RELIGIOUS ENVIRONMENT SCALES: AN EXPERIMENTAL MODEL FOR ASSESSLNG THE REUGIOUS ENVIRONMENT AT CHURCH - CONTROLLED COLLEGES Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNTVERSITY THURMAN VANZANT 1968 This is to certify that the thesis entitled "" RELIGIOUS ENVIRONMENT SCALES: AN EXPERIMENTAL MODEL FOR ASSESSING THE RELIGIOUS ENVIRONMENT AT CHURCH-CONTROLLED COLLEGES presented by THURMAN VAN ZANT has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. ADMINISTRATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION @MfizmwM Major professor degree in Date September 20, 1968 0‘169 ABSTRACT RELIGIOUS ENVIRONMENT SCALES: AN EXPERIMENTAL MODEL FOR ASSESSING THE' RELIGIOUS ENVIRONMENT AT CHURCH-CONTROLLED COLLEGES by Thurman Vanzant The Problem The Religious Environment Scales (RES) was constructed, following the format of the College and University Environment Scales (CUES), to assess the perceptions of the religious press at denominational colleges along six theoretically derived dimensions: Christian Faculty, Chapel, Denominational Relationship, Moral and Social Re- gulations, Religion Courses, and Students' Personal Religious Lifeo This study investigated the profile of the religious environ- ment at a selected church-controlled college and also tested these hypotheses: Differences will be found in the mean scores of six selected groups at Evangel College on the individual scales of the RES. Differences will be found in the mean scores of students at Evangel College on the individual scales of the RES when compared on selected variables. Methods and Procedures Evangel College, Springfield, Missouri was selected for the administration of the RESO The groups chosen for this study were: Thurman Vanzant Faculty-Administration, a random sample from each of the four academic classes, and Non-A/G students (i.e,, those not members of the sponsor- ing denomination). The instrument was administered the last week of April, 1968. The number of returns used was 400, or 8l percent of the total sample, Reliability for the RES was tested by Lindquist's analysis of variance technique and each scale was estimated at .99. A profile description was secured using the "66 plus" method of scoring. An item is "correct" when 66 percent or more answer in agreement with the keyed-answer: The group score is the number of items out of a possible l5 on each scale for which this consensus occurs. Comparative scores on the six scales are reported for the total institution and for the selected groups: Individual scores are also combined to determine group mean scores. Differences among the six groups and among the students when grouped by selected variables were tested by analysis of variancec Duncan's new multiple range test was used to determine which means actually differed” Major Findings The institutional scores at Evangel College are high on the Christian Faculty and Religion Courses scales, medium high on the Regulations scale, and low on Personal Religious Life, Denominational Relationship and Chapel scales. The scores range from l3 on Christian Faculty to 3 on Chapel. Significant difference among the six selected groups on the individual scales occurred on only two of the six scales: Chapel and Denominational Relationship; Thurman Vanzant Significant difference was found among students on the individual scales when grouped on selected variables. On the variable of sex, women students differ significantly from men students on four scales. 0n the variable of academic ability, there is an inverse relation- ship between academic ability and the mean scores on all scales; significant difference was found on four of the scales. 0n the variable of spiritual influence of home church, there were significant differences on all scales. Questionable differences were found on only one of the scales when the variables of spiritual influence of parents and level of pastor's education were used. No difference was found on the variables (yfgeographical region of student's home or size of home church. One of the major findings is that perceptions of the religious environment as measured by the RES are influenced by the variables of sex, academic ability, and spiritual influence of student's home church. These variables may be influencing perceptions as much or more than the religious press of the environment, RELIGIOUS ENVIRONMENT SCALES: AN EXPERIMENTAL MODEL FOR ASSESSING THE RELIGIOUS ENVIRONMENT AT CHURCH-CONTROLLED COLLEGES by THURMAN VANZANT A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education l968 .4 r" In. / .H r A. .1 . .v . ,1 .3. \/ v (~~‘ paw 6-4—67 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer expresses his sincere gratitude to the following persons for their contributions to the writing of this dissertation: Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker, major adviser, for his time and effort expended in reviewing the rough draft and for his invaluable criticisms, suggestions, and encouragement. Dr. Laurine Fitzgerald, Dr. William Sweetland, and Dr. Harry Kimber, other members of his guidance committee for their assistance. Dr. Harold Ecker for continued interest and encouragement, Mr. David Wright for assistance with the statiStics, and Miss Julia Peters for helpfulness in the production of the final copy. Fern, wife and typist, who performed with valor, grace, and enthusiasm in both capacities. And Vickie, daughter and enthusiastic supporter. 1'1 CHAPTER I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS THE PROBLEM: ITS NATURE AND IMPORTANCE Background of the Problem ........................ Statement of the Problem ................. . ........ Importance of the Study .......................... Limitations and Scope of the Study ....... . ...... ,. Definition of Terms ... ........................... Organization of the Study ........................ REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................. Research on College Environments ................. Church-Related Colleges .......................... Roots and Expansion ......................... Dec11ne “OP-OCOOCOOOCOL‘ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Resurgence CC,EOOCOCOCOOOCOOOCOGOOOOOCOI’OQQOOO Present Ambiguity ........................... The Future 9806 0000000 9.0.5.005) 0000000 “06139.0 Empirical Research on Church Colleges ..... ....... Summary ... ....................................... DESIGN OF THE STUDY ............. ...................... Development of the RES ........................... The Institutional Profile and the Hypotheses ..... 5e16ctEd Institution nocaoneoenrconseqoooooooo3:109 Descriptive Data .. ... . . #4:- ll ll l7 T7 18 19 20 28 29 31 32 32 34 35 36 CHAPTER PAGE Sample ................................. .......... 38 Faculty-Administration ...................... 38 Student Classes ............................. 38 NonmA/G Students ............................ 40 Total Sample ...................... .......... 40 Administration of Instruments ..................... 4l Scoring the RES .......... ..... , .................... 41 Statistical Analysis . ......... ....... . .......... 42 "66 Plus" Method .... ......... . ............... 42 Descriptive Statistics .... ....... . ..... ..... 42 Assumptions of Analysis of Variance .... .... 43 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test ...... . ....... 44 Psychometric Data About the RES .. ........ ........ 45 Validity ... ..... , ......... A. ........ . ......... . 45 Reliability ......... ..... .............. ........ 46 Correlations ...... ...... ...... . ......... . ...... 47 Summary .............................. .............. 51 IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA .................................. ... 53 Profile ...................... . .............. ........ 53 Institutional Scores ........................ 54 Group Scores .................. ..... ............ 56 Analysis of Scales by Items ................. 57 Analysis of Difference Among Group Mean Scores ... 73 Analysis of Difference Among Students When Compared on Selected Variables ... ........... 77 iv CHAPTER PAGE Summary ........................................... 104 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ................................ 107 Summary ........ ..... .............................. 107 Design and Procedure ......................... 107 Profile and Hypotheses ....................... 109 The Analysis and Conclusions ...................... llO Institutional Profile ........................ 110 Group Scores ................ . ....... . ........ 112 Analysis of Mean Scores of Selected Groups ... ll3 Analysis of Student Mean Scores on Selected Variables ......................... ...... llS Conclusions .................................. ll7 Implications for Further Research ................. 120 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................... l22 APPENDIX ........................................ .......... 129 TABLE 3.l 3.2 3.3 LIST OF TABLES Evangel College's CUES Scores Compared with National Norms and a Selected Study of Church Colleges ........................... ..... .. Summary of Ability and Grade Point Averages by Groups ........ .................................. Summary of Population, Sample, and Returns for Each of the Selected Groups ................ RES Reliability Based on Individual Scores and Group Means OOOC‘OOO’JOOIDOCOOOOGOOODOOF‘OTTOOOO Correlation of RES and CUES Scales ... .... ........ .. Inter-Correlation of RES Scales ......... ........... Profile of Evangel College on the RES by Groups and for the Total Institution . . . ...... Percentages and Raw Scores by Groups on Items and Total Scale Using "66 plus" Scoring - Christian Faculty .......... .........._ Percentages and Raw Scores by Groups on Items and Total Scale Using "66 plus” scoring-Chapel OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO QCR'OOOCOGCF-DG Percentages and Raw Scores by Groups on Items and Total Scale Using "66 plus" Scoring - Denominational Relationship .... ..... Percentages and Raw Scores by Groups on Items and Total Scale Using "66 plus" Scoring - Moral and Social Regulations ..... ... Percentages and Raw Scores by Groups on Items and Total Scale Using "66 plus" Scoring - Religion Courses ........... ........... . Percentages and Raw Scores by Groups on Items and Total Scale Using "66 plus" Scoring - Personal Life .......... .... ........ . vi PAGE 37 37 39 48 50 50 55 58 6O 63 66 68 71 TABLE 4.8 4.9 4.10 Analysis of Variance of the Group Mean Scores on the Individual Scales of the Analysis of Variance RES When Grouped Analysis of Variance RES When Grouped Academic Ability Analysis of Variance RES When Grouped Reg‘on 000000 COBOOOOOCOflOWOOOOOOOK‘COGOOOC 00000000 Analysis of Variance RES When Grouped Influence of Parents Analysis of Variance RES When Grouped Of Home ChurCh 00.00000000‘0000000"050300’1utt’fuo Analysis of Variance RES When Grouped Education ....... ...................... .. ........ ,. Analysis of Variance RES When Grouped Of Home ChurCh OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O‘JGOCQOOGGJOF‘UC)fifix‘ of Group Means by Variable of of Group Means by Variable of OLQD. ..OUOOOOOOOOOC(<‘((107°‘¢(C(° of Group Means by Variable of of Group Means by Variable of of Group Means by Variable of of Group Means by Variable of of Group Means by Variable of vii RES 0 O t ))))) Q ((((( fl - «a on the SEX ........... ,. on the on the Geographical on the Spiritual O.G.O.D.OOOO(OOOOJ OCOCOD(1)‘.O on the Pastor's on the Influence PAGE 74 79 80 85 88 91 94‘ 97 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX PAGE A. Religious Environment Scales and Key . ........... . ..... 129 B. Description of the Individual Scales of the RES ....... 138 C. College and University Environment Scales ............. 141 D. Description of the Individual Scales of the CUES ...... 149 E. Student Questionnaire ................................. 151 viii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM: ITS NATURE AND IMPORTANCE Background of the Problem Church colleges are a viable segment of higher education in the United States and make a contribution to its strength and diversity. This is true even though they play a smaller role than they formerly did in the total scene of American higher education. These church colleges share with other institutions of higher learning the need for continued research and self-evaluation. Features needing continued evaluation include the determination of institutional goals, the activities and educational experiences selected and planned to achieve those goals, the student "input", the impact of the insti- tutional environment upon the student, and the quality of the in- stitutional “output". Factors which contribute to an urgency for in- creased empirical data about church colleges include: (1) the present paucity of-empirical data about these institutions, (2) the situation many of these colleges face of maintaining adequate enroll- ments and finances, and (3) the features which distinguish them from other institutions of higher learning have not been adequately researched.- One of the areas of recent research in higher education which applies to the church college is the attention given to the college environment as a strategic factor in the teaching-learning process. Earlier research had tended to focus attention on isolated aspects of the environment without regard to the total milieu in which learning occurred. The newer concern is upon the environment as a whole. It is generally held that behavior is influenced by the interaction be- tween the student and the characteristics of the total environment that impinge upon him. This is similar to the findings in the physical sciences of the relations between an organism and its en- vironment. The environment of the educational institution is seen as playing a large part in determining to what extent institutional objectives are achieved and what kind of impact is made Upon the individual by a given college. Research instruments have been develOped to study the environment- as-a-whole. These provide a profile description of the major pressures and influences at work on a college campus. These in- struments further provide a means of describing differences between the major pressures at various institutions. Significant question- naires that have been developed for this purpose include those by Astin - the Environmental Assessment Technique (EAT) (6), Stern and Pace - the College Characteristics Index (CCI) (62, 76), and Pace - the College and University Environment Scales (CUES) (55). One of the concepts underlying the research on college environ- ments is the view that the college is a "culture”. This is to be understood in terms used by the cultural anthropologists and sociologists as "... a pattern of values, beliefs, and prescribed ways of behaving" (70: 57). The environment consists of the general culture as well as the social organization of the college community. Sanford says there is an overall college culture which embraces such elements as stated aims and educational philosophy of a college, its standards of work, and its "... values, beliefs, and ways in the realms of religion, politics, economics, arts, and social relations. It is to be expected that each student, if he remains in the college for his allotted time, will assimilate this culture in some degree" (70:58). The aggregate features of a college culture, and its sub- cultures, will sway and influence the behavior of those who enter that culture. Another concept utilized by the research on college environments is that of the psychological theory of "need” and "press". This is based on Murray's personality theory which defines "need" as the significant determinants of behavior within the individual and "press" as the significant determinants of behavior in the environment (50). Stern's initial studies focused on students and their personality needs (77). Later, he and Pace theorized that these personality needs had their counterparts in the structure of the environment (62). Pace subsequently turned to examine the complexities of environments in terms of their sociological-educational press without reference to personality needs (55). This latter innovation conceives the college environments as exerting an intellectual-social-cultural press upon those who live in the environment. The research instruments developed for assessing the climate of a college are apprOpriate for research by church-related colleges. However, the religious aSpect of their environments which is an im- portant part of their total environment is not measured by the existing research instruments. This fact is underscored by a recent review of the findings by the use of these instruments at Catholic colleges: Although the CCI and CUES include individual items about religious practices and values, the "blindness" of the current instruments to religious influences, as evidenced by the lack of scales referring to the moral and Spiritual impact of the college on the student, leaves an important area of human life - and one of special concern for the value-oriented school - unexamined (31: 441). Statement of the Problem This study has a two-fold purpose: (1) the development of an experimental instrument which will be useful to church-controlled colleges in assessing the religious dimension of their environments, and (2) reporting the results obtained by the administration of this instrument at one church—controlled college, Evangel College, Springfield, Missouri. Importance of the Study No research instruments are available for investigating the per- ceptions of the religious dimensions of the environment at church— controlled colleges. The main contribution of this study is an attempt to fill this gap by taking the first step in developing such 1 an instrument, the Religious Environment Scales (RES) The RES is 1The instrument may be found in Appendix A. designed so that members of the academic community can report their perceptions of the religious press as measured by a set of theoreti- cally derived scales. This technique permits students to describe both the religious characteristics of their college and the demands made upon them by the religious press of the environment. The use of the RES can provide information of considerable im- portance for evaluation of programs and in self-study. The RES provides a description of the environment by those who experience it daily. What students are aware of and agree is true or not true of their campus constitutes the ”functionally effective environment" which can be compared with the officially stated religious objectives (58: 174). For example, the presence of certain religious features such as daily chapel does not insure that they are perceived positively or as achieving the aims established for them. It is educationally desirable that stated objectives agree as closely as possible with the actual, functionally experienced goals. The information from these scales can be beneficial to denomina- tional boards which exercise a substantial degree of control over the policies of their colleges. Local boards of administration can equally benefit from this knowledge. Comparison of profile differences among various church-related institutions is a further potential benefit. Results gained from these scales can provide the basis for redirection of efforts, modifications of programs, or intensification of practices that could have far-reaching consequences in the development of these colleges and the relationships with their student clientele and their denominational constituencies. This study also reports data obtained by use of the RES at a denominational college. These data indicate what differences were found among the perceptions of various groups within the college. Selected variables are used in the investigation to help eXplore differences in perceptions among students who are members of the sponsoring denomination. To the extent these scales validly assess perceptions of the religious dimension of the environment, dis- criminate between various groups within the academic community, show relationships to selected variables, and provide a profile for com- parison with other church colleges, the church-controlled college has available an instrument to assist in evaluation and planning. Limitations and chpe of the Study This study is the first step in the development of an experimental instrument to assess the religious dimension of a denominational college environment. It follows the format and general theoretical base of the College and University Environment Scales (55) in terms of environmental press. Persons living in the environment were asked to be reporters about religious features of their college. The instrument was designed by the researcher using factors considered to have a positive relationship to the success of church-controlled colleges. The RES was designed primarily for use with those Protestant church colleges which maintain a strong identification with conser- vative, evangelical Christianity and which have strong ties with a denomination or church body. Many of the items and scales of the RES therefore would not be relevant to a large segment of church- related colleges. This study reports the investigation of the environment at one church-controlled college. While the results obtained will directly apply only to this one institution, there are many denominational colleges which have features and practices in common with the college used in this study. It is believed that the results reported from the study of this institution will have value and meaning for these other colleges. It is further believed that the technique used in this study and the instrument that was develOped can be used or adapted for use by other denominational colleges. This instrument is limited to six selected factors of the re- ligious dimension and does not include all factors which may exist as part of the total complex religious environment, i.e., the local church a student attends while in college and the continued re- ligious influence of his parents and his home church. Neither does the instrument explore highly individualized religious features (theologically or organizationally) which might characterize a given denominational college and which might be valuable for some schools to research. The scope of the study is the development of an experimental instrument and the reporting the results of its administration to six selected groups at a denominational college. The instrument has six scales of fifteen items each; tabulating the responses to these items permits a description of the environment and comparison of group perceptions based on consensus of perceptions. A number of selected variables are used to determine if they help explain the reported differences of perceptions. In addition to the RES, the CUES was administered to provide supplementary information about the per- ceptions of the college being studied and to investigate any relation- ships with the RES. Definition of Terms Church college - used synonymously with "church-related" college to refer generically to the wide range of colleges subscribing to the Christian religion or having some type of connection with a Christian denomination. Denominational college - used synonymously with "church-controlled" college to refer to a college which has strong ties with a particular denomination, which is by official statement theologically conserva- tive or evangelical, which is owned and actively controlled by the sponsoring church body, and whose students for the most part come from that church body. College environment - the characteristics of a college which fit together in a pattern and consist of "... features and facilities of the campus, rules and regulations, faculty, curricula, instruction and examinations, student life, extracurricular organizations ..." (55: 2) and which are measured by the CCI, EAT or CUES. Religious environment - those religious practices, features, emphases and relationships which are part of the total environment at church-controlled colleges and which are measured by the RES "0 Effective religious environment — the religious aspects of the environment that students are aware of and agree with reasonable unanimity are true or are not true about the college as measured by the RES. Religious factors - the theoretically derived scales which refer primarily to those objective religious practices and features which are a regular part of the life of the denominational college which the student encounters. The six selected scales are: Christian Faculty, Chapel, Denominational Relationship, Religion Courses, Moral and Social Regulations, and Students' Personal Religious Practices.2 Organization of the Study_ Chapter I contains an introduction to the problem of assessing the religious factors of a church-controlled college's environment and the need for an instrument for this assessment. An attempt has been made to justify the importance of such a study. Chapter II contains a review of literature relevant to the study. Specifically, emphasis is given to (l) developments in research on college and university environments, (2) a review of developments in church-sponsored and church—controlled colleges, and (3) a summary of empirical research dealing with church colleges. Chapter III describes the methodology and procedures used in conducting the study. It includes the methods of reporting the 2Refer to Appendix B for a description of the scales. data including the testable hypotheses, the statistical models used, the method of investigation including the selection of the sample groups, and a description of the development of the experimental scales used in securing the data for the study. Chapter IV presents the analysis of the data. The data are pre- sented in table form and the results of the analysis are discussed. Chapter V contains the summary and conclusions of the study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE This chapter presents a review of literature relevant to the study of college environments, relevant to church-related colleges, and a summary of selected empirical research on church colleges. Research on College Environments Colleges differ in many ways, and there are many methods of describing the characteristics which distinguish them. Pace (60) and Astin (5) discuss some of these methods. Colleges may be classi- fied by categories such as form of control, type of curriculum, or geographical region. Or, institutions may be described by quantitative characteristics such as size of student body, tuition, or faculty- student ratio. These descriptive statements provide some information about the general characteristics that can be expected at a particular school. However, it is asserted that even with this information a person knows little that is important about a college (59: 45). Pace (57: 26) contends that there are more basic differences in the educational and psychological character of colleges; he observes, "... some of our familiar ways of classifying colleges according to structure or form of control obscure and often conflict with these differences in the educational and psychological character of the colleges." It is also said (59: 45) that what is really important to know about a college 12 is "... its overall atmOSphere or characteristics, the kinds of things that are rewarded, encouraged, emphasized, the style of life which is valued in the community and is most visibly expressed and felt." An approach to examining the overall atmosphere of a college is that taken by sociology and the techniques it has developed. These include the interview technique, sample surveys, and the use of field observations. Reisman and Jencks (67: 311) report such a study at three quite diverse institutions. Their study provides insight be- yond what is available from mere descriptive data but is anthropolo- gical, subjective, and impressionistic. Pace (60) challenges their interpretation of the climate at one of the colleges based on what students reported on the College Characteristics Index. Another ex- ample of using interviews and being a participant-observer on a campus is the study by Eddy (24). From his examination of the "climate" at twenty colleges, he drew conclusions about the elements which contribute to the character of a college. A different approach to the study of college environments was taken by Astin and Holland in 1961 (5: 22). Proceeding on the be- lief that the characteristics of the environment are largely dependent upon the characteristics of the student body, they developed the Environmental Assessment Technique (EAT) (6). This instrument uses eight characteristics of the student body to assess the institutional environment. These are: size of the student body, average intelli- gence, and six "personal orientations”. These personal orientations are the percentage of baccalureate degrees awarded to students in 13 each of the six classes of major fields of study - Realistic, Scientific, Social, Conventional, Enterprising, and Artistic. Holland's theory of vocational choice asserts that information about the student's aptitude, personality, interests, and values is asso- ciated with his choice of field of study. Astin later used two other approaches to the study of differences among colleges. One study (3) was a factor analysis study of thirty- three major institutional characteristics to determine the main dimensions upon which institutions differ. The other (4, 5) was a factor analysis study of fifty-two input student variables to de- termine the main dimensions upon which students differ. He holds that these differences among students determine in large measure the institutional environments. A totally different method of examining college environments, as mentioned in Chapter One, is based on the needs-press theory of H. A. Murray (50). This concept asserts that behavior is the result of forces within an individual which interact with pressures within the environment. Stern (74: 6) comments that Murray introduced a taxonomy for classifying both the environ- mental pressures and the characteristic ways in which an individual strives to structure the environment for himself. He called the external pressures press, their internal counterpart needs. Both needs and press are inferred from characteristic activities and events, the former from things that the individual typically does, the latter from things that are typically done to him in some particular setting. Stern, Stein and Bloom (77) in the mid-1950's focused their attention on the needs aspect of this concept in their research on the 14 assessment of personality. An out-growth of their work was the Activities Index (AI) (76), a questionnaire containing thirty per— sonality need scales of ten items each. This instrument reportedly gives a measure of personality that can be used in predicting student success in various types of academic programs. The needs-press concept was utilized further by Stern and Pace as they developed the College Characteristics Index (CCI) (62, 76). Following the work that had been done with the AI, they hypothesized that the organization of environments would follow a pattern similar to the organization of personalities. The AI had been designed to measure personality needs; the CCI was developed to measure the environmental press conditions with corresponding scales conceived as counterparts to the personality need scales. The rationale underlying the develOpment of the CCI is given in the various writings of Stern and Pace. Pace (57: 26) emphasizes the marked differences in the educational and psychological character of colleges. Stern (75) gives a general discussion of the assumptions behind the measurement of need and press. The procedure used in se- lecting items is described by Pace and Stern (62: 269) and Pace (55: 6). The items selected refer to a wide range of topics of regulations, relationships, curricular experiences, extracurricular activities, and facilities which the student encounters. Pace (55) argues that all of these characteristics and events and practices, added together, fit into a pattern which largely determine the atmosphere of the campus. This pattern constitutes an educational press upon the awareness of students. Students act as reporters indicating what they perceive as being generally true or nct true of their college. What students are aware of and report with general agreement constitutes the functionally “effective environment” (58: 173). This press exerts a “directive” influence on student behavior (59: 47). The CCI has been used in many research projects The results have been reported periodically (62, 59, 75). Stern (74) outlines conclusions based on the findings of research with both the AI and the CCI. He then presents a statistical analysis of test responses and discusses the general character of the college environment in- ferred from six CCI factors extracted in the analysis (74: ll). Research has been conducted (55: 7, 42: 28) to determine if the CCI corresponds to the personality need scales of the AI. The evidence fails to show any correlation between scale scores of in- dividuals on the CCI and their parallel scores on the AI. It is concluded that what students say about the college environment as measured by the CCI is not influenced by their own personality needs as measured by the AI. Yonge (89: 259) notes the difficulty of maintaining a sharp distinction between student and environmental characteristics on the basis of the CCI and AI. A variation to the study of college environments by the CCI is 1 the College and University Environment Scales (CUES). This instrument 1The instrument may be found in ADPQOR X C. 11% developed by Pace and published in 1963 (55), focuses attention on the environmental press apart from any personality measures. Pace had concluded that the college environment can be studied directly and in its own right without reference to personality needs. CUES was an outgrowth of the work with the CCI. The same format was used, many items were retained, and many aspects of the same rationale of environmental press were retained: student awareness, student reporters, consensus as in opinion polling, and the functionally effective environment. Pace (55) details the procedure used in the factor analytic study of CCI items which led to the identification of five major ways in which colleges differ. The five Scales, consisting of thirty items each, are practicality, community, awareness, pro- priety, and scholarship.2 CUES describes institutions rather than individuals and permits comparisons among institutions along these five dimensions. Many research projects have been conducted using the CUES so that information about the instrument is increasing. Pace (56) has com- piled a report of many of the pertinent findings which include evidence of the reliability and stability of CUES scores, the interpretation of CUES under various conditions and some special ways in which CUES has been used. Yonge (88: 117) reports a study that suggests internal subjective factors do influence or distort the objective characterizations 2Refer to Appendix D for a description of the scales. 17 of the environment. Pace (55: 27), however, in his review of studies with CUES concludes that "there is no important or meaningful re- lationship between students' academic aptitude or personality charac- teristics and their perception of the college environment.” The value of CUES is seen in providing a measure of the environment as a whole and the ways in which it can be used as suggested by Pace (61: 27). Great strides in the study of college environments have been taken by the empirical studies developed. Yonge (89: 259) offers this value judgment: . Astin, Pace, and Stern have provided an inestimable contribution to the literature dealing with the student in higher education. Their pioneering studies are truly breakthrough; they have shifted the research emphasis from a descriptive to a dynamic model." It is certain that other dynamic models will be develOped, perhaps on a base such as that suggested by Brown (9: 557), to study the various elements in the total educational environment and their interrelationships. Church-Related Colleges A broad review of literature on the develOpments of church colleges has been included in this chapter as background information. Roots and Expansion. The contribution of the Christian church to the development of higher education in America has been documented by Wicke (85). Pattillo and Mackenzie (63), Rudolph (69) and others. The role of the church in establishing the colonial colleges is well-known. The denominational college reached its pinnacle of a lo prestige and influence in the period between the American Revolution and the Civil War. This period of great expansion was marred, however, by the costly proliferation of church colleges (most of which did not survive), by the intense rivalry between denominations in establishing or controlling schools, and the low academic quality of many of these schools. It has been noted that the colleges were used for "denom- inational imperialism" and as a means of "sectarian aggrandizement and aggression" (80: 76). In spite of these blemishes, however, Brauer (8: 235) states, The form of the college was alSo clear. The colleges were small and scattered across the nation following the peeple westward. They were to be the bearers of Christianity and civilization and were to synthesize the two in life, and they reflected the strength as well as weakness of their churches. They did not play a unique role in American higher education - they were American higher education. Decline. Dramatic changes occurred in American life in the last part of the nineteenth century and the first three decades of the twentieth century which affected the church colleges (80, 83, 17). Many factors including a rising tide of secularism caused many of these colleges to minimize their religious connections. A decline in relationship developed between church and college. For many colleges "... the church connection became purely nominal, maintained by a trustee or two, a few professors in the Bible Department, possibly a chapel, and a certain residue of sentiment ... and most significantly, religious concerns faded from view” (1: 28). The decline in re- lationship is depicted by Trueblood (83: 16) as ”tragic”; he observes, "it was bad for the colleges, which became thereby 1”) increasingly rootless, and it was bad for the churches, which lost, in the divorce, the benefit of the sharp self-criticism which comes from disciplined intelligence." During the first half of this century there were increasing hints that the church-related college as it had been known might cease to exist. Resurgence. Cuninggim (17: 1) says the overt hostility to religion in the college reached its peak around the First World War but that secularization of higher education has continued until the present. The denominational college of the nineteenth century, caught up in the explosive expansion of American higher education during the present century, was fighting for its life. McCoy (41: 169) describes what happened: "A funny thing happened to the old Christian college on its way to the cemetery. It just may be coming alive again. Ad- mittedly there are some startling changes in what has survived or been resurrected. But there are definite signs of new life." He continued with his analogy: Churchmen, public administrators, and foundation officials have shared the view that it remained only to prepare suitable obituaries for these anachronistic institutions still struggling along under religious auspices. Some church boards responsible for denominational colleges have at times been on the verge of recommending that their denominations withdraw from higher education. Like old soldiers, however, the church-related colleges refused to die out: they were only fading away. Then the process of resuscitation began. The G. 1. Bill and the general rush for a college degree after the Second World War gave them new life. Federal funds provided further transfusions. The wake has ended because the corpse sat up in the coffin and demanded treatment rather than tears (41: 170). Trueblood (83: 17) says that the sharp reversal of the process of the divorce between Church and college is one of the most remarkable changes which has occurred in this century. There have been other notable signs of renewed vitality of church colleges during the last two decades. The National Council of Churches conducted a research—study project in 1950 and 1951 which involved over 200 church colleges (20: 175). In 1954 the First Quadrennial Convocation of Christian Colleges was held at Denison University. This meeting received wide attention through the journal, The Christian Scholar (19), which contained a full report of the papers presented. The Second Quadrennial Convocation was held in 1958 and was well attended. The Christian Scholar (78) again gave a full report of the addresses and the Study Reports. One further evidence of vitality of church colleges was the comprehensive assessment of some 800 "church- sponsored" colleges by Pattillo and MacKenzie (63). This project, sponsored by the Danforth Foundation, is a monumental contribution to our knowledge and understanding of the church college. Present Ambiguity. It means little today to know that a college is "church-related". It tells little about the degree of relation- ship with a church, with the Christian religion, or the amount or kind of religious emphasis on a campus. Pattillo and Mackenzie (63: 31) say this relationship can be understood in terms of a continuum from close ecclesiastical control to only vague historical association with a church. They selected six elements to indicate relationship: composition of the governing board, legal ownership, amount of financial support from the church, the name of the institution, the stated educational aims reflecting its religious orientation, and the extent to which preference is given to members of a particular church in the selection of personnel. Another way to bring meaning into the current ambiguous situation is to look at "patterns of institutional character” (63: 191). Five distinct types of church-related colleges have been identified: ”de- fender of the faith colleges”, ”non-affirming colleges", “free Christian colleges", and the “church—related university” (63: 192—195); the "affirming college" was added to the original list (25: 25-26). All but the "church-related university” have relevance for this research study. The "defender of the faith college" is similar to the denomina- tional colleges of the nineteenth century as described by Brown (11: 54). This college is self-consciously theistic, gives em- phasis to specific religious beliefs by both faculty and students, and prominence is given to worship. It presents conflicting re— ligious and philoSOphic views but these views are carefully evaluated in terms of officially espoused beliefs. The constituency expects the college to safeguard the faith and even their social practices (63: 193). The "non-affirming college” is usually church—related but keeps the relationship very ambiguous and often gives little formal attention to religion. This college emphasizes its nonsectarian character and is so "Open" it does not stand for anything unique which distinguishes it from secular institutions (63: 194). 22 The "free Christian college” is ”free because it does not con- trol thought; Christian because it has a definite commitment" (63: 194). Most faculty will share its religious purposes, chapel is probably optional though held important, a c00perative relation- ship exists with its church, and religion courses are intellectually demanding. This college sees itself as not forcing belief or con- formity but expects students to grapple with the issues and arrive at their own position. This type of church college seeks to combine the best of the two other models while avoiding their weaknesses. It is observed that many colleges claim to be this kind of institution but only a minority actually achieve it (63: 195). Most of the material presented at the Quadrennial Convocations of Christian Colleges in 1954 and 1958 would be sympathetic in spirit and agree with specifics of the "free Christian college" (19, 78). The articles by Ahlstrom (1), Coit (15), Ferre’(28, 29), and Noble (53) describe the college that would belong in the "free" category. Trueblood (83), Doerscher (22), Lowry (38, 39) and others express views of the church college which do not fit into these three cate- gories. Another category was needed. Representatives of evangelical colleges (25) drafted a model to distinguish their liberal arts institutions from the types proposed by Pattillo and Mackenzie (63). They characterize their institutions as "affirming colleges”. While holding that defense and apologetic are not necessarily incompatible with free inquiry, they insist their institutions are not defensive but declarative (25: 25). The "affirming college" differs from the 23 "defender college" in seeking to be involved in contemporary culture and to influence it, in seeking an honest investigation of all fields of knowledge, and in facing the world of learning without fear or suspicion. This college differs from the "free" college in being more Openly committed to conservative Christianity, promotes the realization of Christian values in student character, has religious requirements for faculty selection, and has requirements for student religious and social life. It rejects the charge of indoctrination in the sense of imposed beliefs (22: 35) and the charge that re- ligious requirements interfere with academic freedom (26: 18). In spite of the great variations among church-related colleges there are general marks which are characteristic of most Protestant colleges (15: 246). Some of these marks would be disavowed by "non-affirming" institutions. The precise interpretation and ex- pression of these marks will vary depending upon the "type" of the institution. Most Christian educators would agree with Noble (53: 140) that the first responsibility of any college is education. The church college "... may carry on education for the glory of God and in the name of Christ and feel there are particular clues or insight needed in the educational process, but education is what it is about." Brauer (8: 234) and Mickey (47: 17) call for church colleges to participate in higher education by playing a creative and distinctive role in meeting educational needs. Most Christian educators agree that church colleges should take a firm stance as institutions committed to the Christian religion 24 (10: 27) and operate out of that conviction in selecting educational goals and methods (83: 27, 72: 23). These colleges should find an integrating faith and philosophy in the Christian religion; the various subjects should be integrated into a Christian world view that is presented to students as a live option (13:12). Lowry (39: 6) acknowledges the enormous task "... of trying to be true to their religious purposes and at the same time be genuine places of higher learning and free inquiry." Ferre/(ZB: 151) insists that neither task can be subordinated to the other. The ideal situation is an integration of faith and learning. One great responsibility is to confront students with the fundamental questions of human life (53: 141) and guide their quest for meaning. Church colleges are faulted in the Pattillo-Mackenzie report (63: 211) for not living up to their obligations to assist students in arriving at a reasoned framework of belief. There is wide agreement that the religious element of a church college should be the unifying force of the entire college. It is asserted that the "Christian emphasis must be something integral rather than something merely added'I (83: 15). The church college is not just a college with chapel services, some good rules, and required Bible tacked on. William Clark is quoted as saying, "The Christian college does not hgy§_a religious program; it j§_a religious program." (83: 32). Closely associated with religion as the unifying force are certain theological notions worthy of mention. One is the doctrine of vocation as applied to the Christian college. Moseley (49: 254), 25 Ahlstrom (l: 33) and Brauer (8: 241) elaborate on the “calling” of the church college. Another theological idea applied to the Christian College is the teaching of the koinonia (fellowship) with the view that the church college is uniquely a Christian community. This concept, discussed frequently (13: ll, 81: 280, 38: 218, 83: 131), embraces many facets of truth. It suggests a unity with diversity, shared faith, commonly accepted goals and purposes, involves under- standing, acceptance, authenticity, Openness, forgiveness, and embraces the entire life of those who are its members. One of the other marks of most church colleges is their em- phasis on the liberal arts. This is the usual emphasis even though programs are offered in education and business. Many authors (22: 58, 85: 41, 83: 30, 43: 47) call for forceful leadership in the liberal arts within the Christian tradition. Brauer (8: 239ff) insists that the future contribution of the church college will be in the area of liberal arts- Two outstanding contributions to the literature of the church college and the liberal arts have been made by Lutheran educators (21, 33). Other marks of Christian colleges are the many ways they seek to encourage Christian belief and life. This is another point where great variation among colleges occurs. It is held that a college must plan for the religious development of students in the same way that it provides for their other needs (83: 144, 17: 131). The role and importance of the Christian faculty members have been emphasized (83, 26). The Pattillo-Mackenzie report observes that 26 ll 1:. .. faculty notions about religion are probably the most important single factor in determining what the religious impact of an in- stitution on its students will be" (63: 138). Another feature of church colleges has been chapel services and the provision for worship. The place and importance of chapel worship has been Widely discussed (39: 115, 83: 139, 29: 177, 63: 146, l: 37, 38: 224). Ferre’(29) presents a profound discussion of the meaning of the chapel for the Christian church, the significance of chapel for the college as an academic community, and the place of chapel in the Christian college from its own point of view. Cuninggim (17: 276) discusses the qualities of a well—prepared chapel service and pointedly comments: ”Every time the chapel bell rings, religion as well as the college is on trial." Another common practice for encouraging Christian belief is formal instruction in religion (63: 140, 17: 142). The direct study of religion, theology and the Bible is one of the most frequently used ways in "developing familiarity with, understanding of, and commitment to the Judaeo-Christian tradition” (85: 42). Coit (15: 250) insists that these religion courses must be taught in reference to other academic disciplines. The Pattillo-Mackenzie study (63:141) notes the present high academic qualifications of most religion teachers and the high quality of instruction in religion as an academic subject. A final means used in develOping religious in- terests and permitting religious expression is the provisions for voluntary religious service organizations (85: 42, 11: 197, 17: 171). 27 One final mark of the church college in the present situation of ambiguity is the long-standing tradition of regulations for student conduct. Codes of conduct are intended to develop character through discipline. While the earlier "regimentation" has been somewhat liberalized (85: 82), Coit (15: 246) says the rank and file of church members are still interested in the church college being a "safe" place where they can deposit their children. The approach to the matter of regulations is a major difference between the "de- fender college" and the "free college" (63: 192, 194). Nelson (51: 170) investigated the standards of conduct at selected church- related colleges using two theoretical models of the "Primarily Religious" and the "Permissive" or "Neutral College". Mayhew (40: 66) believes that it does not make much difference what regu- lations are adopted as far as student contentment is concerned as long as the policy is made clear and the students understand it before they attend the institution. It is pointed out that the college often attempts ”... to maintain a minority point of view regarding morals and social customs" (85: 83). Nelson's (51) discussion of discipline includes the approaches utilized by the "primarily religious” and the 'permissive" colleges. Another valuable source of information on discipline at church colleges is Wrenn's article (87) giving conditions affecting the overall disciplinary situation. Most Christian educators agree that the Christian college is ggt_to be understood in terms of negatives. While some of the 28 "defender colleges“ seem to focus on these, the "free" and "affirming” colleges would be declarative and positive. Mickey's comment (47: 18) is very emphatic on this: Church colleges should be "... centers of intellectual and spiritual adventure where Christians are outthinking and outliving their contemporaries ... rather than .. places where Christians are not getting drunk, not gambling, not cursing, not being reckless with their money, and not being exposed to dangerous or heretical thinking " Ahlstrom's viewpoint (l: 33) is that church colleges do not exist "merely to provide a comfortable resort for like-minded peOple of a common ethnic or social or religious background Nor is it to provide a quiet retreat from the winds of antagonistic doctrine that always blow in the world - a safe haven from reality " The Future What the future holds for church colleges is as uncertain as the present situation is ambiguous. Change will cer- tainly continue to occur with some institutions either closing or becoming publicly supported, while other institutions will experience movement away from the Christian tradition, The Pattillo-Mackenzie study (63) concludes that though many factors are at work to re- structure the place of the church college, the obstacles are not insurmountable. They believe "church institutions can and should play an important leavening role in American education and American life" (63: 200). Mayhew (40: ll) sees one of the largest difficulties being the conflict between the Christian religion these colleges profess and the secularism and materialism of the total American 29 society which affect even those at the church colleges. One of the persistent problems of the church college has been that of defining its role (63: v). Wicke (85: 102) touches this very nerve when he expresses his optimistic outlook for the future with a conditional statement: The future of the church—related college depends upon its ability to keep a clear view of its mission; upon its ability to find the church support needed to supplement other sources of income; and upon its success in interpreting its goals to students, faculty, constituency, and the general public- Empirical Research on Church Colleges There is very little information available about church colleges which is based on empirical study. Most of the literature is im- pressionistic, subjective and prescriptive. A summary of selected research is presented in this section. Reeves and associates (65) conducted a survey study of thirty- five colleges related to the Methodist Episc0pal Church which was reported in 1932. This is a very thorough documentation of these colleges including the classification of stated aims, curriculum, and religious practices Of interest to this research project are their findings on the factors which students reported as having influenced their religious and moral life (65: 425). Their report on chapel and faculty and student attitudes towards the chapel services is helpful (65: l7l). The Pattillo and Mackenzie report (63) has been cited frequently in the previous section of this chapter. They engaged in a syste- matic assessment of "church-sponsored” higher education because 30 there had never been a comprehensive study of this segment of higher education (63' v), They gathered information from more than 800 institutions and engaged in a detailed study at fifty representa- tive colleges, Their chapters on “Dimensions on Church-Sponsored Higher Education" (63: l8ff), “Relationships with Religious Bodies” (63: 30ff), "A Religious Evaluation of the Institutions” (63” l37ffl, and "Patterns of Institutional Character“ (63: l9lffl are most signi— ficant to this research study, Nelson (5l) recently investigated the standards of conduct at selected church-related colleges using two theoretical models of the "Primarily Religious" and the ”Permissive" or “Neutral College". He reports the varying social practices that are problems at these two types of church colleges, the philQSOphy governing the setting up of rules, and the approach to discipline used by each: He also discusses the circumstances which give rise to problems of conduct and enforCing the standards. Brown (ll) sought to provide the Methodist four—year college movement with an Operational definition of the term “Christian tradition" in order to determine if selected Methodi_t colleges are currently moving away from a Christian tradition He identified eight initial principles (ll: 54l which were modified and increased to ten items by l940 (ll: l49): This was his base line by which current practices were judged, He established eight criteria to be used in his evaluation of practices to advance religious and values en- richment (ll: l96-l98l which are valuable to this study Trout (82) 3l provides a similar study of selected Presbyterian colleges: Strahan (79) who was to become the first academic dean at Evangel College developed a preposed curriculum and the student personnel services for this college in its formative stages, He provides information about the educational develOpments of the sponsoring denomination, the Assemblies of God, and about the educa— tional and socio—economic background of prospective students and their families. Johns (35) gives an interpretation of the educational phiTOSOphy of the Assemblies of God as evidenced in their literature, Studies on the climate of church colleges have been reported, Hassenger and Weiss (3T) report the research at Catholic colleges with the CCI, EAT, and CUES, Chickering (l4) reports the results of CUES at small church colleges from a study under the sponsorship of the Project on Student DevelOpment in Small Colleges, Boyer and Michael (7) report their findings with CUES at seven small religiously oriented colleges and give comparative scores with other selected colleges. Summary In this chapter a review of approaches to the study of college environments has been presented with particular attention paid to the de- velOpment of CUES, A review of church colleges was given describing their historical developments down to the present time and the current confusion over what it means to be ”church-related", Finally, re- ference is made to selected empirical research on the church college( This discussion provides the background for the current study in the development of an instrument for the assessment of the religious en- vironment at denominational colleges, CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY This study was designed to obtain an institutional profile of Evangel College on the Religious Environment Scales, to test differences in the perceptions of the religious environment held by selected groups within the college, and to investigate differences in perceptions of the religious environment based on selected variables. This chapter discusses the develOpment of the RES, the method of reporting the pro- file data and the testable hypotheses, describes the institution studied, the sample selected, the administration of the instruments, and the statistical analysis. Developmenteof the RES This experimental instrument was developed to provide a means of assessing the religious environment at denominational colleges. The RES follows the format of the CUES and utilizes the theoretical con- cept of environmental press. Respondents serve as reporters about their institution since they have lived in its environment, observed its religious features, and participated in its religious activities. Responses to the items about the various dimensions of the religious environment help define the religious press or climate of a college. A set of theoretical religious dimensions or major emphases of the environment was developed for the framework of the instrument. These emphases were chosen on the basis of the search of the 33 literature - influenced especially by Brown (ll), Pattillo and Mackenzie (63), Reeves (65), and Trueblood (83) - and the researcher's own conceptualizations. The dimensions selected as being most com- prehensive and relevant to denominational colleges were: Christian Faculty, Chapel, Denominational Relationship, Moral and Social Regula- tions, Religion Courses, and Students' Personal Religious Life. A description of each of the scales is given in Appendix B. The RES provides a measure of the functionally effective environment along these six dimensions. Each scale represents a dimension on which denomina- tional colleges would be expected to differ from one another and groups within a college might differ. The specific items were selected after a pool of items had been accumulated and various screening steps were taken. Initially, items were written from ideas found in the search of the literature, from suggestions by recent graduates of Evangel College, from selected ministers and laymen, and from the researcher's own knowledge of church-related education. Pace (55: 6) writes that in selecting items for the CCI and CUES the concept of environmental press determined the type of items; but "the guidance for deciding on the content had to come from one's knowledge of higher education: one had to judge." This is the position taken in the selection of items on the church- controlled college. A preliminary form of the RES was pretested using 10 recent graduates of Evangel College. The instrument was discussed individually with these persons and suggestions were received concerning ambiguous 34 statements, appropriateness of items, and alternate items. These suggestions were evaluated and incorporated into the instrument which was then submitted to groups at two colleges of different denomina- tions for evaluation and reaction. These groups consisted of fourteen students and four faculty at one college and fifteen students and five faculty members at the other one. These groups were asked to indicate their judgment about the importance of the items, statements that were unclear, and to suggest alternate items. From the reactions received, some items were rewarded, some were discarded and others were added. The final form of the RES consists of the six theoretical constructs with a total of 90 items. Each scale was limited to the fifteen items that were judged most appropriate to the scale. Psycho- metric data for the RES are given later in this chapter. The Institutional Profile and the Hypotheses This study was designed to (l) secure a profile of the "effective" religious environment at Evangel College based on the scores of the RES scales for selected groups and for the entire institution, and (2) test certain hypotheses that had been developed. The profile description uses the “66 plus" method of scoring (55: 36) which is an opinion polling technique to report consensus of perceptions. The comparative strengths of perceptions for the groups and for the total institution are reported on the six scales of the RES. Statistical hypotheses were formulated to be tested when the RES is scored by the more familiar statistical computations of means, standard deviations, and variances. Mean scores are used to indicate 35 the average perceptions of each group on these scales. The hypotheses in testable form are: I. No difference will be found in the mean scores of the selected groups at Evangel College on the individual scales of the Religious Environment Scales. II. No difference will be found in the mean scores of Assemblies of God students at Evangel College on the individual scales of the Religious Environment Scales when compared on the following variables: A. B. C. Sex Academic ability Geographical area of student's home Spiritual influence of parents Size of home church Level of pastor's education Spiritual influence of home church Selected Institution The institution selected for the administration of the RES was Evangel College, Springfield, Missouri. This is the national college of one of the younger Protestant denominations, the Assemblies of God, and is a "church-controlled" college strongly committed to conservative Christianity. It is a college of arts and sciences, regionally accredited, and though only thirteen years_old, had an enrollment of 773 for the spring semester of I968. 36 Evangel College is a residential college with students coming from all parts of the United States, though the majority come from the mid-west. More than ninety percent of the students come from the sponsoring denomination as indicated in Table 3.3. Descriptive Data. Descriptive information about the college is provided by the responses of the sample on the CUES. Using upper- classmen as the reporters and scoring CUES by the "66 plus” method (55: 36), an institutional score on the five scales of CUES was secured. Table 3.l presents the score for each scale, indicates the relative standing of this institution to the national norms reported by Pace (55: 42), and for comparison gives the average standing of six religiously-oriented schools (7: 66) on the national norms. Evangel College, similar to the scores in the Boyer and Michael study (7: 66), stands high on the dimensions of Community, Propriety, and Practicality. The scores on Awareness and Scholar- ship are quite low, the first at the 23rd percentile and the latter at the l5th. Further descriptive information about this college is provided by the academic ability and achievement performance of the students selected for the sample. Ability is indicated by the ACE Psychological Examination (using national norms) and achievement by cumulative grade point averages as reported in Table 3.2. Mean grade point averages range from 2.24 for Freshmen to 2.70 for Seniors. Mean Total ACE scores range from the 48.5 percentile for non-A/G students to 63.5 for Seniors. The mean grade point average for all groups is 2.50 while the ACE Total Score average is at the 54.9 percentile. Table 3.] 37 EVANGEL COLLEGE'S CUES SCORES COMPARED WITH NATIONAL NORMS AND A SELECTED STUDY OF CHURCH COLLEGES ’4 Scale E.C.'s Raw E.C.'s Scores Scores of Selected Study Score in Percentiles in Percentiles Using Using National National Norms Norms (y Practicality IS 74% 62% Community 17 83% 94% Awareness 7 23% 48% Propriety I7 90% 96% Scholarship 3 IS% 60% Table 3.2 SUMMARY OF ABILITY AND GRADE POINT AVERAGES BY GROUPS Group Mean Mean ACE Mean ACE Mean ACE G.P.A. Verbal Q Score** Total Score** Score** Seniors 2.70 60.7 62.6 63.5 Juniors 2.59 54.4 54.] 54.4 Sophomores 2.50 57.5 54.9 57.2 Freshmen 2.24 50.7 52.6 5|.O Non-A/G 2.49 50.9 49.8 48.5 *Cumulative Grade Point Average through fall semester, I967. **American Council on Education Psychological Examination, comprised of Verbal, Quantitative and Total Scores, taken upon entering the college. 38 Sample The sample for this study consisted of six groups at Evangel College. They were: Faculty-Administration, Seniors, Juniors, Sophomores, Freshmen, and Non-A/G students (i.e., those who are not members of the sponsoring denomination). It was believed that each of these groups had a unique position from which to report the environment of this college. FacultyfAdministration. This group was defined to include all full-time administrators, full-time faculty members, and members of the Dean of Students' staff who are involved full-time in supervision of student life. All of these persons are members of the sponsoring denomination. An additional stipulation was employment at the college for at least one year prior to the time of the study. The total population of this group was 55, and the number meeting the criteria was 45. This selected group constituted the entire eligible population. The number of returns was 40 as indicated in Table 3.3. Student Classes. Samples were taken from each of the four academic classes. The criteria for these groups were: members of their respective classes as reported by the Registrar's office, those who listed church membership as Assemblies of God, and Seniors, Juniors, and Sophomores who had attended Evangel College at least two years and Freshmen who had attended one term prior to this study. An alphabetical list of eligible students by classes was pro- vided by the Registrar's office. Numbers were assigned to these names and I00 names were selected from each class using a table of 39 .ma30cm mmm_u c_ oo~a=0u=: J. 4. .0: new mm momma co ooc_mon m<« N_m oo: Nmm ~_: mm: oak mNm m_mooe I.” .Hu. .HH. H ..n -.. mm mucoozum oE_uuume om o: om m: om om eeammv u\u_:umu N z N z z z 2 tom: tom: mecauom mcezuom o_aEmm «co_um_:a0m co_um_:aom Quota maesuom mccauom .mHOF .muOP nouuo_om .mHOF mzmaemz az< .moazmcouc_ mucoummcou mm. :mcu_3 msmcomcou .a30cm .mu0u new am.om 1 mm..@ mo _m>couc_ oucov_m:ou mm. :_:u_3 msmcomcou .Lozmcmuuo>ox onu cu_3 mc_omemmm_u egos go New mo mamcomcou o>_ummoz .c03mcm1no>ox osu ;u_3 mc_oocmm «cos co Nwm mo mamcomcou N_+ +mm.mwx_m.~m :~.:m\om.m: +oo.oN\oo.:m +oo.mo\oo.mm +mm.mm\mo.:m mm.om\m:.mm a:m.:mxoe.mo +No.-\mm.~5 +om.m_\om.mm +oo.o~\oo.:w +Mo.Nm\mm.mN +mm.o.\m:.mw +m~.:_\_x.mm +mm.m0\m~.~m +oo.~0\oo.mm +oo.om\oo.ow om.mm\om.~: +oo.mN\oo.mm +oo.m0\oo.mm +oo.o~\oo.ow +om.~@\om.mm oo.o:\oo.oo +om.bN\om.Nm +oo.mm\oo.mm +oo.mw\oo.mm +om.mw\om.~_ +oo.moxoo.mm +oo.o“\oo.om +om.~oxom.mm +cm.~0\om.~m +mm.m0\m~..m m~.om\mm.m: +oo.ow\oo.om +m~._o\mm.wm +mm.~ox_¢.~m «mm.mo\pm.mm +_p.mm\mw.om +_".m~\mw.ow +mm.w0\mm.um +m~.o”\mm.mw +NN.mm\wm.~N +mm.__\mm.mw +m~.00\mm.mm +mm.moxm~.mm +om.mo\om.~m +mm.m_\_o._m oo.mm\oo.m: +mN._M\mm.mo +om.Noxom.~m +oo.m.\oo.mm o~.mm\om.:a mu.mmxm~.mw +oo.mm\oo.mN +m~.w_\m~.zw +oo.m_\oo.mm +m~.oo\m~,mm +m~.m0\m~._m +Nm.m_\mo.om +om.~0\om.mm +oo.m0\oo.mm N_+ +mm.mm\mm-mm om.~m\om.m: +om.-xom.~m +om.moxom.~m +om.-\om.mm mfi.wm\m~._a oo.m:\oo.mm +oo omxoo.ow +mN._N\mm.wN +om.-\om.nm +om.-\om.m~ +Nm.mw\wo.ow +oo.om\oo.om +oo.o_\oo.om +mm.m0\m~..m O... :_+ Cl m_+ +oo.om\oo.om mo.om\mm.m: +mn.w~\mw._n +oo.mo\oo.mm +Nm.m_\w~.~w «oo.mo\oo.mm +mN.mN\mm.mu +mm.w~\mm._n +m~.©~\mn.mm +mm.m_\m~..m +mm.mo\mm..m +mm.m.\m~.ow +m~.m.\mm.mm +oo.o_\oo.om +oo.mo\oo.mm ”much wxm mmmoum 3mummoz n «+ O>mummnul I ya o>_u_mom I M on mucou_mcou m_+ *0 _m>o. Nmm mc_m: mmc0um on monoum N~+ 3mm aaoLu +oo.m.\oo.mm .mo co.mm\oo.ma .ao +oo.o~\oo.om .mo +om.~oxom.~m .mo +om.50\om.~m ..o om.~m\om.m: .mm +oo.m~\oo.m~ .qm «om.nmxom.~m .mm +oo.ooxoo.oo_ .~m +oo.o0\oo.oo_ ..m +oo.om\oo.om ,m +oo.m0\oo.mm .: +oo.o~\oo.ow .m +om.~m\om.~w .N +oo.o_\oo.om .w .cmEvupzumu :m_ummcnu ._ 59 item 3l about faculty interest in the total development of their students. All groups agree (item 32) that faculty members seek to make practical application of Christian principles to their courses. All groups except the Faculty-Administration agree that faculty support daily chapel by their attendance (item 33); the Faculty-Administration group is near the required percentage. Faculty- Administration, Seniors and Freshmen are the only groups who believe that faculty members have adequate academic freedom (item 34). Only the Non-A/G group is above 66 percent on item 35 reporting that the influence of some faculty members is NOT hindered by poor quality of their courses. Seniors and Freshmen are close to reporting the same perception but fall short of the 66 percent minimum. There is high positive consensus among the groups on items 6l to 63, and item 65 These items deal with the faculty being active in helping students with personal Spiritual problems, giving support to the stated re- ligious purposes of the college, and influencing students by the depth of their Christian commitment, Item 64 received almost equally divided "votes" among the six groups concerning whether or not a problem exists of keeping well-qualified faculty. None of the items in this scale received a negative consensus by any group. Table 4 3 presents the percentages of each group answering True/ False on each item of the Chapel scale. The total responses on the items of this scale are divided The clear positive score is only 3 with the percentages on 3 additional items falling withln the standard error interval. There is a clear negative score of 3 with 1 other item counted within the wider confidenre interval Five items received 6O zo manomo >m mmmoum 3coucm oucovmwcou mm. ab;u_3 mamcomcou o>_ummmz u «e .aaocm _m20u 20+ am on n om._o $0 Wm>coucm mucou_wcoo mmu c_£um3 msmcomcoo o>_u_moQ u + .cozmcmnvo>ox one :u_3 mc_omcmmm_u ocoe co woo mo mamcmmcou o>_ummmz u 1 .cochmnvo>ox any :u_3 mc_0ocmm ocoe co Now we mamcomcou o>_u_mOm u + :1 mu m- :1 m: on N: mucon_mcou ~+ m+ 0+ 5+ q+ N+ w+ co _m>ow Nmm mc_m: mocoom m- m- N- m- m; m- N- mocoum m+ m+ o+ m+ N+ m+ N+ 36m aaocu +o:.mw\:m.m_ +oo.om\oo om +Nm.mm\mm.mm +m~.©m\mm mm +mm.mm\mm.mo +oo.om\oo.o_ +oo.mm\oo.mm .om +0m uwxow mm +oo mw\oo m. +oo mmxoo mm +oo.ow\oo.om +mN.ow\m~.m~ +mm.wm\m~.nm +w_.mw\mm.~p .mm m_.mm\~w we oo.oo\oo,oq om.cm\oc.m: o_.mm\:w.mq elem.qo\:4.mm cm Nm\om.mq +om.moxom.wm .ww -mm.o.\mx.mw loo.mo\oo mm -oo.mo\oo mm loo.om\oo.om coo-o_\oo om -oo.mfl\oo.mw som.m_\om.~m .No coo mmxoq-.o oo.m:\oo mm +mm.omxmq.mn amm.mmxmm.mo mm,m:\mm mm mm wa\mm.nm +oo.OM\oo.om .oo mm.w:\m_ cm +om.mo\om mm +mo-mm\_m.mm oo om\oo om mm.wM\mN._o -mN.MM\mN.oo om.N:\om.Nm .oq +Jm oM\oo mo .oo.mM\oo.mw mo om\mm ma +mm.wmxmm ”m mn,wM\mN..m +mN.MM\mN we +co.mm\oo.mw .mm 1mm No\mm.~m goo mo\oo.mm 1mm..n\mm mm nmm.n_\mn mm loo,mo\oo.mm 1mm oo\m~ mm loo.oo\oo.oow .wm .mn.QM\mN.mo om N:\om Rm +mm.mmxm~.oo +mu “M\mm we mN maxmw.om «mm.oM\mm.mo aoo.mmxoo.mo .mm mm macs..:m loo mmxoo mo o..mm\:m on ma max N..m om mm\om N: +mm.wm\mm._m om.mq\om.~m .om +mo.mo\am_am +Om,mo\om mm mm omxao m: .oo.mo\oo mm +oo.mm\oo.mm +mm.mx\mm.ow +om.mo\om.mm .o, -+om,mo\:: mm 00 mm\oo.mq om.mm\o..wa +cmuc_ oucon_mcoo mm. :_;u_z mamcmmcou o>mummmz u «« .Qsocm .mu0u Lo» :@.om u wmo_o mo _m>couc_ oucov_mcou mm. c_£u_z msmcomcoo o>_u_m0m u « ocozmcmnno>ox ecu cu_3 mc_mocmmm_u ocoe co Now we mnmcomcou o>_ummoz u n .cochmnvo>ox ocu ;u_3 mc_oocmm ocoe co New mo mamcomcou o>_u_m0¢ u + w: on on on on on mu mucmn_wcou m+ 0+ m+ 0+ m+ o+ m+ to _o>o_ Nmm mc_m3 mocoom o: m: m- on on mu mu mucoum m+ 0+ m+ 0+ o+ m+ m+ 3mm Quota nmmto_\_~.mw nomomm\om.mo umo“:m\mmcmm noo.o_\oo.om nomomw\om mm nom.~_\omnmm nom.50\om.~m .mn +mm._w\motw_ +omn~m\omt- +mm.om\_p.mm +m~._m\mm.wo +mu.mw\mm.__ +oo.ow\oo.om +oo.ow\oo.o~ tqm o_tm:\omtmm om quomnmm +_momm\mookm mmoo:\mn.mm mmnwm\mon_: mm.mm\mm..: +oo.m~\co.mn .mm um~.~m\mN.mm nom.mmxomnxm umm0w~\mm._m noo.om\oo.ow locum—\oo.mw nmm.w_\mm._w noo.m~\oo.mm .NN +~ouwoxwmtmm +om,m_\om mm +m~.m0\m~.om +om.NO\om.~m +mN._0\mm.mm +m_.m_\—mt:m +om.~o\om¢~m ..N +m~tmmxmmooo oo.o:\ooooo +oo°mmxootmx +om.NM\omqmo +mm.MM\m~two «oo.mM\oo.mo oo.o:\oo.oo tm: u_mtmm\mthm «eooemo\oo.mm -mm,:m\~m.mm smm,mo\mo._m umm._m\mx.w~ etmmnmo\w_.:m oo.om\oo.om .:: n:mow~\o.i.w nomomm\om.- immomw\wotqm loo.m_\oonmw amN._~\mm.wm umN0_m\mm mm nwmnm_\mo,:m .m: immoom\m:nm~ -omtmm\omtwm nomowmxom.mN -mm o_\mm.mw um~.om\mm.mn nomnN_\omhmw -wo.mN\Nm.om .N: no..mm\:maom omomm\omrm: mm wm\mm._q m~.om\mmtm: +mm.oo\mn,mm +oo.om\oo.om +om.mm\om.N~ ..q +mmlmm\mo,.~ +omtfinxom mm +qman\oo.NM +m~._w\mmtmn +m~.oN\mN mm +mm‘wm\mm.”. ooflm:\ooomm ,mp «mm.oM\_: mm +om.m~\omomm +mwtmm\mp.NN +oo.mN\oo mm mom mmxom.mo muoqumm,_m oo.oo\oo.o: .J” +omt-\om NR +ooho~\oo om +oo.m_\oocmw +om.m_\om.mm +omvnmxom um +omrm~\om.mm +oonomxoo om ”mp i.e.memmtmm loo QM\oo on «em.n:M\~w mm umnnm.\m~,ow noocm~\ootmm -mm.op\mmomw umm.m_\mo mm ”N. «om mmxomowm +ooummxoo mm +mN._m\mm mm ooto:\oo.oo mm.m:\m~tom mN.—:\mm.wm omomm\omo~: tp_ .mLOH u\< -coz coEcmocu moc0505Q0m mcowcan mcomcom new€nm mmmoum 3couc_ mucou_mcou mm. c_£u_3 mamcomcou o>_ummoz .azocm .mu0u co» :m.om u om._o mo _m>couc_ mucou_wcou mm. c_cu_3 mamcomcou m>mu_m0m .cochmuum>ox ogu ;u_3 mc_mocmmm_n duos co New to mamcomcou o>_ummoz is 1‘ J0 J! I Q .cmchmuno>mx ocu cu_3 mc_mocmm mcoe co New mo mamcmmcou m>_u_m0m u + N: .s N: N: N: N: mu mocov_mcou m+ m+ m+ 5+ m+ w+ __+ co _o>o_ wmm mc_m: mucoum Nu _: .1 _n .n N: mu mocoum m+ w+ w+ 5+ w+ w+ -+ 3mm asocu m~.wM\m~._o oo.o:\oo.om nom.~m\om.mw oo.o:\oo.oo oo.o:\oo.oo oo.m:\oo.mm uom.Nm\om.mo .om «om.oM\om.mo roo.mm\oo.mo +m~.ow\mm.mm mN._:\mm.wm mm.m:\mm.om mm.m:\mm.om +oo.om\oo.om .mm umm.mm\m~.mo nom.Nm\om.mw om.~:\om.mm loo.0m\oo.om «koo.mm\oo.mo umN.oN\mm.mm nom.mm\om.~n .wN +mw.mm\mm.:c +om.~m\om.n_ +,m.:w\mc.m_ +om.nm\om.mp +mm._m\mm.mo +oo.om\oo o. +mo.mo\mm.mm .Nu +om.OM\om.mo +oo.0m\oo.o~ +mN._N\mm.wm mm.oq\mm.mm +m~.m~xmm.mm oo.o:\oo.oo +om.50\om.mm .oe mm.m¢\mm.~m om.N:\om.em vemm.QM\m~ mo mm.om\mk.m: mN.oq\mN.mm om.~m\om.ua mm.m:\m~.nm .om +_m.mm\mo.mw +om.mm\om.~m +mm.m_\wm.um +oo.mm\oo.mn +oo.mm\oo.mu +oo.OM\oo.om +oo.o_\oo.om .mq ma.mq\mm.om mm.mq\_:.om :N.mM\om.oo om.m:\om.Nm tom.NM\om.No mm..m\mm.mm +oo.om\oo.om .w: +m_.mm\_m.qw +oo.mm\oo.mm +w:.mm\mm._m +oorm~\oo.m~ +mN.mm\mm ow +om.~m\om.NN +om.no\om.mm .5: mN.oo\mm.mm om,mm\om.mq om.~:\om.mm mm.mm\m~.m: oo.om\oo.o: +mN.mm\m~.wN +oo.om\oo.om .0: +o:.om\oo.mo +mm.OM\mm.mo «4:.mM\om.:o +oo.mm\oo.mu +mm.MM\mN.oo +mm.mm\m~._m +om.m~\om.mm .om loo.om\oo.:m oo.mm\oo.m: mm._m\mm.m: «too.mo\oo.mm nom.mm\om.wm uom.mm\om.mm nom.Nm\om.m~ .m— +.m-m~\mo.om +oo.mm\oo.mn +oo.m_\oo.mw +om.mm\om.mm +mm.mm\mm.mm +wm.o~\ma.MN +om.m.\om.mw .w_ +mm.o_\mq.mm +oo.mN\oo.mn +oo.ow\oo.om +mN..N\mm.wm +mm mm\_o pm +mm.w_\_o._m +om.NO\om.mm .um +m~.:0\mN.mm +om.m0\0m.~m +oo.m0\oo.mm +om.~0\om.fim +mm.m0\mm-om +oo.00\oo.oo~ +om.m_\om.~m .m_ .mHOH o\. uz.moum :mDJm om: uz_m: MJm mmmoum 3cmucm oucmn_mcou mm. c_zu_3 .Qsocm .mu0u co» :m.om n om._o co .m>couc_ mocon_wcou mm. c_cu_3 .cochmuuo>mx ecu cu_3 mc_oocmmmmu mcoe to Now mo mamcomcou .cmchmuvm>ox ozu zu_3 mc_oocmm chE co New mo mamcomcou mmmcomcou msmcomcou o>_ummoz o>_u_m0m o>_ummoz o>_u_m0a r t \ i. ‘I .’\ II + uz_moum :ngm we: oz.m3 MAm mmmoum 3o_ Nmm mc_m: moc0om o: o- N- m- .u _u p- mucoum :+ T. 2+ :+ :+ :+ 2+ 32 ago; 30cm +mo.aw\mm.m_ +oo.mm\oo.mm +_m.:m\m_.m. +om.mw\om.m_ +mm.ww\mm... +mm.mw\mw.w_ +wm._m\~:.w_ .mw +Nw.mm\w_.gm om.~:\om.~m +om.~mxom.mo +mo.:~\mm.mm +oo.OM\oo.om +mm.m~\m~.om +oo.mN\oo.mm .qw +...Nm\mw.mm +oo.om\oo.ow +oo.om\oo.om +om.u_\om.mw +m~.o~\mm.mm +om.~m\om.mm +mm.mm\mo._m .mw +om.om\o~.mm +om.NM\om.no +mm.m.\mm.mw +om.~_\om.mm +om.~m\om Rm +om.~w\om.mm +wo.mm\~m.oN .Nw +_w.:m\mc.mm +om.mo\om.mm +mm.wo\mo._m +oo.mm\oo m. +m~.mm\mm.mm +mN._N\mm.mN +mm.wm\mo.pw ..w +Jm.:N\oo.m~ +om.~m\om mm +mm.mo\mo._m +oo.mm\oo.mm +oo.ow\oo om +oo.ow\oo.om +oo.mm\oo.mm .mm +oo.om\oo.:m +om.mm\om.mm +mm.w_\mm..w +mm.pm\mm mm +m~.~mxmm.mm +oo.OM\oo.om +oo.om\oo.om .qm +oo.m_\oo.mm +oo,mo\oo mm +oo o_\oo om +om.~_\om.nm +om.~oxom.wm +mm.w~\m~.flw +om.uo\om.mm .mm «tmm.qo\mm.mm oo.mm\oo.mq -mm mm\mm.om oo.om\oo.om o_.mm\:w.o: loo.om\oo.om nom.Nm\om.mfl .mm +w_,om\mm.mm oonmmxoo.mq imm.mm\_m.om +mm.mm\mm.mm +mm.~m\mm.w~ +om.~m\om.mm too.mo\oo.mm .wm mo._m\Nm m: too.mM\oo.mo oo.mq\oo.mm mm._o\m~.mm om._m\o..mq mm._o\mm.mm om.~:\om.mm .mm oo.wm\oo N: oo.oo\oo.oa oo.mm\oo m: «400 mo\oo mm m~.om\mm.m: mm.mo\mm.wm oo.m:\oo.mm .qm +_w.mm\m. om +om,~n\om.~m +mm.pm\w: mm +oo-QM\oo.on +oo.mm\oo.mm +oo.OM\oo.om +om.~o\om.wm .mm «tom.:m\om mo «moo mM\oo mo -om.Nm\om No umm.ww\mw._m umm..mxmm.mm oo.o:\oo,oo oo.m:\oo.mm .NN +om.:o\om mm +om-NO\om.nm +oo,mo\oo.mm +mm.mo\mm.om +oo.m0\oo mm +oo.mo\oo.mm +oo.m0\oo mm .WN .muoe o\<-coz coELmocm moc0505a0m mco_c:w mcomcmm .cm5v4u.umm memo. : msocu mmchOU co_mm_mm ,> 69 item 22 about students believing there are too many required re- ligion courses; Juniors, Sophomores and Freshmen have negative con- sensus with the Non-A/G near consensus that students DO feel there are too many required religion courses. All groups agree on item 23 that religion courses give adequate emphasis to distinctive doctrines of the denomination. There is split Opinion among the groups on item 24 about religion courses being among the most in- tellectually stimulating courses on campus; SOphomores have a near negative consensus on this question. There is split Opinion on item 25 concerning religion courses being perceived as contributing to students3 general education. There is consensus or near consensus by all of the groups ex- cept the Non-A/G students on item 5l denying that emphasis in religion courses is upon personal religious commitment. Faculty-Administration, Seniors and Freshmen reach consensus (item 52) that most students are familiar with the names of selected contemporary religious leaders. All groups have high consensus on item 53 that the teachings of the Bible are viewed as an integrating force on the campus. All groups agree (item 54) that religion courses are effective in helping students develOp into more mature and intelligent Christians. There is unanimous consensus on item 55 that teachers in religion courses are NOT dogmatic in telling students what they are expected to believe. All groups achieve positive consensus on item 81 in denying that contemporary trends in the religious world are ignored in re- ligion courses. There is unanimous high consensus (item 82) that 70 students in religion courses are not told what to believe but are expected to arrive at their own conclusionsl All groups agree on item 83 that required religion courses give an adequate exposure to ma- jor divisions of religious thoughto There is unanimous agreement on item 84 that conflicting religious views are presented objectively in religion coursesv Unanimous consensus was achieved on item 85 that students can express liberal religious ideas in religion courses without being censored by other studentsi Table 457 presents the percentages of each group answering True/ False on each item of the Personal Religious Life scaleq There is unanimous consensus on item 26 agreeing that students can find a fellow— student to help with a spiritual problemt Only Faculty-Administration report (item 27) a consensus that students believe it is easier to live the Christian life at this college than at a public institutiona There is unanimous agreement on item 28 that most students who graduate From this college are committed Christiansi Only Non—A/G students have a consensus on item 29 (Faculty-Administration group has a 62°SO%) denying that there are many students at the college who do not profess to be Christians, a fact which adversely affects the Spiritual life of the collegeo All groups agree on item 30 that students are concerned about the relevance of religious beliefs to racial problems of the day” There is near consensus by the student groups on item 56 that many students meet regularly in small groups for religious study and devotion; the Faculty-Administration report a strong perception 7l .aaocm _mu0u cow :w.om a om._o mo _m>couc_ oucon_mcou mm. c_cu_3 mamCOmCOU o>mummmz a: , 3‘ zo oz.moum :m34m mo: uz_w: m4m mmmoum 3cmuc_ mocmnmtcou mm. c_£u_3 mnmcomcou m>mu_mom u « .cozmcmunm>ox ozu cu_3 mc_mocmmm_v mcoe Lo &00 mo msmcmmcou o>_ummoz n : tcm3mcmuuo>ox ecu zu_3 mc_mmcmm ocoe co Now mo mamcomcou m>_u_m0m n + :u N: :u mu mu M. q: mucon_wcou 5+ w+ m+ m+ 0+ 0+ m+ mo _o>m_ Nmm mc_m: moLOUm mu _- Nu mu :. mu :u mucoum m+ N+ m+ 0+ o+ m+ o+ 3mm aaoLu +oo.-\:m.~N +oo.OM\oo.om +mm.MM\~ocmo +mo.:~\mm.mm +__.m~\mm.om +~m.mN\wo.:N +wo.m~x~m.mm .om -mm.oN\mo.MN om.~:\om.~m ttoo.mM\oo.mm awN.NN\N~.mm -mo.:~\mm.mm -mm.m_\_o._m -oo.m~\oo.mN .mm -w_vmm\mw.om om.mm\om.mq «umw.mo\w_o:m um~._w\mm.m_ nmm.mw\m~.o_ umN._m\mm.m_ oo.om\oo.om .mw smmtm_\m:.mw noo.mm\oolmu immom~\mw._w noo.o~\oo.om umo.~_\:m.mw umN.wO\mN._m loo.o_\oo.om Kw +_mo:N\mo.mm +oo.OM\oo.0N +mm.w_\_o._w +oo.m~\oo.mm +oo.mN\oo.mm +mm.mM\mN.mo +om.NO\om.Nm .ow mwimm\__ a: ootom\oo.om o. mm\:w.o: mm.mm\mw._: umN.oo\mm.mm mN.om\mm,m: oo.o:\oo,oo .om eemm-mM\mN so eeom mm\om No -mmvmm\mm.oo oo.o:\oo.oo eeooomM\oo.mo mm.mM\mN-.o noo.om\oo om .om «mo mo\mm :m +omlxo\om,wm umN,mo\_m.om +om.~m\omoN~ +m~.oo\mm.mm «mx.mo\mm.om w~.mm\NN w: .mm mm m:\_o mm om.m:\om.mm Nmtqum:vqm oo.m:\oo,mm mm.wm\mm.wq om..m\o_.wq «ooan\ooflmo ,mm tmmth\no so «oatwqumi_o «mm.NM\mo.mo «oo.mM\oo.mo oo,oaxoo om oo.o:\ooooo +oonmw\oo.mm .om +wm._M\N: we +oo.om\oo om +mm.mm\mm.mc +wm.omxmo.mo +om NM\om mo +mmtmmxmm om +oocomxoo.om .om om,mm\om.:: +oo-mm\oo mm mm .mxmmqu oo maxoo mm om‘mmxom N: 00 mmxoo m: «om.mo\0m mm ,mm +po ,m\mm mm +om_mN\om mm +oqno \qm mm +_mlmm\mo.mo +oo.mm\oo,mm +mNU_N\mm.wm +omtmo\omtmm ,mN m.iom\mm_mq oo maxmo mm qw,o:\o. mm om mm\om.mq oouomxoo.0m mmcmm\m~0_: loo OM\oo.om “mm +_mumm\mot:m +oo.oN\oo om 4mm.ww\mm..m +mm.mm\mmvom +_~°m~\mw om +00.0M\oo.om +0000mxoo.om .mm ”much o\ 72 that this is truet There is divided opinion among the groups on item 57 that there is interest in the relationship of Christian teachings to the problems of poverty and the population explosion (Faculty-Administration did achieve a positive 65%)i Juniors, SOphomores and Non-A/G achieve consensus on item 58 while Seniors and Freshmen have near consensus reporting that most students do NOT feel that only Christians should be admitted to this college, There is near negative consensus by all groups on item 59 which indicates there is considerable pressure for a student 5 religious experience to contorm to the pattern of the majorityi The Faculty-Administration group reports (item 60) a substantial 60 percent that student re- ligious organizations ARE active with many students participating; Juniors report a negative consensus on this question while the other groups are divided in their Opinion. There is unanimous consensus on item 86 that most students be- lieve their spiritual life has matured at this institution in a way not possible at a public institution, All groups agree on item 87 that many students with little interest in spiritual matters enroll because of pressure to do so from their parents. Seniors, Juniors and SOphomores have a negative consensus on item 88 with Freshmen near consensus that strong student interest in world miss‘ons does NOT exist. Faculty-Administration, Seniors, Juniors and Sophomores have a negative consensus on item 89 with Freshmen almost agreeing that church attendance by students generally declines while they are enrolled at this colleget All groups report pOSitive consensus on 73 item 90 that spiritual subjects are frequent tepics of student conversationl The institutional score on the RES ranges from a high of +l2 on Christian Faculty to a low of +3 on Chapel, The group profiles have been discussedl Group perceptions as reported on individual items have also been presented. Analysis of Difference Among Group Mean Scores The testable hypothesis concerning the six group mean scores as stated earlier is: No difference will be found in the mean scores of the selected groups at Evangel College on the individual scales of the Religious Environment Scales” To test this hypothesis individual scores were combined to secure group mean scores. Differences in perceptions as indicated by group mean scores are determined by analysis of variance as reported in Table 4 8l~ The assumptions to be met in using analysis of variance were discussed in Chapter III. Since equal sized groups of 40 were used, no test of homogeneity of variance was necessary, The other requirements were met or not seriously violated, When significant differences among mean scores are found, Duncan‘s new multiple range test (37: 136-l40) is used to report which means differ significantly. The mean scores on the Christian Faculty scale range from ll 70 for Seniors to 12050 for Freshmen, The F statistic for this scale is .859 which is less than the critical region at the ,05 levell There- fore, the null hypothesis of no difference among the group mean scores co_um_>mo ncmncmum n m occum cmoz u 2 wmlm oolm am.~ NN,N mm.m mNnm mmum m mmmg mmlm .mflm om m cm m mmhm mm.n Nw.n mo,w : .chmcom mmlm oolm oo,m mwcm oanm mm.N wnrm m momc30u mcm mm o. Nw.oc Nm.o_ mm OM mm o. oo,ow ma 0, z co_m_,mm NolN :m.m ”mlN mmlm wmum mo.~ NNCN m on: Kim 3 m 3,0. Dim mmlm 0mlm own? z .3»; r mmrm No,N omnN Norm :mlm mqlm mwlw m "mpom Mu .mlm molm omlm meow mmlm calm wmle omlm z became r mmlw we N mm N leN ”N,N molm .4.N m “mm N Nwlm mm H mm m 00.x mm.o mmlm monw z wmamso NNrN mm.N Km . mulm nolm mmhm w~ m m xpwaumm mmwl mo N. 0m N. om NW our” mm "p om WV MN N_ “z :mmgmwtcu in emcee ox.ozc are 20 mmmoum z no m_m>qu_:umd uuoamm mama. msvn mm.m w: J: o: _. u_mz cm_um_c£u tom»: on +u mongomoumu mo_comoumu x mo_L0moumu onmom ..az cm;u_3 cmmzuum .i w u Amo. a ¢ u A_o «a xmm no m4m<.m<> >m omaaomo zwIB mum mxh zo mz no m_m>4u_=uma mm.mm mm omuom cmmummucu Humaom mmmwm om,m wmwm _m,m~ mo Np m: mmuo -oa»: $3 an mo.comm~mu mo_comoumu x z m.m>couw. owmom ”.32 c_£ew3 coozuom .I om_ucoUcmm ”mam fl Amo.v u+ omen fl n.0uv mat >H.4.m< u.Zmo >m ommaomu zmIB mum mzk zo mz no m_m>4couc. o_mom _~3z c_cu_3 coozuom I. o_muco0com Aboac.ucoov owca o_an 82 for the Chapel scale range from 7.35 for the 26 - 50 percentile group to 7,98 for the lower quartile group, The F ratio is less than the critical value to reject the hypothesis so the null hypo- thesis of no difference among the group means is accepted, The group mean scores on the Denominational Relationship scale range from 7.32 for the upper quartile group to 8,59 for the lower quartile group. The F statistic for this scale is 3cl5 which is within the critical region at the ,05 level so the null hypothesis of no difference in the mean scores on this scale is rejected. The mean scores for students grouped on the variable of academic ability range from 9.11 to l0.63 on the Regulations scale, The F ratio of 3,92 is large enough to fall within the critical region at the “Cl level so the null hypothesis of no difference between mean scores is rejected for this scale, The mean scores on the Religion Courses scale range from l0,00 to 10,24 with a F statistic too small to reject the null hypothesis, The group mean scores on the Per- sonal Life scale range from 7.33 for the upper quartile group to 9006 for the lower quartile group° The F statistic for this scale is 4,96 and is within the critical region at the .Ol level of confidence, Therefore, the null hypothesis of no difference among the mean scores on the Personal Life scale is rejected, The analysis of variance of the group means when students are grouped by academic ability has shown that the null hypothesis of no difference among group means is rejected on the scales of Christian Faculty, Denominational Relationship, Regulations, and 83 Personal Religious Lifeo Significant differences do exist among the four groups on these scales. Duncan's new multiple range test for unequal groups is applied to the differences among group mean scores on each of the scales found to have significant differences when students were compared on academic ability. Using the "studentized significant ranges", the differences on the Christian Faculty scale is indicated below: Group 76—lOO% 51-75% 26-50% 0—25% N 95 76 82 49 X 11.52 ll 62 ll 87 12 67 The mean scores connected by a continuous underline are not signifi- cantly different, There is a significant difference at the ,05 level between the mean scores of the lower quartile group and the two upper quartile groups° Using the "studentized significant ranges” the differences on the Denominational Relationship scale are indicated below: Group 76-l00% 51-75% 26-50% 0-25% N 95 76 82 49 X 7,32 7(62 7.82 8.59 As demonstrated graphically, there is significant difference at the 84 .05 level between the mean scores of the lower quartile group and the two Upper quartile groups on the Denominational Relationship scale: Duncan's new multiple range test as applied to the differences among the mean scores on the Regulations scale is reported below: Group 76-lOO% 51-75% 26-50% 0-25% N 95 76 82 49 X 9:11 9:42 9,80 10 63 The lines are read from right to left so that the mean scores connected by a continuous underline are not significantly different, There is significant difference at the “0] level between the mean scores of the lower quartile group and the two upper quartile groups. The differences among group scores on the Personal Life scale as measured by Duncan's test are indicated below: Group 76-l00% 51-75% 26—50% 0-25% N 95 76 82 49 2 7:33 7i72 7573 9.06 As shown by the underlines, there is significant difference at the :Dl level between the mean scores of the lower quartile group and the other three groups on this scale: Table 4ull reports the analysis of variance of student mean scores on the scales of the RES when grouped by geographical regions, The eight 85 mm.o m 6663 .m mm.m m umoz .z mm.m .0 .mLucou .2 mm.“ mm .666060 .0 00.0 0m 6.00 .6.60 .o.m mm moxmg .u .EOcoo mo.w N. umMm .m uaouo< momwN N:.o mm.m mm.~ mq.m mm ummm °z um.m m ummz .m oo.m m umoz .z wm.m .0 .mcucou .z ...m wN _mcucmu .m :m.m om $.3w _oam£u m~.m mm moxmd .u mm.m N_ ummu .m 606660 womwn 00-0 00.0 0m.m mm.“ mm 0660 .2 mm.m m umoz .m 06... o 0663 .2 No... .0 .mcucou .z mN.N_ mm .mgucou .m 0m.~_ om 6_00 >6_0666 mm... mm moxm4 .u cm_um_ccu oo.N_ ~_ ummm .m gamuo< woman Nm._ mm.m ...m No.~_ mm ummm .z .oax: mu «m .. mo_comoumu mo_comoumu x z mm_comoumu.l o_mum ..32 cmcu_3 cooZuom u an n 300 a. zo.omm 4 >m ommsomu zmzz ...: m_nmh mum mIk zo mz no m_m>4: 0n #0 mo_00moumu mo_com60mu x z mo_00moumu o_mum 0—32 :_;0_3 coozuom u Auo:c_0:oov ...: o_nmp 87 regions chosen represent the organizational division of the Assemblies of God by geographical region. The mean scores of the eight groups on each of the scales are quite close. The Southwest Area with an N of 9 is the lowest mean score on each of the scales. The F statistics for each scale are small - smaller than the critical region necessary to reject the null hypothesis. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no difference in the mean scores of Assemblies of God students on the individual scales of the RES when compared on the variable of geo- graphical region is accepted. The next variable in the hypothesis to be analyzed is the spiritual influence of parents. Table 4.l2 reports the analysis of variance of student group mean scores on the individual scales of the RES when compared on this variable. The categories range from "Strong" influence to "Parents Not Christians". It is assumed that these five categories are equal intervals. No one group consistently has the lowest or the highest mean score. The means on the Christian Faculty scale range from ll.25 for the "Negative" group to l2.44 for the "Parents Not Christians" group. The F ratio is only l.07 and is less than the critical value for the .05 level. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no difference among the mean scores of students grouped by spiritual influence of parents on the Christian Faculty scale is accepted. The F ratios on the Denominational Relationship scale, the Regulations scale, the Religion Courses scale, and the Personal Life scale are less than the required critical region at the .05 level. The null hypothesis of no difference among the mean scores of students 88 ...m m m:6.0m.0;u 002 00.0 m o>_0mmuz mm.0 om acougan_c: .m_om 00.0 mm 0cmu0oae_ .EOcmo 006660 0.000 0... 00.0 00.0 .0.0 00. 006.00 00.0 m 006.00.050 002 m~.o w o>_ummwz om.m om 0cm00005_c: .00630 00.0 00 00600005. 066060 .m.060.l. .0.0 00.0 0..0. 00.0 00. 006000 00.0. m 006.00.050 002 mm... m 6>_0mmoz om... om 0:600005.:: >0_:umu 00... 00 00600602. 06.00.600 00666< 0.000 00.. 00.0 . 00.0 00.0. 00. 00o000 .00»: 06 00 06.000mw60 mo_0mmo0mu x z 06.00m60mu 6.660 ..02 0.00.3 0662060 - 0:.N u Amo.v 00 mhzmm >m ammnoxo zmz3 mmm mi» 20 mz mo m.m>4.ummoz acmHLOQE.c: acmugoae_ mc000m m».4 .mcomgmm uaouu< 0cm.um.gcu uoz o>.ummmz gamugoae.c: gamugoae_ @0000m 000030u 00.0:60 unmuu< mcm.um.0;u uoz m>.ummmz 0cm00oae.c: acmuLOQE. mcogum .mmmm .omNI ..32 mm.0ommumu mm.00mmumu rwm.00m00mu o.mum Aumac.ucouv N_.: 0.3mh 90 grOUped by spiritual influence of parents on these scales is accepted. The F statistic on the Chapel scale is 2.71 which does fall within the critical region at the .05 level. The null hypothesis of no difference among students grouped by spiritual influence of parents is rejected on the Chapel scale. Duncan's new multiple range test is applied to the mean scores on the Chapel scale to determine which ones are significantly different. The data are given below: Group Negative Unimportant Important Not Chris. Strong N 8 30 98 9 l72 X 6.25 6.90 7.03 7.56 7.90 The underlines are interpreted from right to left and mean scores not underlined ARE significantly different. The mean score of stu- dents who reported "Strong" spiritual influence of parents is signi- ficantly different at the .05 level from the mean score of students who reported "Important" parental influence. The group score of the students whose parents were "Not Christians" is significantly different from the score of students who reported "Important" parental spiritual influence on the Chapel scale. Table 4.13 reports the analysis of variance of student mean scores on the individual scales of the RES when grouped on the variable of size of home church. The mean scores of the five groups are very close. No category is consistently high or low. The F 9] 00.0 0. 000 06>0 .0.0 0. 000-.00 00.0 00 000-.00 .6.60 00.0 00. 000-00. .06060 006660 ..000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00 00. 06600 00.0 0. 000 06>0 00.0 0. 000-.00 00.0 00 000-.00 .60600 00.0 00. 000.00. 006660 ..060--, 00.0 00.0 00.. 00.0 00 00. 06600 00.0. 0. 000 06>0 00... 0. 000-.00 0..0. 00 000-.00 00.0660 00... 00. 000.00. 06.060000 006660 ..060 00.0 00.0 00.0 00... 00 00. 06000 .oaxr 00 «0 06.0om606u 06.0mmmumu x z mo.0om606u 6.660 ..02 0.00.: 0663060 - 00.0 n .00.0-0. mmx wzh zo mz no m_m>4 >m amazoxw zwrz m..: 6.060 92 00.0 0. 000 06>0 :8 .0. 0.00.8 00.0 mm com-.00 60.0 mmé mo. omN-oo. .6c00060 006660 00.0 00 00. 06000 mmd. o. omm 06>o :..o. 0. 000-.00 ~06. mm com-.mm mom-Son. .. 0. 00. 000-00. 06.00.60 00666< mN.o. Twm co. 066:: 0.... 0. 000 06>o 00.0 0. 000-.00 00.0 00 000-.00 .0060 00.0 00. 000-00. 006660 00.0 00 00. 06600 .omx: 66.00m6umu 06.0om6060 & z 66.00m606u 6.660 ..32 0663c.ucou. m..: m.nmh 93 statistic on each scale is quite low with none approaching the critical region. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no difference in the mean scores of students on the individual scales of the RES when compared on the variable of size of hOme church is accepted. Table 4.14 reports the analysis of variance of student mean scores on the individual scales of the RES when grouped on the variable of pastor's level of education. For the purposes of this analysis it is assumed that these categories are equal intervals, The mean scores on the scales of Chapel, Denominational Relationship, Regulations, Religion Courses and Personal Life are very similar, Only the Christian Faculty scale has significantly different mean scores. However, it is noted that the category "Less than High School" con- sistently has the lowest mean score; this group also has the fewest number. The group mean scores on the Christian Faculty scale range from 9.83 for the "Less than High School" group to 12,31 for the "Some College or Bible College" group, The F ratio for this scale is 3,06 which is within the critical region at the 005 level, Therefore, the null hypothesis of no difference in the mean scores of students on the Christian Faculty scale when grouped by pastor's education is rejected, Duncan's new multiple range test is applied to the mean scores on the Christian Faculty scale as indicated on page 96: 94 00.0 mm .060m omo..oQ 00.0 00. .0600 omo..oo .m 00.. 00 606..66 .0 0o mam—.06 meow .m.om om.m om .nm.m .m.: .EOcoc 006660 0000.. 00... 00.0 i 1 0... 00.0 .0. .0... 0000 0060 mm.“ mm .umLm omo._0u 00.. 00. .0600 606..60 .0 00.. 00 606..00 .0 Lo omo..0u 620m .60650 00.. 00 .0600 .0.0 006660 00000 00.0 mmwm 00.0 00.0 0. .0.0 0600 0060 mm... mm .060m omo..ou mo.~. 0m. .06.@ 6mm..0u .m .m.0. 00 606..60 .0 06 0 6mm..ou oEOm >0.:660 ..... 00 .0600 .0.0 06.00.000 066060 00000 00.0 00.0 00.0. 00.0 0. .0.0 0600 0060 .om»: mu 0. 06.00moumu 06.0om606u -x z .06_00moumu 6.66m ..02 0_00_2 0663060 - 00-0 u .00 V 00 20.006000 0.00.000 00 0000.000 .0 0000006 2003 0..0 6.06. mum mzh zo mz no m_m>0.ummmz oo.m m. gamugoae.c: 6.30 mm.o .m OmIOm .m.0m mm.m NN. acmugoae_ .EOc6o 666060 ..000 00.0 00.0 00.60 00.0 00 006.00 00.0 .0 6>.0606z mm.m m. ucmucoae_c: 0 .0.0 .0 60-60 .60600 _ oo.m NN. 0:6000650 066060 ..000 00.0 .0.0 60.00 -0..0 00. 006660 mN.o0 .N 6>.umm6z 00... 0. 60666606.00 00 00.6. .0 60-60 06.0660 00.0. 00. 66600606. 06.00.606 066060 ..060 06.0 00.0 00.00 00.0. 00 066600 .oaxx mu «6 06.00m6umu 06.00m6umu x z 06.0om6umu 6.660 ..02 0.00.3 0663660 - 0:6N " Amoov u... mm.m n ..o.. 006 100310 mum wzo: no muzm30uz_ no m0m<_m<> >m ommnomu zmzz mIP zo mz mo m.m>0.umm6z mm.m m. penugoas.c: 60.0 06 NNHN .m OmTOm .mc0w66m o. m NN. ucmucoae_ 066060 ..000 00.0 00-0 00.00 00.0 00 006600 mm.m .N 6>.umm6z 00.0. m. uCMuLan.c: 0600300 6.3.0,. wmom —® Omlom C0.m..—0m 00 6. 00. 66666662. . . 666060 ..000 00.0 0..0 .0.60 00 .. 00 066600 mm. .N 6>.umm6z mw.m m. 0cmucoae.ca .0060 «a NN.m .m 00-00 0. 6. 00. 60660666. 066060 ..000 0..0. 0..0 00.00 00.6. 00 066660 oa>1 00 66 060Lommumu 06.00m6umu x z 06.00m6umu 6.66m ..32 5.00.3 C66306m .I .v6ac_ucou. m..: 6.060 99 next to lowest score on each scale, and the "Strong“ influence group has the highest score on each scale. The mean scores on the Christian Faculty scale range from 10.29 for the "Negative" influence group to 12.44 for the "Strong" influence group. The F statistic for this scale is 8.08 which is well within the critical region at the .01 level. The null hypothesis of no difference in the mean scores of Assemblies of God students on the Christian Faculty scale of the RES when compared on the variable of the influence of home church is rejected. The mean scores on the Chapel scale range from 6.62 for the "Negative" influence group to 8.14 for the "Strong" in- fluence group. The F ratio for this scale is 3.32 which exceeds the critical value for the .05 level of confidence. The null hypothesis of no difference in the mean scores of students on the Chapel scale is rejected. The group mean scores on the Denominational Relationship scale range from 5.90 to 8.76. The F statistic for this scale is 9.50 which exceeds the critical value for the .01 level. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no difference in the mean scores of students on the Denominational Relationship scale when compared on the influence of home church is rejected. The mean scores on the variable of influence of home church range from 6.95 to 10.43 on the Regulations scale. The F statistic for this scale is 12.17 and falls within the critical region at the .01 level. The null hypothesis of no difference in the group mean scores on the Regulations scale when compared on the influence of home church is rejected. The group mean scores on the Religion Courses 100 scale range from 7.95 for the "Negative" influence groUp to 11.29 f0r the "Strong" influence group. The F ratio for this scale is 8L44 which is well within the Critical region at the .01 level of confidence. The null hypOthesis of no difference when compared on the influence of home church is rejected at the .01 level. The mean scores of the five grOUps on the Personal Life scale of the RES range from 6.10 to 8.47. The F statistic for this scale is 4.84 which is again in excess of the required critical value. The null hypothesis of no difference in the mean scores of the Personal Life scale when compared on the influence of the home church is rejected at the .01 level. This means that the null hypothesis on the variable of influence of home church is rejected for gagh_of the individual scales of the RES. Duncan's new multiple range test is applied to the mean scores on the Christian Faculty scale as indicated below: Group Negative So-So Unimportant Important Strong N 21 81 13 122 79 X 10.29 10.93 11.77 12 34 l2 44 Reading the lines from right to left, the mean score of students who reported "Strong" influence by the home church is significantly different at the .05 level from the mean scores of the group reporting "Negative" influence and the group reporting "So-So" influence. The mean score of the group reporting "Important" influence of the home church is significantly different from the mean scores of the group 101 reporting "Negative" influence and the group reporting "So-So” influence on the Christian Faculty scaleo The new multiple range test is applied to the mean scores on the Chapel scale as indicated below: GrOUp Negative So-So Important Unimportant Strong N 21 Bl 122 13 79 X 6fl62 6p81 7i60 7585 8n14 As graphically presented, the mean score of students who reported "Strong" influence is significantly different at the “05 level on the Chapel scale from the mean scores of the group reporting "Negative" influence and the group reporting "So-So" influence by home church. The new multiple range test of Duncan's is applied to the mean scores on the Denominational Relationship scale as indicated below for the variable of influence of home church: Group Negative So-So Important Unimportant Strong N 2l 8l l22 13 79 R 5:90 6:99 7:85 sloo 8:76 Reading the columns from right to left, mean scores connected by a continuous underline are not significantly different: The mean score of students who reported "Strong" influence by home church is significantly 102 different at the ,05 level on the Denominational Relationship scale from the scores of the group reporting "Negative" influence, the group reporting "So-So" influence, and the group reporting "Important" influence: The mean score of students who reported "Unimportant” influence by home church is significantly different at the :05 level from the score of the group reporting "Negative” influence, The mean score of the group reporting “Important" influence by home church is significantly different on the Denominational Relationship scale from the group reporting "Negative" influence and the group reporting "So-So" influence: Duncan's new multiple range test is applied to the mean scores of the variable of influence of home churzh on the Regulations scale as indicated below: Group Negative So-So Unimportant Important Strong N 21 81 13 122 79 X 6i95 8,77 8 85 10 14 10 43 The mean score of students who reported "Strong" influence by home church is significantly different at the .05 level on the Regulations scale from the scores of the grOUps reporting "Negative" influence, "So-So" influence, and "Unimportant" influenceg The mean score of students who reported "Important" influence by home church is signifi- cantly different from the scores of the group reporting "Negative” influence and the group reporting "So-So" influence, The mean score 103 of students who reported "Unimportant" influence by home church is significantly different from the mean score of the group reporting "Negative" influencec The mean score of students who reported "So—So'l influence by home church is significantly different at the 005 level on the Regulations scale from the score of the group reporting "Negative" influence, Duncan's new multiple range test is applied to the mean scores of the variable of influence of home church on the Religion Courses scale as indicated below: Group Negative So-So Unimportant Important Strong N 21 81 13 122 79 R 7:95 9958 10 00 10 52 ll 29 Mean scores connected by a continuous underline are not significantly different° The mean score of students who reported "Strong” in- fluence by home church is significantly different at the 305 level on the Religion Courses scale from the scores of the group reporting "Negative" influence and the group reporting “So-So" influencei The mean score of students who reported "Important" influence by home church is significantly different from the scores of the group re- porting "Negative" influence and the group reporting I'So-So” in- fluence° The mean score of students who reported "Unimportant" influence is significantly different from the score of the group reporting "Negative" influences 104 Duncan's new multiple range test is applied to the mean scores on the Personal Life scale as indicated below for the variable of influence of home church. Group Negative So-So Unimportant Important Strong N 21 81 13 l22 79 X 6.10 7.27 7.85 8.10 8.47 Mean scores connected by a continuous underline are not significantly different. The mean score of students who reported "Strong" in- fluence by home church is significantly different at the .05 level on the Personal Life scale from the scores of the group reporting "Nega- tive" influence and the group reporting "So-So" influence. The mean score of students who reported "Important" influence by home church is significantly different from the scores of the group reporting "Negative" influence and the group reporting ”So-So" influence. Summary The institutional profile of Evangel College on the RES has a positive score of 12 on the Christian Faculty scale, 11 on Religion Courses scale, 8 on the Regulations scale, 5 on the Personal Religious Life scale, 5 on the Denominational Relationship scale, and 3 on the Chapel scalei When the standard error of proportion for a two to one . consensus is used, the scores are Christian Faculty l3, Religion Courses 11, Regulations 9, Denominational Relationship 8, Personal Religious 105 Life 7 and Chapel 6. There is also negative consensus at the 66 percent minimum of 6 on the Denominational Relationship scale, 3 on the Chapel scale and Personal Religious Life scale, and 2 on the Regulations scale. The scores among the six groups are within 2 points of each other in the Christian Faculty scale at the 66 percent minimum, 2 points on the Religion Courses scale, 2 points on the Personal Religious Life scale, and 3 points on the Denominational Relationship scale. 0n the Regulations scale SOphomores have a low score of 7, Faculty- Administration 11, and the other groups 8. 0n the Chapel scale the Juniors have a low score of 2, Faculty-Administration have a high of 7. An analysis of the responses of the six groups on each individual item of the scales is given using the "66 plus" method of scoring. Much information is provided by this analysis of the similarities and differences in the perceptions of the selected groups. The null hypothesis of no difference in the mean scores of the selected groups on the individual scales of the RES may be rejected at the .05 level only for the scales of Chapel and Denominational Relationship. Duncan‘s new multiple range test was used to determine which group means differed significantly from the other means. The null hypothesis of IK) difference in the mean scores of Assemblies of God students at Evangel College on the individual scales of the RES when compared on selected variables can be re— jected only in part. Using the variable of sex, the null hypothesis can be rejected at the .01 level for the scales of Christian Faculty, 106 Chapel, Denominational Relationship, and Regulations. Using the variable of academic ability, the null hypothesis of no difference in the group mean scores can be rejected at the .05 level for the scales of Christian Faculty and Denominational Relationship; the null hypothesis can be rejected at the .01 level for the scales of Regu- lations and Personal Religious Life. The null hypothesis of no difference among students when grouped on the variable of influence of home church may be rejected at the .01 level for five of the six scales of the RES and at the .05 level for the other scale. Using the variable of spiritual influence of parents, the null hypothesis may be rejected at the .05 level only for the Chapel scale. Using the variables of geographical region and church size, the null hypothesis can not be rejected for any of the six scales of the RES. Duncan's test was used to determine which means were significantly different on the scales that were foUnd to have significant differences among mean scores. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION In this chapter the study is summarized, conclusions are dis- cussed and implications for future research are presented. Summary This study reports the development of an experimental instrument, the Religious Environment Scales (RES), which was‘constructed to assess the perceptions of the religious environment at denominational colleges. Also reported are the results obtained by the administration of the RES at a selected church-controlled college - Evangel College, Springfield, Missouri. Design_and Procedure. The RES was designed to measure the perceptions of the religious press at a denominational college along six theoretically derived dimensions: Christian Faculty, Chapel, Denominational Relationship, Moral and Social Regulations, Religion Courses, and Students' Personal Religious Life. Persons who live in the environment were asked to serve as reporters about the religious features, activities and characteristics of their campus. By answering TRUE or FALSE to the 15 statements in each scale, respondents de- scribed the religious characteristics of their institution. The religious characteristics of the environment that respondents were aware of and reported with reasonable unanimity as true or not true about the college constitutes the effective religious environment. 108 The RES was scored by two different methods. The “66 plus" method based on opinion polling techniques counts an item "correct" or "valid" when 66 percent or more of the respondents answer in agree- ment with the keyed—answer. This constitutes positive consensus. The score on each scale is the number of items out of a possible 15 points which has positive consensus. Items answered by 66 percent or more in disagreement to the keyed-answer constitutes negative con— sensus. The RES was also scored by the more familiar method of com- puting individual scores and combining them to determine group mean scores. Differences among the group mean scores were then determined by the technique of analysis of variance. 1 Content validity is claimed for the RES based upon the procedures used in collecting the items and pretesting and revising the instru— ment. Reliability for the RES when "66 plus" scoring is used can be estimated by indicating the standard error of a proportion for 66 percent. This gives the interval around this proportion within which the "true“ proportion can be expected to occur. The lower limit of the interval at the .95 level of confidence for-a two to one ratio is 61.36. When the instrument is scored by individual scores and group means, an estimate of reliability can be calculated by the analysis of variance techniques suggested by Hoyt and Lindquist. The reliabilities estimated for each scale using group mean scores were all .99 . RES scale scores are correlated with scale scores on the CUES. The co- efficients indicate the two instruments to some degree measure things in common but also that they measure quite different things. The 109 coefficients among the scales of the RES indicate that there is cohesiOn among the scales but that they also measure quite different things. 'The RES was administered to selected groups at Evangel College during the last week of April, 1968. These groups were full—time members of the Faculty-Administration; Seniors, Juniors, Sophomores and Freshmen students who are members of the sponsoring denomination; and Non-A/G students (students not members of the Assemblies of God). The number of returns used was 400, an 81 percent of the total sample selected. There were 80 from each of the academic classes and 40 from each of the Faculty-Administration and Non-A/G groups. Profile and Hypotheses. One of the major purposes of this study was to discover the profile of the religious environment at Evangel College as measured by the individual scales of the RES. Using the "66 plus" method of scoring, comparative scores on the six scales are reported for the entire institution and for the six selected groups. The maximum value of analysis is through examination of the reported perceptions on each item. The responses on the individual items of the scales are therefore given for each grOUp. Two major testable hypotheses were formulated for this study using mean scores as the indication of a group's perception of the religious environment. The first hypothesis stated in null form was: No difference will be found in the mean scores of the selected groups at Evangel College on the in- dividual scales of the Religious Environment Scales. 110 The second major hypothesis stated in null form was: No difference will be found in the mean scores of Assemblies of God students at Evangel College on the individual scales of the RES when compared on the following variables: Sex Academic ability Geographical area of student's home Spiritual influence of parents Size of home church Level of pastor's education Spiritual influence of home church CD'fll'flUOW) Analysis of variance was used to test for difference among the group mean scores on the individual scales of the RES. The F max test and Bartlett's test were used to assure homogeneity of variance among the groups. When significant difference was found among groups on the scales by analysis of variance, Duncan's new multiple range test was utilized to determine which group means were significantly different. In testing these hypotheses the decision was made to reject the null hypotheses at the .05 level of significance. The Analysis and Conclusions Institutional Profile. The institutional profile is described in terms of the scores on each scale using 66 percent as the minimum for consensus. Positive consensus occurs when 66 percent or more answer in agreement with the keyed-answers; negative consensus occurs when 66 percent or more answer in disagreement with the keyed-answers. The effective religious environment consists of the characteristics which respondents are aware of and report with reasonable unanimity of a two to one ratio. 111 The institutiOnal scores in rank order are: Christian Faculty +13, ReligiOn CoUrses +ll, Regulations +8, Denominational Relation- ship +5, Personal Religious Life +5, and Chapel +3. There are no negative cohsensUs scores on the Christian Faculty or Religion Courses scales. The negative consensus scores on the other scales are: Regulations —2, Personal Religious Life -3, and Chapel -3 (the same score as positive consensus). The Denominational Relationship scale has a negative score of -6 which is higher than the positive score on this scale. It is concluded that the dimensions of Christian Faculty and Religion Courses are perceived as strong elements in the effective religious environment of Evangel College as measured by the RES. This fact can be encouraging to this college as an educational institution within the Christian tradition. The dimension of Moral and Social Regulations is perceived as of medium strength in the effective religious environment. The scales of Personal Religious Life, De- nominational Relationship, and Chapel are perceived as weak elements in the effective religious environment at Evangel College as measured by the RES. The positive score of +5 on Personal Religious Life is countered by the negative score of -3. The positive consensus of +5 on Denominational Relationship is negated by the negative score of -6. The lowest positive score is +3 on the Chapel scale which is offset by the negative score of -3. The negative scores on these three scales counteract the positive scores so that considerable ambiguity is experienced between the positive and negative directions 112 in the field forces of the environmental press of these dimensions. Examination of these three scales leads to selected observations. Concerning the Personal Religious Life scale, there was no agreement as to whether it is easier to live the Christian life at this institu- tion than at a secular institution. Negative consensus is expressed that there is pressure for religious experiences to conform to the majority, that church attendance declines while students are enrolled at the college, and student interest in world missions is lacking. Concerning the Denominational Relationship scale, there was negative consensus that the college administration is too sensitive about what happens at the college as the result of criticism from the denomination, that the college is held responsible for loss of spiritual interest by students, and that in various ways the denomina- tion exercises too much control over the college. Concerning the Chapel scale, chapel is not perceived by students as a necessary feature of the life of the college nor as contributing to their spiritual life. Students are not satisfied with the fre- quency of required attendance. There is divided Opinion about reverence in chapel being a problem, about students understanding the basic objective for chapel, and about chapel services being generally stimulating. Group Scores. The scores of the selected groups are compared on the individual scales of the RES using 66 percent as the minimum for consensus. There is general agreement among the six groups on the Christian Faculty scale. The groups are within two points on the l13 , Religion Courses scale and on the Personal Religious Life scale. The 'groups are within three points on the Denominational Relationship scale; the Freshmen have the highest score of +8 while the Faculty- Administration group and the Seniors have the low scores of +5. Larger differences among group scores occur on the Regulations scale and the Chapel scale. 0n the Regulations scale the Faculty-Administration group has the high score of +11 and the Sophomores have the low score of +7; the Faculty-Administration perception on this scale is sharply different from that of the students. The scores on the Chapel scale range from +7 for the Faculty-Administration to +2 for the Juniors. It is not readily apparent why the Juniors are so different from the other groups on this scale. It is concluded that some difference in perception occurs among the groups but in a limited way. There is no pattern of any group being consistently high or low on the scales. Analysis of Mean Scores of Selected Groups. The null hypothesis of no difference in the mean scores of the selected groups on the individual scales of the RES was tested by analysis of variance. Statistically significant difference among the group means was found at the .05 level on only tw9_of the six scales of the RES: Chapel and Denominational Relationship. Duncan’s multiple range test shows that the Faculty-Administration group is significantly higher on the Chapel scale than the Juniors and Seniors, the Freshmen higher than the Juniors. This fact has already been observed in the analysis of the profile. Apparently the Faculty-Administration group holds 114 different perCeptions, expectations or attitudes towards chapel than the upperclassmen who have attended chapel services at this college for two years or more. Freshmen students have the highest mean score of the student groups which may reflect a halo effect or an idealism not yet dulled by more than one year of required chapel ex- periences or altered to fit current upperclass attitudes towards chapel. The null hypothesis was also rejected for the Denominational Relationship scale. Duncan's multiple range test applied to this scale shows that the Freshmen are significantly higher than the Seniors and the Faculty-Administration, and the Non-A/G students higher than the Seniors. This suggests that the two groups least informed about the relationship between the college and the denomination - the Freshmen and the Non-A/G students - are reporting expectations rather than per- ceptions of the actual relationship. Seniors and the Faculty- Administration group have the two lowest mean scores on this scale - the two groups which presumably are the best informed or have the longest time of observing the inter-relatibnships between the denomination and the college. In comparing groups by their mean scores, no trend was found among the relationships of scores on the scales. There is no trend from Freshmen to Seniors, or other consistent pattern among the classes. Perceptions of the Non-A/G group are not markedly different from the other groups. With one or two exceptions, the Faculty- Administration group is not different from the other groups. 115 Analysis of Student Mean Scores on Selected Variables. The null hypothesis of no difference in the mean scores of students on the individual scales of the RES when compared on selected variables was tested by analysis of variance. No statistically significant difference was found at the .05 level of confidence when students were grouped by geographical region of home or by size of home church. Statistically significant difference was found at the .05 level on only 9gg_of the six scales when students were grouped by the variable of spiritual influence of parents. The difference was found on the Chapel scale. Since two of the groups have N's of 8 and 9, and since significant difference was found on only one of the scales, little importance is attached to the findings on this variable. There is reason at this point to question the appropriateness of the cate- gories for this variable and the assumption that they are equal inter- vals. Students whose parents were not Christians may be very devout Christians themselves and reflect their commitment rather than any parental influence on their reported perceptions of the religious environment. Significant difference was found at the .05 level on only one of the six scales when students were grouped by level of pastor's education. The difference was found on the Christian Faculty scale. Since there were only 12 in the group with the lowest mean score, and since only one scale shows any significant difference, little importance is attached to the results on this variable. It is concluded that factors other than pastor's level of education very likely influenced the responses of 116 these 12 wh05e pastors had "Less than High School" level of education. The null hypothesis of no difference in the mean scores when students are grouped by sex was rejected for four_of the scales. Women students have significantly higher scores at the .01 level on the scales of Christian Faculty, Chapel, Denominational Relationship, and Regulations. The mean scores of women students are also higher on the other two scales though the difference between the means is not statistically significant. Women students have a more favorable per- ception of the religious environment at Evangel College than do the men students. The null hypothesis of no difference in the mean scores when students are grouped by academic ability was rejected for f9gr_of the six scales. Students were grouped by their ACE Total percentile scores into quartiles. Significant difference was found at the .05 level among the mean scores on the scales of Christian Faculty and De- nominational Relationship. Difference was found at the .01 level among the mean scores on the scales of Regulations and Personal Re- ligious Life. There is an inverse relationship between academic ability rank and scores on the scales of the RES. The group in the lower quartile is significantly higher than the two upper quartiles on each of the four scales. Apparently the students with the higher academic ability are more critical and independent in their thinking, less docile and accepting of the status quo. The null hypothesis of no difference in the mean scores when students are grouped by spiritual influence of home church was rejected 117 for all six scales. The hypothesis was rejected on the Chapel scale at the .05 level and the rest of the scales at the .01 level. The five categories for this variable ranged from "Strong", "Important", "So-So", "Unimportant" to "Negative". Students were asked to indicate their perception of the degree of spiritual influence by their home church. A pattern is seen on five scales with the same order of category means occuring. In descending rank order they are: "Strong", "Important", "Unimportant", "So-So" and "Negative". The only ex- ception to this order is on the Chapel scale where the order of the groups "Important" and "Unimportant" are reversed. This pattern of ranked means follows the ranked order of categories given in the questionnaire except for the reversal of positions by the groups "So-So" and "Unimportant". It is unclear why on these five scales the group identifying itself as having the next to the lowest degree of influence has a higher mean than the "So-So" group. This may reflect a problem in semantics of the labels of categories chosen or perhaps reflects subtle influences by personality types of self-concepts. It is concluded that the students who described themselves as having had "Strong" spiritual influence by their home churches have significantly higher scores on the scales of the RES than do the students who describe their home church influence as being "So-So" or "Negative". The same conclusion is made for the groups which reported "Important" or "Unimportant“ spiritual influence by their home church. Conclusions. Major conclusions to be drawn from this study can 1l8 be summarized as follows: 1. The institutional profile scores at Evangel College are high on the Christian Faculty and Religion Courses scales, medium range on the Regulations scale, and low on Personal Religious Life, De- nominational Relationship, and Chapel scales. Group profile scores are very similar on most of the scales. The Faculty-Administration scores are high on the Regulations and Chapel scales and are markedly different from the other groups; the Juniors are very low on the Chapel scale and Freshmen are a little higher than the other groups on the Denominational Relationship scale. 2. Significant difference among the mean scores of the six selected groups occurs on only two of the six scales of the RES: Chapel and Denominational Relationship. 3. Significant difference among the mean scores of Assemblies of God students at Evangel College on the individual scales of the RES does occur on certain variables. 0n the variable of sex, women students have significantly higher scores than men students on the four scales of Christian Faculty, Chapel, Denominational Relationship, and Regulations. 0n the variable of academic ability, students in the lower quartile have significantly higher scores than the two highest quartile groups on the scales of Christian Faculty, Denominational Relationship, Regulations, and Personal Religious Life. On the variable of influence of home church, the mean score of the group re- porting "Strong" spiritual influence is significantly higher on all the scales of the RES than the groups reporting "So-So" or "Negative" influence. 119 4. The Religious Environment Scales are useful in providing a description of the perceptions of the religious dimensions at a de- nominational college. Comparative scores on the scales give informa» tion about the college not possible by other means. Group profiles on the RES provide insight into the perceptions of these various groups within the institution. 5. The use of the demographic variables in this study provides ambiguous results. No difference was found on the variables of geographical region or size of home church; doubtful difference was found on only one scale on the variables of level of pastor's education and spiritual influence of parents. Difference on four scales were found on the variables of sex and of academic ability; difference on all six scales was found on the variable of spiritual influence of home church. One conclusion of this study is the uncertainty of what is being measured when students are asked to indicate their per- ceptions on categories of certain variables, i.e., level of pastor's education and spiritual influence of parents. It is unclear at this time whether the variable being reported is influencing the student's responses or whether his responses reflect other unidentified factors or reflect his own personality or attitudes. The possibility of certain variables influencing the perceptions of the religious environment - or being the result of the personality or attitude of the respondent - raises a question about the extent to which environmental press determines perceptions and directs behavior. The tentative conclusion of this study is that perceptions 120 of the religious environment as measured by the RES are influenced by factors other than the environmental press. What students report about their environment may be influenced by their sex, by their academic ability, by the spiritual influence of their home church - or is it the personality or attitudes which the respondent brought with him to the environment? Implications for Further Research l. The results from the administration of this research in- strument at one institution must be regarded as tentative. If the RES is to be useful to other denominational colleges, a replication of this study or a similar study administering the RES to other church- 'controlled colleges is necessary. Comparisons of institutional pro- files on the individual scales and of groups within institutions would be valuable. It is possible that data collected through the adminis- tration of the RES to other institutions would permit refinement of the instrument and items within the scales. 2. Perceptions of the religious environment as measured by the RES based on the variables of sex, academic ability, and spiritual influence of home church need further investigation to determine if other measures would agree with the results of this study. A study on the perception of the degree of influence of home church offers a potentially productive area for further investigation for the church-controlled college. The problem of what is being measured as discussed above needs to be pursued: are these perceptions primarily l2l expectations rather than observed perceptions? do they reflect what the student brings with him to the college environment? do the per- ceptions reflect the environmental press? 3. The institutional scores on the Regulations scale, the Personal Religious Life scale, and particularly the Denominational Relationship scale and the Chapel scale, indicate the need for additional study at Evangel College to verify these findings by re- plication of this study or by other measures. In light of these findings and in view of the institution's religious goals, the responses on the items of these four scales need careful examination to consider what the respondents are saying about their college. For example, it is reported that Chapel is perceived as not contributing to the religious development of the students. Why? Is required chapel essential to the religious purposes of the church-controlled college? If so, then what changes can and should be made in order for chapel to be part of the "effective" religious environment? An item by item analysis can profitably be made with the college president, the faculty, and the governing board, to examine the per- ceptions reported, and the perceptions that are held by various groups within the institution. l0. ll. 12. 122 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Ahlstrom, Sydney E. "Toward the Idea of a ChurCh College." The Christian Scholar. 43 (March, 1960), 25-381 American Psychological Association. "Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests and Manuals." Problems in Human Assessment. Douglas Jackson and Samuel Messick, editors. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967. Astin, Alexander W. "An Empirical Characterization of Higher Educational Institutions." Journal of Educational Psychology. 53 (October, 1962),.224-235. "Some Characteristics of Student Bodies Entering Higher Educational Institutions." Journal of Educational Psychology. 55 (October, 1964), 267-275. Who Goes Where to College? Chicago: (Science Research Associates, 1965. Astin, Alexander W. and Holland, John L. ”The Environmental Assessment Technique: A Way to Measure College Environ- ments." Journal of Educational Psycholggy, 52 (December, 1961), 308-316. Boyer, Ernest L. and Michael, William B. "Faculty and Student Assessments of the Environments of Several Small Religiously- Oriented Colleges." California Journal of Educational Research. 19 (March, 1968), 59-66. Brauer, Jerald C. "The Christian College in American Education." The Christian Scholar. 41 (Autumn, 1958), 233-245. Brown, Donald. "Personality, College Environments, and Academic Productivity." The American College. Nevitt Sanford, editor. New York: John Wiley and Sons, l962. Brown, Robert McAfee. "The Reformed Tradition and Higher Education." The Christian Scholar. 41 (March, 1958), 21-40. Brown, Robert Windsor. "A Study of Institutional Purposes and Practices as They Relate to the Christian Tradition in the Methodist Four-Year College." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965. Buttrick, George A., et. a1. "Toward A PhiloSOphy of the Church Related University." The Christian Scholar. 45 (Summer, 1962), 90-97. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 123 Cattell, Everett L. I'How Are Church and College Related?" Christianity Today. 10 (September 2, 1966), ll-12. Chickering, Arthur W. "Student Development and Institutional Inconsequence." Detroit Convention Abstracts. Washington: American Personnel and Guidance Association, 1968. Coit, John Knox. "The Church-College Dialogue: What is it About?" The Christian Scholar. 44 (Fall, 1961), 245-252. Cronbach, Lee J. "The Two Disciplines of Scientific Psychology." Problems in Human Assessment. Douglas Jackson and Samuel Messick, editors. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967. Cuninggim, Merrimon. The College Seeks Religion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1947. Dirks, J. Edward, editor. The Christian Scholar. 37 (March, 1954), 1-82. The Christian Scholar. 37 (Autumn, 1954), 1-349. "The Editor's Preface." The Christian Scholar. 37 (Autumn, 1954), 175-177. Ditmanson, Harold H.; Hong, Howard V.; Quanbeck, Warren A.; editors. Christian Faith and the Liberal Arts. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1960. Doerscher, W. 0. The Church College in Today's Culture. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963. Duncan, David B. "Multiple Range Tests for Correlated and Heteroscedastic Means." Biometrics. 13 (June, 1957), 164-176. Eddy, E. E. The College Influence on Student Character. Washington: American Council on Education:_1959. Editorial. "Evangelical Colleges as Faith-Affirming Institutions." Christianity Today. Carl F. H. Henry, editor. 9 (September 10, 1965). 25-26. . "The Plight of the Church College.". Christianity ioday. Carl F. H. Henry, editor. -9 (May 21, 1965), 16-19. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 124 Edwards, Allen L. Experimental Designin Psychological Research. New York: Rinehart and Company, 1960. Ferré: Nels F. S. "The Church-Related College and a Mature Faith." Religious Education. 54 (March-April, 1959), 149-155. "The Place of the Chapel in a Christian College.“ Journal of Higher Education. 38 (April, 1967), 177-183. Gaebelein, Frank E. Christian Education in a Democragy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1951. Hassenger, Robert and Weiss, Robert. "The Catholic Colleges Climate." The School Review. 74 (Winter, 1966), 419-445. Hays, William L. Statistics for Psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1963. Hong, Howard, editor. Integration in the Christian Liberal Arts College. Minnesota: St. Olaf College Press, 1956. Hoyt, Cyril. "Test Reliability Estimated by Analysis of Variance." Psychometrika. 5 (June, 1941), 153-160. Johns, Donald F. "A PhiloSOphy of Religious Education for the Assemblies of God." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1962. Kramer, Clyde Y. "Extension of Multiple Range Tests to Group Means with Unequal Numbers of Replications." Biometrics. 12 (September, 1956), 307-310. Lindquist, E. F. Design and Analysis of Experiments in Psycholo and Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 953. Lowry, Howard F. "The Christian College as a Christian Community." The Christian Scholar. 37 (Autumn, 1954), 218-227. The Mind's Adventure. Philadelphia: Westminster.Press,1950. Mayhew, Lewis B. The Smaller Liberal Arts College, Washington: The Center for App1ied Research in Education, 1962. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 125 McCoy, Charles S.; O'Byrne, E. M.; and Drushal, J. Garber. "Can the Churches Take Their Educational Responsibility Seriously?" Review of Church-Sponsored Higher Education in the United States by Manning Pattillo, Jr. and Donald Mackenzie. Journal of Higher Education. 39 (March, 1968), 169-176. McFee, Anne. "The Relation of Students' Needs to Their Percep- tions of a College Environment." Journal of Edugational Psychology. 52 (February, 1961), 25-29. McGrath, Earl J. "The Future of the Protestant College." Liberal Education. 47 (March, 1961), 45-57. "The Special Mission of the Church-Related C611ege." School and Societ . 91 (April 6, 1963), 165-167. Maitland, David J. "Christ and Today's Campus." The Christian Scholar. 41 (Autumn, 1958), 223-232. Michael, W. B. and Boyer, E. L. “The College Environment." Review of Educational Research. 35 (October, 1965), 264-276. Mickey, Robert G. "Questions About the Christian College." IDS. Christian Scholar. 41 (March, 1958), 15-20. Miller, Alexander. Faith and Learning, New York: Association Press, 1960. Moseley, John D. "A Fresh Look at the Vocation of the Christian College.“ The,Christian Scholar. 41 (Autumn, 1958), 254-264. Murray, Henry. Explorations in Personality. New York:‘ Oxford University Press, 1938. Nelson, Henry. "A Descriptive Analysis of the Policies and Practices Governing the Standards of Conduct at a Group of Selected Church-Related Colleges." unpublished Ed.0. dissertation, Indiana University, 1965. Noble, Hubert C. "The Christian Community of the College Campus." The Christian Scholar. 37 (March, 1954), 40-47. "Reappraising the Role and ReSponsibility of the Church-Related Colleges." The Christian Scholar. 50 Outler, Albert C. "Theological Foundations for Christian Higher Education." The Christian Scholar. 37 (Autumn, 1954), 202-213. 126 55. Pace, C. Robert. College and University_Environment Scales. Technical Manual. Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1963. 56. . Comparisons of CUES Results from Different Groups of Reporters. Princeton: Educational Testing Service,71967. 57. . "Diversity of College Environments." Journal of the National Association of Women Deans and Counselors. 257(0ctober, 1961), 21-26. 58. , "Evaluating the Total Climate or Profile of a Campus.‘T Current Issues in Higher Education. G. Kerry Smith, editor. Washington: National Education Association, 1961. 59. . "Implications of Differences in Campus At- mosphere for Evaluation and Planning of College Programs." Personality Factors on the College Campus: Review of a Symposium. Robert L. Sutherland, editor. Austin: The Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, 1962. 60. . "Methods of Describing College Cultures." Teachers College Record. 63 (January, 1962), 267-277. 61. . "When Students Judge Their College." College BoardEReview. 80 (Winter, 1965-1966), 26-28. 62. Pace, C. Robert and Stern, George G. "An Approach to the Measurement of Psychological Characteristics of College Environments." Journal of Educational Psychology. 49 (October, 1958), 269-277. 63. Pattillo, Manning M., Jr. and Mackenzie, Donald M. Church- Sponsored Higher Education in the United States. Washington: American Council on Education, 1966. 64. Poteat, William H. "Defining Some Central Issues." The Christian Scholar. 37 (March, 1954), 12-18. 65. Reeves, Floyd W.; Russell, John Dale; Gregg, H. C.; Brumbaugh, A. J.; and Blauch, L. E. The Liberal Arts College. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1932. 66. "The Relation of Church and Campus." The Christian Scholar. 41 (Autumn, 1958), 286-290. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 127 Riesman, David and Jencks, Christopher. "The Viability of the American College." The American College. Nevitt Sanford, editor. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Ross, Roy G. "The Basis of Relationships of the Christian Church and the Christian College." The Christian Scholar. 37 (Autumn, 1954), 238-246. Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and University. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962. Sanford, Nevitt. "Higher Education as a Field of Study." The American College, Nevitt Sanford, editor. New York: Hahn Wiley and Sons, 1962. , editor. The American College. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Shinn, Roger L. "Neutrality Impossible - Christian College Affirmed." The Chrietian Scholar. 37 (March, 1954), 23-27. Snavely, Guy E. The Church and the Four-year College. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1955. Stern, George G. "Characteristics of the Intellectual Climate in Colleges and Universities." Harvard Educational Review. 33 (Winter. 1963). 5'410 "Environments for Learning.“ The American Colle e. Nevitt Sanford, editor. New York: John Wiley and ons, 962. Preliminary Manual: Activities Index - College_ Characteristics Index. Syracuse: Syracuse University Psychological Research Center, 1958. Stern, George G.; Stein, Morris; and Bloom, Benjamin. Methods in Personality Assessment. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press,ll956. Stevens, Wesley M., editor. The Christian Scholar. 41 (Autumn, 1958), 183-340. Strahan, Richard Dobbs. “A Study to Introduce Curriculum Approaches and Student Personnel Services for Evangel College." Unpublished Ed. 00 dissertation, University of Houston, 1955. Tewksburg, Donald G. The Founding of American Colleges and Universities Before the Civil War. New York: Teachers College, ColUmbia University, 1932. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 128 "The Theological Foundations of the Christian College." Ige_ Christian Scholar. 41 (Autumn, 1958), 273-285. Trout, Douglas G. "The Changing Character of Ten United Presbyterian Church-Related Colleges, 1914-1964." Un- published Ph. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965. Trueblood, Elton. The Idea of a College. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1959. Walker, Helen M. and Lev, Joseph. Statistical Inference. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1953. Wicke, Myron F. The Church-Related College. Washington: Center for Applied Research in Education, 1964. Williams, George H. "The Christian College Today." The_ Christian Scholar. 41 (Autumn, 1958), 193-209. Wrenn, C. Gilbert. "Student Discipline in a Colle e." Educational and Psychological Measurement. 9 (Winter, 1949) , 6257633. Yonge, George 0. "Personality Correlates of the College and University Environment Scales." Educational and Psychologi- cal Measurement. 28 (Spring, 1968), 115-123. , "Students.“ Review of Educational Research. 35 (October, 1965), 253-263. 129 APPENDIX A RELIGIOUS ENVIRONMENT SCALES AND KEY 130 RELIGIOUS ENVIRONMENT SCALES Thurman Vanzant Michigan State University Directions: The atmosphere of a church-controlled college includes re1igious features and dimensions that are held to be unique and strategic to the purposes of such institutions. Since you have lived in its environment, observed its religious fea- tures, and participated in its religious activities, you are asked to be a reporter about your school. What are the characteristics of its religious dimensions? There are 90 statements in this booklet. You are to mark them TRUE or FALSE using the answer sheet provided. There are no right or wrong answers. If you feel the statement is TRUE or generally characteristic of your school, as you have experienced it or as you think it is, then blacken space T on the answer sheet. If you feel the statement is FALSE or generally not characteristic of your school, as you have experienced it or as you think it is, then blacken space F on the answer sheet. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. IS. 131 RELIGIOUS ENVIRONMENT SCALES There is a strong feeling of unity within the faculty on this campus growing out of their shared religious convictions. The faculty is as much concerned about the spiritual emphasis here as the academic emphasis. Faculty members generally are strong supporters of special re- ligious activities such as Religious Emphasis Weeks. Teachers confront students with religious and ethical issues arising within their subjects. The way some courses are conducted one would not know he was in a Christian college. Students see daily chapel as a vital and necessary feature of the life of this college. Chapel speakers frequently excite a great deal of discussion on campus about their topics. One of the main weaknesses of chapel on this campus is inadequate student participation in planning and directing the services. Students generally believe that chapel effectively contributes to their spiritual growth and understanding. Many of the students feel that the type of worship in chapel is too “formal”. The denomination which sponsors this school utilizes the intellec- tual leadership of the college in various denominational programs and committees. Criticism from pastors and churches has made the college ad- ministration more sensitive than it should be about what happens here. On the whole the denomination shows good interest for this college and gives good financial support. Most pastors in the denomination are Informed about the programs and regulations at this college. Several faculty members are apologetic about the denomination which sponsors this college. Ill-11 III .IIIIJIIII I‘ll) 16. I7. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 132 2 Rules here regulating moral conduct are in close agreement with the views generally held in the denomination. Students who violate a major rule such as drinking are immediately expelled from this college. Dismissing students for major violations is seen here as being effective in upholding the conduct code.of the college. Rules are seen by students as contributing to their moral growth and to their personal development in making ethical choices. Students participate in the making and revising of regulations dealing with conduct. Teachers in the religion department are as well prepared academically as teachers in other departments. Most students feel there are too many required religion courses at this school. Religion courses give adequate emphasis to the distinctive doctrines of this denomination. Courses in religion are among the most intellectually stimulating courses on campus. Most students see their religion courses as contributing to their general education in a broadening sense. Students with a spiritual problem can easily find a fellow- student who is spiritually mature and willing to help them. Students believe it is easier to live the Christian life here than at a state college. Most students who graduate from here are committed Christians. There are many students here who do not profess to be Christians, a factor which adversely affects the spiritual life of the college. Many students at this college are concerned about the relevance of their religious beliefs to the racial problems of our day. Most faculty members take personal interest in the total develOp- ment of their students including their character develOpment. Teachers help students see the practical application of Christian principles to their courses. 133 3 THINK IN TERMS OF WHAT IS GENERALLY TRUE OR FALSE. RESPOND IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU HAVE EXPERIENCED OR THE WAY YOU THINK THINGS ARE. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. A2. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. Most faculty members give their support to daily chapel by their regular attendance. Faculty members have all the academic freedom here needed to per- form as scholars. The Christian influence of some faculty members is hindered because of the poor quality of their courses. Chapel services are planned for the entire college community and not just for students. Religious leaders from outside the sponsoring denomination are frequently invited to speak in chapel. There is considerable sentiment among students to have chapel attendance required less frequently. One of the strengths of chapel services here is the use of various forms of worship and a variety of approaches. Lack of reverence in chapel by students is a problem on this campus. The denomination exercises considerable direct influence on the content of the courses taught.here. The student body is kept aware that the denomination owns and operates this college and that its wishes must be observed. There is a feeling on campus that pastors and churches hold the college responsible for the apparent loss of Spiritual interest. by some students after they enroll here. The college is largely autonomous in the regulations it establishes without having direct control by the denomination. Elected officials of the denomination are frequently on campus as speakers. Rules governing student conduct are more strict here than the practices permitted in most churches and homes from which the students come. Students who avoid getting caught for violations are admired by many students. 48. “9. SO. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. S6. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 134 4 Most students feel that disciplinary action here is fair and consistent with the violations. Efforts are made by the college to interpret the moral, ethical or Spiritual principle behind its regulations. Regulations governing moral and social conduct are firmly established and it is almost impossible to get the college to make any changes. \. The emphasis in religion courses is upon a student's personal re- ligious commitment rather than religious knowledge. Most students on campus are familiar with the names and general views of such religious leaders as P. Tillich, C. S. Lewis, Bonhoeffer, and Harvey Cox. The Bible and its teachings are viewed as an integrating force on this campus. Religion courses are effective in helping students develop into more mature and intelligent Christians. Teachers in religion courses tend to be dogmatic in telling students what they are expected to believe. Many students meet regularly with small groups for religious study and devotions. There is considerable interest on campus concerning the relation- ship of Christian teachings to the contemporary problems of poverty and the population explosion. Most students feel that only students who make profession of faith as Christians should be admitted here. There is considerable pressure for one's religsous experience to conform to the pattern of the majority. Student religious organizations are very active at this school with participation by many students. Faculty members are active in counseling and helping students with personal spiritual problems. Faculty members here give their support to the stated religious purposes of this college. Students are impressed and influenced by the depth of Christian commitment of most faculty members. 135 5 THINK IN TERMS OF WHAT IS GENERALLY TRUE 0R FALSE. RESPOND IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU HAVE EXPERIENCED OR THE WAY YOU THINK THINGS ARE. 6h. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 7o. 71. 72° 73. 7h. 75. 76. 77. 73. A problem at this school is keeping well-qualified faculty. Having teachers who share common religious beliefs increases the religious impact on the students. Students at this college generally have a clear understanding of the underlying objective for chapel. Religious emphasis weeks or revivals are more meaningful to the spiritual lives of the students than are regular chapel services. Chapel services are generally stimulating, challenging and worth- while on this campus. One of the weaknesses of chapel programming is the inclusion of non-religious activities such as student government programs. Most chapel services are of an intellectual nature rather than of a devotional or inspirational nature. Most students when they leave here continue to attend a church of the denomination which sponsors this school. There is considerable feeling on campus that the denomination exercises too much control over the college. Students appreciate the opportunity here to meet denominational leaders and to learn more about the total program and activities of their denomination. Student criticism about denominational policies or practices would be completely out of place on this campus. Several of the full-time faculty members are more ”liberal” in social practices and political views than the denomination in general. Students in general agree with and abide by the official code of conduct. Many student feel that students need closer supervision in order to keep them from engaging in practices condemned by the college. Many students see no connection between the Christian religion and many of the rules enforced here. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 8h. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. l36 6 Action taken for violation of regulations has as its main purpose helping the student mature and learn to accept increased responsi- bility for his actions. Attempts are made by the college to get students to adopt the code of conduct of the college as their own personal con- victions. There is little attention given in religion courses to the trends of contemporary thinking in the religious world. Students are not told what to believe in religion courses but are expected to face basic religious questions and arrive at their own conclusions. Required religion courses are arranged and organized to give an adequate and comprehensive exposure to major divisions of religious thought. Conflicting religious and phiIOSOphical views are objectively presented in religion courses. Students expressing ”liberal” religious ideas in religion courses would be ostracized by other students. Most students believe their spiritual life has developed and matured while they have been at this school in a way which would not have been likely at a public college or university. Many students who have little or no interest in spiritual matters enroll at this school because their parents pressure them to do so. There is strong, widespread student interest in world missions. Church attendance by students generally declines while they are enrolled here. Spiritual subjects and questions are frequent tOpics of Students' informal conversation. 137 RELIGIOUS ENVIRONMENT SCALES KEY 76. 61. 46. 31. 16. 77. 62. 47. 32. 17. 78. 63. 48. 33. 18. 79. 64. 49. 34. 19. 80. 65. 50. 35. 20. 81. 66. 51. 36. 21. 82. 67. 52. 37. 22. 83. 68. 53. 38. 23. 84. 69. 54. 39. 24. 85. 70. 55. 40. 25. 10. ll. 12. 86. 71. 56. 41. 26. 87. 72. 57. 42. 27. 88. 73. 58. 43. 28. 13. 89. 74. 59. 44. 29. 14. 90. 75. 60. 45. 30. 15. 138 APPENDIX B DESCRIPTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL SCALES OF THE RES 139 DESCRIPTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL SCALES OF THE RES The individual scales of the Religious Environment Scales can be described in the following manner: Scale 1. Scale 2. Scale 3. Scale 4. Christian Faculty (Items l-S, 31-35, and 61-65) A high score indicates unity among the faculty based on shared religious beliefs, faculty support for the religious objectives of the college shown through support given to religious activities and personal interest taken in Students' Spiritual needs; academic and spiritual emphasis are per- ceived as balanced with a thought-out integration of Christian beliefs and academic disciplines; the faculty is perceived as having high Christian character which is a positive influence upon the students. Chapel (items 6-10, 36-40, and 66-70) A high score suggests general student satisfaction with‘the type and frequency of chapel services, forms of worship used, degree of student participation, and participation by religious leaders both from within and without the de- nomination; chapel is perceived an important aspect of campus life, contributing to personal spiritual development, and to the sense of community on the campus. Denominational Relationship (Items ll-lS, 4l-45, and 71-75) A high score on this scale suggests a constructive, mutually co-operative relationship; interest and support is shown by the denomination, reasonable expectations about the college and its influence on the students are held, and there is appropriate denominational control and visibility on campus without undue external control; the denomination is perceived as having confidence in the college respon— sibly fulfilling the purposes for which it was established. Moral and Social Regulations (Items l6-20, 46-50, and 76-80) A high score suggests that regulations are perceived as having thenaim of giving moral direction, assisting the stu- dents' growth and development in becoming self-regulating and self-directing persons; regulations are perceived as consistent with the standards generally held by the de- nomination, as appropriate to the purposes of the college, as being generally respected and observed by students, as effective in influencing behavior, and as being im- partially enforced. Scale 50 Scale 6° 140 2 Religion Courses (Items 21-25, 51-55, and 81-85)c A high score on this scale indicates student satisfaction with the number of required courses, the scope of the courses, and the quality of both courses and faculty; emphasis is on religious knowledge and understanding with proper em- phasis given to the distinctive doctrines of the denomination; the approach is educative and broadening, not narrow nor mere indoctrinationn There is adequate attention to com- peting religous ideas and beliefs so the student is con- fronted with ideas different from those customarily held and is able to arrive at this own conclusionso Students' Personal Religious Life (Items 26-30, 56-60, and 86-90) A high score indicates the perception that students experience development in their personal religious life as a result of living in this environment and being influenced by other students; there is concern for the Spiritual develOpment of other students, religious disciplines are part of Students' regular habits of living, there is concern for relating Christian belief to contemporary problems, and there is activite interest and participation in various Christian ministrieso 141 APPENDIX C COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENT SCALES 142 lorm x-I CUES COLLEGE 8‘ UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENT SCALES BY C. ROBERT PACE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES Publlshod & dlstrlbutod by EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY CopyrIgMO 1 962 by C. Robert Paco Compllod from Coll-go Characteristlcs Index—Form 1158 Copyright 1958 by Goorgo 6. Stern and C. Robert Paco 143 Directions Colleges and universities differ from one another in many ways. Some things that are generally true or characteristic of one school may not be characteristic of another. The purpose of College 8: University Environment Scales (CUES) is to help define the general atmosphere of different schools. The atmosphere of a campus is a mix- ture of various features, facilities, rules and procedures, faculty characteristics, courses of study, classroom activities, students’ interests, extracurricular programs, informal activities, and other conditions and events. You are asked to be a reporter about your school. You have lived in its environ- ment, participated in its activities, seen its features, and sensed its attitudes. What kind of place is it? There are 150 statements in this booklet. You are to mark them TRUE or FALSE, using the answer sheet given you for this purpose. Do not write in the booklet. Two different forms of answer sheets may be used. If your answer sheet has the notation Form X-IS in the upper right hand comer, read the instructions below, “Instructions for Form X-IS Answer Sheets Only.” If your answer sheet has the notation Form X-l in the upper right hand comer, please read “Instructions for F orm X-I Answer Sheets Only” on the following page. Instructions for Form X-IS Answer Sheets Only 1. PEN CILS. Use any type of soft lead pencil. Do not use an ink or ball-point pen. 2. MARK ONLY ON THE ANSWER SHEET. All answers are to be recorded on the separate answer sheet. Please make no marks in the questionnaire booklet. The booklet will be used again by other students. 3. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION. Certain identifying information must be entered on the answer sheet. A. At the top left-hand comer of the answer sheet find the section headed “Print last name . . .”. Starting at the arrow on the left, print as many letters of your last name as will fit (up to thirteen) in the large boxes of the LAST NAME section. Print one letter in each large box. Do not go beyond the heavy line that separates last name and first name sections even if you cannot complete your last name. If your last name has fewer than thirteen letters, use as many boxes as you need and leave the rest blank. After you have finished printing as many letters of your last name as will fit in the boxes to the left of the heavy line, print as many letters of your first name as will fit (up to seven) beginning at the heavy line and stopping at the last box on the right. Print one letter in each box. If your first name has fewer than seven letters, use as many boxes as you need and leave the rest blank. B. Now look at the columns under each letter you have printed. Each column has a small box for each letter of the alphabet. Go down the column under each letter you have printed, find the small box labeled with the correspond- ing letter, and blacken that small box. Do this for each letter you have printed in the large boxes across the top. C. Note the section on the answer sheet where Identification Number, sex, age, and educational status are requested. Copy the Identification Number (printed in red) into the boxes below the printed number by blackening the appropriate boxes. Under “sex,” mark Male or Female, as appropriate; then indicate your age and educational status in the same way. 14¢ 4. MARKING THE ANSWER SHEET. Find question 1 on the next page and the space on the answer sheet for recording the answer. Record your answer by blackening the box marked T or F as is shown in the sample below: Sample Item: (A) Students are generally pretty friendly on this campus. (A) I El Proceed to answer every item of the 150 given. Blacken T on the answer sheet when you think the statement is generally characteristic or TRUE of your college, is a condition which exists, an event which occurs or might occur, is the way people generally act or feel. Blacken space F on the answer sheet when the statement is generally FALSE or not characteristic of your college, is a condition which does not exist, an event which is unlikely to occur, or is not the way people generally act or feel. Instructions for Form X-I Answer Sheets Only 1. PENCILS. Use any type of soft lead pencil. Do not use an ink or ball-point pen. 2. MARK ONLY ON THE ANSWER SHEET. All answers are to be recorded on the separate answer sheet. Please make no marks in the questionnaire booklet. The booklet will be used again by other students. 3. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION. Fill in the identifying information on the right hand side of the answer sheet. Print your name, sex, age, institution, major, and today’s date. Check the appropriate box for your class. 4. MARKING THE ANSWERS. Find question 1 on the next page and the space on the answer sheet for recording the answer. Record your answer by com- pletely filling the spaces between the dotted lines for T or F as shown in the sample below. Sample Item: (A) Students are generally pretty friendly on this campus. (A) I F Proceed to answer every item of the 150 given. Blacken space T on the answer sheet when you think the statement is generally characteristic or TRUE of your college, is a condition which exists, an event which occurs or might occur, is the way people generally act or feel. Blacken space F on the answer sheet when the statement is generally FALSE or not characteristic of your college, is a condition which does not exist, an event which is unlikely to occur, or is not the way people generally act or feel. {DQKIOQUIUBQNII— I-Il—I "G p.— N 13. 14. 15. 16. l7. 18. 19. . Learning what is in the text book is enough to pass most courses. 21. . Students set high standards of achievement for themselves. SSSSZRERES 30. 31. 32. 33. . Faculty members rarely or never call students by their first names. 35. 36. 37. 38. 14.5 . Students quickly learn what is done and not done on this campus. . Students must have a written excuse for absence from class. . There are lots of dances, parties, and social activities. . Students are encouraged to criticize administrative policies and teaching practices. . Campus buildings are clearly marked by signs and directories. . There is a lot of apple-polishing around here. . New fads and phrases are continually springing up among the students. . Student organizations are closely supervised to guard against mistakes. . Religious worship here stresses service to God and obedience to His laws. . It's important socially here to be in the right club or group. . The professors regularly check up on the students to make sure that assignments are being carried out properly and on time. . Student rooms are more likely to be decorated with pennants and pin-ups than with paintings, carvings, mobiles, fabrics, etc. Some of the professors react to questions in class as if the students were criticizing them person- ally. Education here tends to make students more practical and realistic. New jokes and gags get around the campus in a hurry. It is fairly easy to pass most courses without working very hard. Most of the professors are very thorough teachers and really probe into the fundamentals of their subjects. Students almost always wait to be called on before speaking in class. Laboratory facilities in the natural sciences are excellent. A lecture by an outstanding scientist would be poorly attended. . The professors really push the students’ capacities to the limit. . Class discussions are typically vigorous and intense. . Everyone knows the “snap” courses to take and the tough ones to avoid. . Long, serious intellectual discussions are common among the students. . Personality, pull, and bluff get students through many courses. . Standards set by the professors are not particularly hard to achieve. 29. Careful reasoning and clear logic are valued most highly in grading student papers, reports, or discussions. Students put a lot of energy into everything they do—in class and out. Students spend a lot of time together at the snack bars, taverns, and in one another’s rooms. There is a great deal of borrowing and sharing among the students. There are definite times each week when dining is made a gracious social event. Students commonly share their problems. The professors go out of their way to help you. Most students respond to ideas and events in a pretty cool and detached way. There are frequent informal social gatherings. assesses 828 33$& 1. . Many upperclassmen play an active role in helping new students adjust to campus life. a ease ea eeeasasaaaa I46 . Most people here seem to be especially considerate of others. . Students have many opportunities to develop skill in organizing and directing the work of others. Very few things here arouse much excitement or feeling. . This school has a reputation for being very friendly. . The history and traditions of the college are strongly emphasized. . It’s easy to get a group together for card games, singing, going to the movies, etc. . Tutorial or honors programs are available for qualified students. . Public debates are held frequently. . Quite a few faculty members have had varied and unusual careers. . Many of the social science professors are actively engaged in research. . There is a lot of interest here in poetry, music, painting, sculpture, architecture, etc. . The student newspaper rarely carries articles intended to stimulate discussion of philosophical or ethical matters. . The library has paintings and phonograph records which circulate widely among the students. . A lecture by an outstanding literary critic would be poorly attended. . Channels for expressing students’ complaints are readily accessible. . There are paintings or statues of nudes on the campus. . Course offerings and faculty in the social sciences are outstanding. Studehts are actively concerned about national and international affairs. There would be a capacity audience for a lecture by an outstanding philoSopher or theologian. . There are many facilities and opportunities for individual creative activity. . A controversial speaker always stirs up a lot of student discussion. . Students rarely get drunk and disorderly. There are a number of prominent faculty members who play a significant role in national or local politics. . Most students show a good deal of caution and self-control in their behavior. . Students here learn that they are not only expected to develop ideals but also to express them in action. Many students drive sports cars. The person who is always trying to “help out” is likely to be regarded as a nuisance. . Nearly all students expect to achieve future fame or wealth. . Students often start projects without trying to decide in advance how they will develop or where they may end. . Some of the most popular students have a knack for making witty, subtle remarks with a slightly sexy tinge. . Students are conscientious about taking good care of school property. . Student publications never lampoon dignified people or institutions. . Student parties are colorful and lively. . People here are always trying to win an argument. . Society orchestras are more popular here than jazz bands or novelty groups. . Drinking and late parties are generally tolerated, despite regulations. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 85. 86. 87. 89. 91 888888288 1 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 147 Many courses stress the speculative or abstract rather than the concrete and tangible. Many students try to pattern themselves after people they admire. The big college events draw a lot of student enthusiasm and support. Frequent tests are given in most courses. In many classes students have an assigned seat. Student elections generate a lot of intense campaigning and strong feeling. There is an extensive program of intramural sports and informal athletic activities. The college offers many really practical courses such as typing, report writing, etc. . Anyone who knows the right people in the faculty or administration can get a better break here. Student pep rallies, parades, dances, carnivals or demonstrations occur very rarely. Students take a great deal of pride in their personal appearance. Everyone has a lot of fun at this school. . There is a recognized group of student leaders on this campus. The values most stressed here are open-mindedness and objectivity. . The important people at this school expect others to show proper respect for them. Students who work hard for high grades are likely to be regarded as odd. . There is a lot of interest in the philosophy and methods of science. . There are so many things to do here that students are busy all the time. . Students are sometimes noisy and inattentive at concerts or lectures. . Most courses require intensive study and preparation out of class. . Course offerings and faculty in the natural sciences are outstanding. . Few students here would ever work or play to the point of exhaustion. . Most courses are a real intellectual challenge. . Courses, examinations, and readings are frequently revised. . Students are very serious and purposeful about their work. People around here seem to thrive on difficulty—the tougher things get, the harder they work. Professors usually take attendance in class. Examinations here provide a genuine measure of a student’s achievement and understanding. There is very little studying here over the week—ends. The school is outstanding for the emphasis and support it gives to pure scholarship and basic research. There is a lot of excitement and restlessness just before holidays. Students often run errands or do other personal services for the faculty. Graduation is a pretty matter-of-fact, unemotional event. The college regards training people for service to the community as one of its major responsi- bilities. All undergraduates must live in university approved housing. When students run a project or put on a show everybody knows about it. Students are expected to work out the details of their own programs in their own way. Students’ mid-term and final grades are reported to parents. Students exert considerable pressure on one another to live up to the expected codes of conduct. There is a lot of group spirit. 116. 117. 118. 119. l 20. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. I48 Students are frequently reminded to take preventive measures against illness. Most of the faculty are not interested in students’ personal problems. Proper social forms and manners are important here. The school helps everyone get acquainted. Resident students must get written permission to be away from the campus overnight. Most of the professors are dedicated scholars in their fields. Modern art and music get little attention here. Many students here develop a strong sense of responsibility about their role in contemporary social and political life. Many famous people are brought to the campus for lectures, concerts, student discussions, etc. An open display of emotion would embarrass most professors. Many of the natural science professors are actively engaged in research. Special museums or collections are important possessions of the college. Few students are planning post-graduate work in the social sciences. To most students here art is something to be studied rather than felt. The expression of strong personal belief or conviction is pretty rare around here. Concerts and art exhibits always draw big crowds of students. There are a good many colorful and controversial figures on the faculty. The school offers many opportunities for students to understand and criticize important works in art, music, and drama. There is considerable interest in the analysis of value systems, and the relativity of societies and ethics. Students are encouraged to take an active part in social reforms or political programs. Students occasionally plot some sort of escapade or rebellion. Students pay little attention to rules and regulations. Instructors clearly explain the goals and purposes of their courses. Bermuda shorts, pin-up pictures, etc., are common on this campus. Spontaneous student rallies and demonstrations occur frequently. There always seem to be a lot of little quarrels going on. Most student rooms are pretty messy. Few students bother with rubbers, hats, or other special protection against the weather. It is easy to take clear notes in most courses. Students frequently do things on the spur of the moment. Rough games and contact sports are an important part of intramural athletics. Students are expected to report any violation of rules and regulations. Dormitory raids, water fights and other student pranks would be unthinkable here. Many students seem to expect other people to adapt to them rather than trying to adapt them- selves to others. Students ask permission before deviating from common policies or practices. i; H I49 APPENDIX D DESCRIPTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL SCALES OF THE CUES 150 ’ DESCRIPTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL SCALES OF THE CUES The following description of the five scales in the College and University Environment Scales is taken from the manual (55: 2A-25) prepared by C. Robert Pace. Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale I. 3. Practicality (Items l-IS and 76-90) A high score on this scale suggests a practical, instrumen- tal emphasis. Organization, system, and procedures and supervision are important. Status, in relation to authority and to peers, is important. Personal, social, and practical benefits are obtainable from the program and from campus activities. Community (Items 3l-AS and lO6-l20) A high score on this scale suggests a friendly, cohesive, group oriented campus. The environment is supportive and sympathetic. There is strong sense of group welfare and group loyalty that embraces the college as a whoie. The college is a closely knit community. Awareness (Items “6‘60 and l2l‘l35) A high score on this scale suggests a concern for three sorts of meaning - personal, poetic, and political. Emphasis is upon self-understanding, a wide range of esthetic ex- perience and appreciatdon, and for the COHdltiOfi of man In the modern world. The accent is awareness oF self, of society, and esthetic sensitivity. PrOpriety (Items 6l-70 and 136-I50l A high score suggests an environment that is polite and con- siderate. It is characterized by caution, thoughtfulness, and decorum. A low score, by contrast, indicates an atmOSphere that is more daring than cautious, more assertive and demon- strative than polite and mannerly. Scholarship (Items l6-3O and 9l-l05) A high score indicates an academic and scholarly environment. The emphasis is upon competitively high academic achievement and a serious interest in knowledge and theories for their own sake. ' 151 APPENDIX E STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE l52 STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE Using the apprOpriate answer sheet, please answer the following questions concerning biographical data. Start with answer blank number 9!. Give only one answer for each item. (And please answer all questions.) Item 91. Item Item Item Item item 92. 93. 9A. 95. 96. Father's occupation (I) Craftsman, tradesmen or technician (2) Farming and related work (3) Selling - wholesale or retail (A) Business or management (5) Teaching Father's occupation (continued) (I) Unskilled (2) Minister (3) Father not living (If some other category is needed, please write in occupation lightly across space for this item.) Mother's occupation (l) Housewife and does not work outstde of home (2) Sales work (3) Secretary or office worker (A) Teacher (5) Unskilled Mother's occupation (continued) (I) Business or management (2) Nurse (3) Mother not living (If some other category is needed, please write in the occupation very lightly wathin space for this item ) Father's highest attainment of formal education (i) Less than high school graduate (2) Graduated from high school (3) Some college (A) Some Bible College (5) Graduated from Bible College Father's education (continued) (I) Graduated from college (2) Graduate work beyond four-year degree (3) Graduate degree Item 97. Item 98. Item 99. Item I00. Item l0l. Item 102. 153 2 Mother's higheSt attainment of formal education (l) Less than high school graduate (2) Graduated from high school (3) Some college (A) Some Bible College (5) Graduated from Bible College Mother's education (continued) (l) Graduated from college (2) Graduate work beyond four-year degree (3) Graduate degree Pastor's highest attainment of formal education (pastor of home church when you enrolled at Evangel College) (l) Less than high school graduate (2) Graduated from high school (3) Some college (A) Some Bible College (5) Graduated from college Pastor's education (continued) (1) Graduated from Bible College (2) Attended seminary (3) Don't know and unwilling to guess Geographical location of home church (l) Northeast A'ea: New England, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia (2) Southeast Area: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina (3) Great Lakes Atea: Michigan, Illinois, lndiana, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia (A) Gulf Area: Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississappi (5) South Central Area: Kansas, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma Geographical location of home church (continued) (l) North Central Area: Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin (2) Northwest Area? Alaska, Wash ngton, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Wyoming (3) Southwest Area: California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Colorado Item Item item Item Item 103. IDA. IOS. l06. 107. l08. l54 3 Size of your hometown (hometown when you enrolled at EC) (I) (2) (3) (A) (5) Lived on a farm Under 25,000 Between 25,00l and l00,000 Between l00,00l and 500,000 Over 500,000 Parents' annual income before taxes (combined if both work) (I) (2) (3) (A) (5) under $5,000 Between $5,001 and $8,000 Between $8,001 and $l2,000 Between $l2,00l and $l5,000 Over $I5,000 Christian influence of family (I) (2) (3) (A) (5) Both parents exemplary Christians (”parent” if only one living) Father but not mother exemplary Christian Mother but not father exemplary Christian Both parents inconsistent in Christian living Parents not Christians Regularity of church attendance by parents (I) (2) (3) (A) (5) Both parents very regular Father but not mother attends regularly Mother but not father attends regularly Both parents attend irregularly Parents do not attend church How do you evaluate the spiritual influence of your family upon your life? (I) (2) (3) (A) (5) Very strong and posative Quite important Not very important A negative influence Parents not Christians How do you evaluate your parents' theological beliefs? (I) (2) (3) (A) (.5) Very conseryative Conservative Moderate Liberal Very liberal Item 1090 Item ll0° Item ii], 155 L. How strict were your parents in what they permitted you to do? (I) Very restrictive (2) Strict (3) Moderate (A) Liberal or permissive (5) Very liberal or very permissive How do you evaluate the spiritual influence of your home church upon your life? (I) Very strong and positive (2) Quite important (3) So-so, not really good nor bad (A) Not very important nor positive (5) A negative influence or very weak Average Sunday School attendance of your home church (3) Under loo (2) Between l0i and 250 (3) Between 25l and 500 (4) Between SOl and 750 (5) Over 750 MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES illllllllllllllllllHilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 31293102158007