and female students divided by major field of study on the practicality scale. The data indicate that female students in the Islamic studies had the highest mean among all other groups, while males in the same group of major fields had the lowest mean. 1C. R. Pace, College and University Environment Scales: A Technical Manual, 2nd ed. (Princeton, J.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1969), p. 14. 68 TABLE 4.3.--Mean and standard deviation presented by gender and field of study on the practi- cality scale Field of Study Gender N Mean Standard Dev1at10n Arts and Humanities M 14 14.500 2.103 F 14 14.928 1.639 Education and M 16 14.250 1.807 Social Sciences F 20 15.600 2.603 Natural Sciences M 11 14.272 1.420 F 31 14.870 1.839 Islamic Studies M 31 14.516 1.964 F 12 15.083 1.928 Total for Entire Sample 149 14.771 1.969 As shown in Table 4.4 male students in the arts and humanities had the lowest mean while females in the natural sciences had the highest mean. The mean and standard deviation for male and female students in different fields of study on the community scale are presented in Table 4.5. The data show that the highest mean in this scale was accomplished by females in the education and social sciences fields, whereas the lowest mean was obtained by females in the Islamic studies. As can be shown in Table 4.6 female students in the arts and humanities had the highest mean on the 69 TABLE 4.4.--Mean and standard deviation presented by gender and field of study on the scholar- ship scale Field of Study Gender N Mean Standard DeV1at1on Arts and Humanities M 14 11.857 1.747 F 14 12.714 1.589 Education and M 16 12.562 1.631 Social Sciences F 20 12.559 1.877 Natural Sciences M 11 12.454 1.967 F 31 12.806 1.194 Islamic Studies M 31 12.741 2.032 F 12 12.500 1.314 Total for Entire Sample 149 12.533 1.672 TABLE 4.5.--Mean and standard deviation presented by gender and field of study on the community scale - Standard F1eld of Study Gender N Mean Deviation Arts and Humanities M 14 14.428 1.504 F 14 15.285 1.815 Education and M 16 15.000 1.264 Social Sciences F 20 15.500 1.849 Natural Sciences M 11 14.454 1.809 F 31 14.612 1.782 Islamic Studies M 31 14.387 1.706 F 12 14.083 1.621 Total of Entire Sample 149 14.718 1.712 70 TABLE 4.6.--Mean and standard deviation by gender and field of study on the awareness scale Field of Study Gender N Mean Standard DeV1at1on Arts and Humanities M 14 14.142 1.406 F 14 15.714 1.589 Education and M 16‘ 14.750 1.914 Social Sciences F 20 14.850 1.954 Natural Sciences M 11 14.636 1.501 F 31 15.032 1.580 Islamic Studies M 31 14.465 1.817 F 12 14.166 1.647 Total of Entire Sample 149 14.778 1.719 awareness scale, while males in the same category had the lowest. Table 4.7 presents the mean and standard devia- tion for male and female students on the propriety scale. The data indicated that in this scale female students had higher mean than males in all categories of major fields. The highest mean on this scale was obtained by females in the natural sciences. Comparison of Students by Gender Hypothesis 1: There are no significant differ- ences in the perceptions of the college environment between male and female students at King Adbulaziz University. 71 TABLE 4.7.--Mean and standard deviation by gender and field of study on the propriety scale Field of Study Gender N Mean Standard DeV1at10n Arts and Humanities M 14 14.428 1.398 F 14 14.714 1.637 Education and M 16 14.562 1.364 Social Sciences F 20 14.850 1.663 Natural Sciences M 11 14.727 1.007 F 31 15.225 1.647 Islamic Studies M 31 14.709 1.986 F 12 15.083 1.621 Total for Entire Sample 149 14.825 1.622 Analysis of Scale 1: Practicality Table 4.8 presents the mean and standard deviation for male and female students on scale 1. The results indicated that female student responses resulted in a higher mean than male student responses on the practical- ity scale. In Table 4.9 the analysis of variance between the two groups is presented. The results indicated that sig- nificant differences did exist between male and female students regarding the items in scale 1. Females perceived the items to be more characteristic of the institution than did males. Null hypothesis 1 was not accepted in this scale. 72 TABLE 4.8.--Mean and standard deviation for scale 1, Hypothesis 1 (Practicality) sex N Mean S.D. Male 72 14.41 1.85 Female 77 15.10 2.02 TABLE 4.9.—-Analysis of variance for scale 1, Hypothe- sis 1 (Practicality) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups 17.572 1 17.572 Within groups 556.668 147 3.786 Total 574.241 148 F = 4.640 Significance = .032 ETA2 = .030 Analysis of Scale 2: Scholarship Table 4.10 presents the mean and standard devia- tion for male and female students on scale 2. The results indicated that female students' responses resulted in a higher mean than male responses on the scholarship scale. In Table 4.11 the analysis of variance between the two groups is presented. The results support accept- ance of Null Hypothesis 1 on the scholarship scale. These results indicated no significant differences between male 73 TABLE 4.10.--Mean and standard deviation for scale 2, Hypothesis 1 (Scholarship) Sex N Mean S.D. Male 72 12.48 1.87 Female 77 12.67 1.46 TABLE 4.11.--Analysis of variance for scale 2, Hypothe— sis 1 (Scholarship) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups 1.332 1 1.332 Within groups 412.869 147 2.808 Total 414.201 148 F = .474 Significance .492 ETAZ = .003 and female students regarding the itmes of this scale. Both sexes perceive the environment similarly. Analysis of Scale 3: Community Table 4.13 presents the mean and standard devia- tion for male and female students on scale 3. The results indicated that female responses resulted in a higher mean than male responses on the community scale. The analysis of variance between the two groups is presented in Table 4.13. The results support accept- ance of Null Hypothesis 1 on the community scale. These 74 TABLE 4.12.--Mean and standard deviation for scale 3, Hypothesis 1 (Community) Sex N Mean S.D. Male 72 14.54 1.58 Female 77 14.88 1.82 TABLE 4.13.--Ana1ysis of variance for scale 3, Hypothe- sis 1 (Community) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups 4.338 1 4.338 Within groups 429.823 147 2.924 Total 434.161 148 F = 1.483 Significance = .225 ETA2 = .010 results indicated no significant differences between male and female students in relation to the items of this scale. Although there are some differences between sexes in their perceptions of the environment, these differences are not statistically significant. Analaysis of Scale 4: Awareness Female students obtained higher mean scores than males on the awareness scale. The mean and standard devistion for the two groups are presented in Table 4.14. 75 TABLE 4.14.--Mean and standard deviations for scale 4, Hypothesis 1 (Awareness) Sex N Mean S.D. Male 72 14.56 - 1.70 Female 77 14.97 1.72 Table 4.15 presents the analysis of variance between both sexes. The results support acceptance of Null Hypothesis 1, since no significant differences exist between the two groups. TABLE 4.15.--Analysis of variance for scale 4, Hypothe— sis 1 (Awareness) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups 6.090 1 6.090 Within groups 431.600 147 Total 437.691 148 F = 2.074 Significance = .151 ETA2 = .013 Analysis of Scale 5: Propriety Table 4.16 presents the mean and standard devia- tion for male and female students on prOpriety scale. The results reveal higher female mean scores than those of males. 76 TABLE 4.16.--Mean and standard deviations for scale 5, Hypothesis 1 (Propriety) Sex N Mean S.D. Male 72 14.62 1.60 Female 77 15.01 1.62 In Table 4.17 the analysis of variance between the two groups is presented. That data support acceptance of Null Hypothesis 1. The results indicated no significant differences exist between male and female students on prOpriety scale. TABLE 4.17.--Analysis of variance for scale 5, Hypothe- sis l (PrOpriety) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups 5.601 1 5.601 Within groups 383.862 147 2.611 Total 389.463 148 F = 2.144 Significance = .145 ETA2 = .014 Comparison of Students by Major Field Hypothesis 2: There are not significant differences in the perceptions of the college environment between students majoring in the various fields of study at King Abdulaziz University 77 Analysis of Scale 1: Practicality Table 4.18 presents the mean and standard devia- tion for students majoring in various fields of study on practicality scale. The results indicated that students majoring in the fields of education and social science had the highest mean, and those majoring in Islamic studies had the lowest. TABLE 4.18.--Mean and standard deviation for scale 1, Hypothesis 2 (Practicality) Field of Study N Mean S.D. Arts and Humanities 28 14.71 1.86 Education and Social Sciences 36 15.00 2.35 Natural Sciences 42 14.71 -1.74 Islamic Studies 43 14.67 1.94 Table 4.19 presents the analysis of variance between the four groups of major fields. The data support acceptance of Null Hypothesis 2 in that there were no significant differences among students who are majoring in different fields of study regarding the items of prac— ticality scale. 78 TABLE 4.19.--Ana1ysis of variance for scale 1, Hypothe- sis 2 (Practicality) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups 2.514 3 .838 Within groups 571.727 145 3.942 Total 574.241 148, F = .212 Significance = .337 ETA2 = .004 Analysis of Scale 2: Scholarship Table 4.20 presents the mean and standard devia— tion for students majoring in various fields of study on scholarship scale. The results indicated that students majoring in the fields of natural sciences had the high- est mean, and students in the Arts and Humanities had the lowest. TABLE 4.20.--Mean and standard deviation for scale 2, Hypothesis 2 (Scholarship) Field of Study N Mean S.D. Arts and Humanities 28 12.28 1.69 'Education and Social Science 36 12.55 1.74 Natural Science 42 12.71 1.41 Islamic Study 43 12.67 1.84 79 Table 4.21 presents the analysis of variance between the four groups of major fields. The data support acceptance of Null Hypothesis 2. The results indicated no significant differences among students majoring in different fields of study regarding their perceptions of the items on the scholarship scale. TABLE 4.21.--Ana1ysis of variance for scale 2, Hypothe- sis 2 (Scholarship) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups 3.584 3 1.195 Within groups 410.616 _145 2.813 Total 414.200 148 F = .422 Significance = .737 ETA2 = .008 Analysis of Scale 3: Community In Table 4.22 the mean and standard deviation for students majoring in various fields of study is presented for the community scale. The results indicated that students majoring in education and social sciences had the highest mean, and those in Islamic studies had the lowest. The analysis of variance between the four groups of major fields is presented in Table 4.23. The results 80 TABLE 4.22.—-Mean and standard deviation for scale 3, Hypothesis 2 (Community) Field of Study N Mean S.D. Arts and Humanities 28 14.85 1.693 Education and Social Science 36 15.27 1.614 Natural Science 42 14.57 1.768 Islamic Studies 43 14.30 1.669 TABLE 4.23.-—Ana1ysis of variance for scale 3, Hypothe- sis 2 (Community) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups 20.154 3 6.718 Within groups 414.006 145 2.855 Total 434.160 148 F = 2.353 Significance = .074 ETA2==.046 support acceptance of Null Hypothesis 2 on this scale. These results indicated no significant differences between students in different fields of study regarding their per- ceptions of the items in scale 3. Analysis of Scale 4: Awareness The data presented in Table 4.24 reveals the mean and standard deviation for students majoring in different 81 TABLE 4.24.--Mean and standard deviation for scale 4, Hypothesis 2 (Awareness) Field of Study ‘ N Mean S.D. Arts and Humanities 28 14.92 1.67 Education and Social Science 36 14.80 1.90 Natural Science 42 14.92 1.55 Islamic Studies 43 14.51 1.76 field of study on Awareness scale. The results indicated that students in arts and humanities had the same mean of students in natural science on Awareness scale. Islamic studies students had the lowest mean among other groups on this scale. The analysis of variance between the four groups of major fields is presented in Table 4.25. The results support acceptance of Null Hypothesis 2. These results indicated no significant differences between students in the various fields of study in relation to their percep- tions of the items in scale 4. Analysis of Scale 5: Propriety In Table 4.26 the mean and standard deviation for students majoring in different fields of study is pre- sented for the propriety scale. The results indicated 82 TABLE 4.25.--Ana1ysis of variance for scale 4, Hypothe— sis 2 (Awareness) Source S.S. ‘ D.F. M.S. Between groups 4.665 3 1.555 Within groups 433.025 145 2.986 Total 437.690 F = .520 Significance = .668 ETA2 = .010 TABLE 4.26.--Mean and standard deviation for scale 5, Hypothesis 2 (Propriety) Field of Study N Mean S.D. Arts and Humanities 28 14.57 1.50 Education and Social Science 36 14.72 1.52 Natural Science 42 15.09 1.51 Islamic Studies 43 14.81 1.88 that students in natural science had the highest mean, while those in arts and humanities had the lowest. Table 4.27 presents the analysis of variance between the four groups of major fields. The results support acceptance of Null Hypothesis 2. These results indicated that no significant differences exist between students who are majoring in various fields of study regarding the items in propriety scale. 83 TABLE 4.27.--Analysis of variance for scale 5, Hypothe- sis 2 (Propriety) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups 5.253 3 1.751 Within groups 384.210 145 2.649 Total 389.463 148 F = .660 Significance = .577 ETAZ = .013 Interaction Effects Between Gender and Major Field of Study Hypothesis 3. There are no interaction effects between gender and major field of study when comparing students' perceptions of the a college environment at King Abdulaziz University. Table 4.28 presents the multivariate test of sig- nificance for the four groups of major field on the five scales of CUES. The results support acceptance of Null Hypothesis 3. TABLE 4.28.--Multivariate test of major field by gender Source F P Major field 1.157 .303 Sex .987 .428 Interaction .902 .562 84 These results indicate no major or significant interaction effects between gender and major field of study. Male and female students in different major fields perceived the environment similarly. Comparison of Students by Citizenship Hypothesis 4: There are no significant differences in the perceptions of the college environment between Saudi and non—Saudi students at King Abdulaziz University. Analysis of Scale 1: Practicality Table 4.29 presents the mean and standard devia- tion for Saudi and non-Saudi students on the practicality scale. The results indicated that non-Saudi students had higher mean on this scale. TABLE 4.29.--Mean and standard deviation for scale 1, Hypothesis 4 (Practicality) Citizenship N Mean S.D. Saudi 114 14.74 1.99 Non-Saudi 35 14.85 1.92 The analysis of variance between the two groups is presented in Table 4.30. The results support Null Hypothesis 4. 85 TABLE 4.30.-—Analysis of variance for scale 1, Hypothe- sis 4 (Practicality) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups .333 1 .333 Within groups 573.908 147 3.904 Total 574.241 F = .085 Significance = .770 ETA2 = .000 These results indicated no significant differences between Saudi and non-Saudi students on the practicality scale. Analysis of Scale 2: Scholarship The mean and standard deviation for Saudi and non-Saudi students on the scholarship scale are presented in Table 4.31. The results indicated that non-Saudi stu- dents had higher mean than Saudis on this scale. TABLE 4.31.--Mean and Standard deviation for scale 2, Hypothesis 4 (Scholarship) Citizenship N Mean S.D. Saudi 114 12.49 1.64 Non-Saudi 35 12.88 1.74 86 In Table 4.32 the analysis of variance between the two groups is presented. The data support acceptance of Null Hypothesis 4. TABLE 4.32.--Analysis of variance for Scale 2, Hypothe- sis 4 (Scholarship) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups 4.167 1 4.167 Within groups 410.034 147 2.789 Total 414.201 148 2 F = 1.494 Significance = .223 ETA = .101 These results indicated no significant differences between Saudi and non-Saudi students on the scholarship scale. Analysis of Scale 3: Community In Table 4.33 the mean and standard deviation for Saudi and non-Saudi students on the community scale are presented. The results indicated that Saudi students had higher mean than non-Saudis. The analysis of variance between the two groups is presented in Table 4.34. These results indicated no significant differences between Saudi and non-Saudi stu- dents regarding their perceptions of the items in the 87 TABLE 4.33.--Mean and standard deviation for scale 3, Hypothesis 4 (Community) Citizenship N Mean S.D. Saudi 114 14.74 1.74 Non-Saudi 35 14.62 1.62 TABLE 4.34.--Analysis of variance for scale 3, Hypothe- sis 4 (Community) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups .366 1 .366 Within groups 433.794 147 2.951 Total 434.160 F = .124 Significance = .724 ETA2 = .000 community scale. The results support acceptance of Null Hypothesis 4. Analysis of Scale 4: Awareness The mean and standard deviation for Saudi and non- Saudi students on the awareness scale are presented in Table 4.35. The results indicated that non-Saudi students had a higher mean than Saudis on this scale. The analysis of variance between the two groups is presented in Table 4.36. Hypothesis 4 was not accepted on this particular scale. 88 TABLE 4.35.--Mean and standard deviation for scale 4, Hypothesis 4 (Awareness) Citizenship N Mean S.D. Saudi 114 14.61 1.75 Non-Saudi 35 15.31 1.51 TABLE 4.36.--Ana1ysis of variance for scale 4, Hypothe- sis 4 (Awareness) Source S.S. D.F. n.5, Between groups 13.130 1 13.130 Within groups 424.560 147 2.888 Total ' 437.690 148 2 F = 4.546 Significance = .034 ETA = .030 The data revealed the existence of significant differences between Saudi and non-Saudi students regarding the items in Awareness scale. Analysis of Scale 5: Propriety Table 4.37 presents the mean and standard devia- tion for Saudi and non-Saudi students on the propriety scale. The results indicated that Saudi students had higher mean scores than non-Saudis on this scale. 89 TABLE 4.37.--Mean and standard deviation for scale 5, Hypothesis 4 (Propriety) Citizenship N Mean S.D. Saudi 114 14.86 1.61 Non-Saudi 35 14.68 1.65 Table 4.38 presents the analysis of variance between the two groups. The results indicated that significant differences did not exist between Saudi and non-Saudi students regarding their perceptions of the items in the propriety scale. The data support acceptance of Null Hypothesis 4. TABLE 4.38.--Ana1ysis of variance for scale 5, Hypothe- sis 4 (Propriety) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups. .893 1 .893 Within groups 388.569 147 2.643 Total 389.452 148 2 F = .338 Significance = .561 ETA = .002 90 Interaction Effects Between Gender and Citizenship Hypothesis 5: There are not interaction effects between gender and nationality when comparing students' perceptions of the college environ- ment at King Abdulaziz University. Table 3.39 presents the multivariate test of sig- nificance for the two groups of Saudi and non-Saudi stu- dents on the five scales of CUES. These results indicated that interaction effects did not exist between gender and nationality. Male and female students who are Saudi or non—Saudis has similar perceptions of the environment as measured by the CUES. The results support acceptance of Null Hypothesis 5. TABLE 3.39.--Multivariate test of nationality by gender Source F P Citizenship 1.565 .173 Gender 1.123 .350 Interaction 1.602 .163 Comparison of Students by Father's Education Hypothesis 6: There are no significant differences in the perceptions of the college environment between students whose fathers' level of edu- cation are different. 91 Analysis of Scale 1: Practicality The mean and standard deviation for students whose father's levels of education were different are presented in Table 4.40. The results indicated that students whose fathers obtained medium level of education have the high- est mean scores and students whose fathers obtained high level of education had the lowest mean on the practicality scale. TABLE 4.40.--Mean and standard deviation for scale 1, Hypothesis 6 (Practicality) Father's Education N Mean S.D. High 37 14.57 1.73 Medium 104 14.84 2.06 Low 8 14.62 1.92 The analysis of variance between the three groups of students is presented in Table 4.41. These results reveal that significant differences did not exist between students, whose fathers' level of education were differ— ent, regarding their perceptions of the items in the practicality scale. The results support acceptance of Null Hypothesis 6. 92 TABLE 4.41.--Analysis of variance for scale 1, Hypothe- sis 6 (Practicality) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups 1.909 2 .954 Within groups 572.332 146 3.920 Total 574.241 F = .243 Significance = .734 ETAZ = .003 Analysis of Scale 2: Scholarship Table 4.42 presents the mean and standard devia- tion for students whose fathers' levels of education were different. The results indicated that students whose fathers obtained low level of education had the highest mean scores on the practicality scale among the three groups. TABLE 4.42.--Mean and standard deviation for scale 2, Hypothesis 6 (Scholarship) Father's Education N Mean S.D. High 37 12.86 1.88 Medium 104 12.45 1.58 Low 8 13.00 1.77 93 The analysis of variance between the three groups of students is presented in Table 4.43. These results revealed that no significant differences exist in the perception of the items in the scholarship scale between students whose father's level of education were different. The data support acceptance of Null Hypothesis 6. TABLE 4.43.--Mean and standard deviation for scale 2, Hypothesis 6 (Scholarship) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups 6.117 2 3.058 Within groups 408.083 146 2.795 Total F = 1.094 Significance = .337 ETA2 = .014 Analysis of Scale 3: Community Table 4.44 presents the mean and standard devia- tion for students whose fathers' level of education were different. The results indicated that students whose father's level of education were medium had the highest mean score on the community scale among the three groups. In Table 4.45 the analysis of variance between the three groups is presented. These results indicated that no significant differences exist in the perceptions of the 94 TABLE 4344.--Mean and standard deviation for scale 3, Hypothesis 6 (Community) Father's Education N Mean S.D. High 37 14.32 1.79 Medium 104 14.88 1.69 Low 8 14.37 1.30 TABLE 4.45.--Ana1ysis of variance for scale 3, Hypothe- sis 6 (Community) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups 9.562 2 4.781 Within groups 424.598 146 2.908 Total 434.160 148 F = 1.644 Significance = .196 ETA2 = .022 items in scale 3 between students whose fathers' levels of education were different. The results support accept- ance of Null Hypothesis 6. Analysis of Scale 4: Awareness Table 4.46 presents the mean and standard devia- tion for students whose fathers' levels of education were different. The results indicated that students whose fathers' levels of education were low, had the highest 95 TABLE 4.46.--Mean and standard deviation for scale 4, Hypothesis 6 (Awareness) Fathers' Education N Mean S.D. High 37 14.89 1.72 Medium 104 14.70 1.65 Low 8 15.25 2.54 mean score on this scale among the three groups. The analysiscmfvariance between the three groups is presented in Table 4.47. These results indicated that significant differences did not exist in the perceptions of the items in scale 4 between students whose fathers' levels of edu- cation were different. The results support acceptance of Null Hypothesis 6. TABLE 4.47.--Ana1ysis of variance for scale 4, Hypothe- sis 6 (Awareness) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups 2.864 2 1.432 Within group 434.827 146 2.978 Total 437.691 F = .480 Significance = .619 ETA2 = .006 96 Analysis of Scale 5: Propriety The mean and standard deviation for students whose fathers' levels of education were different are presented in Table 4.48. The results indicated that students whose father's levels of education were high had the highest mean scores on this scale among the three groups. TABLE 4.48.—-Mean and standard deviation for scale 4, Hypothesis 6 (Propriety) Fathers's Education N Mean S.D. High 37 15.10 1.44 Medium 104 14.72 1.59 Low 8 14.87 2.58 The analysis of variance between the three groups is presented in Table 4.49. These results indicated that significant differences did exist in the perceptions of the items in scale 5 between students whose fathers' levels of education were different. The results support accept- ance of Hypothesis 6. 97 TABLE 4.49.--Analysis of variance for scale 5, Hypothe— sis 6 (Propriety) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups 4.107 2 2.053 Within groups 385.356 146 2.639 Total 389.463 F = .773 Significance = .461 ETA2 = .010 Interaction Effects Between Gender and Father's Education Hypothesis 7: There are not interaction effects between gender and father's level of education when comparing students' perceptions of the college environment at King Abdulaziz Univers- ity. Table 4.51 presents the multivariate test of sig- nificance for the three groups of fathers' education on the five scales of CUES. These results indicated that in- teraction effects between gender and father's education did not exist. Male and female students whose fathers' levels of education were different did not differ in their per- ceptions of the college environment based on the items of the CUES. The results support acceptance of Null Hypothe- sis 7. 98 TABLE 4.50.--Multivariate test for fathers' education by gender Source F P Father's education 1.235 .268 Sex 1.171 .326 Interaction .666 .755 Comparison of Students by Mother's Education Hypothesis 8: There are no significant differences in the perceptions of the college environment between students whose mothers' levels of edu- cation are different. Analysis of Scale 1: Practicality The mean and standard deviation for students whose mother's levels of education were different are presented in Table 4.51. The results indicated that stu- dents whose mothers' levels of education were low had the highest mean scores on the practicality scale. TABLE 4.51.--Mean and standard deviation of scale 1, Hypothesis 8 (Practicality) Mother's Education N Mean S.D. High -- —— -_ Medium 61 14.44 1.66 Low 88 15.00 2.13 99 The analysis of variance between the two groups if presented in Table 4.52. These results indicated that no significant differences existed in the perceptions of the items in this scale between students whose mothers' levels of education were different. Differences did exist, but they were not significant at the .05 level. The results support acceptance of Null Hypothesis 8. TABLE 4.52.--Analysis of variation for scale 1, Hypothe- sis 8 (Practicality) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups 11.192 1 11.192 Within groups 563.049 147 3.830 Total 574.241 148 F = 2.722 Significance = .089 ETA2 = .019 Analysis of Scale 2: Scholarship Table 4.53 presents the mean and standard devia- tion for students whose mothers' levels of education were different. The results indicated that students whose mothers' levels of education were low had the highest mean scores on the scholarship scale. The analysis of variance between the two groups is presented in Table 4.54. These results indicated that 100 TABLE 4.53.-—Mean and standard deviation for scale 2, Hypothesis 2 (Scholarship) Mother's Education N Mean S.D. High -- —_ -_ Medium 61 12.47 1.66 Low 88 12.65 1.68 TABLE 4.54.-—Analysis of variance for scale 3, Hypothe- sis 8 (Scholarship) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups 1.215 1 1.215 Within groups 412.985 147 2.809 Total 414.200 148 F = .432 Significance = .511 ETAZ = .002 significant differences did not exist between students whose mothers' levels of education were different regard- ing the items in this scale. The results support accept- ance of Null Hypothesis 8. Analysis of Scale 3: Community The mean and standard deviation for students whose mothers' levels of education were different are presented in Table 4.55. The results indicated that 101 TABLE 4.55.--Mean and standard deviation for scale 3, Hypothesis 8 (Community) Mother's Education N Mean S.D. High Medium 61 14.42 1.54 Low 88 14.92 1.80 students whose mothers' levels of education were low had the highest mean on the community scale. Table 4.56 presents the analysis of variance between the two groups. These results indicated that differences did exist between students whose mothers' levels of education were different regarding the items in this scale, but these differences were not significant at the .05 level. The results support acceptance of Hypothesis 8. TABLE44156-—Analysis of variance for scale 3, Hypothe- sis 8 (Community) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups 8.799 1 3.799 Within groups 425.361 147 2.893 Total 434.160 148 F = 3.041 Significance = .083 ETA = .020 102 Analysis of Scale 4: Awareness Table 4.57 presents the mean and standard devia- tion for students whose mothers' levels of education were different. The results indicated that students whose mothers' levels of education were low had the high- est mean score on the awareness scale. TABLE 4.57.--Mean and standard deviation for scale 4, I Hypothesis 8 (Awareness) Mother's Education N Mean S.D. High Medium 61 14.65 1.70 Low 88 14.86 1.73 The analysis of variance between the two groups is presented in Table 4.58. These results indicated that significant differences did not exist between students whose mothers' levels of education were different regard- ing the items of this scale.‘ The results support accept- ance of Null Hypothesis 8. Analysis of Scale 5: Propriety The mean and standard deviation for students whose mothers' levels of education were different are presented in Table 4.59. The results indicated that students whose 103 TABLE 4.58.--Analysis of variance for scale 4, Hypothe- sis 8 (Awareness) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups 1.557 1 1.557 Within groups 436.134 147 2.966 Total 437.691 148 F = .524 Significance = .469 ETA2 = .003 TABLE 4.59.--Mean and standard deviation for scale 5 Hypothesis 8 (PrOpriety) Mother's Education N Mean S.D. High Medium 61 14.67 1.57 Low 88 14.93 1.65 mothers' levels of education were low had the highest mean on the prOpriety scale. Table 4.60 presents the analysis of variance between the two groups. These results indicated that significant differences did not exist between students whose mothers' levels of education were different regard- ing their perceptions of the items on this scale. The results support acceptance of Null Hypothesis 8. 104 TABLE 4.60.--Analysis of variance for scale 5, Hypothe- sis 8 (Propriety) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups 2.429 1 2.429 Within groups 387.033 147 2.632 Total 389.462 148 F = .922 Significance = .338 ETA2 = .006 Interaction Effects Between Gender and Mother's Education Hypothesis 9: There are not interaction effects between gender and mother's education when com— ' paring students' perceptions of the college environment at King Abdulaziz University. Table 4.61 presents the multivariate test of sig- nificance for the two groups of mothers' education on the five scale of CUES. These results indicated that inter- action effects between gender and mother's education didn't exist. Male and female students whose mothers' levels of education were different did not differ in their percep- tions of the college environment measured by the CUES. The results support acceptance of Null Hypothesis 9. Comparison of Students by Family's Income Hypothesis 10: There are not significant differences in the perceptions of the college environment between students whose families' income are different. 105 TABLE 4.61.—-Mu1tivariate test for mothers' education by gender Source F P Mother's Education .831 .830 Interaction 1.633 .155 Analysis of Scale 1: Practicality Table 4.62 presented the mean and standard devia- tion for students whose families' income were different. The results indicated that students whose families' income were low had the highest mean on the practicality scale. TABLE 4.62.--Mean and standard deviation for scale 1, Hypothesis 10 (Practicality) Family Income N Mean S.D. High 30 14.43 1.90 Medium 74 14.74 2.15 Low 45 15.04 1.67 The analysis of variance between the three groups is presented in Table 4.63. These results indicated that significant differences did not exist between students whose families' income were different regarding their per- ceptions of the college environment measured by items of this scale. The results support acceptance of Null Hypo- thesis 10. 106 TABLE 4.63.--Analysis of variance for scale 1, Hypothe- sis 10 (Practicality) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups 6.842 2 3.471 Within the groups 567.399 1.46 3.886 Total 574.241 1.48 F = .880 Significance = .416 ETA2 = .011 Analysis of Scale 2: Scholarship The mean and standard deviation for students whose families' income were different are presented in Table 4.64. The results indicated that students whose families' income were high had the highest mean score on the scholarship scale. TABLE 4.64.--Mean and standard deviation for scale, Hypo- thesis 10 (Scholarship) Family Income N Mean S.D. High 30 12.63 1.79 Medium 74 12.60 1.70 Low 45 12.51 1.57 The analysis of variance between the three groups is presented in Table 4.65. These results indicated that 107 TABLE 4.65.--Ana1ysis of variance for scale 3, Hypothe- sis 10 (Scholarship) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups .355 2 .177 Within the groups 413.246 146 2.834 Total 414.201 148 F = .0626 Significance = ..939 ETAZ = .009 students from different income level families did not differ significantly in their perceptions of the environ~ ment as measured by the items of scale 2. The results support acceptance of Null Hypothesis 10. Analysis of Scale 3: Community In Table 4.66 the mean and standard deviation for students whose families' income were different are pre- sented. The results indicated that the students who came from low income families had the highest mean score on the community scale. The analysis of variance between the three groups is presented in Table 4.67. These results indicated that students from different income families did not differ significantly in their perceptions of the college environ- ment as measured by the community scale. Null Hypothesis 10 was accepted on this scale. 108 TABLE 4.66.--Mean and standard deviation for scale 3, Hypothesis 10 (Community) Family Income N Mean S.D. High 30 14.80 1.76 Medium 74 14.51 1.82 Low 45 15.00 1.46 TABLE 4.67.--Analysis of variance for scale 3, Hypothe- sis 10 (Community) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups 6.876 2 3.437 Within the groups 427.286 146 2.926 Total 434.160 148 F = 1.174 Significance = .311 ETA2 = .015 Analysis of Scale 4: Awareness Table 4.68 presents the mean and standard devia- tion for students from different income families. The results indicated that the students from low income fami- lies had the highest mean score on the awareness scale. The analysis of variance between the three groups is presented in Table 4.69. These results indicated that significant differences did not exist between students 109 TABLE 4.68.--Mean and standard deviation for scale 4, Hypothesis 10 (Awareness) Family Income N Mean S.D. High 30 14.46 1.96 Medium 74 14.85 1.62 Low 45 14.86 1.71 TABLE 4.69.--Analysis of variance for scale 4, Hypothe- sis 10 (Awareness) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups 3.659 2 1.829 Within the groups 434.031 146 2.972 Total 437.690 148 F = .615 Significance = .541 ETA2 = .008 from different income families regarding the items in scale 4. Null Hypothesis 10 was accepted on this scale. Analysis of Scale 5: Propriety Table 4.70 presents the mean and standard devia— tion for students whose families' income were different. The results reveal that students from low income families had the highest mean score on the propriety scale. 110 TABLE 4.70.--Mean and standard deviation for scale 5, Hypothesis 10 (Propriety) Family Income N Mean S.D. High 30 15.06 2.06 Medium 74 14.55 1.49 Low ' I 45 15.11 1.44 The analysis of variance between the three groups is presented in Table 4.71. These results indicated that no significant differences existed in the perceptions of the college environment as measured by scale 5 between students from different income families. The results support acceptance of Null Hypothesis 10 on this scale. TABLE 4.71.--Ana1ysis of variance for scale 5, Hypothe- sis 10 (Propriety) Source S.S. D.F. M.S. Between groups 10.868 2 5.434 Within the groups 378.594 146 2.593 Total 389.462 148 2 F = 2.095 Significance t .126 ETA = .027 111 Interaction Effects Between Gender and Family's Income Hypothesis 11: There are no interaction effects between gender and family's income when compar- ing students' perceptions of the college environment at King Abdulaziz University. Table 4.72 presents the multivariate test of sig- nificance for the three groups of families' income on the five scales of CUES. These results indicated that no interaction effects existed between gender and family's income. Male and female students from different income families did not differ in their perceptions of the college environment on the basis of the CUES items. The results support acceptance of Null Hypothesis 11. TABLE 4.72.--Multivariate test for family's income by gender Source F P Family's income 1.133 .337 Gender 1.013 .412 Interaction .337 .970 Summary The data collected for the study were transferred onto computer cards and processed at the MSU computer center. Several statistical techniques were used in tabulating and analyzing the data. 112 The first section of this chapter presents the distribution of the sample according to gender, major field, citizenship, and socio economic background. The second section devoted to a presentation of the general institutional perceptions of male and female students. The third section of the chapter presents several comparisons between the various student groups. Hypothe— ses l, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 were tested on each one of the five scales of CUES using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare group perceptions. Hypotheses 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 were tested on the five scales of CUES using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to examine the interaction effects between the variables. The results of these tests revealed the following findings: 1. Significant differences were found between male and female students regarding their perceptions of the environment. Hypothesis 1 was not accepted. 2. Saudi and non-Saudi students differ signifi- cantly in their perceptions of the environment at KAU as measured by CUES. Hypothesis 4 was not accepted. 3. No significant differences existed between all other groups when testing their perception of the college environment, thus Hypotheses 2, 6, 8, and 10 were accepted. 113 4. When testing the interaction effects between gender and other variables such as major field, citizen- ship, and family background, there were no significant interactions. Hypotheses 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 were accepted. CHAPTER V SUMMARY'AND CONCLUSIONS Summary The Problem The tOpic of institutional environment has been widely studied in the past thirty years. Researchers in higher education have deve10ped a number of techniques and instruments to study the impact of college on students, to describe the college environment and to determine student-environment congruence. The purpose of this study was to assess students' perceptions of the college environment at King Abdulaziz University in Mecca, and to investigate the influence of such selected variables as: gender, field of study, citizenship, and socio-economic background on students' perceptions of that environment. The first chapter of this study presents the problem and the purpose of the study, the need for and importance of the study, the questions to be investigated, the research hypotheses, and finally the setting of the study, and a definition of terms. 114 115 The hypotheses developed for the study are: Hypothesis 1: There are no significant differences in the perceptions of the college environment between male and female students at King Abdulaziz University. Hypothesis 2: There are no significant differences in the perceptions of the college environment between students majoring in the various fields of study at King Abdulaziz University. Hypothesis 3: There are no interaction effects between gender and major field of study when comparing students' perceptions of the college environment at King Abdulaziz University. Hypothesis 4: There are no significant differences in the perceptions of the college environment between Saudi and non-Saudi students at King Abdulaziz University. Hypothesis 5: There are no interaction effects between gender and citizenship when comparing students' perceptions of the college environ- ment at King Abdulaziz University. Hypothesis 6: There are no significant differences in the perceptions of the college environment between students whose fathers' levels of edu- cation are different. Hypothesis 7: There are no interaction effects between gender and father's level of education when comparing students' perceptions of the college environment at King Abdulaziz Uni- versity. Hypothesis 8: There are no significant differences in the perceptions of the college environment between students whose mothers' level of educa- tion are different. Hypothesis 9: There are no interaction effects between gender and mother's level of education when comparing students' perceptions of the college environment at King Abdulaziz University. Hypothesis 10: There are no significant differences in the perceptions of the college environment between students whose families' income are different. 116 Hypothesis 11: There are no interaction effects between gender and family's income when compar- ing students' perceptions of the college environment at King Abdulaziz University. The Literature The review of the literature presented in Chapter II considers four approaches to institutional environment perceptual approach, factual approach, the stimulus approach, and a combined approach. The perceptual approach is based on personality theory which maintains that students' behavior depends on the interaction between their personality and the col- lege environment. In this approach those who study or work in a particular university environment are asked to reSpond to a series of items relating to various aspects of their environment. In the factual approach, a large number of readily- measured "objective" varibles are reduced by factor analy- sis to a smaller number of relatively independent scales or factors which are labeled in a way which communicates the overall meaning of the variables influencing particu- lar scales or factors. The stimulus approach is designed to measure spe- cific observable student behaviors such as time spent in study, number of social activities per week, or attendance at a concert. 117 The combined approach was used by many researchers who believed that one index or technique is not sufficient to measure the environment. They favor combining two or more of the above approaches. The Design The procedure of the study are presented in Chap- ter III. The population of the study consisted of all upper division male and female students at King Abdulaziz Uni- versity in Mecca (n = 1239). A 15 percent of cluster sample of male and female students was secured and repre- sented all groups of students in their class standing (n = 186), from whom 149 analyzable questionnaires were returned. An adapted version of the college and university environment scales (CUES) was used for this study. The lOO-item instrument consisted of five subscales designed to determine the general atmosphere of the institution, the social and intellectual climate and the style of life on campus. The Findings Results of the study are reported in Chapter IV. Hypotheses 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 were tested for each of the five subscales of CUES using one-way analysis of variance to compare group perceptions. Hypotheses 3, 5, 118 7, 9, and 11 were tested for each of the five subscales of CUES using multivariate analysis to examine the inter- action effects between the variables. The results of these tests revealed the following findings: 1. Comparing the perceptions of male and female students regarding their collegiate environment, no sig- nificant differences were found between the two groups regarding the subscales scholarship, community, awareness, and propriety scales, a significant difference was found with respect to the practicality subscale. 2. When comparing students of major fields of study, no significant differences were found on any of the subscales of CUES. 3. Considering gender and major field of study, no interaction effects were found on any of the five sub- scales of the CUES. 4. Comparing Saudi and non-Saudi students revealed significant differences with respect to the awareness subscale. No significant differences were found for the remaining subscales--practicality, scholarship, community, and propriety. 5. No significant interaction effects were found for gender and citizenship for any of the five subscales of the CUES. 119 6. When comparing students by father's educational level, no significant differences were found on all five scales of the CUES. 7. No significant interaction effects between gender and father's education were found on any of the five subscales of the CUES. 8. It was found that students whose mothers had different levels of education did not differ significantly in their perceptions of the items in the five scales of CUES . 9. Interaction effects between gender and mother's education were not found to be significant. 10. No significant differences were found on any scale of the CUES when comparing students' perceptions of their college environment between students whose families' incomes were different. 11. Interaction effects did not exist between gender and family's income when comparing students' per- ceptions of the college environment. Conclusions and Implications The results of this study lead to a number of conclusions regarding the campus climate at King Abdulaziz University in Mecca and the different environment percep- tions of the various student groups. 120 l. The gender of students is an influential factor in the perceptions of students of their collegiate environment. The influence of gender difference was noted on the practicality scale; female students perceived the environment as more practical than did males. 2. When comparing students by major field of study, major field did not influence the perceptions of male and female students of the college environment on any scale of the CUES. Males and females in the Arts and Humanities, Education and Social Science, Natural Science and Islamic Studies perceived the environment similarly. 3. The citizenship of students did affect their perceptions of the college environment. Non-Saudi male and female students perceived the environment as emphasiz- ing awareness of self, of society, and of esthetic stimuli more than did Saudis. 4. Fathers' levels of education did not influence the perceptions of male and female students of their col- legiate environment. Male and female students whose fathers had either high, medium, or low levels of educa- tion perceived the environment similarly. 5. Mothers' levels of education was not an influ- ential factor in the perceptions of male and female stu- dents of their collegiate environment. Male and female students whose mothers had either medium or low levels of education perceived the environment similarly. 121 6. Family level of income did not influence the perceptions of male and female students of their col- legiate environment. Male and female students from dif- ferent income families did not differ in their percep- tions of the environment. In sum, the university is viewed as largely similar by different groups of students. They perceived the campus as being characterized by an emphasis on pro- cedures, order, and supervision. Students perceived the campus as being friendly, cohesive, group oriented. Stu— dents perceive a concern for awareness of self, of society, and of esthetic stimuli. The campus atmosphere is seen as mannerly, considerate, and proper. Considering the five subscales, students perceived the least emphasis to be on scholarship. There is little indication that rigor- ous and vigorous pursuit of intellectual knowledge exists on the campus. Emphasis on competitive academic achieve- ment and scholarship is not perceived as very evident by students. The results and conclusions of the study have implications for the administrators and faculty members at King Abdulaziz University in Mecca. Administrators could use this information in bringing about many changes in the institution's curriculum, services, and physical environ- ment, in order to make college experiences more appro- priate and satisfaction for all students. 122 Faculty members could use this information to determine areas in which students feel that intellectual knowledge and academic achievement should be increased. Also, faculty members should make apprOpriate planning to raise the perceptions of students of the scholarship dimension of the environment. Results of the study could be used too as an initial data base of information with which similar future research could be compared. Discussion and Speculation The results of this study revealed some notable information regarding many aspects of the university environment at King Abdulaziz University in Mecca. Only two variables appeared influential in the perceptions of two dimensions of the environment. Gender influenced the perceptions of the practicality scale, and nationality influenced the awareness scale. Female students perceive the environment as being more practical, and orderly than males. This finding indicates that females who are working in the women's area of the campus are working hard trying to prove that they are qualified to do what they are responsible for. Non-Saudi students perceived the environment as being more concerned with awareness of self, of society, and of aesthetic stimuli than did Saudis. Non-Saudi 123 students who make up about 22 percent of the total student population feel that those programs which were designed to enhance the personal, poetic, and political properties of the environment do not concern them, that they were designed for Saudi students only. Hence, they rate the awareness scale higher than Saudi students. In general, the University is perceived by stu— dent groups somewhat similarly. From the results of the study, it can be concluded that none of the variables significantly influenced the overall perceptions of students of their collegiate environment. In other words, the University is perceived as one "environment" rather than being composed of several "environments." Consider— ing Pace's findings,l a complex university has more than one environment. The findings and conclusions of this study appear to suggest King Abdulaziz University is not yet perceived as very complex in nature by the students of this study. Recommendations for Further Research During the process of completing this study, the need for additional research in this area of concern became apparent. Recommendations for further research are as follows: l u Pace, "College and University Environment Scales,‘ p. 10. 124 1. An in-depth interview should be conducted to uncover the realities of different students' percep- tions of the institution's environment at King Abdulaziz University in Mecca. 2. Further research should be undertaken to compare lower division students' perceptions of the university environment with those of upper division stu- dents in this institution to determine whether environ- mental perceptions change significantly as students progress into upper division ranks. 3. Comparing students' perceptions of the Uni- versity environment with those of administrators and faculty members could be another topic of further research. 4. It would appear advantageous to investigate the relationship between students' perceptions of the college environment and such variables as academic achieve- ment, aptitude, personality characteristics, and partici- pation in extra-curricular activities. 5. The study could be expanded to include many more universities and colleges throughout the country to provide national data on college environment. 6. Longitudinal studies on college students is very necessary to determine change and stability in stu- dents' behavior during college years. 7. Comparative studies of institutional environ- ment should be undertaken to compare the environment in 125 Saudi's colleges and universities with those in other developing and advanced countries. APPENDICES 126 APPENDIX A AN ADAPTED VERSION OF THE COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENT SCALES 127 10. ll. 12. 13. APPENDIX A AN ADAPTED VERSION OF THE COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENT SCALES Students almost always wait to be called on before speaking in class. The vocational value of many courses is emphasized. Most peOple are aware of the financial status of students' families. Frequent tests are given in most courses. Students take a great deal of pride in their personal appearance. Education here tends to make students more practical and realistic. The professors regularly check up on the students to make sure that assignments are being carried out properly and on time. There are good facilities for learning vocationally useful skills and techniques. Most faculty members really know the regulations and requirements that apply to student programs. Many faculty members are involved in services or consulting activities for outside groups--business, adult education, etc. The professors really push the students' capacities to the limit. Most of the professors are dedicated scholars in their fields. Most courses require intensive study and preparation out of class. 128 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 129 Students set high standards of achievement for them- selves. Class discussions are typically vigorous and intense. A lecture by an outstanding scientist would be poorly attended. Careful reasoning and clear logic are valued most highly in grading student papers, reports, or dis- cussions. It is fairly easy to pass most courses without working very hard. The school is outstanding for the emphasis and support it gives to pure scholarship and basic research. Standards set by the professors are not particularly hard to achieve. It is easy to take clear notes in most courses. The school helps everyone get acquainted. Students often run errands or do other personal services for the faculty. The campus design, architecture, and landscaping suggest a friendly atmosphere. The professors go out of their way to help you. There is a great deal of borrowing and sharing among the students. When students run a project or put on a show every- body knows about it. Many upperclassmen play an active role in helping new students adjust to campus life. Students exert considerable pressure on one another to live up to the expected codes of conduct. Student groups often meet in faculty members' homes. Channels for expressing students' complaints are readily accessible. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 130 Students are free to cut classes at their. .— .2 m “:2 a a: m .22 m 22 a 3... 3.... 3.. 30 t... 30 to... 3.... $3 30 5.: 3n. .3... 30 N . V m . .. . N .33.. .41. .5829... «883.... 352.85 5.55.... 5:28.. >h_m~_m>_z: £23 .5829... 3:88.. 5:28.. 02:63: In .3... .1... .43. .3: J3. JAB 31k :1. {Islet Aflleoz-h wb\:.a_ .Xm—m Q ZO—hm mm_._._m¢m>_ZD 31:. Z. ku5. \ 5.3... 165 We. I I a I «2 o E o R. o :50 A} v.13 . l a. -I m l 3 I _~ I facts“; 3). a I 3 I o I 8. I .2 I 9.3.8:? “1. 4m 1w: _ I ~ N n a n n o n 3293 .8692 3.2 1,3 2 I 8 I m I a. I on I 33.2.. .1, 8. N. 2 a n. 3. a. a. a: s 2.582 TB; a l l .I N I ~ I __ l Ego—2.0m 1.3 .2 I 8. l E I an I .8 I macscacm 4.: n: _ :.~ 2 a I an a 8m x 853 «I .2 I an 2 .N N an a 8n 3 3:83.". J: 33. £33 a a z. a a. l n: 5 v2 an 8.3.3553 a .252on 3} .13» .2 5 SN a 3. : 8n 9. ”a a 862m 38m a .5. 4: my. E z a: 2 n I .3 2 :o a 8:55 25.2 .15 3.. 32 2. 22 8. Sn 8 8% «a 8: 3n 1...... 1:0 as. a “.2 a a: n. u: h. a: a t: .51.. S: ”.30 $3 30 $3 “3:1 3.. “30 . >aahm ..Jrn. .13 5:5 1} at: «a 1) n<¢<-z¢z 8: flick dick no can: {to «:4 15.x» 5.1m I 262 «.3 I A 2 l u .. oz; #1....»Itv askha— .Xm—m d >GDhm no Cam—r.— >n mm—h_m¢m>—ZD 13¢. Z— LES—m UZ_=Q.:m~—H>_ZD 5.3m .—<._.O._. 1&1... «J... {arc =5.—._m~_m>_ZD >n m:C.—.<¢.—.w-Z_S_D< DZ< Lug—M UZ—IUSFP .WFZmA—th .WmUm—AI—OU IO..— >¢<222m $3.. I... .350 «.34... 2...... .555 «.32.; IE}. 5.1.5 3.. ..35 3.: \ 5...... 168 52.. A... .3 2. 2 a. 2. . 2. z a. 2. _ I .. 5.55:2 5.5.2.... 1...... c... E ..N 5.. 2. _ R. ..N 5.. 2. . 2 5.55582 4..) .19 En: I I I I I I I I , ..— 235.3; a: .m 5N «N NN N .. .n 5N 5N N.N N 2 . . ..J. an ..N. 25 8. a e ..N. 2. 8. 2. o 5. 52.8.5... . .. I3. .3 2 2 I I I 2 2 , .. .853 a. .3 a... I I I I I I : I .2 .3622 3.2 Illa. SA I I -I I I .I I ..— 22.5.55 ca. .5.” SN .5. 0N. m 5.. 25 9N. ..N. .. 2 I .3 2... 25 5 5 I 2... 2... 5 5 h. .1. c... 5N5 .N... I I I 5N5 E - 3. 2.5.3.2 1.1..) 30. I I I I I | -. _ n. 9.585.»: . as $2. 255 2.. 2.. 2. $2. 255 s... 2... .2. 2 . . m. . .3 an 2.. 5.. N: w 2.. .5. 5: N: w m _ c... 2: a... N2 .2. 5.. N2N a... NE a... 3. 2 853 3. .3 5... an 2.. 2 . .N 2... an 2.. 2 _ 5N - I I .. . .J. c... 3. . N 55 . 2... ..ON .5 3. . N 9.5 . 5.. 25 .5 I 2 52.82... 2.3.... .3 a... 2.2 5.. 52. o E. .5. SN :5 5 N2. .2... . .5 .5 .. 52.5.2553 .5 3.. .. c... 5.5 .ch SN. .2. a. a...“ 22. 2.... n8 2 5 SN :2 25 25 2 a. 8.588.. 3) .1... .3 55.. 5.5 3.... 2.. ... m5... 5.. 25 z... .2. So. :2 on . 3N . n. 8.2.5 - . a... 2.... 5.: 22 5.: E. n... :25 2.. :5 5.. .52. :5... .2. .2. I z .58... a ...< ..c «I. .3 5.. a ..N. N... NN an 2... .5 Nn NN N: N. a a I. u. 8.2.... 25...... . ca. 3.5. 2.2. 2 . N .5. . .5... N59 3.5 :25 .2 . 52. Na... ..8 2. .5. .. z . . .3 ..N... .53. 55. .52 N... 5... 9.2. 5.... SN. .2 SIN ..N . N .5 E. _ .. .«Ilb .1J. 2: N35. ..NQN ~N 5 5w :2 2.25 x2... . .2. 2.2. :2 55 N2. 25 25 ,- .2 .25 .559 I... 22.2. .52... 2.2. 2 .N. :2 2.25 25 _N 8.5 2 3 NS. .58. n5. 2.... N5: _ us. .555 .35 .2: 2.5. 2.5-5.2 .25 .555. .58. 2:... 2.2-52 3.; =5... .53 2:2. €3.82 1. . I . . J... v; I I igbm 33 .13 5...... a... a. 5...? 202 .3. .. Sim 2:2 .4... in» 55.6 z¢z 5w . . i la. a... la. «1... )1»... ..c a I: . 22.22322 2. 2.35.... .2505 £222.25 25.52.. 35.55 2.2.5.55. .1110 a)... :37? 341$... .314 .14.... 2... .3 null... 5......I... ..N-..o....... «NLPQ. .Xm—w GZ< >A—th LO 2......”— >m warp—wszZ: ..I—< Z. thm—n—Dfiw .DD2... \ <1... 169 wh\h;_ .xmm DZ< >.—._m~_m_>_ZD in whzmnihm A52 .3.) 5...... .14....) «1.11.43 .31.; «.1 5} 1.3. «1...... .3L .35 3.: \ 5...... . ..3 t : c o t .5 c c .. 5.52.5 i - - S. . . c: a .5. ... c. v a .5. z. 2 w. .2... as: 3 . . - . A . a.) k... 3.. a t. S m 3.. a t. a. m .2 .7...st 30 n3. n2. 2 2. 2;. 2h .K E. ._ 223...: u... 5 J: c: 22. ..m... .5 .5. c... an 3% a... E ..... 5.. E... a a s. .55 5.. 33 .7... I. 2.2 2.... c... .x... c... 22 3.x «.2 E c... i: 3.: E R. .2 .5........._:s. 5...... ..0 9...... 2.... in. 2:. 2. as. .....N .3. a... 2 =2. 2... 2. 2. _._ :7 3...... . n\ _ .3 .1. Ca .22 2...: a: 2...... mm 3:. :8 .32 33 E 3.... a? n... 2... s. 22.6.... 2.... 4.3 .3.) k... 3:8 5.... 2.... 3:... m... .52. 2.... 2.: $2. a... ..E. 25.... o... a... .3. 3...... a... 2.: 2... o... m... N. 2.: 3.... a... x... 2. I I : 2 2.552 a. 53.2 $3 .53. k... 2.: 9.... $2 ..3 9. 2.: .5: c... ..E N». .2 ..u. .o 5.52.5 .1... an. a: 3.: ....~ 2: 3.. .5 we: 3 2... ..2 ..S 3. 3:53... .22.: 1.33 5.1%..” ..Qn mm... mvm , .23 cm... x? mm... new. 2... v3 man _._2 .15 2:37.— ..o 2 .N a... 3.. 3.. .... 2.: SN. 2.. . as 2 ..NW Sn 3.. N... _ .. 53. .38 c... :5. 8.... in. 2: :m 8... .32 2.2 .5. 2.. SN .2 2 2 3. 5.22.5 55...: I. .58. 8.... 3.x 2.... c... 2...... 3.... ..m... 22 a: 8.. NS 2. n: . ..s. .3 2... ..SW 8: 3.: 8. 2.... :2 £2 SN. .2 52 a: .5 E . .. 41.0 .11.. C... 3.2 25 m: :2 :2 max ...:... 2.... 3.... :2 a... a: 8. 8. 2 15.1.20 1. 9...... .39. ........ w . 2 2.: .32 8. . N 3.: 2 _c 2.: ..2... m8. 2.... N8. _ ..2 _._...p .36 3.: .5. ....<..az _._.fi .36 _._...» .1... £2.32 3.: .35 3.; .5. £3.82 .3 at...» Law «a... «a K} .3 3......» J K} «.5 3r .3 1.3., we: 3.... s1 «or 55.3 l 202 53m I 202 53m l 262 7331.. 5.91.1.1 71L) 1 . 1 x WHUHJJCU 1. a, 1. 1:» 1a a, .m 4 335522: 3.25;”. a .2505: 45.2 whicam «5.5... €2.55 32.—max”. .11. u ..J. :31... «.12 .1... .. .7... .o .314 .....|I.a J32lt a~l.:ozah 170 ”“1385 n w I I I I I. I I I I I m. n .O_u&uam £00»:— ibumw £33 3.... «a, I a I I I I I I I _ I I I 5 2.8.3.5 .23: _._ :3? 38m .12. .3.) .13 11.1.4 _ n I I I _ I . I I _ v I _ .332 .o. 23:2. «has. I n I _ I I I N I I I I I I 38225 .23.: «.5283 $312.5 n m | l I I I I. I I I I m m .22-can ..qu 1.... :6 I n I I I I I I I I I I I m «62.5 .23: .882. 828:8 hr“ 53?” 4.1.... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .832 .c 03:00 9024.. I v I N I _ .I _ I I .I .I I I . 8338A. $.53...) _ _ 2. I I I I I I I I I _ _ _ 2 8.2.8.“ wJI 3... a... I a I I I I I I I I I ~ I o 2.2.5 .23: 23...: 8:82... hula 5va. ALI... _ _~ I N I N I I I I _ E I I .832 ..o emu—.00 a _o _ 2.. _ m I c. I M: I I I I I I 883qu . $.39 2 a I _ I _ I I I n I I a 3 8.2.25 334‘) 11... 35 N N. I I I I I _ I _ I I N 2 2.8.90 .23.: 232.522.353— hr. 5.....J. ..ka I a I m I I I n I I I a I _ .232 .o 93.8 a _. I an I o I N. I an I I I I I I. 8228.0 $13.5 3 no I _ I _ I I n I . oo mm .22an 3... A, N a I I I I I _ N I. ~ N a 2525 .23: 1 39 Anni“? N no I n I n I v I I N av I N .832 .805. 1...U G3. _ a _ 2 I a I a I I I I I . I 2228.0 In z 5 _ a I a I an I . N a : 3 .23 15 1am 3 10m 1m 1m 1m 15 ism ium 1m 1m 3 ism 3i 1.1. .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 91.1.2 .. I...» 1.1. l...» l»... I...» a...» 1....» 1.9 3:.» .1...» 1% {as 1.3 1..., .210 1. «q t. t. a. t. 1. E8448 3.; 8.8.2.. 8.8.2. 85.2.. 8.258. 2.83 .813. ‘1‘ . U.i< ..‘3a< “3.9.0.! .: . £10 .3: 1:. 1......“ .3: J3. .15 31.. 1.... _ _ .— .ZOPFn “nu—(hm nel—105:. EE— imm arr—122:2 .3 5.3.5 A.I.; .3... 9...... .3 «:3; .35 «.1 all, .3. .38.. 3.: \ 5...... 33.30 mmOmJI—OU wax—U 171 «N 18.05 ”N . I N m. c. _vaaméoz . .. . 9 0.00: 3.3.2553. ..3. 5.. 1.... NM . I I .. ..N .22.. ital 11 1....» m I . I w. N €03-52 £55. a. 0.83 300m .0. .1... .3...) 3 12.4% I I I I I II Guam 05...»:— .o..w_: c0803 . . 4.. .1...» n I I _ N N 653-202 .8002. .3 53 Q I...» n I I I _ N .028 5.52.3. .c 03.30 - - .. 1. 12... N I I I 2 N. 25.6.52 2.6.3: 3 534 3.. 3&5 n. . I . v a :55 00:82.5 .0 emu—.00 . I . . \J 49 12.4... av . . N 3 .N .vaaméoz 200.5: I3 534 4...... 1.5.. c. I I I o v :53 00:00:?” ..0 owe-.00 4.. 18.4%. n: N N m ..w NV _uaam-:oz .110 i... I)... 3 N I . .2 3. 6.5m _._..F 2:0 .7.“ a: v N 0 mu .0 .205. 3.; 3:380 .222 35...: 3.2.5. 5.5 0.1.3.32 . . .23: .QJO .411. .11... $1.... 11.4.. 3.... 3.5 3.0.x... 11... $03.50 i... .315 8.25.7.6 2:88... «1......I: illuzfi .ZO_.—.n “ES—b m>_.—.<~_.—.m_Z_—2G< .3. 5.4.3.. I} .2.” Na... .33 «.3 $1.. .1... ..1...» >1. \ 5...... 2.\ 2.0— .5.5 d >.—.=”... .131... .3 kid..lp. :Ivvozuh 2.\ E— .>.—._.—n WFZmA—th m0 zmmEDZ .330 III .3... «.13 N11... .3. =1...» 3... \ 5.... 30 .30 magma—ADD wax—U 173 1% £23 I I. l I I l R «N no Econ u>_.a=m_:_su< ‘31 £35. 5 “to; 38m 8 8 2. v a R I a a .13. 5..) 3 8.. 32:2: 3:9: 5:83 hrw ..wa g «N. 2 n! n N. n. n n a A8093: :ozaoavm ..o 09:00 hi 51.... 3.. an . 3. NS 2 2 a 2 R 9. 2.2.5 _.ozaém be 5:8 hr“ 53 4 1.8 E. a: .8 a n2 2: 2 2. a 22:5 8.5.3 .o 09:8 1 a). S: on 8: z 5 8n 2 2. n: =3 2.5 _._-.5 3.58.; .3: =36 . 6.5.82 _._.fi .35 .1582 3.; .BJ. a I.» 1. 15$ s... 1% 1., 1.3.. t: {as «a l...» 3. mm 838 wpzmoahm 25m @2503: 5.35 33:52.23 .330 «.3 53.: inf». ask hg— Jun—(Fm H>—.F<~—.—.m—7=EG< DZ< van—(Fm QZ—=U¢