ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OF FRESHMEN COMMUTER STUDENTS WITH RESIDENT STUDENTS ON SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS, EXPERIENCES, AND CHANGES by James Robert Appleton Statement of the Problem It was the purpose of this study to contribute to a more complete understanding of the freshmen commuter stu- dents at a large, primarily residential university and to de- termine if any differences existed between the commuters and those students living in residence on the campus. More spe— cifically, the attempt was made: (1) to determine in what ways commuter students were similar and/or dissimilar to freshmen resident students at the time of college entrance, (2) to determine how selected first year college experiences of commuter students compared with the experiences of first year resident students at the same institution, and (3) to determine how commuter students compared with resident stu— dents with regard to academic achievement and to the nature and direction of change in critical thinking ability, in attitudes of stereotypy, and in value orientation during the first year. James Robert Appleton Procedures The sample was selected from 2,746 first term fresh— men at Michigan State University who had not attended another university or college, were not foreign students at the time of admission to the university, were enrolled for at least 12 credits during the fall term, and who had complete and usable test and biographical data. From this working population were selected 311 commuters and 296 resident students. Fifty— eight of the 311 commuters were designated as local commuters by virtue of their living with parents in the community im— mediately adjacent to the campus. The other 253 were desig- nated as non-local commuters. Where applicable, these two groups of commuters were treated separately in the comparison with the resident group. Those students from the initial sample who were still enrolled at the end of the first year and for whom usable post-test data were available were in— cluded in the end-of—year portion of the study. During the Freshman Orientation Week, the following instruments were administered to the students: The Test of Critical Thinkingz Form G; The Inventory of Beliefs, Form I; the Differential Value Inventory; the College Qualification Test; and a Biographical Data Sheet. The initial comparisons were developed from an analysis of this data and from infor— mation received from various university agencies. At the end of the freshman year, retest information was received by use James Robert Appleton of the following instruments: The Test of Critical Thinking, Form G; The Inventory of Beliefs, Form I; and the Differential Values Inventory. An Experience Inventory was also ad— ministered and personnel records were searched for grade- point averages and indications of withdrawal or retention. Chi~square simple analysis of variance, "t" tests, and analysis of covariance techniques were used in the analysis of the data. Major Findings of the Study 1. Significant differences were found among the resi- dent students, local commuters, and non-local commuters in terms of selected initial characteristics and academic aptitude. 2. No differences were found among the three groups in terms of faculty contact, attitude toward class experiences and courses, study practices, educational intentions, and personal interaction with peers during their first year. 3. Significant differences were found among the three groups in the amount of immersion in campus life during the first year and in their attitude toward the institution. 4. No difference was found among the three groups in academic achievement during the first year, although a sig— nificant difference was found among the three groups in percentage of withdrawal. James Robert Appleton 5. No differences were found among the three groups with regard to the nature and direction of change during the first year in critical thinking ability, attitudes of stereo- typy, and value orientation during the first year. i. . cl. . I] A COMPARISON OF FRESHMEN COMMUTER STUDENTS WITH RESIDENT STUDENTS ON SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS, EXPERIENCES, AND CHANGES BY James Robert Appleton A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1965 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation to Dr. Walter F. Johnson, Chairman of the Guidance Committee, for his assistance in the preparation of this thesis and for his helpful guidance throughout the doctoral program. Ap— preciation is also extended to Drs. Edward B. Blackman, Norman Kagan, and Bill L. Kell for encouragement and advice. The writer is indebted to Dr. Irvin J. Lehman, who made available a portion of the data from which this study was derived and who very graciously was available for consultation. For his wife, Carol, the writer reserves a special expression of love and appreciation for the encouragement, patience, and support through the years of the doctoral program. ii LllllIlIlll-lll TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS LIST OF TABLES Chapter Io II- III C THE REVIEW OF THE SIGNIFICANT LITERATURE THE PROBLEM Introduction Statement of the Problem Hypotheses . . . . Definition of Terms . . . Resident Student Commuter Student . Local Commuter . . . . . NOn-local Commuter . . . Immersion in Campus Life . . Withdrawal Limitations of the Study Overview of the Thesis . . . Published Summaries of Research on Col—~ lege Students and Campus Cultures Student Characteristics . . . The College Environment and Student Changes . . . . . . The Commuter Students . . Discussion . . . . . . . . DESIGN 0 o o o o o o o o o o & Definition of the PopulatiOn Selection and Classification of the Sample . . . . . . . . . Description of the Instruments . Collection of the Data . . StatistiCal Hypotheses . . . . Methods of Analysis . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . iii ii Page \JOWOWOWCDO‘mUWU'InbUJH H O OJKO 13 20 34 37 37 38 39 45 46 47 49 ‘lllll‘lllllll’ll‘ ll Chapter IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . Part One. Initial Characteristics and Ability Hypothesis I . . . Hypothesis II . . . . Summary of Part One . . . Part Two. First Year Experiences Hypothesis III . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Part Two . . . . . . Part Three. End of Year Analysis Hypothesis IV . Hypothesis V . . . . . Hypothesis VI . Summary of Part Three V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH summary 0 0 o o o o o 0 Findings and Conclusions Discussion . . . Implications for Further Research . BIBLIOGRAPHY a o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page 50 SO 50 6O 63 65 65 75 77 77 78 81 81 83 83 85 9O 96 98 105 Table 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Comparison of selected initial character- istics among resident students, local commuters, and non—local commuters . . Comparison of age between the resident stu- dents and each of the commuter groups Comparison of father's education between the resident students and each of the com— muter groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of mother's education between the resident students and each of the com— muter groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of father's occupation between the resident students and each of the com— muter groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of mother's occupation between the resident students and each of the com- muter groups . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of rank in high school graduating class between the resident students and each of the commuter groups . . . . . Comparison of curricular areas between the resident students and each of the commuter groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of source of financial support be— tween the resident students and each of the commuter groups . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance of mean differences for the three groups on College Qualification Test scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of selected first year experi— ences among the three groups . . . . . . . Page 51 53 54 55 57 58 59 61 62 63 66 Table 12° 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Separate comparison between the resident students and each of the commuter groups in terms of faculty contact . Separate comparison between the resident students and each of the commuter groups in terms of items intended to measure the class experiences and courses . . Separate comparison between the resident stu- dents and each of the commuter groups in terms of study practices . . . . Separate comparison between the resident students and each of the commuter groups on attitude toward the institution Separate comparison between the resident students and each of the commuter groups on immersion in campus life . Separate comparison between the resident students and each of the commuter groups on one item intended to measure personal interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of achievements during the first year among the three groups . . . Comparison of percentage of withdrawal among the three groups at the end of the first year . . . . Separate comparison of withdrawal between the resident students and each of the com- muter groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of academic completion record among the three groups at the end of five years from time of entrance . . . . . Separate comparison of academic completion record after five years from time of en- rollment between the resident students and each of the commuter groups . . . . . . . vi Page 69 70 7O 72 73 75 78 79 79 80 8O 23. Comparison of nature and direction of change in attitudes of stereotypy, value orientation, and critical thinking ability among the three groups . . . . . . . 82 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A Comparison of selected initial character- istics among the resident students, local commuters, and non—local commuters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 B Comparison of selected first year ex— periences among the resident students, local commuters and non—local commuters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 viii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction —.—_\n In recent years research efforts in higher education .‘x- have been directed increasingly to the study of college stu— dents and their educational environment. A clear understand— ing of the characteristics and needs of the students and an awareness of the college environment and climate in which the students participate has been determined to be an important requisite in the development of curricular and co-curricular programs. Several reasons may be advanced to account for this research emphasis and soaring college enrollments, tight budgets, and growing concerns for excellence in under- graduate programs have certainly added impetus to such inquiries. One segment of the student population which seems, however, to have been neglected in this research analysis has been the student who resides outside of the campus community, lives with parents, and travels to the college or university for the educational experiences. Although small by per- centages, this segment is not a transitory one and burgeon— ing urban population centers and new community colleges 5999Kast the possibility of increased size. Little effort has been made to determine if such students constitute a specific group which has unique opportunities, peculiar problems of adjustment to the educational community, or needs that are not held in common with other segments of the student population. By action, most colleges and universi— ties seem to support the assumption that the commuters are not unique. Conclusions are made either tacitly or overtly that the students are not peculiar as commuters. In some cases they are completely ignored. Although research findings will be discussed further in Chapter II, it is important to note that only a handful of studies are available which give any attention to the differences or similarities between the residential and com— muter students. Carefully planned and executed research is almost totally lacking. In 1954, Hardee found only Hand's, Campus Activities, when searching for reference to the col- lege commuter and she found no listings in the Educational Index for the ten years preceding.1 A thorough search by Stark in 1963 brought to light only one study which dealt with the differences and similarities between commuter and .residential students on non-academic variables.2 Fritz lMelvene Draheim Hardee, Counseling and Guidance in general Education (New York: WOrld Book Company, 1955), p. 266. 2Matthew Stark, "A Comparison of Expressed Personal Problems, Study Habits, and Reading Skills of College Fresh- man Commuter and Residence Hall Students," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Western Reserve University, 1963), p. 4. discowered that very little has been done in relating changes and differences in the attitudes of students to their place of residence in college. Furthermore, he found no studies which focused primarily upon these relationships. Several questions go unanswered. Do the commuter students vary from the rest of the student population at the time of college entrance? Are unique problems and needs realized? Does living at home seem to have some effect on the educational experience, on the immersion in the campus environment, or on student achievement? If differences exist, what are institutions planning for the commuters? It is upon these initial characteristics, first year experiences, achievements, and changes of the commuter that the attention of this study will be focused. Statement of the Problem It is the purpose of this investigation to contribute to a more complete understanding of the freshmen commuter students at a large, primarily residential university and to determine if any differences exist between the commuters and those students living in residence on the campus. More spe- cifically, the attempt is made: (1) To determine in what ways commuter students are similar and/or dissimilar to the freshmen resi- dent students at the time of college entrance. lRoger Jay Fritz, "A Comparison of Attitude Differ- ences and Changes of College Freshmen Men Living in Various Types of Housing," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Uni- versity of Wisconsin, 1956), p. 17. (2) To determine how selected first year college ex— periences of commuter students compare with the experiences of the first year resident students at the same institution. (3) To determine how commuter students compare with the resident students with regard to academic achievement and to the nature and direction of changes in critical thinking ability, in atti- tudes of stereotypy, and in value orientation during the first year. Hypotheses As the review presented in the next chapter demon— strates, much of the existing research bearing relevance to this investigation is not conclusive. As a result, the hy- potheses lack the framework of a stable theory. As an ex— ploratory study, however, it was deemed appropriate that the following hypotheses be developed to be used as guidelines in defining more clearly the direction of this investigation. The following broad research hypotheses are developed: Part One (1) It is possible to differentiate at the time of en- rollment between the commuter students and the resi— dent students with regard to the following character— istics: (A) age; (B) nativity of parents; (C) father's education; (D) mother's education; (E) father's occupation; (F) mother's occupation; (G) rank in high school graduating class; (H) religious pre- ference; (I) major; (J) amount of education desired; (K) source of financial support; and (L) aptitude for college work. Part Two (2) It is possible to differentiate between the commuter students and the resident students in terms of the following first year experiences: (A) faculty con- tact; (B) class experiences and courses; (C) study practices; (D) educational intentions; (E) attitude toward the attending institution; (F) immersion in campus life; and, (G) personal interaction. Iijiill lill'll [Jill Part Three (3) It is possible to differentiate between the commuter students and the resident students in terms of aca— demic achievement at the end of the freshman year, first year withdrawal rates, and the level of edu- cation reached after five years. (4) It is possible to differentiate between the commuter students and the resident students in terms of the nature and direction of changes in attitudes of stereotypy, value orientation, and critical thinking ability. These hypotheses are restated in testable form in Chapter III. Definition of Terms A few of the key terms are defined so as to avoid any confusion and add to the clarity of this presentation. Resident Student The term resident student, as used in this study, re— fers to those students who lived in university residence halls during their entire first year. Since Michigan State University has a first year residency requirement, all fresh- men students except those who live with relatives, are married, or are 21 or over will be in residence. Commuter Student For purposes of this study, the commuter designation was limited to those students who were actually living with parents. Those students were excluded who may have been 1iVing with other relatives or in rooming houses within com— muting distances. Local Commuter The term local commuter refers to the students who were living at home with parents in the community immediately adjacent to the campus. These students were isolated from the rest of the commuters for portions of the analysis. Non-Local Commuter Those students residing at home with parents in com— munities beyond the 0—1 mile radius previously mentioned were defined as non—local commuters. Immersion in Campus Life The degree of immersion in the campus life was in- tended as a measure of involvement in the campus community, activities, and events. Withdrawal If sometime during the freshman year a student with— drew from the university for any reason, he was classified as a withdrawal student. Limitations of the Study Some limitations may be imposed upon the implications which are developed from the results of this study. (1) In ‘Vievr<3f the fact that the three groups were not assigned be- fore treatment the sample is dependent upon accessibility. Any inferences drawn from the findings may only provide an index of differences. (2) The investigation is limited to students enrolled at Michigan State University, which is a highly residential institution. Although separate treatment of the local and non-local commuters may minimize the local effects, any implications made to other large, primarily residential institutions must be qualified. (3) There is no assurance that the students sampled during one year are repre- sentative of the student population during any other given year. Of particular interest are the recent changes in the growing communities surrounding the campus. A comparison with present research being conducted by the Office of Insti- tutional Research, Michigan State University, may be useful in the development of a more accurate longitudinal analysis. Overview of the Thesis Thus far, the problem has been stated in broad re— search terms and some clarification of the need for the study has been indicated. In the following chapter a review of the literature relevant to the topic will be reported and summarized. In Chapter Three, an account of the design is pre- sented which includes a description of the population, the sample. the instruments, the specific hypotheses, and the methods utilized in analysis. In the fourth chapter, an analysis of the results is reported. A summary of the purposes, procedures, the find— ings, and the conclusions of the study is presented in the fifth and final chapter. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The literature which has some bearing on the thesis is reviewed in this chapter. In order to put the research problem into perspective, the relevant material on college students and their environment is reviewed. The studies and reports which give particular attention to the commuter stu— dents are then critically and comprehensively considered. A discussion is added to indicate the value of this research to the present study. Published Summaries of Research on College Students and Campus Cultures A number of summaries have been developed which draw together some of the important research conducted on the col— lege students and campus cultures. Many of these summaries are published proceedings from professional conferences de- voted to this topic. An entire issue of The Journal of Social Issues, 1956, considers the contributions made by Freedman, Webster, Brown, and Sanford to the knowledge of personality develop- ment during the college years. The Vassar study supported 10 by the Mellon Foundation as reported by Freedman is given special attention.1 Bushnell provides an excellent summary of a few im- portant studies concerned with the changing characteristics of the undergraduate and the effect of the educational pro— grams.2 He compared and contrasted the works of Jacob, Eddy, the Hazen Foundation report by Smith, and the Vassar study. Emphasis is given to Jacob's profile of the self—confident, self—satisfied, conformity minded student who was not pri— marily concerned with world issues but aspired to enjoy the material goods of life. The wealth of data from the Vassar studies supported the general trends of Jacob's analysis but Smith indicated that Jacob's profile would be modified if the religious, moral, and personal values more directly associated with the inner life of the individual were not underplayed or ignored while goals or ends were accentuated.3 The research reviewed by Bushnell would suggest a campus culture exists and that this campus culture is more the out- growth of student peer group influence than of faculty influences. lNevitt Sanford (issue editor), The Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 12 (April, 1956). 2John Bushnell, "What Are the Changing Character— istics of the Undergraduate and What Do These Changes Mean for Programs of General Education," Current Issues in Higher Education, Association for Higher Education (1959)- 31bid., p. 139. The peer group is the fundamental social unit for the vast majority of students and as the peer group goes, so goes the individual's education. Approval of age—mates is a most important consideration. In the process of stressing those places where the researchers have found common footing, Bushnell seemed to avoid some of the areas of disagreement. Jacob clearly states that students actually become more homogeneous and less individualistic during college, whereas substantial changes and increased heterogeneity was noted in the Vassar Students.2 Such differ- ences between studies were not clarified. After a 1960 review of the literature on the outcomes of college, Bloom and Webster concluded that although some modification of personality traits and individual character— istics was noted during the college years, there was no clear evidence that the college environment and the college cur— riculum make an impact on values and personality. On the other hand, it is generally agreed that higher education in- creases the individual's fund of information and the quality of his intellectual abilities and skills.3 1Ibid., p. 140. 2Harold Webster, "Changes in Attitudes During College," The Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 49 (June, 1955), p. 109. 3Benjamin Bloom and Harold Webster, "The Outcomes of College," Review of Educational Research, Vol. 30 (October, 1960), p. 323. 12 Rice summarized the significant volumes by Jacob, Eddy, and Pace and suggested that all confirm three sets of important generalizations. (1) An educational institution does have a distinctive climate or atmosphere. (2) Peer group interaction and faculty—student inter- action outside the classroom——important elements in the campus c1imate——have a stronger and more significant impact on student attitudes and values than do the things which go on in the classroom. Many of the activities which go on outside the c1assroom-—advising programs, the extra—class program, counseling services, a dormitory system and residence program, and a campus program of cultural events-—enhance the motivation to learn and increase the perceived relevance of learning. They not only encourage but facilitate the mastery of specific subject matter knowledge. Even narrowly defined, academic achievement is affected by the environment of the campus. (3 V The 1962 proceedings of the Southern College Personnel Association Convention2 and of the College Administrative Teams Institute,3 portions of The American College,4 and The Study of Campus Cultures5 provide additional summaries. lJames Rice, "The Climate of an Institution," Creating7the College Climate (Proceedings of the Second Junior College Administrative Teams Institute, Florida State University, 1963), p. 2. 2Kenneth M. Wilson (ed.), Institutional Research on College Students (Southern College Personnel Association, March, 1962). 3Creating the College Climate, o . cit. 4Nevitt Sanford (ed.), The American College (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962). 5Terry F. Lunsford (ed.), The Study of Campus Cultures (Berkeley: Center for the Study of Higher Edu— cation, 1963). EmEfllasis is placed on the importance of student culture as a principal educational influence. Student Characteristics Investigation of the predominant characteristics among entering students becomes increasingly essential. The contributions of Jacob, Smith, and the Vassar study have al— ready been cited. Several institutions have developed pro- files on their particular student population which only have local significance. Heist reviews some of the pertinent data on the extent and type of differences among college stu— dents. He notes the important diversity in academic ability within and among institutions as well as the variations in certain non—intellective characteristics.l Webster, Trow, and McConnel describe some important characteristics of freshmen students and give attention to an analysis of some of the influences which have contributed to this diversity° They consider the diversity to be educationally significant.2 The College Environment and Student Changes A variety of studies are available which attempt to determine whether the college community has any effect upon lPaul Heist, "Diversity in College Student Character- istics," The Journal of Educational Sociology: Vol. 33 (February, 1960), p. 279. 2Harold Webster, Martin A. Trow, and T. R. McConnel, "Individual Differences among College Freshmen," The Sixty- first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (1962), p. 145. 14 the: college students and what changes, if any, the students experience. A few of these studies are cited as a back— ground for this investigation. Some Attempts at Definition Pate attempts to define the campus environment. He sees it as: The total body of behavior and communicative acts within the system which affect the experience of individuals and shape the perceptions, images, and values by which those individuals orient their participation in the system.1 Ralph Tyler suggests that sutdents develop certain per— spectives of their problems and of their unique s1tuation as students which become defined as cultural standards and ex- pectations.2 Mueller pictures the campus population as an artificial and temporary subgroup in our society with features which differentiate it sharply from any other com- munity with a similar size. Its distinguishing features in— clude differences in age, physical energy, socio-economic status, homogeneity in interests and living routines, and the concentration of immature personalities.3 lBart Carter Pate, ”College as Environmental Systems: Toward the Codification of Social Theory," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University, 1964). 2Terry F. Lunsford (ed.), op. cit., p. 15- 3Kate H. Mueller, Student Personnel Work in Higher Education (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961), p. 97. 15 lflfiigrtance of the Total Environment Eddy developed an exploratory study in selected col- leges and universities. He was concerned with the relation- ships between intellectual training and character influence. He notes especially the important effects of the total. environment, the importance of student participation, and particularly the profound effect of students on fellow stu— dents. The overall climate of the institution is affected not only by the level of expectancy, the teach1ng, and the curriculum, but also by such things as student life and living accomodations. Newcomb provides a valuable addition to the analysis of the effects of the college experience. He studied the influence of the academic climate and particularly of the faculty influence upon student attitudes. He concluded that socialization does occur and that this change appears to be a function not of any one factor but of several factors in the academic environment.2 He is most prolific in his description of the peer group formation and influence.3 He suggests that the average differences between freshmen and 1Edward D. Eddy, Jr., The College Influence on Stu- dent Character (Washington, D. C.: The American Counc1l on Education, 1959), p. 152. 2Theodore M. Newcomb, Personality and Social Change (New York: The Dryden Press, 1943). 3Theodore M. Newcomb, Social Psychology (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1960), p. 205. 16 Senjxars are usually rather slight. He stresses the effects of group memberships upon individual students. These contributions of Newcomb are complemented by Siegel who gives attention to the effect which membership and reference groups have on the attitudes of individual students.1 The Cornell Values Study also reinforces this concept. What students learn in college is determined in large measure by their fellow students with whom they associ— ate through activities and group membership.2 Thistlethwaite limits his investigation to a grOup of exceptional students, National Merit participants, and develops evidence to show that the environment is an im— portant determinant of the students' motivation to seek ad— vanced intellectual training. Student cultures and faculty influences tend to affect student achievement and behavior outside the classroom.3 Measurement of the Environment Pace admits that the pervading atmosphere is diffi- cult to explain. He stresses that the people themselves have lAlberta E. Siegel and Sidney Siegel, "Reference Groups, Membership Groups, and Attitude Change," The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Vol. 55 (1957), p. 360. 2Rose K. Goldsen, What College Students Think (Princeton: Van Nostrand Company, 1960). 3Donald L. Thistlethwaite, "College Press and Student Achievement," The Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 50 (October, 1959), p. 183. a Special influence on the character of the institution.1 He provides a brief comment on various ways of analyzing the campus atmosphere, gives some attention to a particular re— search tool developed with his colleague George Stern, and in another publication he more explicitly describes four ways of characterizing and measuring college environments and the total campus impact on students enrolled in an institution.2 Effect on Interests, Critical Thinking, Valuesz and Beliefs A few studies are available which limit their investi- gation to changes in interests, critical thinking, values, or beliefs. The exploratory study by Jacob already mentioned was actually undertaken to discover what happens to the values held by American college students as a result of the general education they secure in social science.3 In ad— dition to the profile developed of student values which stresses the tendency toward homogeneity, he found little evidence that courses, curriculums, teaching methods, or faculty had much influence on changing student values. He supported Freedman's earlier conclusions that the impetus 1Robert C. Pace, "Evaluating the Total Climate or Profile of a Campus," Current Issues in Education (1961), p. 171. 2Robert C. Pace, "What Kind of a College Environment Are Students Entering?" The Association of College Admissions Counselors Journal, Vol. 16 (Winter, 1956), p. 6. 3Philip E. Jacob, Changing Values in College: An Exploratory Study of the Impact of College Teaching (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957), p. xi. 18 for change does not come primarily from the formal education— al processes but that the student body as an entity possesses certain characteristics which, like a culture, provides the basic context in which individual learning occurred.l Howard and Warrington administered the Inventory of Beliefs to 1,942 freshmen students entering Michigan State University in 1951. A random sample was retested during the Spring of 1952 and at the end of their senior year. As measured by the Inventory of Beliefs, beliefs and attitudes change significantly in male and female students both during their freshman year and between their freshman and senior years.2 Lehmann has contributed a longitudinal study from which part of the data for this study are drawn which has shown some relationship between certain biographical characteristics and critical thinking ability, attitudes of stereotypy, and value orientation. With some exception, he has indicated an improvement in critical thinking ability, a lessening of stereotypic beliefs, and a movement away from the traditional value orientation during each of the four years of college life. The first year changes were most lNevitt Sanford (issue editor), The Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 12 (April, 1956), p. 56. 2Victor Howard and Willard Warrington, "The Inventory of Beliefs: Changes in Beliefs and Attitudes and Academic Success Predictions," The Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 37 (December, 1958), p. 300. Critical.l A recent doctoral study also noted differences in beliefs between the freshmen and senior years. No difference could be attributed to the place of residence during school years.2 Mayhew concluded from a number of studies, that even though personality traits measured by the Inventory of Beliefs were relatively stable and probably deeply embedded, they were nevertheless modified during col- lege. Whether it be by education, maturation, or just 3 getting away from home was not understood. Matteson indi— cates that students' interests do become modified in ac- cordance with the broadened experience patterns available to them in the first two years of college.4 The increase in available experiences is accompanied by an increase in stu— dents' expressed interests. lIrvin J. Lehmann and Paul L. Dressel, Critical Thinking, Attitudes, and Values in Higher Education. Final Report (Michigan State University, 1962). Note also the preliminary report by Lehmann and dissertations by Bradley, Cummins, Foster, Hartnett, Hodgkins, and Ikenberry developed from this research. 2Roger Jay Fritz, "A Comparison of Attitude Differ— ences and Changes of College Freshmen Men Living in Various Types of Housing," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, the University of Wisconsin, 1956). 3Paul L. Dressel (ed.), Evaluation in the Basic College at MSU (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959), p. 230. 4Ross W° Matteson, "Experience—Interest Changes in Students," The Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 2 (February, 1955), p. 119. .——-. q.__-__ -....- .. .... —- . 20 The Commuter Students After this general introduction to the important considerations of college student characteristics and the effect of the campus community, the stage is set for a more detailed and comprehensive review of the worthwhile studies of the commuter students. General References It would seem likely that one might be able to begin such an investigation with the writers in the college person- nel field, yet Mueller's recent volume makes only one brief reference to the commuter. She indicates that the students living with parents are isolated from each other and are normally not available for student activities. She con- cludes, only from opinion, that it is especially important that commuters be provided with lounges snack bars, study rooms, and a centrally located space. Special organizations should be promoted for their social and recreational develop— ment.1 Williamson, the author of the other currently popular college personnel volume, makes no reference to the commuter whatsoever.2 An earlier volume by Lloyd—Jones and Smith gives brief attention to this segment of the student body lKate H. Mueller, op. cit., p. 200. 2E. G. Williamson, Student Personnel Services in Colleges and Universities (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961). 21 EUHi cautions that this group must not be overlooked in pre— occupation with the resident student.1 The American College includes several brief references to commuter students but cites no completed research. The provincial atmosphere which pervades the commuter colleges and their lack of impact on students is noted. The lack of personal friendships, the lack of social support in achieving independence of parents, and the lack of informal inter— action with fellow students is stressed. It is stated that, generally speaking, leaving home to go to college is in some ways highly favorable to the development of personality. The student is almost bound to en— counter and take seriously values and roles that are different from some that he has taken for granted; he is thus forced to make conscious choices and to take the first steps toward building a value system of his own . . . Proximity to the campus is essential to intellectual discourse . . . The opportunities to establish any firm identity as a college student is offered by residence. These opinions, however, show little reference to research and relate primarily to commuter institutions. From England has filtered various opinions about com— muter and residence situations. One author is of the opinion that the educative mission of a university, which is not con- fined to purely academic work, cannot ultimately be achieved if all students are solely in halls of residence.3 On the lEsther Lloyd-Jones and Margaret Ruth Smith, Student Personnel Work as Deeper Teaching (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954), p. 196. 2Nevitt Sanford (ed.), The American College (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962), p. 267. 3Times Educational Supplement, Vol. 2439 (February 16, 1962), p. 304. 22 Otluar hand, a 1962 committee at Leeds reports that there are distinct advantages to be gained from living in residence, particularly during the studnet's first year at the uni- versity.l The association with senior students, the en- couragement to take part in extra—curricular activities, and the freedom from housekeeping were cited. Ashby builds a justification for taking a student away from home during his; university career. No statistical analysis was developed. From scraps of information the author attempts to piece to- gether some evidence to support his conclusions about the in— adequacy of the home environment for students. Inadequate physical accomodations and the emotional involvement in the home are noted as disadvantages. The resident conditions on the campus were generally seen as more favorable to academic work.2 Thoday reported a study completed in 1952 at the Uni- versity of Birmingham which indicated that students in the halls of residence led a more active university life than the rest and also mixed more with students of other disci- plines. An indication was given that proximity in living was an essential prerequisite to continuing friendships.3 1Times Educational Supplement, Vol. 2478 (November 16, 1962), P. 644. 2Eric Ashby, "A Note on an Alternative to Halls of Residence," Universitiesyguarterly, Vol. 5 (February, 1951), p. 150. 3Doris Thoday, "University Expansion and Student Life," Universities Quarterly, Vol. 14 (June, 1960), p. 273. .T.’ 23 commuters and Academic Success An increasing amount of attention has been given to the academic success of the college students, but only one early study treats the commuter as a distinctly separate group. Walker included 1,910 men and 1,435 women living in various housing accomodations while enrolled at the University of Chicago in his study to determine the relation between academic success to various types of college housing. Com- parisons were made between the students living in rooming houses, fraternity houses, at home, and in the University's residence halls on such variables as the number of quarters at the University of Chicago, grade-point average, numbers dismissed for poor work, numbers who withdrew from college because of their being on probation as a result of poor grades, students who graduated, and the number enrolled for graduate work.1 Walker was careful to compare the actual grades earned by the students in the various housing groups with the grades predicted by regression equation. High School grades, college aptitude test scores, and a high school personality rating provided the basis for the develop— ment of the regression equation. He concluded that different types of college housing were associated with different de- grees of academic success. He suggested that students of 1Ernest Timothy Walker, "The Relation of the Housing of Students to Success in a University," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, the University of Chicago, 1934), p. 37. 24 botli sexes who lived in residence halls made grades above these predicted for them, the students who live at home made grades similar to those predicted for them, and the fraternity students and the rooming house students made grades below those predicted for them.1 Residence hall students were first and the commuters second in all of the stated variables. Walker felt that the relationship between the type of housing and success in college was “great enough to make student housing compare in importance with other problems of student life."2 Commuters and Withdrawal Bemis reviewed the records of 1,208 within-term undergraduate withdrawals at the University of Washington.3 Of special interest is the conclusion that a majority of the students who decided to sever academic relations within terms either lived at home with their parents or resided with their spouses while enrolled. Some value is certainly lost because adequate control was not imposed upon measures of initial aptitude or past performances. lIbid., p. 62. 21bid., p. 75. 3James Fleming Bemis, "A Study of Undergraduate Stu- dents Who Voluntarily Withdrew from the University of Washington During the 1959-60 Academic Year," (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, The University of Washington, 1962). SQHEBgters and Non-Academic Characteristics and Student Activities The search for research efforts given to the investi- gation of non—academic characteristics and activities of com- muter students has been somewhat more rewarding than even Hardee and Stark have previously indicated might be the case. Even so, only eight studies are noted which include the com— muter student as a part of the research population. Three of these are surveys of various proportions, two are studies which give particular attention to attitude differences and changes, two are Ph.D. dissertations which investigate the differences between commuter and resident students on a number of variables, and one gives particular attention to the commuter at an urban institution. The urban study, completed at Wayne State University, analyzed the factors influencing local students to seek housing in the dormitory rather than at home. A question— naire was distributed to 336 dormitory residents; 253 were completed. It was found that the dormitory students repre— sented a cross—section of the total university student body. Approximately three quarters indicated that the dormitory experience had been a distinct value in their educational program. They cited the elimination of commuter travel time, better study conditions, independence from family and family tension, nearness to campus jobs, the exp05ure to other stu— dents, and the opportunity to use campus facilities and 26 Efiurticipate in student activities.1 It is suspected that other urban institutions have given some attention to the study of resident housing and their commuter population but no additional published material has been uncovered. Whitmore and Hand conducted a review of campus leadership, social life, living accomodations, and activi— ties of college students at seventy-five American campuses from every section of the United States.2 Its early date and the attention given to institutions other than the large, residential college may limit the applicability to the present investigation but it does serve as an excellent illustration of an early work. Summarizations of Opinion questionnaires submitted by deans and university officials were reported but no statistical design was represented. The summaries revealed that about a quarter of the students were living at home but that ”only three per cent live at home and like it."3 It was reported that the students who live at home and commute to college are isolated from col- lege life and lose many of the advantages that residence in a college group can give. Ranking over any other factor in college living is the twenty-four-hour—a-day influence of the student 1H. C. VandenBosch, "Factors Influencing Local Stu- dents to Seek Dormitory Housing at an Urban University," School and Society, Vol. 81 (April 2, 1955), p. 104. 2Harold C. Hand (ed.), Campus Activities (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1938), p. 148. 3Ibid., p. 147. qu— 27 living group. A student's adjustment to society, his scholarship, his attitudes, and his mental and physical health are as a whole largely determined by where and how he lives.1 The authors would have us believe that from social, moral, mental, and physical viewpoints, shared living accomodations on the campus are preferred to living at home. Students in rooming houses are reported to suffer most on all counts, x ,‘J m'-’ with living at home not a large margin better.2 Another survey was conducted in 1954 by Hardee. A questionnaire was sent to administrators, counselors, faculty, and students to determine the problems and possi— bilities of the commuter students.3 Random replies and opinions are reported, certain advantages and disadvantages of commuting are listed, and recommendations offered. In- cluded in the list of advantages was the opportunity the com- muter could exercise to retain his identity in his own group and to live in his permanent culture rather than being trans- planted for four years. The benefit of family counsel and better study conditions were also noted. The large majority of the respondents felt that the commuter was disadvantaged in at least the following ways: (1) The commuter misses the on—campus and dormitory life which constitute valuable adjuncts to lIbid., p. 148. 2Ibid., p. 151. 3Melvene Draheim Hardee (ed.), Counseling and Guidance in General Education (New York: Werld Book Company, 1955). 28 general education. The commuter is liable to obtain only a one-dimensional education as he is not as exposed to new people, new ideas, and more responsibility for his own actions and ideas. (2) New cultural influences may not reach the com- muter so readily. (3) There is danger in his education being spread thin, since he is usually pressed for time. (4) Despite possible advantages, it seems the home with its many distractions is not so conducive for effective study. (5) The commuter is often harassed by financial worries, which he tries to conquer, in part, by commuting.l Hardee does not refer to any conclusions developed specifical- ly from research to support the opinions of the faculty and university staff personnel. She also assumes that the com— muter group is academically representative of the college population and that they have the same hopes, aspirations, aims, interests, and emotions as resident students. This survey suggested to the author that nonparticipation in campus activities might be as related to personality differ- ences, interests, and part—time work load as to commuting. A survey was developed by Williamson in 1954 at the University of Minnesota using a questionnaire distributed to a 10 per cent stratified, random sample of 4,629 students at the University.2 A total of 3,808 students eventually par- ticipated. It was hypothesized that participation, in both amount and type, was significantly related to such factors lIbid., p. 271. 2E. G. Williamson, Wilbur L. Layton, and Martin L. Snoke, A Study of Participation in College Activities (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1954). 29 as euducation of parents, size of home community, degree of self support, and living accomodations. Forty per cent of the men and 50 per cent of the women lived in the homes of their parents, 11 per cent of the men and 23 per cent of the women lived in university residences, and the remainder in rooming houses, fraternities or sororities. Several student characteristics were related to participation in organized campus activities. Younger students, students who were em— ployed less, and students whose parental income and edu- cational level was higher tended to participate more. The career choice of male students was related to participation in organized campus activities. Religion, race, marital status of parents, occupation of father, size of home com— munity, and recreation patterns of the home did not affect participation. Of particular interest is the report that men and women who lived in fraternities and sororities were by far the most active of all students while students who lived at home participated least in college activities. Distance from campus also significantly affected participation. A 1956 dissertation by Fritz compared attitude differences and changes of college men living in various types of housing at Purdue University.2 Two hundred and 1Ibid., p. 67. 2Roger Jay Fritz, "A Comparison of Attitude Differ— ences and Changes of College Freshmen Men Living in Various Types of Housing," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Wisconsin, 1956). 3O fOITty—one of the sample of 498 students resided in University Operated residence halls, while only 26 lived at home with parents or relatives. He attempted to investigate the group differences between the expressed attitudes of randomly se— lected men who live in different types of housing accomo— dations at both the beginningiand the end of their freshman & year at Purdue University, the differences in attitude change during their freshman year, and the group differences be- tween fraternity pledges and those who do not pledge during * their freshman year. In addition, similarities and differ— ences were noted between the groups on a number of selected variables: rank in high school graduating class, size of high school body, housing preference in October and April, college completion plans, parents' college attendance, gross income of parents, and schooling of mother. A summary of the first questionnaire administered during the fourth week of the first semester revealed the following results. Those students living at home with their parents had a significantly lower mean score than the fra- ternity and residence hall groups when measuring social re— lations and activities. This seemed to indicate that stu- dents who live at home participate in fewer extra-curricular activities and are either less interested in participating or feel they have less time to devote to them than do those in the other groups. When comparing residential students and those living at home, no difference was noted in 31 )3) :relationships with the opposite sex, (2) money and finances, (3) personal and interpersonal relations, (4) study problems and general college life, (5) vocations and the future, and (6) religion and philosophy. A definite differ- ence existed between the residence hall and home groups on attitude toward home and family, with the residence hall 511‘: '17 group indicating a distinctly more favorable attitude. Re- tention of home ties negatively influenced the commuter stu- dents' adjustment to the university environment during their n first month following enrollment.l When summarizing the re- sults of the second questionnaire administered five weeks be— fore the end of the freshman year, Fritz indicated that the group living at home with parents continued to have lower mean scores indicating less favorable attitudes than the residential group. It was suggested that emphasis placed upon the importance of extracurricular participation and greater opportunity to join in social activities on the campus promulgates more favorable attitudes among students in university residence than among those living at home.2 Gruen also gave particular attention to attitude change and change in self-concept among liberal arts college students.3 No measurable movement on either the self-concept lIbid., p. 41. 21bid., p. 66. 3Richard Edward Gruen, "A Study of Attitude Change and Change in Self-Concept Among Liberal Arts College Stu— dents," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1963). 32 dimension or in attitudes was noted. Quite apart from the research.conclusions, the implication was made that the col— lege students living at home in the community where they ob— tain their undergraduate education appear to maintain strong ties with the primary social groups and that the community, family, and environmental influences and pressures are probably greater on these students. Drasgow develOped a local study to measure differ- ences between two matched groups of commuter and dormitory students on 26 variables.1 At the outset the groups were matched on the basis of sex, marital status, college in the university in which enrolled, and year in college. Only 13 of the 26 variables were reported. The two groups were found to be different on five variables: father's education, socio—economic level, ACE Psychological Examination scores, Cooperative English scores, and "worries" as measured by an instrument devised by the author. The dormitory group re— ceived higher mean scores on father's education, socio— economic level, and "worries" and lower scores on the ability measures. It was also found that the dormitory students tended to stay in college longer. No differences were re- ported in high school averages, rank in high school gradu- ating class, college average, age, size of family, sibling placement, number of clubs and activities, or offices held. lJames Drasgow, "Differences Between College Stu— dents," The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 29 (April, 1958), p. 216. 33 Drasgow concluded that the higher scores on father's edu- cation and socio-economic level indicated that dormitory stu- dents may have been subject to more family pressure to go to college and this may function as a motivational force on them. Drasgow theorized that the higher score on the variable "worries" recorded by the residence students might indicate increases in anxiety and pressures from being away from home. Many of the author's conclusions were speculations and were not necessarily direct implications from the research find- ings. This study in its published form did not have ade- quate descriptions of the experimental design and these shortcomings limit direct comparisons. Stark gave attention to the differences between com- muter and resident students in reading skills, study habits, and expressed personal needs and problems.1 The Mooney Problem Check List, the Brown—Holtzman Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes, the Cooperative English Test, and the Scholastic Aptitude Test were administered. He concluded that the commuter students seemed to be basically similar to the residence hall students with regard to reading skills, study skills, expressed personal problems, the number of stu— dents who worked for pay or who participated in extra- curricular activities, and the number of students who desired lMatthew Stark, "A Comparison of Expressed Personal Problems, Study Habits, and Reading Skills of College Fresh- man Commuter and Residence Hall Students," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Western Reserve University, 1963). 34 t0 taJJ; with a counselor. Some differences were noted how- ever. The dormitory group had a higher aptitude as measured by the SAT, a higher average vocabulary score, and less problems as measured by certain parts of the Mooney Problem Check List. Discussion As may be noted from the representative studies and opinions cited, many investigations have been conducted which concern themselves with student characteristics, atti— tudes, beliefs, ability, and change. Specific attention has also been drawn to the influence of the campus community up— on these students. The entering students, though somewhat more capable of academic work, both within and between institutions, pro— vide much of the same diversity as is found in society at large. It appears from the previous review that intellectual skills and ability are improved by the educational experience. Certain changes are also noted in personality traits and basic values and beliefs. These changes, however, which are more obvious in the first and second years, are often seen as modifications of existing patterns. Most studies dealing with attitudes and value changes have tended to deal with a particular type of college or university. Also, most studies dealing with such changes have been carried out either on a 35 ratluer atypical group of students, or they have tended to emphasize those aspects of findings which refer only to a small segment of a total study body. Another weakness might be the failure to develop an adequate theoretical framework within which the diversity can be handled.1 A conclusive point of view is not yet available. There is very little evidence that any one factor from the multitude of college experiences explains changes in students. Of great interest to the college personnel ad- ministrator has been the claim that it is not always the formal academic pursuits which affect the character and personality development but the sum total of the students' immersion in the campus environment. There does seem to be support for the notion that the academic program is affected by the campus environment. More and more the thesis seems to be accepted that the modification that does occur in col— lege students is affected by the interaction of persons and things in an environment which provides a sense of community. The campus life, communal work and play, seem to be edu- cationally valuable.2 Eddy has noted that it is the total campus experience which seems to have some impact on student characteristics. Jacob, Freedman, Newcomb, and others give lBenjamin Joseph Hodgkins, ”Student Subcultures-—An Analysis of Their Origins and Affects on Student Attitude and Value Change in Higher Education," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1964), p. 3. 2Melvene Draheim Hardee, o . cit., p. 267. 36 importance to the student subculture and peer group in— fluences. Lehmann has indicated that the informal 'bull- sessions' might be as important as the classroom and that the campus milieu may be more important than the faculty in affecting changes in values and beliefs during the first two years. If curriculum and extra—curriculum combine to create ways of life which not only instruct but influence the personality development and socialization of the individual, it becomes increasingly clear why a study of the commuter student is important. If, as suspected, the commuter does not participate in the campus environment, the educational opportunities are in fact varied. Maybe the commuters are unwittingly placed into the background of the educational offerings. The documented information about the similarities or differences in needs, problems, interests, changes and campus immersion between the commuter students and the rest of the campus population is also not conclusive. A number of studies cite differences in terms of immersion in campus life. Most often, however, the amount or kind of involvement in campus life is not determined to be a cause for any spe- cific resulting educational advantage. CHAPTER III THE DESIGN This chapter consists of a definition of the pOpu- lation and sample, a description of the instrumentation, the method of data collection, the statistical hypotheses and a review of the procedures and techniques utilized during analysis. Definition of the Population The freshmen students who entered Michigan State University in the fall of 1958 comprised the original popu- lation from which the sample was selected.1 In order to achieve the objectives of this study, however, it was necessary to exclude from the original pdpulation the follow- ing types of students: (1) those who had transferred to Michigan State University after having attended another col: lege or university; (2) those who were classified as foreign students at the time of admission to the university; (3) those who were not enrolled for at least 12 credits fall Permission has been given for use of a portion of - the data originally compiled for the larger study conducted by Dr. Irvin J. Lehmann and Dr. Paul L. Dressel entitled, Critical Thinkingy Attitudes, and Values in Higher Education, sponsored by the Office of Education, United States De- partment of Health, Education, and welfare, and Michigan State University. 37 1 .' - I 2" . , I'r 1 1 - '7 ' 38 term, and, (4) those who had incomplete or unusable initial test and/or biographical data. After the above deletions were made, the actual working population of the study con- sisted of 2,746 first—term freshmen: 1,436 were males and 1,310 were females. Selection and Classification of the Sample From these 2,746 students was selected the entire group of 311 students listed as "living at home with parents." It was determined that 58 of the 311 resided in the local community (approximately 0—1 mile) and 253 of the 311 were non-local commuters (more than 1 mile). When it became evi- dent that there were differences in the local and non—local commuters, the two groups were treated separately in the analysis. For purposes of comparison, a control sample of 300 was selected from the 2,256 students who indicated that they were living in a campus residence hall during the first term at the university. After stratifying by sex, the sample was randomly selected. The sex stratification was deemed neces- sary in view of the weighting of males both in the commuter sample and in the original entering student population in 1958. Four student records were subsequently judged not complete so that a control sample of 296 was finally avail— able for initial comparisons with the 311 commuters. 39 Eighty of the total 607 withdrew during the year, 1 was not enrolled for at least 12 credits for the entire year, and 5 either moved from the residence hall or from home during the year. Four hundred and twenty one students were available for end-of-year achievement comparisons, 477 of these completed the experience inventories, and 463 completed the post-test battery. Description of the Instruments In order to achieve the purposes of this study, it was necessary to identify certain selected initial character- istics and to obtain measures of academic aptitude, first year experiences, attitudes, value orientation, and critical thinking ability. The following instruments were selected from the original study to measure the named variables: I. Initial Characteristics and Ability. A. Biographical Data Sheet, (Michigan State University). B. The College anlification Test, (The Psycho- logical Corporation). II. First Year Experiences. A. Experience Inventory I, (Michigan State University). III. End—of-year Changes. A. The Inventory of Beliefs, Form I, (The American Council on Education). B. The Differential Values Inventory, (Richard Prince, The University of Chicago). C. The Test of Critical Thinking, (The American Council on Education). 40 Each of the instruments will be discussed briefly. The Biographical Data Sheet This instrument consists of 25 questions designed to provide biographical information which would be difficult to obtain through existing university records. Responses to eleven of the twenty-five questions were considered important in satisfying the purposes of this study. The College_gpalification Test The College Qualification Test consists of three ability tests which may be combined into a comprehensive total score.1 The total score seems to have greater general predictive power and is used in preference to the three sepa— rate subtests which, when used independently, measure verbal ability, skill in handling numerical concepts, and general information.2 The manual reports a reliability coefficient to ap— proach or exceed .90.3 Lehmann and Dressel report a relia- bility coefficient of .93 using the data collected from the original working population of this study.4 The validity of lGeorge Bennett, Marjorie G. Bennett, Winburn L. Wallace, and Alexander G. wesman, Collegeygualification Tests, Manual (New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1957). 2Ibid., p. 50. 3Ibid., p. 28. 4Irvin J. Lehmann and Paul L. Dressel, Critical Thinking, Attitudes, and Values in Higher Education, Final report of Cooperative Research Project (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1959), p. 21. 41 the College Qualification Test has been examined frequently. Lehmann and Ikenberry report validity coefficients ranging from .34 to .66 when using grades in required courses as the criterion.1 Hartnett provides further evidence of the pre— dictive quality of the test.2 Correlations from .50 to .70 seem to be the usual findings when relating the College Qualification Test total score to early college performance. Experience Inventory I The Experience Inventory I is a 50 item scale de— veloped by the original research staff to give an indication of the nature and extent to which students are involved or . . . 3 4 immersed in the campus env1ronment. ’ The results of thirty-three questions are reported in this study in view of their direct bearing upon the comparisons involving the com- muter students. lIrvin J. Lehmann and Stanley 0. Ikenberry, Critical Thinking, Attitudes, and Values in Higher Education: A Preliminary Report (East Lansing: Office of Evaluation Services, Michigan State University, 1959). 2Rodney T. Hartnett, "An Analysis of Factors Associ- ated with Changes in Scholastic Performance Patterns," (un— published Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963). ~ 3Irvin J. Lehmann and Stanley 0. Ikenberry, o . cit., p. 11. 4 p. 282. Irvin J. Lehmann and Paul L. Dressel, 0p. cit., 42 The Inventory of Beliefs The Inventory of Beliefs was developed as part of the Cooperative Study of Evaluation in General Education, under the sponsorship of the American Council on Education, Com— mittee on Measurement and Evaluation.1 Students were asked to respond to 120 statements by means of a four-element scale: strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree. The Inventory of Beliefs identifies students who tend to accept stereotypes and who are dependent and rigid in attitudes and values from those who are more mature in their VieWpoints and who tend to be more adaptable in their beliefs and attitudes. The manual reports that the reliability coefficient of the Inventory of Beliefs ranges from .69 to .95 with a median of .86. Ikenberry applied the Kudar-Richardson Formula 20 to the test score data of the working population of this study and obtained a reliability coefficient of .84.3 The test-retest reliability as measured by Lehmann and Ikenberry is .71.4 The validity for measures of attitudes and values is more difficult to provide. The manual reports 1Paul L. Dressel and Lewis B. Mayhew, General Edu- cation: Explorations In Evaluation (Washington, D. C.: The American Council on Education, 1954). 2Irvin J. Lehmann and Paul L. Dressel, 0p. cit., p. 21. 3Stanley 0. Ikenberry, "A Multivariate Analysis of the Relationship of Academic Aptitude, Social Background, Attitudes, and Values of Collegiate Persistence," (un- published Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1960), p. 56. 4Irvin J. Lehmann and Stanley 0. Ikenberry, op. cit., p. 48. I'"' ' 43 evidence of face validity and construct validity. Indi- cations of concurrent validity are presented by Ikenberry.l While the Inventory of Beliefs seems to be related to some extent to cognitive measures it seems to be related more closely to the measurement of attitude or personality traits similar to that of stereotypy.2 The Differential Values Inventory The Differential Values Inventory was developed by Price3 to measure the "traditional" and "emergent" value categories outlined by Spindler.4 The scale of 64 forced— choice items was intended to contrast the person who places considerable emphasis on respectability, self-denial, hard work as a determinant of success, egocentricity, and disre- gard for the past and present in favor of the future, with the person oriented toward an emergent value system character— ized by getting along with people, group-determined morality standards, consideration of the group and their feelings, and an emphasis on the present.5 1Stanley 0. Ikenberry, op. cit., p. 55. 2Rodney T. Hartnett, 0p. cit., p. 64. 3Richard Price, "A Study of the Relationship Between Individual Values and Administrative Effectiveness in the School Situation," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Uni— versity of Chicago, 1957). 4George Spindler, "Education in a Transforming American Culture," Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 25 (Summer, 1953), p. 156. 5 Richard Prince, 0p. cit., p. 42. 44 An estimate of reliability by Ikenberry resulted in a.wa mo. msu Unchme Ho um HCMUHMHcmHmQ . .ucmoHMHcmHm uozm as mmv.oa N MN.vH mm mm.v ma Hm>0 paw ma 3 mo.mm Hma mw.oo wma ma 5 mo.oN mo Nb.mN mm ma mops: MEN mmz mm.m N em.oa o mm.¢ ma Hm>o 6cm ma Nm.m© mm mm.®m mad ma vH.vN ea Nh.mN mm ma Hops: MEN. m x up fi 2 x. 2 H. z N mumusEEOO mumuSEEOO mucwpsum wHQMHHm> Hmooqncoz Hmooq ucwpflwwm .wmsoum HouDEEOU mtu mo some pom mucmpsum ucwpflmmn mnu cww3umn wow mo COmHHMQEOU .N mHnt 54 .mochchoo mo Hm>ma mo. one pcomwe Ho um ucmuauacmflmm omo.am m mo.~m Hm Ho.Hm ems Hoonom roam carp muoz mn.vm mm oo.¢m ms emumamsoo Hoorom swam om.em em mm.vm ms Hoonum goes away mmmq coflumospm m.Hm£umm os.m m He.ms N6 Ho.am ems Hoonom roam carp who: em.sa or 66.e~ ms ewumsmsoo Hoonum roam mm.oa o mm.¢m ms Hoonum roam can» mmmq coHumuspm m.um£umm x no a z a z x z N mHOD.SEEOU mHmHDEEOU wucwmusum OHQMHHMNV HMUOQICOZ HMUOQ #Cmmvflmwm MO some paw wucmpsum ucmpflmmu one .mmsoum kuoEEoo on» smo3umn coflumospm m.uw£umm mo somflHMQEOU .m magma .oocmpflmcoo mo Hm>mH mo. mnu tsoxmn Ho um ucmoHMHcmHmM omo.ma m mo.mm mo vm.m¢ mNH Hoonum roam carp who: oo.me was Hm.mm mos emumsmsoo Hoosom roam mm.mm as mm.o~ mm Hoonum seem can» mmmq coflumuopm m.Hm£uoz em.va N 66.05 as em.me was Hoonom roam can“ muoz av.- ma Hm.mm 60H emuoamsoo Hoonom roam 06.6 v mm.om mo Hoonom roam cmnu mmmq COflflMDDmXN m .HOSHOE x we a. z x. z a. z N mumpsEEOO mumuSEEOO mucmpsum oHQMHHm> Hmooqlcoz Hmooq #cmpflmmm .mmsoum umuDEEoo may mo tome Ucm mucmpsum ucmpflmwu wry cwaqu coflumospm m.Hm£u0E mo COmHHMQEOU .v maflme 56 with a lower level of formal education than did the resident students. Father's Occupation. It is evident from observing Table 5 that the fathers of the non-local commuters were engaged in occupations which placed their families at lower socio—economic levels than the families of the resident group. As an illustration, over 63 per cent of the fathers of the residents were classified in the occupational groups of executive/managerial, business, professional, and white collar, while slightly over 25 per cent were laborers or farmers. Less than 40 per cent of the fathers of the non- local commuters were classified in the five occupational groups listed above while over 47 per cent were laborers or farmers. It is important to note that a difference also existed between the father's occupation of the local commuters and the resident students. Less than 50 per cent of the fathers of the local commuters were classified in executive/managerial, business, professional, or white collar categories. Fewer were farmers or laborers and more were retired. The key difference, however, was that while only 3.04 per cent of the fathers of resident students were teachers or in public service occupations, over 27 per cent of the fathers of the local commuters were placed in this category. 57 .mochHmcoo mo Hw>ma we. may Unchmn Ho um OCMOHMHcmHmM « NHo.om o mv.m vN m¢.h NN pmueuwm\pwmmwomn vo.ne mHH em.mN mm quumm\Hoemq Nh.m ha eo.m m m0fl>umm .n5m\nwnumme mm.MH mm hm.na Nm HmHHOO mufirz Hm.h ma mm.¢a mv Hmsofimmmmoum Nm.m ma mm.oa me mmmcfimsm mo.m MN em.mH we Hmfluwmmcm2\m>flusomxm coflummsooo m.um£umm 6* mnv.mm o 6N.>H 0H mv.m NN confluwm\ommmmoma N©.m m em.mN ms HmEme\uonmq mm.>N ma eo.m m mofl>umm .n5m\umnumma hm.ma Ha nm.ma Nm umaaoo.muH£3 No.m m mm.va me Hmcoammmmoum No.m m mm.©a me mmmcwmsm em.oa o em.mfi we Hmaummmcmz\m>flusowxm coflumesooo m.um£umm m x up .x. z x z x z N meUDEEOO mnmuseeoo mucmpsum manmflum> Hmooqlcoz Hmuoq pampflmmm mo tone was mucmpsum ucwpfimwu mnu cmwBumn ooflpmmsuoo m.um£umm mo COmHHMQEOU .mmsoum kuSEEoo mnu .m magma 58 Mother's Occupation. The major occupation of 60 to 70 per cent of the mothers in all three groups was that of housewife. A number were also engaged in white collar pro- fessions and in teaching and public service positions. The number of mothers in other occupational categories was either small or non-existent so statistical analysis was not feasible. Table 6. Comparison of mother's occupation between the resi- dent students and each of the commuter groups. Variable Resident Local Non-Local Mother's Occupation Students Commuters Commuters N .% N % N % Executive/Managerial 4 1.35 0 - 6 2.37 Business 3 1.02 l 1.73 l 0.40 Professional 3 1.02 2 3.45 5 1.98 White Collar 22 7.43 9 15.52 43 17.00 Laborer 17 5.74 2 3.45 14 5.53 Teacher/Pub. Service 40 13.51 8 13.79 20 7.90 Housewife 207 69.93 36 62.07 164 64.82 Rank in High School Graduating Class. After iso- lating the influence of the local commuters from the analysis of the commuting population, no difference was noted between the non—local commuters and the residents with regard to rank in high school graduating class. Over 60 per cent of both groups ranked in the upper third and less than 5 per cent in the lower third of their graduating class. There were differ— ences, however, between the rank of the local commuters and the resident students. Whereas 67.23 per cent of the h V unmoflwflcmflm boze .wocwpflmcoo mo Hm>wa mo. wnu pcoan Ho um ucmoHMAcmHmm sz mHN.m N NN.H© mmH MN.h© mod GHHSB HOQQD mm.mm om mo.Hm Nm DHHSB OHUGHE v>.¢ NH m©.H m UHHSB HO3OQ mmmHU mcflumspmuo Hoorom guns as scam w m. mom.6m m sm.me mm m~.sm mos swans “moms HN.®m HN mo.Hm No there mappflz Nm.ma m mo.a m where Hm3oq mmmHO mdflumspmuw Hoonom seem as scam m x up X z X z X z - N muquEEOO mumu56Eoo mucmpsum manmflum> . Hmooqlcoz Hmooq acmpflmmm -11... .dllJ . .mmsoum mousseoo one we 30mm pom wucmpsum .. usmpflmmu one cmmBOmQ mmmao assumspmum Hoosom smfln CH xsmu mo comHHMQEOO .h manna 6O resident students came from the upper third of their gradu- ating class, only 48.47 per cent of the local commuters ranked in this category. 1.69 per cent of the resident students and 15.52 per cent of the local commuters ranked in the lower third. Curricular Major. Both the non—local and local com— muters differed from the resident students in curricular choice. A higher percentage of the commuter students than the resident students had not chosen a major at the time they initially enrolled at Michigan State, a higher percentage were in liberal or general education programs, and fewer were in vocational or professionally oriented curricular areas. Source of Financial Support. No difference in source of financial support was noted between the residents and the local commuters. However, as is evident from Table 9, a much larger percentage of the resident group than the non—local commuters received parental assistance. Many more of the non—local commuters supported a large portion of their educational costs by working, loans, or scholarships. Hypothesis II Null Hypothesis II. No difference exists among the three groups in terms of aptitude for college work as measured by The College Qualification Test. Results of the analysis of variance for The College Qualification Test, Table 10, revealed that there was a 61 .mocmpflmsoo we Hm>ma mo. mnu became no on ucmoHMHcmHmm * mNN.m N NN.vv NNH m¢.nm ona Hmcoflmmmmoum \HMCOHumoo> ma.hm em mo.mN om Hmumcm0\amumnfiq mm.ma we em.ma we mocmummwum oz Hone: Ma cam.oa N mv.vm ON me.mm ona Hmsoflmmmmoum. \Hmcoflumoo> mm.¢v om mo.sm om Hmumcmo\amumnaq 00.0N NH em.mH we mocmumwmnm oz Honmz 6 x we a z x z x z N wnmu58Eou mumuseeoo mucmpsum maemflum> HMUOQICOZ Hmooq ucwpflmmm mnu mo sumo paw .mmsoum HousEEoo mocmpsum ucmpammu or» cmwBamQ mmmnm umasofluuso mo COmHHMQEOO .m magma .mocopflwcoo mo Hw>wH mo. wnu pcoan no um unmoHMHcmHmn .usmoHMAcmHm uozm * moo.mv N HN.®H av HH.m vN Hmayo Q \CMOQ\Qfl£mMMHOSUm mN.mN we Hm.oa Nm boo em.Vm mma mo.Hm oeN mucwumm unmmmsm Hmflocmsflm mo mousom 2 6 mmz 0mm.H N no.NH n HH.m vN eruo \CMOQ\mfl£mumaosom no.NH h Hm.oa Nm goo om.mn we mo.Hm ovN mpcmumm uuommsm Hmflocmcflm mo mUHDOm N mumpsEEoo mnwusfifioo wucwpsum wanmfium> Hmooqlcoz Hmooq usmpflmmm .mmsoum Houseeou onu mo tome pom mucmpsum unwoflmwu wsu cwm3uwn unommsm Hafiocmcflm mo wUHDOm mo cowflummeoo .m wanna 63 Signaificant difference among the three groups in terms of academic aptitude. Thus the null hypothesis that no differ- ence existed among the three groups is rejected. Results of the "t" tests indicate that no difference existed between the local commuters and the residence students but that the non—local commuters had a significantly lower mean score than the resident students. Table 10. Analysis of variance of mean differences for the three groups on College Qualification Test scores. 'COLLEGE QUALIFICATION TEST-TOTAL Group N Mean Fa tb Resident 296 125.132 Local Commuter 58 127.741 5.313 .7 Non-Local Commuter 253 118.692 2.911 a F.05 — 3.86 b t.01 _ 2.576 Summary of Part One The null hypotheses I and II that no differences existed among the three groups with regard to initial characteristics or academic ability are rejected and the re— search hypotheses are accepted. More important, however, is the analysis of the individual characteristics of the three groups. ;? L-l The local commuters when compared with the resi— dent students came from families with a higher educational— socio—economic level. More fathers were teachers, more of the students ranked lower in their high school graduating class, and they were more likely to have "no preference" as to major field of study at fall registration or be enrolled in liberal or general educational programs. No differences were noted between the local commuters and the resident stu- dents in age, s0urce of financial support, or academic ability. The non—local commuters, on the other hand, were older than the resident students, were more likely to come from families with a lower educational—socio—economic level, and they received less financial support from home. The non—local commuters were also more likely to be "no preference" or enrolled in liberal or general education pro— grams than were the residents. They had less aptitude for college work as measured by the College Qualification Test than the residents but they did not differ from the resi- dent students with regard to rank in high school graduating class. No differences existed among the three groups with regard to nativity of parents, religious preference, or amount of education desired. 65 Part Two. First Year Experiences Hypothesis III was concerned with the differences in terms of first year experiences among the three groups. Hyppthesis III Null Hypothesis III. No differences exist among the three groups in terms of the following first year ex— periences: (A) faculty contact; (B) class experiences and courses; (C) study practices; (D) educational in— tentions; (E) attitude toward the institution; (F) im- mersion in campus life; and, (G) personal interaction with peers. Although many categories were included in this one general hypothesis, each individual item was treated sepa— rately in the analysis. It will not be possible to accept or reject the null hypothesis in its entirety. Faculty Contact. As is evident from Table 11, the students in all three groups experienced very little exposure to the faculty. Furthermore, no differences existed among the three groups on five of the six items which were intended 'to measure faculty contact. Separate analysis of this one item, Table 12, revealed that the local commuters spent more time with faculty members with whom they were not enrolled for classes. No difference was evident between the non- local commuters and the resident students on this particular item. I. i‘? “2...: , If mz nvN.m N .mCHomou omHCoouCOC HCM mCHOC oHOHoQ OCHpmoH HCOB omuooo HE ouoHQEOU Op umEouum NHHmomC H mz own. N .muCoECmHmwm mmmHU wCoHHm> orb mCHUmoH pComm mH NHMHQHH one CH oEHp NE Ho HHm HmOEH< a wNm.ON N .HnoueHH onu CH MooB m meson ozu Conu oHOE pcomm H mz Now. N .oEHH mmMHoIHonuCo NE Ho umOE gCHHCo Hpsum H mooHuomum wpsum a Hmw.NH N .moEHu oonru Ho o3u unmoH um mommMHo NE Ho umOE :uso: o>mn H mz mom.m m .umms mHCu mCHumouopCH HHoEoHon on on momusoo NE Ho ma UCCOH uOC o>mg H 2 HHm.mm N .muCoECmHmmm UCm wonspuoH wmmHu Cmsouflu ooCHmuno o>m£ H omoHHoo CH umom anu UoCnmoH o>ma H umt3 mo umoz mz HHm.N N .oHOHoD oE CuHB omusou m Ho CoHuuom oEmm onu CH Coon Ho>o o>m£ Euop mHCu mmMHU Co>Hm me CH mHCoUCum 03p Ho oCo HHCO momusoo pcm mooCoHHonw mmMHU 6 Us NNN.m N .EHC EOHH omusoo m wCmeu 6 oEHu oCu um uOC mm3 H CmCOCun .HouusnumCH cm oom on osom o>mn H mz NHm. N .mmmHo Ho oUHmuCo ooCO cmsu oHOE HouoduumCH oCO Ncm oom ou oCom Ho>oC o>mn H mz 05H.N N .uCoECmHmmm Cm CuH3 mCHHmop mCHCuoEOm How m>m3Hm mH pH mmmHo Ho oonHCo uouosnumCH cm oom on on H CoCB mz pom. N .smHnoum UHEoomomICOC..HmCOmHom m uooem muouosuumCH HE Ho oCO coon o>mn H mmMHUuHOICCOIIuomuCOO muHComm mz mmo.m N .oEMC >9 .. oE BOCM uoC 0U Euou mHCu muouosumeH he Ho AHHwC Cmnu ouoev umoz . nmz Noo.H N .Hmow mHCH oOH3u HouosuumCH oEMm oze Um: OOC o>mn H mmmHOICHIIpomuCOO >uHComm m NN m0 EoHH m.mQCoum ooHCu oCu mCOEm moocoHuomxo moo» umHHH UouooHom Ho COmHummEOO .HH oHQme wm¢.> N .D.m.E um COmHoQ oEMm ozp oump HHHMHCmoH HOC 06 H * emo.mm N .oUMHm mCHHoCHmm UCopsum m CH Hop m mouCCHE ON Ho mH Cora oHOE UCon HHHmsms H it * mh©.ov N .HUHHOHOm Ho muHCuoumuw m omoon HOC UHU H * Hmm.MMH N .mommmHo HE How mH owEmo Co UCon H oEHu >HCO onu Hsonm * 0mm.vH N .Hmom mHCH msmfimu Co mHCo>o HmHUOm 0H9 HHHmoH one Ho meE popcoupm o>mn H umnu how UHCO3 H * Hum.vN N .muHmHo>HCC oflu HQ UoHOmCOQm wDHooCoo 0C powCouum H * www.0N N .moHHom uHoUCOOIoHCHuoH one no .omoHHoo mHOCom on» .momEmo Co pCoEuHmmop m we UoHOmCOQm HoHCuooH no noxmomm mCHuHmH> m Moon on uCoz H .Hmo> wHCu mCHHCQ mz mwo.N N .umom mHCu moEmm HHmnuoxmmn oEOC HCOH CmCu wmoH 3Mm H * mv¢.wN N .woouuHEEoo Ho .moHHH>HHUm .mQCHU umHCUHHHCUmuuxo 03p unmoH um mo HoQEoE m EM H * MNN.wH N .Hmo> mHnu moEmm HHMQHOOH oEOC oCu HHo UoUCopum H s mmH.mm N .mmo Como mBoz oumum oCH pooh H W * www.mm N .ouo .oouuHEEoo .>HH>Huom .QCHU HMHCUHHHComupxo Cm CH mHanoUmoH Ho CoHuHoom m UHoS Ho HoUHHHo Cm mos H pooh anH mCHHCQ oHHH msmamu CH ConHoEEH * th.n N .oE now Hoonom umon on NHHmsuom mH oumum cmmHCUHE Hoguonz ou mm meadow mCoHnow Hosumu oEOm Um: o>MC H .Hmom mHnu mCHHCQ CoHuCqumCH one UHMSOB oosuHuu< m2 HMH. N .D.m.2 EOHH ooumop ME o>HoooH 0p UCoHCH H ailing m Nx Hp EoUH pmscflacmo .HH magma 68 .oocopHHCoo mo Ho>oH mo. one UComoQ no no ucmoHHHcmHmo .quoHHHCmHm uozQ .mpmp ozn Ho mHthmCm UoHHmuoU oHOE HOH m prComm< oomm * mmm.NH N .mUCoHHH NE CuHB :mConmomlHHCQ: CH Hop m HCOC cm CMCH mon pComm H mz Hov.H N .mCoHpmooq UHEopmom mmoome oummHoHuumm H CUHCB CH mConmComHo Ho szonmomlHHCQ: one mo poo: mz th.m N .opmo H EOCB CBOM oEOC NE CH ocoHum AHHHm Ho Honv m o>mn H m2 owe. N .xooB m ooH3u Cmnu mmoH oumo H COHuomuouCH HMCOmuom m we EouH NN pmscencoo .HH wasps 69 Tkflole 12. Separate comparison between the resident students and each of the commuter groups in terms of faculty contact.a Resident Local Non-Local Item Students Commuters Commuters x2 P Yes No Yes No Yes No Faculty Contact b Ex I have gone to see 52 182 18 30 4.982 * 1, an instructor, al— -' though I was not at the time taking c a course from 52 182 49 130 1.457 NS him. 1 f j aDifferent total N's in this and succeeding tables in Part Two indicate some "no response" items. bSignificant at or beyond the .05 level of confidence. CNot significant. Class Expeiences and Courses. Table 11 reveals that the three groups differed on two of the four questions. Both the local and non-local commuters indicated they placed more importance than did the resident students on class and course experiences as the main vehicle for learning. Likewise, both commuter groups missed fewer classes than did the resident students. Study Practices. No differences were revealed among the three groups in terms of three of the four items which were intended to measure study practices. Table 14 indi- cates that the non-local commuters spent more time in the library than the resident students. No difference was noted 7O iIl the library time of the local commuters and the resident students. Table 13. Separate comparison between the resident students and each of the commuter groups in terms of items intended to measure the class experiences and courses. Resident Local Non-Local Item Students Commuters Commuters X2 P Yes No Yes No Yes No Class Experiences and Courses Most of what I 107 134 32 17 7.132 learned this year in col— lege I have obtained 107 134 139 48 38.601 * through class assignments and lectures. I have "cut" most 64 171 5 43 6.114 * of my classes at least two or three times. 64 171 27 153 8.911 * aSignificant at or beyond the .05 level of confidence. Table 14. Separate comparison between the resident students and each of the commuter groups in terms of study practices. Resident Local Non—Local Item Students Commuters Commuters X2 P Yes No Yes No Yes No Study Practices I spend more than 80 155 17 31 .033 Nsa two hours a week b in the library. 80 155 100 79 19.691 * aNot significant. bSignificant at or beyond the .05 level of confidence. ‘ 71 Educational Intentions. It is evident from Table 11 that no difference existed among the three groups with regard to educational intentions. Over 75 per cent of the students in all three groups indicated a desire to complete their undergraduate work at Michigan State University. It is im— portant to note that this indication at the end of the first year is consistent with the reaction of the students in all three groups during the initial phase of this study. Attitude Toward the Institution. As is evident from Table 11, a difference was noted in terms of the attitude of the three groups toward Michigan State University. Further analysis revealed that this difference rested more spe- cifically in the difference between the non-local commuters and the resident students. The non—local commuters expressed more doubts as to whether Michigan State was actually the best school for them. No difference was noted in terms of the attitudes of the local commuters and the resident students. Immersion in Campus Life. Differences among the three groups with regard to immersion in campus life were indicated in all but one of the twelve items. Separate analysis as reported in Table 16 revealed that the non—local commuters responded differently than the resident students on all eleven items. The non—local com— muters when compared with the resident students held fewer 72 POSiJ:ions of leadership, read the State News less, belonged to fewer organizations, tended not to pledge a sorority or a fraternity, were less likely to date the same person at MSU, spent more time in the campus grills and student gathering places, and attended fewer home football games, lectures, concerts, and big social events. A definite difference also was noted in the amount of time spent on campus. The non— local commuters indicated that about the only time they spent on campus was for classes. Table 15. Separate comparison between the resident students and each of the commuter groups on attitude toward the institution. Resident Local Non-Local Item Students Commuters Commuters X2 P Yes No Yes No Yes No Attitude Toward the Institution a During this year, 121 120 24 25 .025 NS I had some rather serious doubts as b to whether MSU 121 120 70 117 6.953 * is actually the best school for me. aNot significant. bSignificant at or beyond the .05 level of confidence. On the other hand, the local commuters were quite like the resident students. No differences were noted in their immersion in campus life except that the local commuters * NeN.MH mVH mm HmH om .Hmom mHfiu mCQEmo C0 muco>o HmHUOm OHQ HHHmoH one * mOO.m mm OH HmH em Ho umOE oopCouum o>mn H page how ©H503 H a mNm.MN v0 OHH OvH mm .munHo>HCC. mz mNO. ON ON ovH mm osp >9 poHOmComm mpHooCoo 0C poUCouum H * enm.ON mMH Hm mNH mHH .HoHConH mz NON. EN NN mNH mHH no Hoxmomm muCHuHmH> m moo: on uCo3 H * MO0.0N wMH we NNH gHH .moopuHEEoo Ho .moHuH>Huom mz OOm.N ON ON NNH vHH .mQCHU 03u ummoH um Ho HoQEoE o Em H * OOO.MH ONH no HHH OmH n * mow.m om mH HHH OMH .moEmm HHMQMOOH oEOC on HHm UoUCoupm H * www.mm Oh EHH mm mON mz e34 3 mm mm mom .136 some 6362 33m 23 668 H ex Ovm.mm NOH mN OVH mm . .QHCmHoomoH Ho CoHunom.m. mmz mmm.H . mm vH meH mm UHoC no HoonHo Cm mm3 H Moo» mHCH OCHHCQ oHHH mCmEmo CH ConHoEEH m x oz wow 02 wow 02 wow N mnouCEEoo mnopCEEou quoUCum EouH HmooqlCoz Hmooq pcoonom .oHHH owEmo CH COHmHoEEH Co mmsoum HouCEEoo oCu Ho Como pew mucopsuw HCoUHmoH on» Coozuon COmHHmmEoo owwummom .OH oHeme .ooCoOHHCoo Ho Ho>oH mo. one UCOth no no quoHHHCmHmQ .HCMUHHHCmHm uozm * mmv.n Om OHH me OOH .sz um mz Ooe. NH Om me OOH Comuom oEmm one oump HHHmHsmoH uoc CO H * Ovm.mm HO Om OOH mg .oomHm mCHuoCumm uCoOCum m CH moo m mopCCHE mz Nmm.H em mH OOH me ON HO OH CmCu oHOE OComm HHHmsmC H * me.O¢ OH NOH mm OVH .>UHHOHOm mz oom.H me mm mm meH 6 no sueeumumeu m mmemHC nos 6H6 H * ovm.HmH on OOH OHN mH .momwMHo we now « OM0.0m mN mN OHN OH mH mCmEmo Co OComm H oEHH >HC0 on» usonm oz mow oz mow oz mow m Nx wnopsEEoo muouCEEoo quoOCpm EouH Hmuounoz HMUOH uCoOHmom OoCCHuCOO .OH oHQme 75 attxanded fewer home football games and fewer big social events on campus. They tended to be on campus only for scheduled opportunities and classes. Personal Interaction. This category was intended to indicate something about peer interaction which might not necessarily be related to student interaction on the campus. No differences were noted on three of the four items. Further analysis revealed that both commuter groups spent less time in "bull—sessions“ or discussions with friends than did the resident students. Table 17. Separate comparison between the resident students and each of the commuter groups on one item in— tended to measure personal interaction. Resident Local Non—Local Item Students Commuters Commuters X2 P Yes No Yes No Yes No Personal Interaction a I spend less 100 140 28 21 3.950 * than an hour a day in "bull— sessions" or 100 140 108 77 11.676 * discussions with my friends. aSignificant at or beyond the .05 level of confidence. Summary of Part Two The first year experiences of the local commuters tended to be very similar to the experiences of the resident .lf' 76 Stindents. With only an exception on one item, no differ- ences were noted in faculty contact, study practices, edu— cational intentions, or attitudes toward Michigan State Uni- versity. The local commuters did take more advantage of the opportunity to see faculty members with whom they were not enrolled at the time. The local commuters were also quite like the resident students in the amount of immersion in the activities and the structured life on the campus. They spent less time in discussions with friends and except for structured activities they tended to come on campus only for class-related activities. They were different than the resi— dent students in that they saw class as the most important vehicle for learning. They missed very few classes. The non-local commuters also tended to be very much like the resident students in the amount of faculty contact, study practices, and educational intentions. At this point, however, the dissimilarities became quite pronounced. The commuters had more doubts about Michigan State as the edu— cational institution best suited for their needs. They tended to look at the classroom experiences as the most im— portant vehicle for learning, missed fewer classes, and were more likely to study in the library. A difference was noted on 11 of the 12 items which attempted to determine the stu— dents' immersion in campus life. The non-local commuters did not participate heavily in any phase of campus life. They did not participate in discussions with friends as often 77 3&3 ‘the resident students and they did not regularly date the same person at MSU. Part Three. End—of—Year Analysis Hypotheses IV, V, and VI were concerned with the differences among the three groups in terms of academic achievement during the first year, withdrawal and retention, and the nature and direction of change during the first year in attitudes of stereotypy, value orientation, and critical thinking ability. It was suspected that differences in ex— periences might affect the educational progress of the com— muters as measured by these variables. Hypothesis IV Null Hypothesis IV. No difference exists among the three groups in terms of academic achievement as measured by the grade—point averages for the fresh— man year. To the degree that aptitude for college work was con- trolled by The College Qualification Test scores, and to the degree that all other pertinent factors related to achieve— ment did not introduce a bias in the study, the analysis of the data revealed that living at home did not seem to make a difference in the academic achievement as measured by the grade-point average of those students who remained in sch001 for the entire year. It is evident from the data that the null hypothesis that no difference exists among the three groups in terms 78 0£ eacademic achievement during the first year is accepted and the research hypothesis is rejected. Table 18. Comparison of achievement during the first year among the three groups. Residuals m Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean a 7 Variation Freedom Squares Square F Achievement (GPA) Total 519 136.831 _ Between Groups 2 1.026 .513 Within Groups 517 135.805 .262 1.958 a — F.05 — 3.02 _Hypothesis V. Null Hypothesis V. No difference exists among the three groups in terms of withdrawal rates during the first year or in the academic completion record after five years. The data in Table 19 reveals a difference in terms of the withdrawal percentages among the three groups by the end of the first year. Further analysis of the separate com— muter groups revealed that a greater percentage of the non- local commuters than residents withdrew by the end of the first year. No difference existed between the local com— muters and the resident students. It is important to note that controls for such variables as initial ability and 79 SOCio—economic level were not imposed in this portion of the study and therefore the results are not conclusive.1 Table 19. Comparison of percentage of withdrawal among the three groups at the end of the first year. Resident Local Non-Local Variable Students Commuters Commuters df X2 P N % N % N % Still in School 268 90.54 54 93.10 205 81 a Withdrawn 28 9.46 4 6.90 48 19 2 13.734 * aSignificant at or beyond the .05 level of confidence. Table 20. Separate comparison of withdrawal between the resident students and each of the commuter groups. Groups df X2 P Comparison Between Residents and Local Commuters 1 .270 NSa Comparison Between Residents and b Non—Local Commuters 1 8.820 * a . . . Not s1gn1f1cant. b Significant at or beyond the .05 level of confidence. As a corollary to the above analysis, the data in Tables 21 and 22 reveals similar results when comparing the lIrwin J. Lehmann and Stanley 0. Ikenberry, Critical Thinking. Attitudes. and Values in Higher Education: A Preliminary Report (East Lansing: Office of Evaluation Services, Michigan State University, 1959), pp. 51 and 56. 80 academic record of the three groups after five years from time of enrollment. A higher proportion of the non-local commuters than the resident students were permanent dropouts with no transfer indicated. No difference was noted between the local commuters and the resident students. As in the analysis of withdrawals after the first year, controls for initial ability and socio—economic level were not imposed. Table 21. Comparison of academic completion record among the three groups at the end of five years from time of entrance. Resident Local Non-Local Variable _fi§tudents Commuters Commuters df x2 P N % N % N % Graduated or Active 177 59.80 36 62.07 136 53.75 Dropout, transfer possible 69 23.31 14 24.14 43 17.00 Dropout, a permanent 50 16.89 8 13.79 74 29.25 4 14.061 * aSignificant at or beyond the .05 level of confidence. Table 22. Separate comparison of academic completion record after five years from time of enrollment between the resident students and each of the commuter groups. Groups df X2 P Comparison Between Residents and Local Commuters 2 .166 NSa Comparison Between Residents and b Non-Local Commuters 2 13.114 * aNot Significant bSignificant at or beyond the .05 level of confidence. 81 HyEchesis VI Null Hypothesis VI. No differences exist among the three groups with regard to the nature and direction of changes during the first year in attitudes of stereotypy as measured by The Inventory of Beliefs, Form I; value orientation as measured by The Differ- ential Values Inventory; and critical thinking ability as measured by the Test of Critical Thinking. To the degree that initial differences were con— trolled by the pre-test scores, results of the Analysis of Covariance, Table 23, reveals no differences among the three groups in terms of the nature and direction of change in attitudes of stereotypy, value orientation, or critical thinking ability. It is evident that the null hypothesis that no differences existed among the three groups is ac- cepted and the research hypothesis is rejected. Summary of Part Three No differences were revealed among the three groups at the end of the first year in terms of academic achievement or in the nature and direction of changes in attitudes of stereotypy, value orientation, or critical thinking ability. Differences were revealed among the three groups in terms of withdrawal rates during the first year and the level of edu- cation reached after five years. A greater proportion of the non—local commuters than the resident students withdrew some- time during the first year and more were permanent dropouts after five years from the time of enrollment. Lack of ade- quate controls makes it impossible, however, to determine if these differences were due to place of residence or differ- ences in such variables as academic ability or socio—economic level. Table 23. Comparison of nature and direction of change in attitudes of stereotypy, value orientation, and critical thinking ability among the three groups. Residuals Source of Degrees of Sums of Mean a Variation Freedom Squares Square F INVENTORY OF BELIEFS Total 461 43269.139 Between Groups 2 23.906 11.953 Within Groups 459 43245.233 94.216 0.127 CRITICAL THINKING ABILITY Total 461 8970.960 Between Groups 2 13.055 6.527 Within Groups 459 8957-905 19.516 0.334 DIFFERENTIAL VALUES INVENTORY Total 461 15312.247 Between Groups 2 155.290 77.645 Within Groups 459 15156.957 33.021 2.351 aF = 3.02 .05 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Summary It was the purpose of this study to contribute to a more complete understanding of the freshmen commuter students at a large, primarily residential university and to determine if any differences existed between the commuters and those students living in residence on the campus. More spe— cifically, the attempt was made: (1) To determine in what ways commuter students were similar and/or dissimilar to freshmen resident stu— dents at the time of college entrance. (2) To determine how selected first year college ex- periences of commuter students compared with the experiences of first year resident students at the same institution. (3) To determine how commuter students compared with resident students with regard to academic achieve— ment and to the nature and direction of change in critical thinking ability, in attitudes of stereo- typy, and in value orientation during the first year. A review of the published literature revealed some support for the notion that a campus climate exists and that the nature of this campus climate or environment is deter- mined not only by the faculty and the formal academic pursuits but also by the student body, their associations, and their 83 aCtiVities. It was purported that curriculum and extra- curriculum combine to create ways of life which not only in— struct but influence the personality development and sociali- zation of the individual students. It was the opinion of several writers that campus life, communal work and play, is educationally valuable. There is substantial data to show that the commuters, those living at home, do not participate as freely as the residential students in this campus environ— ment. The commuters tended to participate in the curricular offerings but did not become as involved in the interaction of persons in a campus environment. This difference between commuters and resident students in involvement in campus life, however, was not determined by research analysis as a cause for any specific resulting educational advantage. The sample for the study was selected from 2,746 first term freshmen at Michigan State University who had not attended another university or college, were not foreign stu- dents at the time of admission to the university, were en— rolled for at least 12 credits during the fall term, and who had complete and usable test and biographical data. From this working population were selected 311 commuters and 296 resident students. Fifty-eight of the 311 commuters were de- signated as local commuters and the other 253 were designated as non-local commuters. Where applicable, the two groups of commuters were treated separately in the analysis. Those students from the initial sample who were still enrolled at 85 the end of the first year and for whom usable post-test data was available were included in the end—of-year portion of the study. During the Freshman Orientation Week, the following instruments were administered to the students: The Test of Critical Thinking, Form G; The Inventory of Beliefs, Form I; ~ the Differential Values Inventory; the College Qualification' Eppp; and a Biographical Data Sheet. The initial comparisons were developed from an analysis of this data and from infor— mation received from various university agencies. At the end of the freshman year, retest information was obtained by use of the following instruments: Test of Critical Thinking, Form G; The Inventory of Beliefs, Form I; and the Differ— ential Values Inventory. An Experience Inventory was also administered and personnel records were searched for grade—point averages and indications of withdrawal or retention. Chi—square, simple analysis of variance, "t" tests, and analysis of convariance techniques were used in the analysis of the data. Findings and Conclusions The more significant findings are presented in three parts corresponding to the sequence of the analysis in the previous chapter. 86 Part One . Initial Characteristics 1. The null hypothesis that no differences existed at the time of enrollment among the three groups with regard to age, nativity of parents, father's education, mother's edu- cation, father's occupation, mother's occupation, rank in high school graduating class, religious preference, curricu— lar major, amount of education desired, and source of financial support was rejected and the research hypothesis was accepted. Few but important differences were noted between the local commuters and the resident students. The local com- muters when compared with the resident group represented families with a higher educational—socio—economic level and more fathers were associated with education as a profession. More of the local commuters ranked lower in their high school graduating class and they were more likely to have "no preference" as a major field of study at fall registration or be enrolled in liberal or general educational programs. No differences were noted in terms of age, source of financial support, academic ability, nativity of parents, religious preference, or amount of education desired. The non—local commuters, on the other hand, were older than the resident students, were more likely to come from families with a lower educational-socio-economic level, and they received less financial support from home. The non- local commuters were also more likely to be "no preference" 87 or enrolled in liberal or general education programs than were the residents. No differences existed with regard to rank in high school graduating class, nativity of parents, religious preference, or amount of education desired. 2. The null hypothesis that no difference existed among the three groups in terms of aptitude for college work as measured by the College Qualification Test was rejected and the research hypothesis was accepted. Separate analysis re— vealed that the non-local commuters when compared with the resident students had a lower mean score on academic aptitude. No difference was noted between the local commuters and the resident students. Part Two. First Year Experiences 3. The null hypothesis stated: No differences exist amont the three groups in terms of the following first year experiences: (A) faculty contact; (B) class experiences and courses; (C) study practices; (D) educational intentions; (E) attitude toward the institution; (F) immersion in campus life; and, (G) personal interaction with peers. It was not possible to accept or reject this hypothesis in its entirety but the results generally supported the con— clusion that there were no differences among the three groups in terms of faculty contact, class experience and courses, study practices, educational intentions, and personal inter- action with peers. Significant differences were noted among the three groups in terms of attitude toward the institution and immersion in campus life. More specifically, the first 88 year experiences of the local commuters tended to be very similar to the experiences of the resident students. With only an exception on one item, no differences were noted with regard to faculty contact, study practices, educational in— tentions, or attitude toward the institution. The local com— muters did take more advantage of the opportunity to see faculty members with whom they were not enrolled at the time. The local commuters were also quite like the resident stu- dents in the amount of immersion in the life on campus ex— cept that they spent less time in discussion with friends and they tended to come on campus only for structured activi— ties. They were different than the resident students in that they saw class as the most important vehicle for learn— ing. They missed very few classes. The non—local commuters also tended to be very much like the resident students in the amount of faculty contact, study practices, and educational intentions. The non-local commuters, however, had more doubts about Michigan State as the educational institution best suited for their needs. They tended to look at the classroom experiences as the most important vehicle for learning, missed fewer classes, and were more likely to study in the library. A difference was noted on 11 of the 12 items which attempted to determine the students' immersion in campus life. The non—local commuters did not participate heavily in any phase of campus life. They did not become involved in discussion with friends as 89 Often as the resident students and they did not regularly date the same person at MSU. Part Three. End-of-Year Analysis 4. The null hypothesis that no difference existed among the three groups in terms of academic achievement as measured by the grade-point averages for the freshman year was ac- cepted and the research hypothesis rejected. The results of the analysis revealed that for those students who remained in school the entire year, living at home did not seem to make a difference in academic achievement as measured by the grade—point average. 5. The null hypothesis that no differences existed among the three groups in terms of withdrawal rates during the first year or the level of education reached after five years was rejected and the research hypothesis accepted. The analysis revealed that a greater percentage of the non- local commuters than the residents withdrew by the end of the first year and were permanent dropouts after five years. No differences were revealed between the local commuters and the resident group. As a description of the withdrawal patterns these results are important. However, lack of ade- quate controls prohibits one from determining if this differ- ence is due to the place of residence or other factors such as academic ability or socio-economic status. 9O 6. The null hypothesis stated: No differences exist among the three groups with regard to the nature and direction of change during the first year in attitudes of stereotypy as measured by The Inventory of Beliefs, Form I; value orientation as measured by The Differential Values Inventory; and critical thinking as measured by the Test of Critical Thinking. This null hypothesis was accepted and the research hypothesis rejected. No differences were revealed among the three groups at the end of the first year with regard to the nature and direction of change in attitudes of stereotypy, value orientation, or critical thinking ability. Discussion The opportunity to separate the non—local commuters from the students living in the local community with their parents has been an important innovation of this study. The results of the analysis clearly supported the need for this distinction. Several differences have been noted which may, with further investigation, actually call for some redefi— nition of the commuter or at least demand that a distinction be made between the commuters living in communities adjacent to the campus and the commuters who travel some distance to the university. This separation is particularly illustrated in the differences revealed in immersion in the campus life and student group experiences. Although a variety of explanations may be advanced to account for some of the various results, it seems clear 91 that the local commuters reflect their close association with a community heavily populated with personnel affiliated with the university. More of their fathers were teachers and the students themselves took more initiative to spend more time out-of—class with faculty with whom they were not enrolled in class. It is suspected that the geographic limits of the local commuter might be defined in terms of the spread of the faculty families in the local communities surrounding a college or university campus. A few of the other results from the analysis of the local commuters may reflect local conditions which are less applicable to other university situations. The families tended to be in a higher educational-socio—economic class. The fact that these local commuters ranked lower than the residents in high school graduating class despite the fact that no difference was noted in their academic aptitude may also be accounted for by the local community conditions. A1- most 90 per cent of the graduates of the local high school attend college and it is a highly competitive academic environment. Once the influence of the university on the local community has been isolated, it seems more plausable that the results of this study may have implication beyond the COnfines of the particular university where the study was completed to other large, residential institutions. The commuters who are traveling some distance to the university view the class experience and their academic work 92 as the main source of educational advantage. This is illus— trated by their response to a number of questions and by their better attendance record at classes despite the diffi— culty of travel when compared to the resident students. How- ever, it is no wonder that they would respond this way since they did not participate in any other phases of campus life r and were not involved in the informal discussions which are believed to be a valuable part of the students' educational program. They were more likely to know campus only through the classroom experience. The non—local commuters spent more time in the library, which suggests the need for study areas and sug- gests that the resident students had alternate study areas such as the residence unit. The fact that the non-local com- muters spent more time in student gathering places and local grills suggests the need for such facilities on the campus for these commuters and also suggests that the resident stu— dents use their residence unit as a meeting place with friends. The non—local commuters' lack of immersion in the campus community suggests the need for a re-evaluation of the program of co—curricular activities presently developed. The non-local commuters did not have the financial support from home that the resident students enjoyed and they spent more time working to support their educational endeavors. This suggests that it is possible that the com- muters lived at hOme by necessity and that they might have had less time and energy to devote to campus affairs. There 93 also seems to be less committment to a particular edu- cational program or at least more unsureness about edu— cational objectives. The difference in educational back- ground in the family also could have affected this attitude toward the educational experience. Their living at home might very likely have contributed to the lack of a sense of identity with the institution and a lack of educational direction. It is important to note that the differences in ex— posure to campus life did not prove to have any effect on achievement or on the desired changes in attitudes of stereo- typy, value orientation, or critical thinking ability. The results do not substantiate the opinions of those writers considered earlier who indicate that involvement with the peer-group and participation in campus life does have a noticeable impact on student achievement and development. Such impact was not realized in terms of the specific vari— ables measured. The campus community might still contribute qualities of ”give and take" and certain advantages which are not measured by the instruments used in this study. At the outset of this study, it was suspected that the students who lived at home might not remain at home all year but might move back and forth as appropriate during the school years. This also would make the definition of a com- muter more difficult. Although this study only considered the first year experiences, this suspicion was not verified. 94 Only one of the 311 commuters moved into a residence hall during the first year and only 4 of the resident students who remained in school for the entire year moved from the residence halls. Several administrative actions may be suggested which follow directly from the results of this study. It is m. most important that the commuters not be overlooked in preoccupation with the resident students. This study revealed enough differences to suggest that the commuter students, especially those living beyond the limits of the local com— munity, be treated as a distinct portion of the student body——with special needs, problems, concerns, and potential. Particular attention is given to the areas of responsibility which concern the college personnel administrator. The possibilities are as limitless as ones imagin— ation and the following ideas may be useful: 1. This group might be singled out during orientation programs. The facilities and opportunities available to the commuter students might be reviewed, special concerns which they have might be discussed, and academic counseling and financial aid could be considered. 2. Facilities might be provided which meet the needs of the commuters. Lunch rooms, study facilities, a lounge for rest, and even a separate commuter center might prove rewarding. 95 3. Certain activities and programs might be geared particularly to their needs. A commuter club for affiliation with a social group, and noon "brown bag" siminars with out— standing campus personalities are suggested. Often the campus social life is planned and organized to meet the interests, needs, and schedules of resident students. 4. Emphasis might be given to communication of counsel- ing opportunities for commuters. Certain counselors might even give special attention to the commuter, his problems, home conflicts, academic needs, and questions regarding cur— ricular programs. Special noon groups may be established for counseling or advising purposes. 5. The financial aids officers might give special at— tention to this segment of the student body that seems to be in need of financial assistance. Other programs will vary depending on the local con— ditions, size of the commuter group, and staff available. The commuter should be encouraged to participate in the total campus community and events should be planned which fit the commuters schedule. Harold Taylor in The Future of American Education expresses his educational philosophy when he states: We must make the life of the college student an im— mersion in a total environment. . . . In such a com- munity it would be natural to compose music, to write stories, to perform experiments, to discuss politics, to play games, to learn facts, to govern oneself, and 96 to act cooperatively in the collective government of the whole. If such an experience is important and if the commuters are to be provided with equal opportunities, we must give at- tention to them as unique members of the university community. Implications for Further Research This study suggests areas for additional investi— gation. First, it seems important for individual insti— tutions to develop descriptive studies to determine the nature of their commuter pOpulation. Administrative action and prOgram development must be based on an understanding of the characteristics and needs of the entire student body. Secondly, continued emphasis should be given to the study of the college and the university as an environmental system. What are the patterns of interaction and what ef- fect does the community actually have on the participants? Several questions about the commuter students remain unanswered and call for extensions of this study. An analy- sis of what effect distance from the campus has on the com- muter students would be useful. Are differences to be noted between the students who travel 50 miles from those who travel 10 miles to the campus? Closer attention to the lMatthew Stark, "Residence Living and Education," The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. XXXI, No. 3 (March, 1960), p. 161. 97 peer—associations and home—community relations of the com- muter is merited. The effect of living at home on student withdrawal could be more carefully analyzed and the im- portance of the student's financial condition as a determi- nant of commuting needs investigation. Additional compara- tive studies might be designed by matching groups on s. important variables such as the educational—socio-economic level of the family and academic aptitude. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Ashby, Eric. "A Note on an Alternative to Halls of Resi— dence," Universities Quarterly, Vol. 5 (February, 1951): Pp. 150—154. Bemis, James Fleming. "A Study of Undergraduate Students Who Voluntarily Withdrew from the University of Washington During the 1959—1960 Academic Year." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, The University of Washington, 1962. Bennett, George K., Bennett, Marjorie 6., Wallace, L., and Wesman, Alexander G. College Qualification Tests Manual. New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1957. Bidwell, C. E. (ed.). The American College and Student Personality: A Survey of Research Progress and Problems. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1960. Bloom, Benjamin, and Webster, Harold. "The Outcomes of College," The Review of Educational Research, Vol. 30 (October, 1960), pp. 321—333. Bradley, Wilma Nash. "An Analysis of Selected Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Variables Relating to a Student's Per- sistence in a Major Area of Study at Michigan State University." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962. Brown, Donald R., et al. A Symposium: Social Changes and the College Student. American Council on Education, June, 1960. Also published in the October, 1960 issue of the Educational Record. Bushnell, John. "What Are The Changing Characteristics of the Undergraduate and What Do These Changes Mean for Programs of General Education?" Current Issues in Higher Education, Association for Higher Education, 1959. Coleman, James S. "The Adolescent Subculture and Academic Achievement," The American Journal of Sociology, V01. 65 (January, 1960), 337—347. 99 Creatin the Colle e Climate. Proceedings of the Second Junior College Administrative Teams Institute, July 30—August 3, 1962. Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida. Cummins, Emery J. "Selected Affective and Cognitive Characteristics of Student Disciplinary Offenders." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Uni— versity, 1964. Drasgow, James. "Differences Between College Students," The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 29 (April, 1958), pp. 216—218. Dressel, Paul L. (ed.). Evaluation in the Basic College at Michigan State University. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959. See especially chapter 14 by Lewis B. Mayhew, pp. 214—231. Dressel, Paul L. Instructor's Manual for the Test of Criti- cal Thinkingz Form G. Cooperative Study of Evalu— ation in General-Education, The American Council on Education, Committee on Measurement and Evaluation, 1953. Dressel, Paul L., and Mayhew, Lewis B. General Education: Explorations in Evaluation. Washington, D. C.: The American Council on Education, 1954. Eddy, Edward D., Jr. The College Influence on Student Character. Washington, D. C.: The American Council on Education, 1959. Edwards, Allen L. Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1961. Foster, Larry Lee. "A Descriptive Study, By Residency and Sex, of the Freshman Students for 1958 at Michigan State University on Selected Characteristics." Un— published Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1962. Fritz, Roger Jay. "A Comparison of Attitude Differences and Changes of College Freshmen Men Living in Various Types of Housing." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Wisconsin, 1956. Goldsen, Rose K. What Collgge Students Think. Princeton: Van Nostrand Company, 1960. lOl Gruen, Richard Edward. "A Study of Attitude Change and Change in Self-Concept Among Liberal Arts College Students." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1963. Hand, Harold C. (ed.). Campus Activities. New York: McGraw— Hill Book Company, Inc., 1938. See especially pp. 147-167. Hardee, Melvene Draheim (ed.). Counseling and Guidance in General Education. New York: World Book Company, 1955. See especially pp. 266—286. Hartnett, Rodney T. "An Analysis of Factors Associated with Changes in Scholastic Performance Patterns." Un— published Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1963. Heist, Paul. "Diversity in College Student Characteristics," The Journal of Educational Sociology, Vol. 33 (February, 1960), pp. 279-291. Heist, Paul. "Implications from Recent Research on College Students," The Journal of the National Association of WOmen Deans and Counselors, Vol. 22 (April, 1959), pp. 116—124. Hodgkins, Benjamin Joseph. "Student Subcultures-—An Analysis of Their Origins and Affects on Student Attitude and Value Change in Higher Education." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1964. Howard, Victor, and Warrington, Willard. "The Inventory of Beliefs: Changes in Beliefs and Attitudes and Aca— demic Success Prediction," The Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 37 (December, 1958), pp. 299-302. Ikenberry, Stanley 0. A Multivariate Analysis of the Re- lationship of Academic Aptitude, Social Background, Attitudes, and Values to Collegiate Persistence." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Uni— versity, 1960. Jacob, Philip E. Changing Values in College: An Exploratory Study of the Impact of College Teaching. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. Jacob, Philip E., et a1. "Social Changes and the College Student: A Symposium," The Educational Record, Vol. 41 (October, 1960), pp. 329-358. 102 Lehmann, Irvin J. "Changes in Critical Thinking, Attitudes, and Values from Freshman to Senior Years," Egg Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 54 (November, 1963), pp. 305-315. Lehmann, Irvin J., and Dressel, Paul L. Critical Thinking, Attitudes and Values in Higher Education, Final Re- port of Cooperative Research Project No. 590, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Michigan State University, 1962. Lehmann, Irvin J., and Ikenberry, Stanley 0. Critical Think— ing, Attitudes, and Values in Higher Education: A Preliminary Report. (Paul L. Dressel, Principal In— vestigator), East Lansing: Office of Evaluation Services, Michigan State University, 1959. Lloyd-Jones, Esther, and Smith, Margaret Ruth. Student Personnel Work As Deeper Teaching. New YOrk: g Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1954. Lunsford, Terry F. (ed.). The Study of Campus Cultures. Berkeley: Center for the Study of Higher Education, 1963. Matteson, Ross W. "Experience-Interest Changes in Students." The Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 2 (February, 1955), pp. 113-121. Mueller, Kate H. Student Personnel Work in Higher Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961. Newcomb, Theodore M. Personality and Social Change. New York: The Dryden Press, 1943. Newcomb, Theodore M. Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1960. Newcomb, Theodore M., and Wilson, E. K. (editors). “The Study of College Peer Groups: Problems and Pros- ,pects for Research. New York: Social Science Re- search Council. In press. Pace, Robert C. "Evaluating the Total Climate or Profile of a Campus," Current Issues in Education, Association for Higher Education, National Education Association, 1961, pp. 171-175. Pace, Rdbert C. "What Kind of a College Environment are Stu- dents Entering?" The Association of College Ad- missions Counselors Journal, Vol. 16 (Winter, 1956), p. 6. 103 Pace, Robert C., and McFee, Anne. "The College Environment,” The Review of Educational Research, Vol. 30 (October, 1960), Pp- 311-320. Pate, Bart Carter. "Colleges as Environmental Systems: Toward the Codification of Social Theory." Un— published Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University, 1964. Payne, Isabelle K. "The Relationship Between Attitudes and Values and Selected Background Characteristics " Ed. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961. Prince, Richard. "A Study of the Relationship Between Indi— vidual Values and Administrative Effectiveness in the School Situation." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Chicago, 1957. Sanford, Nevitt (ed.). The American College. New York: ,; John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962. Sanford, Nevitt (issue editor). The Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 12 (April, 1956). Siegel, Alberta Engvall, and Siegel, Sidney. "Reference Groups, Membership Groups, and Attitude Change,” Th; Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, vol. 55 (1957), PP- 360—364. Spindler, George. "Education in a Transforming American Culture," Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 25 (Summer, 1953), pp. 156—163. Sprague, Hall T. (ed.). Research on College Students. Boulder, Colorado: The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, December, 1960. Stark, Matthew. "A Comparison of Expressed Personal Problems, Study Habits, and Reading Skills of College Freshman Commuter and Residence Hall Students." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Western Reserve University, 1963. Stern, George G. "The Intellectual Climate of College En— vironments," Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 33 (Winter, 1963) ’ ppo 5—410 Sutherland, Robert L. (ed.). Personality Factors in the College Campus. The Hoagg Foundation for Mental Health, 1962. 104 Thistlethwaite, Donald L. "College Press and Student Achievement," The Journal of Education Psychology, Vol. 50 (October, 1959), pp. 183—191. Thoday, Doris. "University Expansion and Student Life," Universities_guarterly, Vol. 14 (June, 1960), pp. 272-277. Times Educational Supplement. 2439 (February 16, 1962), p. 304. Times Educational Supplement. 2478 (November 16, 1962) p. 644. VandenBosch, H. C. "Factors Influencing Local Students to Seek Dormitory Housing at an Urban University," School and Society, Vol. 81 (April 2, 1955), p. 104° Walker, Ernest Timothy. "The Relation of the Housing of Students to Success in a University." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Chicago, 1934. Webster, Harold. "Changes in Attitudes During College," The Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 49 (June, 1958), pp. 109—117. Webster, Harold, Trow, Martin A., and McConnell, T. R. "Individual Differences Among College Freshmen," The Sixty-First Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (1962), pp. 145-163. Wert, James E., Neidt, Charles 0., and Ahmann, J. Stanley. Statistical Methods in Educational and Psychological Research. New York: Appleton-Century—Crofts, Inc., 1954. Williamson, E. G. Student Personnel Services in Colleges and Universities. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. Williamson, E. G., Layton, Wilbur L., and Snoke, Martin L. A Study of Participation in College Activities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1954. Wilson, Kenneth M. (ed.). Institutional Research on College Students. The Southern College Personnel Association, March, 1962. APPENDIX A Comparison of selected initial characteristics among the resident students, local commuters, and non-local commuters Hmooa oam.m¢ mo.mm mo mo.os He. v~.m¢ mmH Hoosom swam can» muos mo.mv van av.m~ ma Hm.mm mos ewumamsoo Hoonom ream mm.mm we om.o e mm.om no sacrum has: swap mama coaumospm m.um£uoz . «as.mm No.¢m Hm He.ms we Ho.am Ame Hoonom_nmum amen who: ms.¢m mm ¢N.RH oH oo.¢m ms emumameou Hoonom swam om.em em mm.oa o mm.v~ ms Hoonom roam swap mmoq coaumospm m.um£pmm MW , 1. nmz mmm.a Hm.om omm oa.mm em mm.mm mom cuom o>epmz nuom mo.m mm om.m v mH.HH mm :Hom o>flumz no: nuom Ho mco mHC wumm m0 >HH>HUMZ m. ssm.oa mm.¢a. mm. em.oa. m mm.w ..ma. um>o_uo.ma. ‘ mo.mm ems ~m.mm mm mm.om was ma mo.om we va.vm ea ms.mm mm ma “was: mum. m x s z s z s z N ku55800 stsfieou pampflmwm wanmflum> Hmooqlcoz IEoo Hmooa .muchSDm ucmpflmmu .mu0p5E500 Hmooalcog pom .mHmPSE esp mQOEm moflumflnmpomumno fineness pmuowaom mo GOwHHmmEou 107 mz vhm.h v mm.v AH mh.ma w NH.m hm Hmfluo mo.mh oom mo.on av om.mh wan uGMpmmuoum oo.ma Ne mm.mH m mm.ma mm I. oHHosumo moamummonm mdoflgflamm . mo¢.mm v RN.H6 mma sm.mv mm mm.so mma ounce amen: mm.mm mm Hm.om Hm mo.Hm mm UHMSB mappfiz vh.¢ NH Nm.mH m mm.H m UnasB Hm3oq mmmau seamspmuo Hooaom scam CH xcmm * vvm.oa , o mm.m va m¢.m N mh.m 5H Honmq Hm.> om mh.ma m mm.ma ow m0fl>umw 0HH95m\uw£omwB mm.vm voa oo.mo mm mm.mm how QMHmesom vh.HN mm mo.om NH ow.OH mm w>wwsooxm \mmosflmdm HMCOHmwwMOHm goapm 5000 m.um£u02 s mam.mw NH mv.m em ¢N.ha OH mv.h NN UwuflsmM\fiwmmmoon vo.h¢ mHH mm.m m vM.mN mm HmEHmm\Hoamq Nh.o ha mm.nm ma vo.m m w0fl>umm UHHn5m\Hm£omwB mm.MH mm hm.ma Ha hm.ha mm HmHHOU opflaz Hm.> ma No.m m mm.¢H mv HMGOfimmmmoum mm.o ma No.w m mm.mH mv mmmsfimsm mo.m mm em.oa o vm.mH 0v Hafiummmgmz\w>flusomxm X z x z x z m «x up MGHSEEOU umpsEEoo peopflmmm oHQmHHm> Hmooqlcoz Hmooq pwscflusoo .¢ xflpcmmmw .ucmoHMNsmflm pozn .oocmpwmsoo mo Hm>oa mo. onu pecuon Ho um pamoHMHsmHmm * th.mv v HN.@H He no.NH h HH.m ¢N Hmnuo \cmoq\mH£mHMH0£om mN.mN vb mo.Na w Hm.oa Nm £06 fim.¢m mma mm.mb we mo.am OVN mucmnmm uuommsm HMHUCNGfim mo wousom Am 11 m2 new. N H¢.Nm Nm m¢.¢m 0N mh.mN mm HMGOflmmomoum\wpmspmHU mm.n© and Nm.mo mm hN.Oh wON mqu no name» v pouflmwn cowumospm mo unsoem « Hmm.oH s sm.vv NHH m¢.vm om mv.sm one Hmcoflmmmmoum\amconpmuo> ma.sm em mm.¢v om mo.sm om Hmumcmw\amumpen mm.ma he mo.om NH em.ma we mocmummmum oz mmfimm m x mp X z X z X z N HmpsEEoo Hopseeoo ucmpflmmm wHQMNHm> Hmooqncoz Hmooq possepgoo .< mflpcommd APPENDIX B Comparison of selected first year experiences among the resident students, local commuters and non-local commuters * HHm.mm N we mMH 5H Nm ¢MH POH .wHCoECmemm paw wwhsuuwH mmmHU nmsounu UwCkuno m>ms H mmeHoo :H Hmww mHnu cmgume w>m£ H Hons Ho pwoz mz HHm.N N mm MHH vN mN om HmH .wuommn mE £9H3 wwusoo m we goHuomm 05mm esp CH coon Hm>m w>w£ Shop mHSu mmmHo cw>Hm New CH wucwpsum o3u Ho 6:0 ch0 wwwnsoo cam mwocwHHw xm mmMHU * NNN.m N OMH mv om mH NmH Nm .EH£ Eonm wmusoo m mcHMmu 955 93 pm #0: mmé H nmsonuHm .HouosupwcH cm mom 0p wsom m>m£ H mz NHw. N mm Hm mN VN MMH mOH .mmMHU Ho prmuso woco swap 090E Houosuum ICH mco mew mom on mcom Ho>ms m>mz H mz ohH.N N om HMH 0H Nm om HmH .ucoEGmHmmm gm QHH3 mGHHme mcHaumEOm MOM m>m3Hm mH pH mmMHo Ho prmuso HouosumeH cm mom om H swag m2 mom. N mmH Nm mm OH va he .EmHQoum UHEmUmomlco: .Hmc0muom m usonm muouosnumcH NE Ho woo comm w>mn H mwMHOIHOIuSOIIpomucoo uHsomm mz 89m N m: as S 3 SH om .wsmc 3 we 3osx won 06 Show wHap wuouosuuw IGH he mo AMHma swag onoev uwoz NNH mm mm wH omH Hm .Hmoh stu on3u HouosnumcH wEMm msu pm: uoc m>mn H meHUICHIIuomucoo >uHsumm 110 mz Noo.H N oz wow 02 wow oz mow N HmuSEEoo HousEEoo ucprmwm EouH HMUOHICOZ HMUOH .mHQHSEEOU HMUOHIGOG Ucm .meHSE LEOU HmooH .mucwpsgm ucprwwM on“ macaw moosmHHmmxm umwh #mHHH pwpumew Ho COwHHmQEoo lll * nhN.h N NHH oh mN vN ONH HNH .68 How Hoonom umwn may NHHmsuom mH wumum cmmHonz nonquB ou mm mundoc m50Hme stumu 080m pm: w>mn H «Ham» anp mcHHsn GOHusuHumCH was pum3ou wUSpHuud mz HMH. N mN mmH m He mm NON .D.m.z EOHH mwummo he o>HoomH 0p pamu:H H mCOHucmHCH HmcoHumospm mz NeN.m N mN mma HH mm mm mmH .mcflommu mmusooucoc Nam mCHOU mnomon mchmmH MH03 wmusou we wumHmEoo ou umEmpum MHHmSms H mz was. N as NQH 6H Nm em HeH .mucmscmflmmm mmMHU mDOHum> wnu mchmmH usmmm mH mumuQHH may :H mEHp he no HHm umOEH< . mNm.ON N as OOH Hm NH mma om .NnmunNH may as xmo3 m muses 03¢ swap muoe Ucmmm H mz New. N HHH on Nm NH HvH so .meu mmeu IHOIuso ME MG umoa mCHHsp modum H monuomum hpoum * Hmn.NH N mmH NN me m HNH em .mmEHu mossy so 03» summH um mommMHo he Ho umoe :uso: w>mn H mz Nom.N N mmH mN we m omH me .Hmwm mHnu mcHummHoHCH mHmeHuxw on on momusoo >E Ho New pcsom you m>mn H agucouv momnsou paw mmocoHHomxm mmMHU m N 02 wow oz mm.» 02 mo». N Ho HousEEou Houseeoo usprmmm EmuH Hmooqlcoz Hmooq pmSCHpcoo .m prgmmm< 112 . OmO.Om N HO ON ON mH OOH mH .momHm mcHumspmm pcmpspm HmHHEHm N no .m.mwm3ox «HHHHO 03# CH map m mmHDCHE 0N Ho mH cmnu oHOE psmmm mHHmsms H . ONO.OO N OH NOH mH mm mm OOH .NuHuouom no muHsHoumnm m mmUmHm uoc 6H0 H . Hmm.mmH N ON OOH mN mN OHN OH .mmmmmHo me you mH msmamo so pcmmm H mEHu cho 039 asonm . OON.NH N OOH mm Om OH HmH em .umw» mHsu msmsmo co muso>w HMHUOm mHQ hHHme was Ho . “woe popcmeum o>ms H pmzu Ham pHso3 H . HNO.¢N N so OHH ON ON OOH mm .muHmum>Hcs mg» mg UmHOmcomm muumocoo o: popcouum H * emu.ON N mMH Hm ON NN mNH mHH .mmHme unmocoo may no qmmmHHoo whosom may .msmEmo co ucwfiuummmp m an tenemcomm HousuowH no umxmmmm mgHUHmH> m anon on uco3 H name» mHsu msHusa Oz mOO.N N HO OO mN ON NNH OOH 6.2.3:H man mmsmm HHmnuwxme snow saga mme 3cm H N www.mN N me we 0N mN NNH eHH .mwwuuHEEoo no .meuH>Huom .mQSHo HMHdUHHHdU Imuuxo 039 ummmH pm Ho HoQEmE m an H . mNN.OH N ONH NO ON mH HHH OmH .ummm mHOO mmsmm HHmnuooH $80: on“ HHm popcouum H * mmH.mm N ON NHH OH mm mm OON .smc roam mzmz mumum may mama H * www.mm N NoH mN mm vH mvH mm .ouw qompuHEEoo .muH>Huow .QdHo HMHsoHunsolmnuxo cm :H mHanmUmmH Ho coHpHmom m UHog no HmoHHHo cm mm3 H Hmwh mHnu mgHHsQ wHHH mmmEmu cH GOHmHoEEH 02 mm» oz mow oz mm% m wx mp Housesoo umpsEEoo ucmpHmom EmuH Hmooqusoz Hmooq ._ UwUCHucoo .m prstm« whim .ooCopHHCoo Ho Hw>wH mo. onu UCOth so an quoHHHCmHmo .quoHHHCmHm uozAH .mEOUH :meomme 0C= mEOm wumoHpCH mHflmu mHSu CH m.z Hmuou quHwHHHQm s mmm.NH N hm wOH HN .mN OVH OOH .mOCmHHH he SUH3 wCOHmmduwHU Ho :mCOHmwwmIHHDQ: CH amp m H50: Cm Cmsu wmmH @Cwmw mz HO¢.H N mHH ow Hm mH 50H #5 .UHw .mmmudoo CH UwHMHCEHHm mCOHumeU .mHHmmum UHHO3 .CCE Ho OHSHMC ofiu mm £05m mCoHummsv UHEoUmom wmsomHU mummHoHuHmm H £0H£3 CH wConmCo ImHO Ho =mC0HmwmmIHHSQ= may Ho uwoz H 113 m2 th.m N Oh HHH ON NN mOH MMH wump H Eon3 C3ou macs HE CH prHHH AHHHm Ho hOQV m o>ms H m2 Ovv. N Hm mOH OH Om mm HCH .Mwms m wUH3H Cmnu wme opmp H COHuomuogCH HMdOmem * wmv.h N mm OHH NH Om av OOH .D.m.z pm Cowuwm mEMm wsv mpmp hHHMHsme HOC 06 H m X 02 wow 02 wow oz no? N up HOHCEEOU HoudEEOU UCmUwam EwuH HMUOHICOZ HMUOH OQCCHuCoo .m xHUCmmm¢ "1111111111111 11115