A STUDY OF FACULTY ‘PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT PERSONNEL SERVICES Thesis Tar the Deqru of DH. D. . MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY -_ Laurine Elisabeth FitZg'erald 1959 fi THESIS MaillflllllfllfljflllfllflllmfilIIUHHIHIIIHHI “ 7 5925 This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF FACULTY PERCEPTIONS ‘OF STUDENT PERSONNEL SERVICES presented by IAURINE ELISABETH FITZGERALD has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for .‘ “fir .24 i E ‘ 4 ..."’ _‘ Doctor of Philosoggz- degree in Adminis trative and Educational Services Major pr ssor Date May 11.9 1959 0-169 LIB R A K Y Michigan Static University MSU LIBRARIES RETURNING MATERIALS: PIace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wiII be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. A STUDY OF FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT PERSONNEL SERVICES By Laurine Elisabeth Fitzgerald AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administrative and Educational Services 1959 A STUDY OF FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT PERSONNEL SERVICES by Laurine E. Fitzgerald This study attempts to determine the perception of student personnel services in higher education held by staff members with instructiOnal responsibilities. This was done by using mailed questionnaires which provided the Opportunity for selected faculty mem- bers to indicate a rating of importance for higher edu- cation for each of forty statements of function of stu- dent personnel services. In addition, the respondents were asked to indicate their Opinion of the quality of performance of the functions on the local campus. There was also the Opportunity to indicate whether or not a specific campus office was designated for the perform- ance of each function, and an additional question dealt with the location of this office in the hierarchy of the local campus organization: all-campus, college, or departmental levels. The "Student Personnel Services Questionnaire" was administered to a random sampling of faculty members with instructional responsibilities at Michigan State University. Their responses were tabulated for the functional area, as well as by each specific statement of function. Response data are presented according to grouped statements of function: Admissions,Registrathnn and Records Functions; Counseling Service Functions; Health Service Functions; Student Activities Functions; Financial Aid, and Placement Functions; Disciplinary Functions; Special Clinics, and Special Services Func- tions. The faculty responses indicate that student personnel services are recognized as having importance for the achievement of the philOSOphy and purposes of higher education. The degree of importance accorded these functions is, to some extent, dependent upon the nature Of the service. Highest perceptions of impor- tance tend to be placed on those functions relating most directly with the academic purposes of the institution. Of less importance are those functions which facilitate student life activities while the individual is engaged in academic pursuits; and of least importance are the student personnel functions which deal only indirectly with the student in an academic setting. Statistical analysis employing the Chi Square technique revealed significantly different responses given by faculty members who indicated that they work closely with student organizations, and faculty members who do not. The faculty with the close working rela— tionship tend to View the student personnel functions as being more important for higher education, and bet- ter achieved on the local campus han the faculty mem- bers who do not work closely with student organizations. A few differences were determined between the responses received from faculty members having tenure on the campus, determined from academic rank, and the responses indicated by faculty members without tenure. The latter faculty group tended to give responses requiring less definite expressions of Opinion or know- ledge about the student personnel services. A STUDY OF FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT PERSONNEL SERVICES By Laurine Elisabeth Fitzgerald A THESIS Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administrative and Educational Services 1959 Laurine E. Fitzgerald Candidate for the degree of Doctor of PhilOSOphy Date of Final Oral Examination: May ll, 1959 Thesis Topic: A Study of Faculty Perceptions Of Student Personnel Services Outline of Studies: Major area - Administrative and Educational Services (College Student Personnel) Minor areas - Administration, Higher Education Biographical Items: Birthdate - August 24, 1950 - New London, Wisconsin Undergraduate Studies - Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois Graduate Studies - Northwestern University,Evanston, Illinois, 1952-1955; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Summer 1955; Indiana University, Bloomington, 1955-1957 (part—time); Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1957-1959 Degrees - Bachelor of Science (Biology, English, Psychology, Education), Northwestern University, June 1952 Master of Arts (Guidance and Counseling), Northwestern University, June 1953 Experience: Kendall College, Evanston, Illinois, 1951-1955 Head Resident Counselor, Social Program Advisor Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, 1952- 1955, Instructor, Psycho-Educational Clinic Wisconsin State College, Whitewater, 1953-1955 Instructor of English, Dormitory Head Resident University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, S.S.LP955 Graduate Assistant, Residence Halls Indiana University, Bloomington, 1955-1957 Area Director, Women's Counseling and Activities Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1957-1958 Graduate Assistant, A.E.S. Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1958-1959 Instructor, Counselor, Counseling Center Membership: American Personnel and Guidance Association, American College Personnel Association, National Vocational Guidance Association, National Association of Women Deans and Counselors, American Association of University Professors, American Association of University Women, Delta Zeta Sorority, Michigan College Personnel Association, Michigan Counselors Association ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to give special thanks to Dr. Walter F. Johnson, Jr., who served as the Guidance Committee Chairman and who offered encouragement throughout the development and completion of the study. Special acknowledgement is also due members of the writer's Guidance Committee, Dr. Paul L. Dressel, Dr. Ernest O. Melby, and Dr. Willa Norris; the members of the Michigan State University faculty who offered helpful suggestions which contributed materially to the development of the questionnaire in the final form; the teaching staff members of Michigan State University who responded to the questionnaire and therefore contributai to the body of the study. It would be impossible to express appreciation to each person who assisted in some way in the develoP- ment and completion of the study; however, the writer is particularly grateful for the continued OOOperation and interest of the following individuals: Lee Erlandson, Beulah Hedahl, John Jamrich, Jean McFadden, Mary Virginia Moore, Gwen Norrell, Al Oram, Mary Frances Streed, Lois J. Studley, and her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas F. Fitzgerald. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PERSCIIAL DATA. 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o a 0 ii ACHNOUIEDGEIMEITSO o o o 0' o o o o o o o o o o o 0 iii LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . . 1 Background of the Problem . . . . . . . 1 Review of Related Research . . . . . . 5 Importance of the Study . . . . . . . . 5 Limitations and SCOpe of the Study. . . 7 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . 9 Organization of the Study . . . . . . . 9 II. PROCEDURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll The sample. 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 11 The Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Method of Reporting Data. . . . . . . . 20 III. ADMISSIONS, REGISTRATION, AND RECORDS E.UITCZ‘IC:TS o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o o 26 Examination of Cumulative Responses . . 27 Discussion of Response to Individual Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Chi Square Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 42 Summary of Salient Data . . . . . . . . 46 IV. COUNSELING SERVICE FUNCTIONS. . . . . . . 49 Examination of Cumulative Responses . . 50 Discussion of Response to Individual Statements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Chi Square Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 65 Summary of Salient Data . . . . . . . . 75 iv CHAPTE V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page HEALTH SERVICE FUNCTIONS. . . . . . . . . 75 Examination of Cumulative Responses . . 76 Discussion of Response to Individual Statements. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 78 Chi Square Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 90 Summary of Salient Data . . . . . . . . 98 HOUSING, AND FOOD SERVICE FUNCTIONS . . . lOl Examination of Cumulative Responses . . 102 Discussion of Response to Individual Statements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Chi Square Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 116 Summary of Salient Data . . . . . . . . 122 STUDENT ACTIVITIES FUNCTION”. . . . . . . 126 Examination of Cumulative Responses . . 127 Discussion of Response to Individual Statements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Chi Square Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 145 Summary of Salient Data . . . . . . . . 148 FINANCIAL AID, AND PLACEMENT FUNCTIONS. . 152 Examination of Cumulative Responses . . 155 Discussion of Response to Individual Statements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Chi Square Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 169 Summary of Salient Data . . . . . . . . 177 DISCIPLINARY FUNCTIONS. . . . . . . . . . 181 Examination of Cumulative Responses . . 182 Discussion of Response to Individual Statements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Chi Square Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 198 Summary of Salient Data . . . . . . . . 205 SPECIAL CLINICS, AND SPECIAL FUNCTIONS. . 209 Examination of Cumulative Responses . . 210 Discussion of Response to Individual , Statements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Chi Square Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 225 Summary of Salient Data . . . . . . . . 229 V TABLE CF CONTENTS CHAPTER XI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIODS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Results of the Investigation. . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGMEHYO O O 0 O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O APPEI‘IDIX A. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o The "Student Personnel Services Questionnaire” APPE}:DIX B. O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 0 Letter to Selected Faculty Members Follow-up Letter Thank You Letter APPEIUDIX C. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O 0 Comments from Non-Respondents Within the Selected Faculty Group vi 260 264 Table l. 2. LIST OF TABLES Sample Group Percentage Returns . . . . . . Percentage Representation of Faculty Sample by College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparisons of Total Faculty and Sample Group C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Comparison of Academic Rank with Number of Years on the Staff of M.S.U. of Respondents in sample Group 0 O O O O Q 0 O O O I O O 0 Comparison of Faculty Respondents Who Work Closely With Student Organizations or Who Do Not, With the Number of Years on the Staff of M.S.U. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Faculty Respondents Who Work Closely With Student Organizations or Who DO Not, Compared by Academic Rank . . . . . ADMISSIONS, REGISTRATION, AND RECORDS FUNCTIONS ’7. 8. 10. Summary of Responses: Questionnaire State- ments Numbered 6, 7, 25, 44, 46 . . . . . . Total Group Response: Statement Number 6. "The institution's requirements and ser- vices are interpreted to the prospective student." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Group Response: Statement Number 7. "Background information concerning individ— ual students is provided to teachers to facilitate individualization of the educa- tional process." . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Group Response: Statement Number 25. "All contacts with prospective students are coordinated." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 14 15 16 25 25 24 5O 52 54 56 Table ll. 12. 15. 14. .15. LIST OF TABLES Total Group Response: Statement Number 44. "Ere-college counseling and college plan— ning is offered on an individual basis." . Total Group Response: Statement Number 46. "Records of participation in extracurricu- lar activities are included in the perma- nent record file of each student." . . . . Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- Sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 6, Chi Square Data. . . . . . . . . Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 44, Chi Square Data. . . . . . . . . Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 46, Chi Square Data. . . . . . . . . COUNSELING SERVICE FUNCTIONS 16. 17. 18. 19. Summary of Responses: Questionnaire State— ments Numbered l, 51, 58, 48, 60. . . . . . Total Group Response: Statement Number 1. "Specialized staff members work with fac- ulty and students on problems concerning study habits, time scheduling, and other factors which may be causes of scholastic inefficiency." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Group Response: Statement Number 51. "Interviews are conducted with students de- siring to Withdraw from school to assist these individuals in terms of the student's aspirations and the institutional welfare." Total Group Response: Statement Number 58. "Counseling is available for students to assist them in overcoming personality de- fects which interfere with their personal happiness." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 59 41 43 45 .51 54 56 59 Table 20. 21. 22. 250 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Page Total Group Response: Statement Number 48. "A testing service is available for student use in the determination of academic apti- tudes, achievement, vocational interests, and personality development." . . . . . . 61 Total Group Response: Statement Number 60. "Counseling is available for students to assist them in overcoming personality de- fects which interfere with their academic effectiveness." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Comparison of Faculty Responses Based Upon Tenure: Statement Number 51, Chi Square Data. 0 O 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 66 Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re— sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 1, Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . . 67 Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 1, Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . . 68 Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 58, Chi Square Data. . . . . . . . . 69 Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 58, Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . 70 Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 48, Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . 71 Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 60, Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . 72 ix Table LIST OF TABLES HEALTH SERVICE FUNCTIONS 290 50. 51. 52. 55. . 540 56. 58. Summary of Responses: Questionnaire State- ments Numbered 5, 14, 50, 59, 54. . . . . . Total Group Response: Statement Number 5. "Counseling and psychiatric care are avail- able for students with emotional problems." Total Group Response: Statement Number 14. "Physical examinations are required of new students." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Group Response: Statement Number 50. "Preventive medicine is provided, including regular examinations, programs of inocula- tion, and health education." . . . . . . . Total Group Response: Statement Number 59. "On the basis of a physical examination students are classified regarding their fitness for the variety of demands of col- lege participation." . . . . . . . . . . . Total Group Response: Statement Number 54. "Medical and surgical care is available for injured students." . . . . . . . . . . . . H... Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 5, Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . . Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- Sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 5, Chi Square Data . . . . . . .1. . Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 14, Chi Square Data. . . . . . . . . Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizatio.s Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 50, Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . Page 77 79 81 84 87 89 91 92 94 Table 59. 40. 41. LIST OF TABLES Page Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 59. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . 95 Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 59. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . 96 Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 54. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . 97 HOUSING AND FOOD SERVICE FUNCTIONS 42. 45. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. Summary of Responses: Questionnaire State- ments Numbered 10, 22, 25, 40, 47 . . . . . 105 Total Group Response: Statement Number 10. ”Well-balanced meals are available to the students through campus facilities." . . . 105 Total Group Response: Statement Number 22. "Off-campus student housing units are in- Spected regularly to maintain standards of good living.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Total Group Response: Statement Number 25. "The housing of married undergraduate stu- dents is a responsibility of the institu- tion." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Total Group Response: Statement Number 40. ”Sorority and fraternity housing is under institutional supervision." . . . . . . . . 112 Total Group Response: Statement Number 47. "Special housing for unmarried graduate students is available on campus." . . . . . 114 Comparison of Faculty Responses Based Upon Tenure: Statement Number 47. Chi Square Data. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 116 xi Table 49. 50. 52. 55. Page Responses of Faculty who work Closely With Student Organizations Compared Jith Re- sponses of Those dho Do Not: Statement Number 10. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . 118 Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely with Student Organizations Compared dith Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 22. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . 119 Responses of Faculty Who work Closely with Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Jho Do Not: Statement Number 25. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . 119 Responses of Faculty Who dork Closely with Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Rho Do Not: Statement Number 25. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . 120 Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 10. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . 121 STUDENT ACTIVITIES FUECTICIS 54. 58. Summary of Responses: Questionnaire State— ments Numbered 4, 18, 57, 41, 52. . . . . . 128 Total Group Response: Statement Number 4. "A program of religious activity is made available through the institution." . . . . 151 Total Group Response: Statement Number 18. "Student organizations exist for the fur- therance of social contacts and competence? 155 Total Group Response: Statement Number 57. "Student activities are centrally sched- uled and limited for balance in the total program." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Total Group Response: tatement Number 41. "Institutional policy makes provision for informing instructional faculty members about the student life program and services of the campus." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 xii Table Page 59. Total Group Response: Statement Number 52. "Student government shares in the educa- tional program and policy development per- taining to student behavioral standards and methods of dealing with campus violations." 142 60. Responses of Faculty Jho work Closely with Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Jho Do Not: Statement Number 4. Chi Square Data. . . . . . . . . 145 61. Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 60. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . 146 62. Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 18. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . 146 65. Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With tudent Organizations Compared With Re— sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 41. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . 147 FINANCIAL AID, AND PLACELENT FUNCTIONS 64. Summary of Responses: Questionnaire State- ments Numbered 5, 17, 28, 55, 45. . . . . . 155 65. Total Group Response: Statement Number 5. "All types of financial aid are coordin— ated, including scholarships, loans, and placement assistance. . . . . . . . . . . . 157 66. Total Group Response: Statement Number 17. "Alumni are assisted in further profes- sional programs by acquainting them with Opportunities for advancement in their fields." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 67. Total Group Response: Statement Number 26. "Data are available to potential employers regarding the student's educational prepa- ration, job and extracurricular experience, and letters of recommendation." . . . . . . 162 xiii Table 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 75. 71+. 76. 77. LIST OF TABLES Total Group Response: Statement Number 59. "All student vocational placement functions are coordinated." . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Group Response: Statement Number 45. "Information is communicated to staff and students about the job market, salaries, and placement trends in a wide variety of fields." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Faculty Responses Based Upon Tenure: Statement Number 28. Chi Square Data. 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With tudent Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 17. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 17. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . Responses of Faculty Who work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 28. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With tudent Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 28. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . ReSponses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 55. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re— sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 55. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 45. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . xiv 169 170 171 172 175 174 175 175 176 LIST OF TABLES Table Page DISCIPLINARY FUNCTIONS 78. Summary of Responses: Questionnaire State— ments Numbered 9, 27, 55, 50, 58. . . . . . 185 79. Total Group Response: Statement Number 9. "There is a well-defined policy regarding standards of student behavior." . . . . . . 185 80. Total Group Response: Statement Number 27. "The regulation of student conduct util- izes the disciplinary situation as a re- habilitative and educational experience." . 188 81 Total Group Response: Statement Number 55. "Specific information and instructions on standards, regulations, and traditions of the institution are provided to incoming students." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 82. Total Group Response: Statement Number 50. "Campus disciplinary policy covers stu- dents involved in violations of public lama" 194 85. Total Group Response: Statement Number 58. "The institution encourages acceptance by the individual of societal standards of morality." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 84. Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re— Sponses of Those Jho Do Not: Statement Number 9. Chi Square Data. . . . . . . . . 199 85. Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 27. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . 200 86. Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared with Re- Sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 27. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . 201 87. Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 55. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . 202 XV Table 88. 890 90. LIST OF TABLES Page Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re— sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 55. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . 205 Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- Sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 58. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . 204 Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 58. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . 205 SPECIAL CLINICS, AND SPECIAL SERVICES FUICTIONS 91. 92. 95. 94. 95- 96. 97. Summary of Responses: Questionnaire state- ments Numbered ll, 12, 15, 16, 57 . . . . . 211 Total Group Response: Statement Number 11. "Assistance is given for the Special prob- lems of foreign or exchange students." . . 214 Total Group Response: Statement Number 12. "Campus protective services (police or firé are provided." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 Total Group Response: Statement Number 15. "There is provision for the driving and parking of student vehicles on the campus." 219 Total Group Response: Statement Number 16. "A program of new student orientation is prOVided. " O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 221 Total Group Response: Statement Number 57. "Counseling services are extended to non- college persons in the community on a fee basis.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 Responses of Faculty Who Work Closely With Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 12. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . 227 xvi Table 98. 99. LIST OF TABLES Page Responses of Faculty who dork Closely with Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those who Do Not: Statement Number 12. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . 227 Responses of Faculty who work Closely with Student Organizations Compared With Re- sponses of Those Who Do Not: Statement Number 16. Chi Square Data . . . . . . . . 228 xvii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Statement of the Problem This study has a two-fold purpose: (1) the develOpment of a questionnaire which might prove useful on college and university campuses in the determination of instructional staff perceptions of student personnel functions in higher education, and (2) reporting upon the questionnaire results received from one institution of higher education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Background of the Problem The appearance of student personnel services on the college campus represents one response to a transi- tional period in the educational history of the United States, as well as a deveIOpment having considerable impact for the future of higher education. Throughout the variety and diversity of roles and functions assigned to institutions of higher learning, and to stu— dent personnel prOgrams there exists a common thread of concern for the personal develOpment of young peOple in the interest of enriching the human resources of Ameri— can society. The focus of responsibility for the per- formance of some aspects contributing to the Optimum develOpment of college youth is different within each of the staff groups concerned with essentially educa- tional aspects of the institution: administrators, instructional staff, and student personnel workers. In this context, early personnel work provided a necessary and useful reminder that individual develOp- ment was broader than the Germanic concept of personal cultivation of the intellect. Formalization and evolve- ment toward professionalization of student personnel services thus came largely as a reaction to the neglect of extra-classroom learning Opportunities for the stu- dent. With the emphasis upon non-classroom educational Opportunities came the charge of anti-intellectualism, and the identification of student personnel services with Objectives and goals incompatible with the roles and functions of higher education. In addition, student personnel services have become allied with administrative functioning of the campus, and in this manner are less well identified as educative or instructional. A beginning in the direc- tion of increased integration of student personnel with instruction is made mandatory with the realities of increasing enrollments, heterogeneity of the student body, and the increasing difficulty of obtaining ade- quately trained and experienced professional staff. The personnel movement is no longer a protest against the neglect of learning Opportunities in student life outside the classroom. It is an organized effort, cur- rently undergoing a significant degree of professionalization, to capitalize on such Opportunities in distinctive ways but in the service of the same goals that justify and animate the educational process gener- ally . . . In such a collaborative enter- prise and to insure the attainment of edu- cation's aims, it is vital for all those charged with educational responsibilities to understand each other, to earn places of mutual respect in each other's eyes, and to balance their distinctive contribu- tions on the basis of such a shared under- standing and mutual respect. (l:ll) Review of Related Research Student personnel work, because of its youth and nature, is still in a process of dynamic growth and mat- uration. Dependent upon the "acceptance climate" of the campus, Often demonstrated by the financial support accorded by administrators, individual student person- nel programs have flourished and become small Opera- tional empires or integral parts of the educational experience. As the personnel movement became better conCeived, organized, and administered, student person- nel workers recognized the importance of evaluation as a contribution to their own growth and develOpment, as well as acceptance on the campus. 4 Rackham (2) stressed the need of adequate cri- teria for prOper evaluation and constructed a Student Personnel Services Inventory for use in evaluation of student personnel programs. Kamm and Wrenn (5) devel- Oped "An Inventory of Student Reaction to Student Per- sonnel Services" which is administered to students, and to be used in connection with an earlier form devised by the same two authors (4). Mahler (5) evaluated stu- dent personnel programs at four colleges using an inven- tory he develOped, and related it to an independent evaluation with Rackham's Inventory. Evaluation Aids, developed in 1955 by the National Association of Stu- dent Personnel Administrators is perhaps the most com- prehensive evaluative instrument. In addition, there are numerous evaluation studies of one or more aspects of the total functioning of a student personnel program. However, the research connected with this study contains only some content aspects of an evaluation study. The aforementioned authors and writing were used for resource, and certain aspects of their research techniques adapted for the perception study. There are no reported studies of faculty reac- tions or perceptions of student personnel services. Mahler's study (5) did contain a subsection entitled "Student Personnel Opinion," and it enabled him to assess student and faculty reaction to certain aspects of student personnel services as an indices of readi- ness for develOpment or redirection of student person- nel philos0phy. His Inventory had separate sections dealing with: Housing and Board, Orientation, Health, Counseling, Discipline, Financial Aids, and Curriculum Needs. However, the focus of the study was the agree- ment relationship of the evaluative findings with an independent evaluation using the Rackham check-list inventory. Increasing interest and emphasis upon the role of the classroom teacher in the student personnel pro- gram has created the necessity to determine and clarify the perception that individual and corporate faculty members have of the role of student personnel services in the institutions of higher education. Effective stu- dent personnel work and deeper teaching were the foci of concern for a book edited by Lloyd-Jones and Smith (6), and although the cooperating writers stressed the essen- tial sameness of educative goals, the misperceptions of functional roles continue to be a matter of considerable concern. Importance of the Study The researcher, by means of this study, attempts to determine the perception held by teaching faculty on one college campus of the functional role of student personnel services. The means by which this perception might be obtained required the design and development of an instrument in the form of a questionnaire. This ques- tionnaire would allow the expression of role assignment of student personnel services on several levels, and would provide the personnel workers Of that campus with an indices of the amount of knowledge and degree of importance assigned to the functioning of these educa- tional services. From this point, effective communica- tion may be utilized to reinforce or create understand- ings of the integrated roles of the educational staff assigned to instructional and student personnel responsi- bilities. Shaffer (7:56) has reported the tentative conchr- sions received from a comprehensive research project concerning the problems of communication on the expand- ing college campus. Of particular interest here is the second level mentioned: intra-university communication and coordination. He reports a general need for con- stant interpretation to other university personnel of the work of the centralized personnel services. Where this need was expressed, it was usually noted by the academic or other administrators rather than by those of the student personnel staff. A recent issue of the Journal 9; the National Association 9; Women Deans and Counselors (8) is concerned solely with "Communication in Personnel Work." As the relative newcomers among specialized contributors to the educational process, perhaps the primary responsibility for initiating com- munication about these services falls on student person— nel workers. The problem then becomes one Of determining the perception of the student personnel prOgram currently held by the instructional faculty, and, at the same time, assessing the knowledge of the faculty about the variety of functions of the student personnel services. If the faculty perception and knowledge of the student person- nel prOgram of services can be determined, then the per- sonnel workers will have an adequate basis for the beginnings of effective communication about their func- tions as they relate to the total goals of higher edu- cation. Limitations and Scope of the Study This research project is limited to the instruc- tional faculty of Michigan State University. The responses were Obtained by the questionnaire method, although the questionnaires were augmented by individual interviews in some cases. In an attempt to overcome the limitation of restricting the respondents to the faculty of Michigan State University, the attempt was made to secure an adequately balanced sampling of the staff of the University so as to provide for expression of any unique influences as well as to encompass the variety of backgrounds and contributions of the staff. 0n the other hand, one of the dual purposes of this study is the development of a questionnaire appli- cable to any institution of higher learning. The results obtained will always reflect the uniqueness of the staff of the institution. The contribution of the study is the "Student Personnel Services Questionnaire," as well as the specific responses of the faculty of Michigan State University which may prove useful to the student personnel workers of that University. The sc0pe of the study includes the major func- tions performed by student personnel services on the campuses of higher educational institutions. State- ments of sub-functions oprersonnel services are pre- sented for a ranked indication of the importance of this function for higher education; an estimation of the quality of performance on the local campus; an indica- tion of whether or not there is specific provision for the service function on the campus; and finally, an indication of the location of responsibility for the performance of the function on the all—campus, college, departmental or other level. Definitions of Terms Perception -- when used in this text will refer to the importance allocated to, - the Opinion about, - the consciousness and knowledge of the student person- nel functions described. It will also imply an immediate judgement, Often requiring subtle discrimination. Student Personnel Functions -- the study concerns some of the services other than classroom instruction which are provided for students by colleges and univer— sities. The content refers to services for which spe- cific provision has been made on the college campus, not to those services which are incidental to instruction. Opinion -- a belief stronger than an impression, but less strong than positive knowledge. Evaluation -- the evaluation of student person- nel functions required by this project is most closely related to an expressed Opinion, or judgment. Organization of the Study Chapter I contains an introduction to the prob- lem of the role of student personnel services in higher education as it relates to instructional staff, and has attempted to justify the importance of such a study. Chapter II includes a discussion of the method of investigation, procedures and methodology of selection of the sample group, and the development and presentation 10 of the questionnaire used to Obtain the data. It also presents the methods of reporting the data obtained. Chapters III through X, inclusive, present detailed discussions of the results of the study in related functional groupsings. These chapters report the data related to the following: Admissions, Regis- tration, and Records; Counseling; Health Service; Housing, and Food Service; Student Activities; Finan- cial Aid, and Placement; Discipline; and the Special .’ Clinics, and Special Services functions. Chapter XI presents the summary, conclusions, and recommendations of the research study. Three Appendices to the study contain copies of the Student Personnel Services Questionnaire, the letters which accompanied the mailing, and selected com- ments from non-cooperative faculty in the sample group. CHAPTER II PROCEDURES Method of Investigation In order to include and involve the greatest number of instructional faculty, and to make the con- tent of the study as comprehensive as possible, the questionnaire method of research was decided upon. The goal was the development of an instrument which would have application on a variety of campuses by virtue of its inclusiveness and flexibility. It must also be compact in order to enhance the possibility of a large return from the original faculty sample. The mailing of questionnaires for this study was to take place in November following mid-term examinations, and prior to the period of final examination preparation. The Sample The two criteria for inclusion in the faculty sample group were: (1) members of the faculty with pri- mary responsibilities for instructional duties; (2) full—time staff membership on the campus for a minimum of one academic year. The determination of adequacy of -11.. 12 the first criterion of selection was not possible until the questionnaire had been completed and returned, since a listing by name of faculty members with instructional responsibilities was not available. The second crite- rion was met by means of selecting the sample from the names appearing in Part XVI, "Faculty and Staff of the University" effective December 1, 1957, and thus indi- cated for the academic year 1957-1958 (9:578-456) of the Michigan State University Catalog. The actual selection of the sample was achieved as follows: (l) each faculty member was assigned a num- ber in the alphabetical listing in the Catalog; (2) the faculty number 1087 was selected as the point from whidi counting-off began--this number was determined by find— ing the file and column point in a table of random num- bers which was indicated by the last two numbers of one coin, and the last number on a second coin; (5) every 17th faculty member from point l087 was noted for pur- poses of inclusion in the questionnaire mailing, until the 98th individual was chosen--this was determined by the table of random numbers and a coin; (4) the 98th person became the point at which l8 numbers were used to choose the following person, then 17 numbers again became the pattern; (5) 100 faculty members were selec- ted in this way; (6) the final 55 numbers were deter- mined by counting—off every 54th number, starting 15 from 101, as indicated by the table of random numbers and the two coins. The table of random numbers used is included in a statistics book by Edwards (l0). 0f the 155 names chosen by the above described method, only 150 were included in the mailing group. The additional 5 names were removed because of Obvious deviations from the criterion regarding instructional responsibilities, e.g., they had designated responsi- bilities for research, or administrative duties. The mailing list potential represented 12.25% of the total faculty with instructional responsibilities. This figure is based upon information received from the Office of the Dean of University Services which listed the number of full-time equivalent faculty members for the year 1957-1958 as 1224. Table 1 indicates the number and percentage of questionnaires mailed and returned, and additional infore mation concerning the research sample. In order to determine whether or not the indi- viduals selected by means of the described procedure actually represented an adequate sampling of the faculty of Michigan State University, several comparisons were made on the basis of sub-groups included in the total sample. Table 2, page 15, presents the percentage figures for faculty members analyzed by appointments to 14 TABLE 1 SAMPLE GROUP PERCENTAGE RETURNS Number Percentage Group 150 12.25% T. Random sampling of total faculty, Faculty Michigan State University 119 9.7% T. Questionnaires returned completai, Faculty and from teaching faculty. (79.55% of Sample) 9 6% of S. Refused to respond to question- naire, and returned form with a note 5 2% of S. Completed questionnaires, not teaching 19 12.6% S. Questionnaires unaccounted for of Sample (may include faculty not teaching) individual colleges within the University. Figures are given for the percentages of faculty included in the sample group, both for the total mailing, and for the group which contributed data to the study. The infor— mation regarding the total staff was received from the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs. In addition to examination of the sample by college affiliation, other comparisons were made: (a) by degrees held; (b) faculty rank assignment; (0) the source Of the highest earned degree; (d) the length of time on the Michigan State University campus. Table 5, page 16, summarizes these comparisons. 15 .noaeafiusomuou mange 2:3 nod .35 on: 23o €03.8va manganese". 33658 532683 69G Human 95mm 3.3 5 23.85 3.? .3303 33 8m «oh—mam .3098 333% 3 oonoflpgat 3:3." c.2830.» made: .3303 3. homo.“ muons: .nfidmflq c.2233 you pgcwmonm 3.; no 3.38 5.5 @0530." 3.53“ 89 39mm... 82:5 Ema-5 So 2qu 3H 8.8." 8.8a 5.2“ 95.8 N cfla mm 83 8:38 Essa .31. e 49m nm.m 3.; «causes. gasp; .m S «SE 5.8 3.8 32 e8 8:38 .o m 3:. $6 3.; Basses 23m .1. s was $6 2.; 3339s .e 3” 2.3” SJ“ eta assesses .m m 8.: $3. $3 3.2 soaesagfiao 3 a." 9.9 8:: «min 8E8 032 e magnum .n 3 3.3 8:: «15 233034 .N on 93: 36 «man . Sense 33m an 823qu gamete @3038". Sudan gen. . «a 30.52 a .395 u .393 b u omofioo EH8 Hm Mg HHHDOdh .mo zogdazmmflmg adezmnflmm N 3mg... l6 m.ms u se>o a e m.mm u mum m.mm u NIH ems ed memes m .e s.mm u se>o e o n.0m u m:m 0.0m n NIH pm: pm muses a .e e.ms u sesso s.sm u ems messes eeemee m .e m.ow u.seseo m.ma n ems messed assess a .e s.¢m u m m.mm u omms m.Hs u used m.oa u H sass m .n s.ma u m H.¢m u ewes s.sm n ewes m.mm u H sees a .e O.os u m m.em u a m.m u m eats meesmee m .e m.sm u m e.sm n a s.oa u m ease meesmee a .s mmmpmoonmm consummaoo @5090 mDOmU mfimzdm.mz4 Mafibo4m H4909 mo mZomHmr university. The nature of these services usually JPequires shared administrative responsibilities by trusiness management and student personnel services. "10. Well-balanced meals are available to the students through campus facilities.” - 101 — 102 "22. Off-campus student housing units are inspected regularly to maintain stand- ards of good living." "25. The housing of married undergraduate students is a responsibility of the institution." "40. Sorority and fraternity housing is under institutional supervision." "47. Special housing for unmarried gradu- ate students is available on campus." Examination of Cumulative Responses Housing, and Food Services are perceived as being "Very Important" and "Fairly Important" for higher edu- cation to about the equivalent degree, both categories having received thirty-seven percent of the total responses given for the five statements of function con- cerning these services. Twenty-one percent of the facuuy' responses indicated that these services were "Not Sig- nificant" for higher education. Table 42 presents the cumulative responses, and percentages of the total :responses accorded to each category of the questionnaire. The achievement of these functions is considered "Satisfactory" by forty percent of the cumulative :responses given to this question, while twenty-six :percent of the total responses indicated that the machievement is "Outstanding." Twenty-two percent of the JPesponses fell in the "Do Not Know (?)" category, and Etix percent were indicated as "Not Accomplished." The ~.-.-- s»... u—I‘U‘fiwq‘.‘ -. .1 ' ‘ ‘0‘“ 1 N‘_ W b. C. d. TABLE 42 SUHHIRI'OFIEESPONSES: 1135 FUNCTIONS HOUSING.AND FOOD SERVICE Questionnaire statuents numbered 10,22,23,h0,h7 Importance for higher educating? Very hportmt e e Fairly Important . Not Significant . (No Answer Given). Q2! edeguategz achieved 22 Outstanding e e Satisfactory e 0 Not Accomplished Do Not Know (?) (No Answer Given) ggcific provisions 92 :98 eeeeee NOeeeeeee DoNotKnow(?) (NoAnswerGiven) O... O O O O O O O O Ems: “menus: ell-campus agency’ . . college . . . . . . . fipuhent...... awar‘OOOOOOOOOO Illpcanpus and college . . all-campus and department college and department . . all-cupus, college, and deparnnent (No Answer Given) is Total!!- campus? TotalN' this cflus? O O O O O O O O O O O 0 service pix-toned? O O O O O O O O 0 *3 O 23.... E 20.000000. N'llZ: 223 221 130 21 33 1'59 239 37 136 3% Wasfi §§'Iplmmd§ *119 responses to each question , 5 questions included Percent ,1 ,‘V 104 response percentages of this section do not adequately reflect the variety of responses given to the individual statements. Seventy-four percent of the total responses indicated that the faculty perceives specific provision for these functions on the campus, with an additional fifteen percent of the responses in the "Do Not Know (?)" category. Five percent of the total possible responses were not given in answer to this question. An "all-campus agency" was the selection of seventy percent of the total responses for the location of the performance of these functions. No answer was given in a total of twenty-six percent of the possible responses. Discussion of Responses to Individual Functional State- ments "Well-balanced meals are available to the students through campus facilities." The faculty responses to statement number 10 Eire given on Table 45. The faculty perceives this func- tFionto be "Very Important" for higher education accord- iIlg'to fifty-six percent of the respondents. An addi- tjuonal twenty-nine percent indicated that it is "Fairly I:mqportant" for higher education. Ten percent of the félcmlty sample judged it to be "Not Significant." 105 TABLE 45 TOTAL GI-DUP {E‘SPONSElz STATEMENT NIMBER 10 - HOUSING, AND FOOD SERVICE FUNCTIONS ”tell-balanced meals are available to the students through campus facilities.‘ WW 3. Importance for high_er Education? Very Important . e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0 67 56.30 % Fair 1y Important. . e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 35 29.1.1 % NOE Significant e e e e e e e o e e e e e e e 13 10.92 5 (NO Answer Given). e e e e e e e o e e e e e e h 3.36 l0 b. 119;: adequatelz achieved pp this campus? Gamma—r18 e e e e e e e o e e e e e e e e e 33 27.73 % Satisfactory e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e o 0 6’; 53.78 % NotAccomplished............... 21.68% I” Nat Know (?) e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 17 W9 % (NoAnswerGiven).............. 3 2.52% c. Specific provisions 9.11 this campus? Yes 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e m 85.71 % No . . . . . O . C . . C . C . O O O . 0 . . . 2 L68 % DO NOt Know (?) e o e e e e e e e e e e e e e 10 8&0 % (NoAnswerGiven).............. 5 1,39% d. If es, where if; 213 service perfqmed? 811-canlpu3 agency e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 95 79.83 % college................... __ __ $5 «Parment e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 1 08h % omer no 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e h 3.36 % all-campusandcollege............ __ __ % all-campus and department . . . . . . . . . . 1 .81: fl college and departnent e e e e o e e e e e e - _ % all-campus, college, and department . . . . . _ __ % ("0 Answer Given) e e e e e e e e e e e e e o 18 15.13 5 *119 responses to each question 106 Over half of the faculty respondents, fifty-three percent, perceive the achievement at Michigan State Uni- versity as "Satisfactory," while twenty-seven percent judge it to be "Outstanding" on the campus. One per- cent indicated that it is "Not Accomplished," and four- teen percent "Do Not Know (?)" about the achievement of this service on the campus. Eighty-five percent of the faculty members indi- cated that there is specific provision for this student service on the campus. Eight percent indicated that they "Do Not Know (?)" if there is specific provision for well-balanced meals through campus facilities. Seventy-nine percent of the faculty sample group responded that an "all-campus agency" performed this function on this campus. Three percent indicated the category "other," but did not specify what agency per- formed this service. Fifteen percent of the group did not answer the question. The faculty sample perceives this student per- sonnel function to be "Very Important" for higher edu- cation, and achieved in a "Satisfactory" manner by a Specific "all-campus agency" on the Michigan State cam- pus. "Off-campus student housing units are inspected regularly to maintain standards of good living." Forty-three percent of the faculty respondents indicated that statement number 22 is "Fairly Important" 107 for higher education. In addition, twenty-eight percent indicated that it is "Very Important." It was judged to be "Not Significant" by twenty-four percent of the respondents, with an additional three percent not answer- ing the question. Table 44 presents the response data. Overlnlf of the respondents, fifty-four percent, perceive the achievement on the Michigan State campus as "Satisfactory," with an additional four percent indicat- ing that it is an "Outstanding" accomplishment on this campus. Five percent indicated that it is "Not Accom- plished," and thirty-one percent "Do Not Know (?)" about the achievement on the campus. Seventy-two percent of the faculty group indi— cated that specific provision is made on the campus for the inspection of off—campus student housing units. Twenty percent "Do Not Know (?)" if there is specific provision for this function, and no answer was given to the question by five percent of the respondents. The service is performed by an "all-campus agenqr' as perceived by sixty-nine percent of the faculty group in response to the question of section d. Twenty-eight percent of the sample did not respond to this question. The regular inspection of off-campus housing units to maintain standards of good living is seen as "Fairly Important" for higher education and performed TA BLE 44 TOTAL GIDUP RESPONSE: STATEMENT NUMBER 22 .— 108 HOUSING, AND FWD SERVICE FUNCTIONS “Off-caspus student housing units are inspected regularly to maintain standards of good living. " b. Ce (1. *119 responses to each question Importance far bigger education? Very Ilportant e e e e e e o e e Fairly'lhportant e e e e e e e e e e e e NOL Significant e e e e e e e e e e e e (N0 Answer Given)e e e e o e e e e e o e g2! gequawll achieved 2p this sagas? Outstanding e e e e e e e e e e e e e e satisfaCtory e e e e e e e e e e e e e e NOL ACCOMPlished e e e e o e e e e e e e no NOL Know (?) e e e e e e e e e e e e (NO Answar Given) e e e e e e e e e e e ycific provisions 93 this cgpus? YES e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e No C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C DO NOt Kn“ (?) e o e e e e e e e o e e (NoAnswerGiven)........... if. es, where is 212 service perfoged? all-CaEPUB agency e e e e e e e e e e e college 0 e e e e o e e e e e e e e e e manent C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Other a. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Ill-campus CHd 00116g9. e e e e e e e e all-campus and department . . . . . . . college and department . . . . . . all-campus, college, and department . . ("0 Answer Given) e e e e e e e e e e e C O O . O C C O O N'119* iillH'r-Ig 31: m 28.57 x 143.70 9% 2&3? $5 3.36 % b.20 z 511.62 p 75 5.0!: % 31.93 % “.20 g 72.27 as 2.52 % 20.17 x 5.01: % 69.75 109 in a "Satisfactory" manner. The faculty also recognizes that specific provisions are made for this function through the auspices of an "all-campus agency." "The housing of married undergraduate stu- dents is a responsibility of the institu- tion." The responses to statement number 25, above, are given on Table 45. The faculty respondents indicated that this function is "Fairly Important" for higher edu- cation, with a forty—three percent response, and an addi- tional twenty-five percent perceive it to be "Very Impor- tant." However, more than one-quarter of the faculty, twenty-six percent, indicated that this function is "Not Significant" for higher education. Sixty-eight percent of the sample group per- ceive the achievement of the housing of the married undergraduate student as "Outstanding" on the Michigan State campus. An additional sixteen percent indicated that it is "Satisfactory." Ten percent responded that they "Do Not Know (?)," and five percent did not answer the question. The faculty recognizes specific provision for this service on the campus by an eighty-nine percent response. Five percent of the sample group responded to the "Do Not Know (?)" category, and an additional five percent did not indicate an answer to the ques- tion. "The housing of married undergraduate students is a .110 TABLE 45 TOTAL GmUP RESPONSE: STATEMENT NIMBER 23 -- HOUSES, AND FOOD SERVICE FUNCTIONS responsibility of the institution." 3. Co Importance for higher education? Very Important 0 o e o e e e e e Fairly Important . . . . . . . . NOt Significant o e e e o e e 0 (NO ADM Given). 0 e e e e e o 921'. adeguatelz achieved 23; this campus? Guam 0 e o o e e o e o o o o Satisfactory e o e o e e e e e o e 0 Not Accomplished . . . . . . . . . . Do Not Know (7) e e e e e e e o o 0 (NO mr Given) 0 o e o o o e e e §Ecific provisions 93 this caflpus? Yes 0 o e o e o e e o e o o o o e 0 NO C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C DO Nat Know (?) e o e o e o e e e 0 (NO Answer Given) 0 e o e o o e e e 11; es, where i3 212 service performed? all-campus agency college.............. manenteeeoeeeooooeo Omar......... ooeeooo all-campus and college . . . . . . . all-campus and departmsnt . . . . . college and department . . . . all-canpus, college, and department (NO Answer Given) 0 e e o o e o e e *119 responses to each question {#119} at“ 83 m‘filG‘é’ H 0‘0ng muzlums Percent 25.21 x 143.70 % 26.89 % h.20 z 68.07 % 16.81 g 10.08 25, 50°14 ’9 89.07 g lll Undergraduate married housing is perceived as being "Fairly Important" to higher education, and achieved in an "Outstanding" manner by an "all-campus agency" with the specific responsibility for this function. "Sorority and fraternity housing is under institutional supervision." Table 46 presents the faculty responses to statement number 40 of the "Student Personnel Services Questionnaire." Sixteen percent of the faculty respond- ents indicated that this function is "Not Significant" for higher education. In contrast, forty-seven percent perceive it as "Very Important," with an additional thirty-four percent indicating it is "Fairly Important" for higher education. The achievement of this function is considered "Satisfactory" by fifty-four percent of the faculty group. Two percent indicated that it is "Not Accom- plished" while eleven percent believe it to be an "Out- standing"accomplishment of the campus. Twenty—eight percent cf the faculty group "Do Not Know (?)" about the achievement of this student personnel service. Seventy-five percent of the faculty indicate that specific provision is made for this supervisory function, and twenty-one percent indicate that they "Do Not Know (?)" if this is Specifically provided. 112 TABLE 46 mm 610th RESPONSE: mm mm ho .- mtsnn, AND m SERVICE ch'rlons 'Sorority and fraternity housing is under institutional supervision ." N'll9'fl' Percent a. lgportapce for bigger education? Very hportant o e e o e e e e e e e e e e e O 56 ’47.“ Z Fairly Ilportant o e o o e e o e e o o o e e e ’41 314.115 % NOt Significant o o o o e o e e e e e A o o o g 20 16081 % (NO mm 017011). e e e e e o e o o o o e e e 2 1.68 % b. is: edeguatelx achieved 25 this cypus? Outstanding e o e o o e e o e e e e o o e e 0 1’4 11076 % Satisfactory o o e e o e e e e e e e e e e e o 65 51‘062 % NOt ACCOmpliShed o e o e e e o e e e e e o o e 3 2.52 % DO NOt Know (7) e o o e e e e e e e e e e e 0 31; 28.57 % (NO mr Given) 0 o e o e e e e o e o o o e 3 2.52 % c. ycific provisions 93 this c us? Yes 0 e o o e e e e o e e e o o e o e e e e e 75.63 S NO 0 0 O 0 e e 0 e e e o o e e e e e e e e e e 1 08h % D0 N01: Kn“ (?) o o e e e e e e e o e e e o o 25 21.01 Z (No m Given) 0 e e e o e e e o o e o o e 3 2.52 5 d. _I_f_ 2.9.9.: where E 21: service performed? all-campus Agency 0 e o e o e e o o e e o e e 85 71.143 % conege 0 e e e e 0 e e e e e e e e e o e o o 2 1.68 % ”fluent o o e o o e e e e e o e e e e e o e 1 .81; $ Other no 0 e e o e o o e o e o e e e e o e e e 1 .814 % “I'M” ”Id 0011980 0 e e e o o o e e o a e .— —- % all-campus and department . . . . . . . . . . -- .. 3 001.1886 and mutant 0 e e e e e e o e e .. .- % all-canpus, college, and department . . . . . -- .. f (No Answer Given) 0 o e e o e e e e e e e e o 30 25.21 % *119 responses to each question 115 The performance of the function is recognized as the responsibility of an "all-campus agency" by seventy-one percent of the faculty group. No answer was given to this section by twenty-five percent of the sample group. The supervision of sorority and fraternity hous- ing is seen as having importance for higher education, and is accomplished in a "Satisfactory" manner on the Michigan State campus by a specifically designated "all-campus agency." "Special housing for unmarried graduate stu- dents is available on campus." The faculty responses concerning the importance of statement number 47 are about equally divided: thirty percent of the faculty perceive it as "Very Important," thirty-four percent indicate that it is "Fairly Impor- tant," and thirty percent believe it to be "Not Signifi- cant" for higher education. Five percent of the sample group did not answer this question. Table 47 presents this data. The responses are also divided concerning the achievement of this service on the Michigan State Uni— versity campus. Twenty-one percent responded to each of three categories: ”Outstanding," "Satisfactory," and "Not Accomplished." Twenty-nine percent indicated that-they "Do Not Know (?)" about the achievement of TABLE Tom amour RESPONSE: HOIBDIG, AND mop SERVICE FUNCTIONS 114 4'? WNIMBERl-fl" |‘Special housing for unmarried graduate students is available on campus .' b. C. d. Importance for bigger education? VeryIlportant......... Fairly hporta-Dt o e e e e e e 0 Hot Significant lo! adeguatelz achieved 93 Guam 0 o e o Satisfactory e e e 0 Not Accomplished . . Do Not Know (7) . . (No Answar Given) . §gcific provisions 93 Yes . . . NO 0 o e 0 Do Not Know (?) (No Answer Given) _I£ Zea, where 1.3 £13 all-campus agency . college 0 o e e e O marble!“ o o o o e owe: a». e e e e e e all-ca-pus and college. sill-campus and department college and department . . all-canpus, college, and department (No Answer Given) (NeAnswerGiven)...... so this owns? |§§§§§ #119 responses to each question this 0 us? perfoged? Xvi-119* 6’3Ililllm‘s’L Percent 30.25 % 314.1455 30.25% 5.01170 21.85 % 21.01 % 21.85 % 29.1.1 % 5.88 % u7.9o % 16.81 75 25.21 3‘ 10.08 3‘ 5: """EE: NRN‘OQNNR‘GQN X} 3o E" 115 this housing service on the campus. And, five percent of the respondents gave no answer to the question. Forty-seven percent of the faculty believed that there is specific provision for unmarried graduate hous- ing, while sixteen percent indicated that there was no provision for this service. Twenty-five percent "Do Not Know (?)" whether or not special housing is provided for these students. No answer was given by ten percent of the group. An "all-campus agency" was indicated as the responsible office for the function by forty-five per- cent of the faculty. One percent of the faculty indi— cated that the "college" performed this service, and fifty-two percent did n0t answer the question. The housing of unmarried graduate students is viewed with diverse Opinions by the Michigan State University faculty, but generally could be considered "Fairly Important" for higher education. The achieve- ment of this service on the campus also received a varied response. Less than half of the faculty believe that this housing is specifically provided on the campus, and about the same percentage believe that an "all- campus agency" is responsible for the performance of this student personnel function. 116 Chi Souare Analysis Faculty responses to individual statements con- cerning Housing, and Food Service Functions were analyzal utilizing the Chi Square statistical technique. The responses received from the questions "Importance for higher education?" and "How adequately achieved on this campus?" were analyzed on the basis of tenure and non-tenure faculty, as determined by academic rank, and by faculty who work closely with student groups compared with those faculty who do not. Of the ten Chi Squares computed for the tenure, non-tenure comparisons, one was significant. The ques- tion concerning "Importance for higher education?" per- taining to the housing of unmarried graduate students, statement number 47, had a P of .05. Table 48 indi- cates the data for this computation. The faculty having TABLE 48 COMPARISON OF FACULTY RESPONSES BASED UPON TENURE: STATEMENT NUMBER 47--HOUSING, AND FOOD SERVICE F'ECTIONS "Special housing for unmarried graduate students is avail- able on the campus." a. Importance for higher education? Very Fairly Not Group Imp. Imp. Signif. N Tenure 21 15 21 55 Non Tenure 15 28 15 58 Chi2 = 7.41 df = 2 r = .05 117 tenure indicate that this function is "Very Important" and "Not Significant" for higher education in greater prOportions than do the non—tenure faculty. The faculty without tenure perceive this service as "Fairly Important" for higher education to a greater degree than do the tenure faculty. Five of the ten Chi Squares computed for response comparison between those faculty members indicating that they work closely with student organizations and those who do not, were significant for the purpose of this study. The achievement of the function concerning pro- viding well-balanced meals through campus facilities, statement number 10, is viewed with significant differ- ence by these two groups. The respondents working closely with student groups indicate the categories of "Outstanding" and "Satisfactory" in equal numbers, and to a greater proportion than do the faculty members who are not working closely with student groups. The lat- ter faculty members also have less information concern- ing these services as indicated by a larger prOportion- ate response in the "Do Not Know (?)" category of the question. The faculty not working with student organi- zations reSponded to a greater degree to the "Satis- factory" achievement category than did the comparison group. iTable 49 presents this data. 118 TABLE 49 RESPONSES OF FACULTY WHO WORK CLOSELY WITH STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS COMPARED NITH RESPONSES OF THOSE WHO DO NOT: STATEMENT NUMBE 10--HOUSING, AND FOOD SERVICE FUNCTIONS. "Well—balanced meals are available to the students through campus facilities." b. How adequately achieved on this campus? __‘ _:l Not Group Outstand. Satis. Accomp. (?) N Yes 21 21 O 4 46 NO 12 45 1 14 70 Chi2 = 12.12 df = 5 P .01 The importance for higher education of regular inspection of off-campus housing units also shows a significant difference in response. The faculty group which indicates a close working relationship with a student organization places greater importance for higher education on the performance of this function, and indicates a lower reSponse prOportion to the "Not Significant" category than does the comparison faculty group. The Chi Square computation data is given on Table 50. The housing of married undergraduate students is a topic viewed with significant difference by the faculty members who work with student organizations and those who do not. Table 51 presents the data responses for the Chi Square computation for statement number 25. 119 TABLE 50 RESPONSES OF FACULTY WHO WORK CLOSELY WITH STUDEN ORGANIZATIONS COMPARED WITH RESPONSES OF THOSE WHO DO NOT: STATEHEUT NUKJER 22--HOUSING, AND FOOD SERVICE FUNCTIONS. "Off-campus student housing units are in- Spected regularly to maintain standards of good living." a. Importance for higher education? Very Fairly Not Group Imp. Imp. Signif. N Yes l9 l9 6 44 No 15 33 23 71 Chi = 8.52 df = 2 P = .02 The faculty working with student groups view this func- tion as being of greater importance to higher education than do the faculty members who are not working closely with a student organization. The latter faculty group indicates that this function is "Not Significant" in greater proportionate numbers. TABLE 51 RESPONSES OF FACULTY WHO WORK CLOSELY WITH STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS COMPARED #ITH RESPONSES OF THOSE WHO DO NOT: STATEKENT NUMBER 25--HOUSING, AND FOOD SERVICE FUNCTIONS. "The housing of married undergraduate stu- dents is a responsibility of the institution." a. Importance for higher education? Very Fairly Not Group Imp. Imp. Signif. N Yes 16 22 6 44 No 14 50 26 7O Chi2 = 8.57 df = 2 P =.o2 120 Statement number 25, concerned with the housing of married undergraduate students, also showed signifi- cant difference in the responses accorded to the ade- quacy of achievement on the Michigan State University campus. The faculty members who work closely with stu- dent organizations indicate that the achievement is "Outstanding" to a much greater degree than do the mem- bers of the comparison faculty group. In addition, the latter faculty group tends to indicate that they "Do Not Know (?)" about the achievement of this housing service with greater frequency than do the faculty working with student groups. Table 52 includes the data for the computation. TABLE 52 RESPONSES OF FACUDTY 3H0 NORK CLOSELY WITH STUDENT CRGANIZATIO S COMPARE WITH RESPONSES OF THOSE WHO DO NOT: STATEMENT NUHBER 25--HOUSING, AND FOOD SERVICE FUNCTIONS. "The housing of married undergraduate stu- dents is a responsibility of the institution." b. How adequately achieved on this campus? Not Group Outstand. Satis. Accomp. (?) N Yes 58 4 -- 2 44 No 45 16 -- 10 60 Chi2 = 7.69 df = 2 P = .05 121 The accomplishment of supervision of sorority and fraternity housing is perceived differently by the two faculty groups when compared on the basis of working closely with student organizations. Those faculty who work closely with student groups indicate "Outstanding" and "Satisfactory" achievement of this function to a larger extent than the faculty who do not work closely with student organizations. In addition, this latter group indicates "Do Not Know (?)" more frequently than does the faculty group working closely with student organizations. The responses and Chi Square data are presented on Table 55. TABLE 55 RESPONSES OF FACULTY WHO WORK CLOSELY WITH STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS COMPARED JITH RESPONSES OF THOSE WHO DO NOT: STATEIENT NUEBER 10-—HOUSING, AND FOOD SERVICE FUNCTIONS. "Well-balanced meals are available to the students through campus facilities." b. How adequately achieved on this campus? Not Group Outstand. Satis. Accomp. (?) N Yes 9 29 l 7 46 NO 5 56 2 27 70 Chi2 = 9.45 df = 5 P = .05 The significant differences determined by means of the Chi Square technique tend to indicate that the 122 faculty members who work closely with student organiza- tions perceive Housing, and Food Service functions as being of greater importance for higher education and better achieved on the Michigan State University campus, than they are viewed by faculty members who do not work closely with student organizations. In addition, the latter group indicates the response "Do Not Know (?)" to a greater extent than the faculty group working closely with student organizations. Only one significant difference was determined by means of comparison of tenure with non-tenure faculty. The responses in this instance tend to indicate that non-tenure faculty chose the category requiring less definite expression of Opinion, while the tenure group chose the two responses with the greatest diversity of Opinion in about equal prOportions. Summary of Salient Data On the basis of the data received from the re- sponses to statements of student personnel function included for this chapter concerning housing, and food service functions, the following information seems per- tinent for student personnel services at Michigan State University. There was greater diversity of Opinion expressed by the faculty regarding the importance of these student personnel services functions for higher education than 125 has been noted for the services discussed in earlier chapters of this study. The response category indicat— ing no significance for higher education was checked in greater numbers for these functions. However, in all cases, more than fifty percent of the respondents indi- cated that these functions were important for higher education, and the statements can be ranked in terms of the percentage of responses given to the combined cate- gories concerned with importance. The range of responses indicating importance for higher education for these functions includes from 64 percent to 81 percent of the faculty group. The ranking is as follows: (1) institu— tional supervision of sorority and fraternity housing; (2) well-balanced meals for students through campus fa- cilities; (5) regular inspection of off-campus housing; (4) the housing of married undergraduate students; and, (5) special campus housing for unmarried graduate stu- dents. A similar rankirg of the adequacy with which these functions are performed on the Michigan State University campus includes a percentage range of from 42 percent to 84 percent of the faculty indicating a satisfactory, or better, performance. A descending order ranking indicates: (l) the housing of married undergraduate students; (2) well-balanced meals for students through campus facilities; (5) institutional 124 supervision of sorority and fraternity housing; (4) regu- lar inspection of off-campus housing; and, (5) special campus housing for unmarried graduate students. The faculty responses indicating a lack of information con- cerning the performance increased, in order, with the last three functions ranked for this section. With reference to the housing of unmarried gradu— ate students, the faculty responses for the category indicating lack of information presented the largest prOportionate grouping for that section. In addition, for the same function, the faculty indicated that this function was not accomplished to the same prOportionate degree as the responses given for each of the categories relating to the extent of performance achievement. It is also interesting to note that the faculty members have less information concerning the specific provision for housing, and housing standards for groups of students living off—campus, such as the approved off-campus hous- ing, and the sororities and fraternities. The faculty is better informed about married undergraduate housing, and meals provided on the campus. Examination of response data by faculty sub- groups indicates that faculty members who work closely with student organizations view these functions as be— ing more important for higher education, better 125 accomplished on the campus, and they gave fewer responses indicating a lack of information about these functions. These data suggest that close contact with students may provide these faculty members with information about the housing, and food services functions which is not available for the faculty not working with student groups. CHAPTER VII STUDENT ACTIVITIES FUNCTIONS Extracurricular activities of college students are increasingly regarded as a part of a student's edu- cational experience. Every institution develops poli- cies apprOpriate to the needs of the campus, and fre- quently utilizes student government groups as partici- pating units contributing to student activities policy and controls develOpment. In order to maintain the complementary educational nature of these activities they are usually centrally scheduled and limited in numbers in an attempt to provide for balance in the total educational program. Some activities exist for social, emotional, and personality development, and may include religious groups, and organizations formed for social purposes such as sorority and fraternity groups. In order that these activities may be more completely integrated into the total educational matrix, it is essential that faculty members be well informed about the student activities program and services on each college campus. - 126 - 127 These statements concern the student activities functions of a student personnel program and are included in the "Student Personnel Services Questionnaire." " 4. A program of religious activity is made available through the institution." "18. Student organizations exist for the fur— therance of social contacts and compe- tence." "57. Student activities are centrally sched- uled and limited for balance in the total program." "41. Institutional policy makes provision for informing instructional faculty members about the student life program and ser- vices of the campus." "52. Student government shares in the educational program and policy develOpment pertaining to student behavioral standards and methods of dealing with campus violations." Examination of Cumulative Responses The summary of faculty responses to the state- ments concerned with student activities functions is presented on Table 54. Forty—eight percent of the cumulative responses indicate the student activities functions are considered to be "Fairly Important" for higher education, with an additional twenty-seven per- cent of the responses falling in the "very Important" category. Twenty percent of the sample faculty group responses indicate these functions are "Not Significant" for higher education, and three percent of the total pos- sible responses were not given to this question. 128 TABLE 54 SW (3 Responses: STIDEM‘ ADTIV 113m FUNCTIONS Questionnaire statements nunbered h,18,37,h1,52 Xvi-119* Percent e. yer-tance £95 bigger education? Very Ilportflnt o e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0 16,3 27.39 % F‘il‘ly Inportant e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 288 MAO % "Gt Significant o e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 122 20.50 z (”0 mm 0173!!)0 o e O o e e e e e e e e e 22 3.70 % Total N " m b. B_o_v_ edeguaugz echieved 23 this campus? . Outltanding e e e e e e e e e o e e e e e e e 50 8.h0 % Satisfactory e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0 26b ““37 % “Ob Accomplished e e e e e e o e e e e e e e e 8? 114.62% DoNotKrm(?)............... 153 23.21% ("0 AW? Given) 0 e e e e e e e e e e o e e 26 h37d ,0 Total N - 3'9! c. Specific provisions 93 this cflus‘? 198 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 332 55.80% no . . O . . O . O . C C . C O . O . . O Q . C 30 5.w % D0 "at KB“ (7) e e e e e e e e e e o e e e e 198 33.28 g (No W Given) 0 o e e e e e e e e e e e e 3% 5.88 g Total N ' d. _I£ as, where i3 233 eervi erroned? all-calpus ‘8ch e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 225 37.& Z 0011080 O o o e e o e e e e e e e e e o e e 0 1h 2.35 % hparhent e e e e e e e o e e e e e e e e e e 16 2.69 i other“.............oo.... 32 5.38% mm” Md ”11.8. e e e e e e e e e e e e B 2.18 5 all-campus and deparment . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.02 S ”11986 and mmnt e e e e e o e e e e 5 .8)‘ % ell-campus, college, and deperueent . . . . . 18 3.02 S ("O Answer 6170!!) o e e e e e e e e e e e e e 260 113.70 $ Total N - E; 49119 reeponeee to each question, 5 questions included 129 The achievement of these functions is judged to be "Satisfactory" as shown by forty-four percent of the responses for these grouped functions. Twenty-eight per- cent of the faculty responses indicated that the respond- ents "Do Not Know (?)" about the achievement of these functions on the Michigan State University campus. The functions concerning student activities were perceived as "Not Accomplished" by a total of fourteen percent of the cumulative responses, while eight percent of the total was allocated to the "Outstanding” response cate- gory of this question. The totaled responses indicate that about half, fifty-five percent, of the faculty perceives that spe- cific provision is made for these functions on the cam- pus. Thirty-three percent of the responses were given to the "Do Not Know (?)" category, with five percent of the cumulative responses indicating that provision is not made for student activities functions. An addi— tional five percent of the totaled responses were not given to any category of this question. Forty-three percent of the total responses were not given to the specific identification of where the service is performed on the Hichigan State University campus. Thirty—seven percent of the total indicated that an "all-campus agency" is responsible for these 150 services. Smaller percentages of response were given to the categories of "other"--but not specified--"all- campus, college, and department," "department," "col- lege," "all-campus and college," and "all-campus and department" with percentages of five percent or less. Discussion of Resppnses to Individual Functional State- ments "A program of religious activity is made available through the institution." The responses to statement nimber 4 given above, are presented in percentage form on Table 55. Forty-one percent of the respondents perceive campus religious activity "Fairly Important" for higher education, with an additional twenty-nine percent indicating that it is "Very Important." This function is considered "Not Significant" by twenty-six percent of the faculty respondents. In response to the question "How adequately achieved on this campus?," forty-seven percent of the faculty members indicated that it is "Satisfactory" with seven percent perceiving it as an "Outstanding" accomplishment on the Michigan State University campus. Twenty-eight percent of the respondents "Do Not Know (?)" about the achievement of the student religious program, on the campus, and fourteen percent indicated that it is "Not Accomplished. " 151 TABLE 55 IDTAL chP RESPONSE: STATEMENT NUMBER h - STUDENT ACTIVITIES FUNCTIONS 'A progran of religious activity is made available through the institution." N-119* Percent s. Importance £2! higher education? Very Inportfl-Dt e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 35 29.1.], % Fairly Important 0 e o o e o e e e e e e e e e ’49 131.1? % ROI: Significant e e e e e e e e e o e e e e e 32 26.89 % (NOAHW Given). 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e 3 2.52 % b. 22: sdeguatelz achieved 22 this cgmpus? Outstanding e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 9 7.56 % 581518!“er e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 56 h7.% % NOt Accomplished o e o e e e o e e e o e e e e 1? 1,4,2? % Do NOt Know (?) e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0 311 28.57 % (Nomarciven).............. 3 2.52% c. bmcific provisions 93 this cflus? Yes 0 e e e e e e e e o e e e e e e o e e e e 65 514.62 % "a C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 16 n.“ % D0 NOt W (?) e e e e e e e e e e e o e e e 32 26.89 x (NO m Given) 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e 6 5.0!; % d. _I_i; z_e_e_, where is 332 service gerfomed? Ell-calipufl agency 0 o e e e e e e e e e e o e 28 23.53 % college 0 e e e e o e e e e e e e e e e e o e 5 MO % department. 0 e e o e e e e e e o e e e e o e o 7 5.88 5 Other a. e e e e e e e e e e e o e e e e e e 22 18.149 % (Ll-campus md 0011;”. e e e o e e e e e e e .. .. 5 all-Camus and department 0 e o e e e e e e e h 3.36 x ”11980 and mutant 0 o e e e e e e e 1 . % all-campus, college, and department . . . . . .. .. 1 (Ne m 0170!!) e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 52 18.70 1 #119 responses to each question 152 Specific provision for this activities function is perceived by fifty-four percent of the respondents. Thirteen percent indicated that there was no specific provision for religious activities, while twenty-six percent of the faculty "Do Not Know (?)" whether or not this is a part of the student activities program. Twenty-three percent of the respondents perceive this function as a responsibility of an "all-campus agency," five percent believe it is the function of a "department" on the campus, and eighteen percent indi— cated that it is performed by "other" agencies which they did not specify. No answer was given to this question by forty—three percent of the faculty respond- ents. A program of religious activity available through institutional policy is seen as "Fairly Important" for higher education, and accomplished in a "Satisfactory" manner on the Michigan State University campus. The faculty perceives that there is specific provision for this activity function, indicating, to some extent, that it is performed by an "all-campus agency." "Student organizations exist for the further— ance of social contacts and competence." Table 56 presents the faculty reSponses to Statement number 18 which is indicated above. More than TABLE 56 TOTAL GROUP RESPONSE: STATEWT NUMBER 18 ~1- 155 STUDENT ACTIVITIES FUNCTIONS "Student organizations exist for the furtherance and competence.“ b. ca d. all? responses to each question mortance £93; higher education? Very Inportant . . Fairly llportant e NOt Significant e (No Answer Given). fig! adequate}: achieved 23 Outstanding e e o Satisfactory . . . Not Accomplished . Do Not Know (7) . (No Answer Given) @ecific provisions 9}; Do Not Know (?) (No Answer Given) Ir. a.» Lem a 21.2 all-campus agency . 0011989 0 e e e e O deartHBnt e e e e 0 am” a. O O o e e o all-caspue and college m-campus and depar ment .0... college and department . . all-campus, college, and department (No Answer Given) 0 O O O O C O O O O O O Q C O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 this campus? this c us? service performed? 0 O O C O O I O O O C O O O O C O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O C 0 0 O of social contacts H.112: SSwmmomufi Percent 26.89 g 53.78 % 15.13 % 1.. 20 z 17.65 % 59.66 % 2.52 a: 15.13 a: 5.0h % 7ho79 % .81. x 18.10 5 5.88 % ho.33 z :52 S 5:01; a: 6.72 3‘ 5.0h 5‘ til: i 25:21?‘ ”To ‘e—esv o-ran 'vll VA. Q "I“ V. U; \.iv :v DU 5: Q C LU n Daf'au v1... I. ”is n q .fa. . [av cl _ .Tv «He Sm 78 O L. a c . .1 qfiu w. .1. a v 0 .a U q a 154 half of the faculty perceive this function as "Fairly Important" for higher education, with an additional twenty-six percent indicating that it is "Very Impor- tant" for the purposes of higher education. This func- tion is judged to be "Not Significant," by fifteen per- cent of the respondents. Fifty-nine percent of the faculty group perceive the achievement of this function of the student activi- ties program to be "Satisfactory" on this campus. Seventeen percent indicate that it is an "Outstanding" achievement of this campus, while only two percent indi- cate that it is "Not Accomplished." The achievement of student organizations for social purposes is not known by fifteen percent of the faculty who responded "Do Not Know (?)" in answer to the question in section b of the Questionnaire. No answer was given by five percent of the respondents. Almost three-fourths of the sample group indicated that specific provisions exist on this campus for this function, with seventy-four percent indicating the "yes" category of response. Eighteen percent of the faculty "Do Not Know (?)" if there is provision for these groups. No answer was given by five percent of the sample group. An "all—campus agency" is perceived as the office most reSponsible for the performance and provision of 155 this function. "All-campus, college, and department" offices are perceived as the specified campus offices by eight percent of the staff. Six percent of the faculty indicated that this is performed by both "all-campus and college" agencies, while five percent indicated that "all-campus and departmental" agencies perform this function. No answer was given by twenty-five percent of the staff respondents. Student organizations existing for social con- tacts and the develOpment of social competence are perceived as being "Fairly Important" for higher educa- tion, and accomplished in a "Satisfactory" manner on the Michigan State University campus. These groups are specifically provided by all-campus agencies, and by the combined efforts of all-campus, college, and depart- mental agencies. "Student activities are centrally scheduled and limited for balance in the total program." The faculty responses to the questions concern- ing statement number 57 are given on Table 57. The per- ception of this student personnel function is that forty-six percent of the faculty believe it to be "Fairly Important" for higher education, with twenty- three percent perceiving it to be "Very Important" for the purposes of higher education. One-quarter, twenty- five percent, of the faculty sample group indicated that 156 TABLE 57 TOTAL GROUP RESPONSE: STATEMENT NUMBER 37 "'- STUDENT. ACTIVITIES FUNCTIONS I'S‘lmdent activities are centrally scheduled and limited for balance in the total program.“ a. Importance £21: higher education? Very Important 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e o 28 23053 % Fairly Important 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e a 55 146.22 % H013 Significant e e e e e e e e o e e e e e e 30 25021 % (NO ADM 017.11)e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 6 500k 7’ b. 1191 adequate]; achieved 23 is sagas? Outstanding e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 6 500.4 % Satisfactory e o e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Ill 3,40145 % NOT: Accomplished e o e e o e o e e e e e e e e 16 13.16 % be NO“? m (7) e o e e e e e e e e e e e e e 148 10.33 % (“0 W? 61701)) e e e e o e o e e e e e e e 8 6.72 g c. genie provisions _o_n_ this 82231 1.3 eeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeeeeee 53 M.Sh% nooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeoee 8 6.72% DO “0t Kn“ (?) e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e ’48 ‘ h0.33 i (No m Given) 0 e e e e e e e o e e o e e 10 8.1'0 S d. _I_i; 23, where g 233 as ea Berton-ed? all-cup“! agency a e e o e e e e o e e e e e ’42 35.29 % cal-108° o e e e e 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e 2 1068 departlont e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 2 1.68 omaroeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeee 2 068% all-cam” “Id @1193. e e e e e e e e e e e e .- C'" 1 all-campus and depu'hent o o o e e e o e e e I'- “"" 5 0011980 and want a e e e e e e e e o e e 1 a h S fill-Capt“, ”11.8., “d ”amt“: Q o o 0 Q h 3.36 x (lo Amer 01"!) e e o e e e e e e e e e e e 66 55.1.6 1 45119 responses to each question 157 central scheduling, with limitations for total balance of activities are "Not Significant" for higher educa- tion. Five percent of the sample group did not respond to the question. Forty percent of the faculty "Do Not Know (?)" how adequately this function is achieved on this campus. Thirty-four percent of the respondents indicated that the central scheduling is "Satisfactory" in achievement, with five percent indicating that it is "Outstanding." Thirteen percent perceive that this function is "Not Accomplished," and six percent did not answer the ques— tion. Forty—four percent of the faculty indicated that specific provisions exist on the campus for the perform- ance of this function, while six percent perceive that central scheduling is not done for student activities. About two-fifths, or forty percent, of the respondents indicated that they "Do Not Know (?)" if there is spe- cific provision for this function. Eight percent of the faculty did not answer this question. Thirty-five percent of the responses placed the performance of this function with an "all—campus agency," and indicated the other possible categories with much smaller percentages. More than half of the sample group did not respond to the question. 158 Limitation of activities, and central scheduling of student events is perceived to be "Fairly Important" for higher education, with the largest percentage of the faculty not aware of the achievement of this func- tion on the Michigan State University campus. The faculty group was divided in their perceptions of this service being specifically provided on the campus, and in not having this information at their disposal. For the faculty who indicated that there is provision for cen- tral scheduling, the majority of those respondents indi- cated that it is performed by an "all-campus agency." "Institutional policy makes provision for informing instructional faculty members about the student life program and services of the campus." Table 58 indicates the responses and percentages relating to faculty perceptions of statement 41, above. This function is perceived as being "Fairly Im- portant" for higher education, with fifty-three percent of the respondents indicating this category. The re- maining faculty were almost equally divided between perceiving this function as "Very Important" for higher education, twenty-one percent, and "Not Significant" for higher education, twenty-two percent. The largest number of responses to the question "How well achieved on this campus" was accorded to the TABLE 58 TOTAL GROUP MONSE: STATEI‘ENT NUMER 111 - STUDENT ACTIVITIES FUNCTIONS 3159 “Institutional.policy'mskes provision.for interning instructional faculty members about the student life program and services of the campus.“ b. Ce d. Inportanoe {gg'higher education? Very Important . . Fairly Inportant . NOt Significant e (No Answer Given). Eg!_adeguate;z achieved 22_ Outstanding . . . Satisfactory e e e Not Accomplished . D0 Nat xnU' (?) e (No Answer Given) §Bgc1fic provisions 22’ Yes Nb e e e e e e e e Do Not Know (?) . . (No Answer Given) . at. as Lem .12. 21.2 all-campus agency 001198. e e e e e depart-ant e e e e other .. . . . . . allpcalpus and college all-campus and department college and departnsnt . . all-campus, college, and department (as Answer Given) 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O 3 3 s I «119 responses to each question this cggpus? Bgrforned? N'll9* h) \n-¢ uolfifiifisr fi‘ 73 5 Percent h) 2:051 are: bkitbflifibflbflhfltfitfi .333» as 140 "Not Accomplished" response category, thirty—four per- cent. Thirty percent of the faculty sample indicated they "Do Not Know (?)" about the achievement on the campus, which in this case might also be considered "Not Accomplished" since the function pertains to in- formation they should be receiving about the student life program. Twenty-nine percent indicated that the achievement of the function is "Satisfactory," with an _additional three percent perceiving it as an "Outstand- ing" accomplishment on the campus. No answer was given by four percent of the faculty sample group. Sixty-one percent of the respondents indicated they "Do Not Know (?)" whether or not there is specific provision for this function, which closely relates this response with the figures for "Not Accomplished" and "Do Not Know (?)" of the previous question concern- ing this statement. Three percent responded that there was "no" provision for this service on the campus, while thirty-one percent perceive that there is specific provision for informing instructioral faculty members about the student life program and student services. An "all-campus" agency is perceived as perform- ing this service on the campus by twenty-two percent of the faculty respondents. Sixty-eight percent of the sample group did not answer this question. 141 Providing the instructional faculty with informa- tion about student services and activities programs is perceived as "Fairly Important" for higher education, and "Not Accomplished" at Michigan State University. The majority of the faculty respondents "Do Not Know (?)" if there is specific provision for the performance of this function. "Student government shares in the educational program and policy develOpment pertaining to student behavioral standards and methods of dealing with campus violations." Forty-seven percent of the faculty respondents perceive statement number 52, above, as being "Fairly Important" for higher education, with an additional thirty-six percent indicating that it is "Very Impor- tant" for higher education. Twelve percent responded that student participation in the educational program and policy develOpment relating to behavioral standards and campus violations is "Not Significant" for higher education. Four percent did not respond to the ques— tion. Table 59 presents the response data for this statement of function. Approximately half, or fifty-one percent, of the faculty members indicated that the achievement of this function is "Satisfactory" for the Michigan State campus. 3i WBFCSLU perceive it as an "Outstanding" achievement on the campus, while an equivalent number of faculty members responded that it is "Not Accomplished? TOTAL GROUP mouse: sum NUMBER 52 -- 142 TABLE 59 STUDDPI' ACTIVITIES FUNCTIONS 'Student government shares in the educational program and policy development pertaining to student behavioral standards and methods of dealing with campus violations.“ b. cs d. Importance for bigger education? V017 13th e e Fairly Inportant . Not Significant . (no Answer Given). _B_9_w_ adequate}: achieved 22 Outstanding Satisfactory . . Not Accomplished Do Not Know (?) (No Answer Given) %cific provisions 2:; Yes Do Not Know (?) (No Answer Given) .2293: where i321: all-campus agency college deparhent.... other......o Ill-camus and college all-campus and deparnnent college and departznsnt . . all-cmpus, college, and deparnnent (Ito Answer Given) 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 0 service *119 responses to each question cyan? O O C O O O O O O O C O O O O C O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 this egos? pgrfomed? O O I . O O O O O N'll * B! I HMNI—‘Ng 22022 36.13 a: h7.o6 % 12.61 2% 11.20 % 8.ho % 51.26 % 8.ho% 26.89 % 5.01:% 73.95 1 8h a: 19.33 S 5.88 x 67.23 7% 1.68 z .81;% 1.68 % 1.38; z I: 1 26.05 7‘ 145 "Do Not Know (?)" was indicated by twenty-six percent cf the faculty group, and an additional five percent did not answer the question. Seventy-three percent of the respondents perceive that there is specific provision for this function on the campus. Nineteen percent "Do Not Know (?)" whether or not thisis provided in the student activities program. Five percent of the faculty members did not answer the question. Two—thirds, sixty-seven percent, of the faculty sample group indicated that an "all-campus agency” per— forms this function, and an additional twenty-six per- cent of the total group did not answer the question. Student government participation in the educa- tional program and policy develOpment for student behav- ioral standards is considered to be "Fairly Important" for higher education, and is achieved in a "Satisfactory" manner on the Michigan State University campus by means of performance by a specifically designated all-campus office. th Souare Analysis Responses given by faculty members compared on ‘the basis of tenure--determined by academic rank—-and 13y whether or not they work closely with student groups ‘Vvere analyzed for the five statements relating to student 144 activities functions. Twenty Chi Squares were computed to determine differences in the responses of these groups to the first two questions concerning each of the five statements: a. "Importance for higher education?," and b. "How adequately achieved on this campus?P There were no significant differences in the re- sponses to these statements when compared by tenure and non—tenure faculty groups. However, there were four Chi Squares with a sig- nificant P determined by the computations for the faculty members who work closely with student groups when com— pared with faculty members who do not. Table 60,below, presents the data received from b, "How adequately achieved on this campus?," for statement number 4 which concerns the program of religious activity available on the campus. The faculty members working closely with student organizations indicate that the achievement is "Outstanding" and "Satisfactory" in greater prOportions than do the faculty members not working closely with student groups. In addition, the latter faculty cate- gory responded that this function was "Not Accomplished" and that they "Do Not Know (?)" to a greater degree than (iid the staff members having a close working relationship Vvith student organizations. 145 TABLE 60 RESPONSES OF FACULTY WHO WORK CLOSELY WITH STUDEET ORGANIZATIONS COHPARED WITH RmSPOhSJS OF THOSE #30 DO NOT: STATELLIT NUIBER 4--STUDEKT ACTIVITIES FUECTIONS "A program of religious activity is made available through the institution." b. How adequately achieved on this campus? Not Group Outstand. Satis. Accomp. (?) N Yes 5 28 5 9 45 NO 4 28 14 25 71 Chi2 = 9.40 df = 5 P = .05 Statement number 18, "Student organizations exist for the furtherance of social contacts and competence" received significantly different responses for both questions when faculty groups were compared on the basis of working relationships with student organizations. Table 61 presents the data from part a, concerning the importance of this function for higher education. The faculty members who work closely with student groups indicate that this function is "Very Important" for higher education in much greater proportions, and that it is "Not Significant" to a smaller degree than do the :faculty members who are not working closely with a stu- <1ent organization. The responses received from the second question ITegarding statement number 18 are presented on Table 62. 146 TABLE 61 RESPONSES OF FACULTY WHO WORK CLOSELY WITH STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS COMPARED WITH RESPONSES OF THOSE NHO DO NOT: STATEMENT NUMBER l8——STUDENT ACTIVITIES FUNCTIONS "Student organizations exist for the furtherance of so- cial contacts and competence." a. Importance for higher education? L. Very Fairly Not Group Imp. Imp. Signif. N Yes 19 25 2 44 No 15 41 16 7O 2 Chi = 11.76 df = 2 P = .01 The faculty working closely with student groups indicate "Outstanding" and "Satisfactory" achievement of this function in larger prOportions, with fewer responses prOportionately in the "Do Not Know (?)" category than does the faculty group which is not working closely with student organizations. TABLE 62 RESPONSES OF FACULTY WHO WORK CLOSELY NITH STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS COKPAHED WITH RESPONSES OF THOSE WHO DO NOT: STATEMENT NUMBER 18-—STUDENT ACTIVITIES FUNCTIONS "Student organizations exist for the furtherance of so- cial contacts and competence." b. How adequately achieved on this campus? Not C}roup' Outstand. Satis. Accomp. (?) N Utes 15 29 O 2 44 lie 8 42 16 69 5 Chi2 = 12.54 df = 5 P = .01 147 "Importance for higher education" received a significantly different response from the two faculty groups concerning statement number 41, provision for informing instructional faculty members about the stu- dent life program and services of the campus. The face ulty members working closely with student organizations gave more importance to this function, and a signifi- cantly lower response in the "Not Significant" category when compared with the faculty members who do not work closely with student groups. Table 65 indicates the figures involved in the Chi Square computation. TABLE 65 RESPONSES OF FACULTY WHO WORK CLOSELY WITH STUDEN ORGANIZATIONS COHPARED WITH RESPONSES OF THOSE WHO DO NOT: STATEMENT NUMBER 41--STUDENT ACTIVITIES F’NCTIONS "Institutional policy makes provision for informing in- structional faculty members about the student life pro- gram and services of the campus." a. Importance for higher education? Very Fairly Not Group Imp. Imp. Signif. N Yes 14 27 4 45 No 11 57 25 71 Chi = 9.97 df = 2 P = .01 Student activities functions are viewed somewhat (differently by faculty members who work closely with :student organizations than they are by faculty members 148 who do not. In those cases of significant difference, the faculty having a close working relationship with student organizations tend to place more importance on the existence of these functions for higher education, and perceive that they are better accomplished on the Michigan State University campus than did the faculty group which does not work with student groups. Summary of Salient Data On the basis of the data received from the re- sponses to statements of student personnel function included for this chapter concerning the student activi- ties functions, the following information seems per- tinent for student personnel services at Michigan State University. All of these student activities functions are perceived as having some importance for higher educa- tional institutions. However, the functions can be ranked in terms of the percentage of responses given to the combined categories concerned with importance .for higher education. The range of responses indicat— iing importance for higher education for these functions igncludes from 69 percent to 85 percent of the faculty E§Iwnqu The ranking is as follows: (1) student govern- infléint participation in the educational program and Policy develOpment relating to’student behavioral 149 standards; (2) student organizations for the further- ance of social contacts and competence; (5) providing faculty members with information about the student activities program; (4) a religious activity program made available through the institution; and, (5) cen- tralized scheduling for educational balance in the student activities program. Approximately one-quarter of the faculty respondents indicated that each of the last three functions included in the ranking is not significant for the purposes of higher education. A similar ranking of the adequacy with which these functions are performed on the Michigan State University campus includes a percentage range of from 32 percent to 76 percent of the faculty indicating a satisfactory, or better, performance. A descending order ranking indicates: (1) student organizations for the furtherance of social contacts and competence; (2) student government participation in the educational program and policy develOpment relating to student behavioral standards; (5) a religious activity program made available through the institution; (4) centralized scheduling for educational balance in the student activi- ties program; and, (5) providing faculty members with information about the student activities program. 150 With reference to the last function indicated by the ranking, almost two-thirds of the faculty sample in- dicated that this function is not achieved, in contrast to about the same number indicating that it is important for higher education. More than half of the faculty group indicated that they do not know if provision is made for informing faculty about student activities on the Michigan State campus. In response to each of the five functions concerned with student activities, about one—quarter, or more, of the faculty indicated that they did not know about the performance of the function on the campus. It would seem, therefore, that although these functions are perceived as important for higher educa- tion, a large prOportion of the faculty members at Michigan State University are not well enough informed about these activities. The faculty are unable to ex- press an Opinion about the level of performance of these functions, and are uncertain about the provision of these services for students. Examination of response data by faculty sub- groups indicates that faculty members who work closely ‘With student organizations View student activities as having more importance for higher education, better ac— complished on this campus, and this faculty group gives 151 fewer indications of lack of information concerning these functions. The contact with these student organi- zations seems to provide faculty members with informa— tion about the total student activities program which is not available for the'faculty not working with stu- dent organizations. CHAPTER VIII FINANCIAL AID, AND PLACEHENT FUNCTIONS "28. "55. "45. All types of financial aid are coordi- nated, including scholarships, loans, and placement assistance." Alumni are assisted in further profes- sional programs by acquainting them with Opportunities for advancement in their fields." Data are available to potential employ— ers regarding the student's educational preparation, job and extra-curricular experience, and letters of recommenda- tion." All student vocational placement func— tions are coordinated." Information is communicated to staff and students about the job market, salaries, and placement trends in a wide variety of fields." The statements of function indicated above are included in the "Student Personnel Services Question- naire" for the student personnel functions of financial aid, and placement services. Financial aid programs have become more important for higher education with the recognition that able students should have the opportunity for higher education regardless of their economic position. Scholarships are granted primarily - 152 _ 153 for high scholastic ability, with financial need a secondary factor; loans or grants—in-aid are given pri- marily for economic need with adequate scholastic achievement as a secondary factor. Employment assist— ance during the college years may emphasize the econ- omic needs of the student, or be an attempt to relate with his academic prOgram and ultimate vocational goal, or both. The placement staff, regardless of size or administrative structure, serves to coordinate data for potential employers which will be helpful to the job applicant whether he is currently enrolled or an alumnus of the institution. The dissemination of information to students, and staff personnel concerning trends in employment and placement can be a useful contribution to the educational climate of the institution. Examination of Cumulative Responses Examination of the faculty responses given for question a, "Importance for higher education?," for the five statements relating to this Chapter indicate that forty—four percent of the totaled responses fell in the "Very Important" category. An additional thirty—six percent of the responses were given to "Fairly ImportantJ' Thirteen percent of the faculty responses indicate these- functions are "Not Significant." A total of five per- cent of the possible responses were not utilized for 154 this question. Response data for the four questions relating to this section are given on Table 64. The summarized faculty responses for part b, "How adequately achieved on this campus?" indicate that "Satisfactory" received forty-four percent of the responses, with an additional fourteen percent of the responses given to "Outstanding." These functions are "Not Accomplished" as indicated by eight percent of the totaled responses, and twenty-six percent of the total fell to the "Do Not Know (?)" category. Sixty-four percent of the cumulative responses indicate that there is Specific provision for these services to students on the Michigan State University campus. Twenty—five percent of thetntal was given to "Do Not Know (?)" for this question. Less than one—half, forty-four percent, of the faculty responses indicate that these functions are performed by an "all-campus agency." Six percent of the responses fell to the "all-campus, college, and departmental" agencies category. Thirty-five percent of the totaled possible responses were not given to this question for the five statements of function. Discussion of Responses to Individual Functional State- ments "All types of financial aid are coordinated, including scholarships, loans, and place— ment aSSistance.” . b. Ce d. TABLE 64 155 sunmu or warm: swam. m, mm mm FUNCTIOIB Questionnaire statements numbered 3 ,1? ,28,35 ,hS Ingortsngg for bigger education? Very Important . . Fairly Important . Not. Significant . (No Answer Given). 0 C O O C O O O O O O C C O O O 991 sdeguategz achieved 25 Outstanding e e SfitiSfaCtory e 0 Not Accomplished Do Not Know (?) (No Answer Given) ycific provisions 93 Yes 0 e e e e 0 NO . C O C O O 0 Do Not. Know (7) (No Answer Given) 8 a a _I_i‘_ zes, where 1.3 932 all-campus agency college . . . . . ”fluent e e e e Other a. e e e e e all-can and college. all-campus and department college and department . . all-cmpus, college, and department (No Answer Given) thisc i ‘1' this campus? F300... it us? Total perfumed? Hose-sees. it use... xvi-112* 262 218 *119 responses to each question, 5 questions included Percent 1:14.03 3: 36.61; x 13.61 a! 5.71 % 1mm “4.87% 8.7% 26.55% 5.71% 614.37% 3.02% 25.71% 6.89% hh.03% 2.33; 3. -5 2.86% 3.87% 6.725‘ 35.80% (”I 156 Numbers of responses and percentages in each category are given for statement number 5, page 154, on Table 65. More than fifty percent of the faculty respondents perceive this function as "Very Important" for higher education, and an additional thirty-six per- cent perceive it to be "Fairly Important." Nine per— cent of the respondents believe it "Not Significant" to the achievement of the purposes of higher education. Fifty—two percent responded that it is achieved in a "Satisfactory" manner on the Michigan State campus, and eight percent perceive it as an "Outstanding" ac- complishment of the student personnel services. Nine percent believe that it is "Not Accomplished," with an additional twenty-seven percent indicating that they "Do Not Know (?)" about the achievement of coordination of financial and placement aid functions. About two-thirds of the faculty perceive that there is specific provision for coordination of finan— cial aid on the campus, while five percent indicate that it is not coordinated. Twenty—two percent "”0 Not Know (?)" if coordination of these services is specifically provided on the campus. Forty—six percent view an "all-campus agency" as performing this function; seven percent indicate that "all-campus and college" agencies coordinate these TOTAL GROUP RESPONSE: STATEMENT NUMBER 3 .— FINANCIAL AID, 1ND PIACFMENT FUNCTIONS I157 TABLE 65 "All types or financial aid are coordinated, including scholarships, loans, and placanent assistance." b. Ce (1. flortance £21: nigger education? Very Important . . Fairly Important . Not Signifith (No Answer Given). Bow edequajgll achieved 93 is campus? Outstanding $83518!wa e 0 Not Accomplished Do Not Know (?) O O O O (No Answer Given) Specific provisions 93 this cgpus? Yes 0 O O C . NO . O O C O 0 Do Not Know (?) (No Answer Given) 2:; zes, where is _t_h_e_ ell-calipus agency college deparment.... oflzer....... all-campus and college all-campus and department college and department . . all-canpus, college, and department (No Answer Given) service performed? *119 responses to each question iJ-ll9i Percent 62 52.10 s: hh 36.97 i 11 9.21: 7% 2 1.68 z 10 8.ho % 63 52.9h % 11 9.21: z 33 27.73 5 2 1.68 z 80 67.23 1 6 5.01; % 27 22.69 5 6 5.01; 3‘ 55 1.6.22 z 2 - 1.68 :6 3 2.52 z .. .. :6 9 7.56 5‘ 3 2.52 g .6 3:01: 5‘ 1.1 3h.h5 7‘ 158 activities; and, five percent of the respondents per- ceive this as the responsibility of "all-campus, college, and departmental" agencies. Thirty-four percent of the faculty members did not respond to this question. The faculty group perceives this function as being "Very Important" for higher education, and accom-5 plished in a "Satisfactory" manner on the Michigan State campus by a specifically provided "all-campus agency." "Alumni are assisted in further professional programs by acquainting them with Opportuni— ties for advancement in their fields." The faculty respondents were divided in their perception of the importance of this function for higher education. Thirty—six percent indicated that it is "Very Important;" thirty-six percent responded that it is "Fairly Important;" and, twenty-two percent indi- cated that it is "Not Significant" for higher education. Four percent of the sample group did not respond to the question concerning importance for higher education. Table 66 includes all responses and percentage figures for statement number 17. Thirty-eight percent of the respondents indi- cated that they believe the achievement of this func- tion on the campus to be "Satisfactory," and an addi- tional thirty-eight percent of the faculty group "Do Not Know (?)" about the assistance available to alumni for professional advancement. Six percent of the 159 TABLE 66 TOTAL (moo? BESPODSE: STATEW NUMBER 17.. FINANCIAL AID, AND PMCFMENT FUNCTIONS 'Almnni are assisted in further professional programs by acquainting them with opportunities for advancement in their fields." a. 220m“ :25 higher education? Very Ilporttnt o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ’41; 360 97 5 Fairly Ilportant o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ’43 36013 % NOt Significant o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 27 22069 % (Ho ADM 01M) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ,4. 20 5 b. 112 sdegnetelz achieved 22 this campus? Outstanding o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 8 6.72 % satiafutory o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ’46 38.65 5 “Gt Accomplished o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 13 10092 5 m "at m (?) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 116 38.65 % (No MDT Given) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 6 500,4 % c. gcific provisions 9}; this segue? Yes o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 57 h7o9o 5 no 0 e o o o o o o o o o o e o o o o o o o o o 6 500’... x no "at K110" (?) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ’49 131017 S ("0 m Given) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 7 5.88 g d. Elli-i; 235., where 1.3 2‘2. service perfonued? all-cupus agency o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 28 23.53 % 0011980 0 o o o o O o o o o o o o o o o o o e 5 14.20 i “Ferment o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 6 5.011 1 cm” o. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o "'- '- % Ill-camussndcollege.'........... 3 252$ m-CQIPIIB and department o o o o o o o o o o 2 1.68 5 3011980 and mmnt o o o o o o o o o h 3.36 % ill-cup I18 , 0011380 , and' ma;mnt o o o o o 10 8. ’40 1 (lo M” Given) 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 61 51.26 i ”119 responses to each question 160 respondents perceive the achievement of this service as "Outstanding," while ten percent perceive that it is "Not Accomplished." Approximately one-half of the responding group, forty-seven percent, indicated that there is specific provision for this service on the campus, while five percent judged that there is "no" specific provision for this function. Forty—one percent of the faculty responded that they "Do Not Know (?)" if this assist- ance is Specifically provided for alumni of this institution. Five percent of the sample group did not respond to this question. Less than one-quarter of the faculty sample group, twenty-three percent, perceive this service as performed by an "all-campus agency." Eight percent indicated that it is performed by "all-campus, college, and departmental" agencies, and five percent of the group responded that the "department" performed this service. No answer was given by fifty-one percent of the total sample group. Assisting alumni by acquainting them with op- portunities for professional advancement in their fields is perceived as having some importance for higher education, but there was no definite agreement concerning the degree of importance. The accomplishment 161 on the campus is generally considered "Satisfactory" although an equally large percentage of the faculty "Do Not Know (?)" about the achievement of the service. The faculty perceives this function as being performed by a specifically designated office of the institution, and probably by an "all-campus agency." "Data are available to potential employers regarding the students' educational prepa- ration, job and extracurricular experience, and letters of recommendation." Table 67 presents the data for the numbers of responses and percentages for the questions relating to statement number 28, above. This placement function is considered to be "Very Important" for higher educa- tion by sixty-three percent of the faculty respondents. And, an additional twenty-two percent perceive it as "Fairly Important" for higher education. Seven percent of the reSpondents have indicated that it is "Not Significant" for higher education, with five percent of the sample group not responding to the question of importance of placement credentials to the purposes of higher educational institutions. Approximately one-half, or forty-eight percent, of the faculty sample group indicated that this service to students is achieved in a "Satisfactory" manner. Thirty-one percent perceive that it is an "Outstanding" accomplishment. Only one person indicated that it is "Not Accomplished," but twelve percent of the faculty 162 TABLE 67 TOTALCEOUPRESPONSE: STATDIENTNUMBERZB-v- FINANCIAL AID, AND PIACEI‘ENT FUNCTIONS ”Data are available to potential employers regarding the students' educationd preparation, job and extracurricular experience, and letters of recommendation." MW :1. Importance for bigger education? Very I-Portant o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O 76 63.87 % Fairly Important 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 27 22.69 % NOt Significant o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 9 7o56 :6 (NO ADM Given). o o o o o o o o o o o o o 7 5.88 73 b. {13: adequatelz achieved 23 this campus? Outstanding o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 38 31.93 % SQtiSfaCtOry o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 58 h8.7lt% NOt Accomplished o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 1 .8); % Do Not Know (?) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 15 12.61 % (NO Answer Given) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 7 5.88 23 c. gecific provisions 93 this c us? Yes o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 102 85cm 5 NO 0 o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o -- Il- DO ”at Know (?) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 10 8.h0 5 (NoAnswerGiven) .............. 7 5,88% d. If L5!) where is 213 service perfomed? 311-calpus agency o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 78 65055 5 001.1339 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 3 2.52 % ”pertinent o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o h 3.36 % other -o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 1 .8h% all-camusandoollege............ 1 .8h% m-Cmpus and departnont o o o o o o o o o o 7 5.88 g 6011980 and (bpartlmnt o o o o o o o o o o o o .- - all-campus, 601.1889, md department o o o o o 8 6.72 z ("0 Answer 017011) e o o o o o o o o o o o o o 17 1,4,29 % «119 responses to each question 163 group responded that they "Do Not Know (?)" about the achievement on the Michigan State University campus. More than eighty-five percent perceive that specific provision is made for the performance of this student personnel function, while eight percent of the faculty indicated that they "Do Not Know (?)" whether or not placement credentials are specifically provided to potential employers by placement services on the campus. An "all-campus agency" is perceived as perform- ing this service for students as is indicated by the response given by sixty-five percent of the faculty sample. Six percent perceive it as being performed by "all-campus, college, and departmental" agencies, with an additional five percent responding to the "all- campus and departmental" category. Fourteen percent of the faculty did not indicate any response to this question. The provision of placement credentials materials regarding students' educational, vocational and personal background is perceived as "Very Important" for higher education, and achieved in a "Satisfactory" manner on this campus. It is also recognized that this service is performed by an "all-campus agency" specifically provided for this purpose. 164 "A11 student vocational placement functions are coordinated." Faculty responses-to the four questions concern- ing statement number 55 are given on Table 68. The responses indicate that the faculty perceives this function to be "Fairly Important" for higher education with forty-seven percent of the sample group giving this response. In addition, twenty-eight percent of the sample group perceive this function as "Very Important"r for higher education. In contrast, fifteen percent of the faculty believe this service is "Not Significant," and eight percent did not answer the question. Forty percent of the respondents perceive achievement of placement coordination on the Michigan State campus as "Satisfactory," with eleven percent indicating that it is "Outstanding." The coordination of vocational placement functions is perceived as "Not Accomplished" by four percent of the faculty respondents, and thirty-six percent of this group indicate that they "Do Not Know (?)" about the achievement of this service. There are specificprovisions for coordinated placement services according to the responses of sixty— two percent of the faculty members. Twenty—eight per- cent of the sample group "Do Not Know (?)" if this is provided on the campus, and eight percent did not answer the question. 165 TABLE 68 Tom GROUP mouse: sum mm 35 -- mmcm All), AND mcmam‘ FUNCTIONS "All student vocational placement functions are coordinated. " a. Importance £03: nigger education? Very Important o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 318 28057 % Fairly hportant o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 56 1170“ % NOt Significant o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 19 15.97 3 (NO mm Given). o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 10 8.13.07" b. {191 adequatelz achieved 23 this campus? Outstanding o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 1h 11.76 % sat18facwry o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o h8 110.33 % NOL ACCOMPuShed o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 5 14.20 m "at W (?) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ’43 36.13 % (No Answer Given) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 9 7.56d ,0 c. {Specific provisions 92 this cmus? Yes 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 7h 62o18 % NO 0 o o e e o o o o o o o o o e o o o o o o e 1 .8h% DO Nat Know (?) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 31‘ 28. 57 g (No W Given) 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 10 8.140% d. _I_i‘_ 233', where is 232 service perfonned? all-Owns agency o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 55 h6022 % college 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 3 2.52 % “Ferment o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o - - 1 omer no o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o .- .- % ill-03mm and COllggeo o o o o o o o o o o o 1 .814 % all-campus and department . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.01, a: college and mutant 0 o o o o o o o o .- u. % all-campus, college, and department . . . . . 8 5.72 % (NO Answer Given) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 1,6 38.65 x *119 responses to each question 166 Nearly half of the respondents, forty-six per- cent, perceive this vocational placement coordination is performed by an "all—campus agency." Six percent indicate that it is performed by "all-campus, college, and departmental" agencies, and five percent indicate that "all-campus and departmental" agencies perform this service. Thirty-eight percent of the faculty sample did not give an answer to this question. Coordination of all student vocational place- ment functions is perceived by most of the faculty to be "Fairly Important" for higher education, and achieved in a "Satisfactory" manner on the Michigan State campus. However, a large percentage of the faculty "Do Not Know (?)" about the achievement of this service. The fac- ulty perceives that the service is performed by an "all-campus agency" specifically provided for this purpose. "Information is communicated to staff and students about the job market, salaries, and placement trends in a wide variety of fields." This function is perceived as "Very Important" and "Fairly Important" for higher education in about equal numbers by the faculty respondents. Data are given on Table 69 for this statement, number 45. In addition to about forty percent indicating each of the first two categories, twelve percent perceive this 167 TABLE 69 Tom GROUP moms: sums NUMBER us .. FINANCIAL AID , 1ND PncmmNT FUNCTIONS 'Infomstion is oomunicatod to staff and students about the job market, salaries, and placenent trends in a wide variety of :t’ioILds.‘I :3. Importance for higher education? Very Ilporunt o o o o o o o e o o o o o o o O ’46 38065 % Fauly hpormt . o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ’48 MOBB % N01} Significant o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 15 12.61 % (NO mm Given). 0 o o e o o o o o o o o o o 10 8.110 g b. Egg sdecnzajglz achieved on this campus? Guam 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 11‘ 11.76 % Satisfactory o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 52 ”.70 NOt ACCONPEShed o o o e o o o o o o o e o o o 22 18.139 % Do “0"; m (?) o o s o o o o o o o o o o o s 21 17.65 % (“0 m1. Given) 0 o o o o e o o o o o o o o 10 8.1.0 % c. g‘ggcific provisions on. this owns? 183 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 70 58.82 % NO . . . . . . . C O O C . C C C . . C C . . . 5 hm. % DO N01,; mm (?) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 33 27.73 % (NoAnswerGiven)..............11 9,21,?! d. _I_i‘_ L92! where is _t_t_1_e_ service performed: All-campus agency 0 o o o o o o o e o o o o o 1.5 38.65 % cal-lege o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o e o o 3 2.52 % manent o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 5 hm % other a. e o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o _ .- _. % “I‘M” Md 001108; c o e o o o o o o o o o 3: 2552 % m—cmpus and department 0 o o o o o o o o o S h.m % 0011386 and mmnt o o o o o o e o o I .811 % all-campus, college, and department . . . . . 8 6.72 i (No Anfler Given) 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 ha [$0.33 % *119 responses to each question 168 function as "Not Significant" for higher education, and eight percent of the sample group did not give any answer to this question. Forty—three percent of the faculty indicated that the achievement of this service is "Satisfactory," While eleven percent responded that it is "Outstanding" on the Michigan State University campus. It is "Not Accomplished" according to eighteen percent, and seven- teen percent "Do Not Know (?)" about the achievement of the service, which, to some extent, indicates that it is "Not Accomplished" since the function includes com- municating information to staff members about the cur- rent job market, salaries, and placement trends. There is specific provision for this service on the campus according to fifty-eight percent of the fac- ulty respondents. Four percent indicated that there is "no" provision for this function, and twenty-three per— cent responded that they "Do Not Know (?)" if there is specific provision. No answer was given by nine percent of the faculty sample. There was no clear-cut indication from the fac- ulty designating where the service was performed. Thirty-eight percent indicated that it is performed by Ein "all-campus agency," and six percent indicated that "all-campus, college and departmental" agencies perform 169 this service. Smaller percentages of responses were accorded several of the other response categories. Communication of placement information is seen as having importance for higher education, and is per- formed in a "Satisfactory" manner on this campus. The majority of the faculty perceive that specific provision has been made for this function, and that it is probably performed by an "all-campus agency." Chi Square Analysis Responses to these statements were examined by the Chi Square statistical technique to determine dif- ferences in the perceptions of these functions in re- lation to the purposes of higher education, and achieve- ment on this campus. The faculty groups used for re- ' sponse comparison were those having tenure compared with faculty members who do not have tenure, deter- mined by academic rank of the respondents. In addi- tion, twenty Chi Squares were computed on the compara— tive basis of faculty who say they work closely with student organizations, and those who do not. V Of the twenty Chi Squares computed for the .Iesponses of tenure and non-tenure groups, only one ssignificant difference was determined. The responses 'to statement 28, concerning placement credentials, is IDerceived differently by the faculty, dependent upon TIenure status. The faculty members without tenure 170 perceive the functior in about equal proportions in the "Very Important" response category with tenure faculty, but perceive this service "Fairly Important" for higher education to a much greater extent, and have signifi— cantly fewer responses in the "Not Significant" cate- gory than does the tenure group. Data for this compu— tation are presented on Table 70. TABLE 70 COMPARISON OF FACULTY RESPONSES BASED UPON TEEURE: STATEMEKT NUMBER 28—-FINANCIAL AID, AND PLACEREET FUNCTIONS. "Data are available to potential employ- ers regarding the students' educational preparation, job and extracurricular experience, and letters of recommend- ation." a. Importance for higher education? Very Fairly Not Group Imp. Imp. Signif. N Tenure 56 7 8 51 Non Tenure 4O 2O 1 61 Chi2 = 11.11 df = 2 P = .01 Significant differences were found in the re- ‘Sxponse comparisons for the faculty who work closely VVisth students and those who do not, in their perception c>ff the "Importance for higher education?" and "How ade- <11161tely achieved on this campus?" questions for state- Ineellt number 17, concerning alumni professional advance— rueIit. Table 71 indicates the reSponses from part a of 171 this statement. The faculty working closely with stu- dents has a proportionately higher response in the "Very Important" for higher education response cate- gory, and a lower response in the "Not Significant" category than does the comparison group. TABLE 71 RESPONSES OF FACULTY JHO WORK CLOSELY WITH STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS COLPARED WITH RmSPONSmS OF THOSE "HO DO NOT: STATEMENT NUMBER l7--FINANCIAL AID, AND PLACE— MENT FUNCTIONS. "Alumni are assisted in further profes- sional programs by vauainting them with opportunities for advancement in their fields." a. Importance for higher education? Very Fairly Not Group Imp. Imp. Signif. N Yes 24 15 5 44 No 20 28 22 70 Chi2 = 9.57 or = 2 P = .01 Table 72 presents the Chi Square data for part 'b of the statement regarding alumni contacts with the campus placement service for professional advancement. Ifaculty members working closely with student groups ‘tend to perceive this function as performed in an "Out- Ertanding" and "Satisfactory" manner in greater propor— tiOns than do the faculty members not working closely ‘Wfiuth student organizations. In addition, this latter 172 faculty group has a higher percentage of response in the "Not Accomplished"and "Do Not Know (?)" reSponse categories. TABLE 72 RESPONSES OF FACULTY WHO WORK CLOSELY NITH STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS COKPARRD 41TH RESPONSES OF THOSE NRO DO NOT: STATELENT NUNBER l7--FINANCIAL AID, AND PLACEHENT FUNCTIONS. "Alumni are assisted in further professional programs by acquainting them with opportunities for ad- vancement in their fields." b. How adequately achieved on this campus? Not Group Outstand. Satis. -Accomp. (?) N Yes 6 24 2 12 44 NO 2 22 ll 54 69 Chi2 = 13.99 df = 3 P = .01 Significant differences were determined by means of the Chi Square computation for statement 28, parts a and b, concerning placement credentials. The data :regarding the importance of this function for higher education are presented on Table 75. Faculty members inorkingcflosely with student organizations indicated 'that this service is "Very Important" for higher educa- ‘tion_in much greater prOportion than do the faculty HNmeers who are not working closely with student groups. Iii addition, this latter group perceives this function 3&3 "Fairly Important" and "Not Significant" in greater 175 numbers than the faculty members working closely with student organizations. TABLE 75 RESPONSES OF FACULTY JHO HORK CLOSELY WITH STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS CCNPARED JITH RBSPON‘ES OF THOSE AND DO NOT: STATELENT NULBER 28--FINANCIAL AID, AND PLACEXENT FUNCTIOLS. "Data are available to potential employers regarding the students' educational preparation, job and extracurricular experience, and letters of recommenda- tion." a. Importance for higher education? Very Fairly Not Group Imp. Imp. Signif. N Yes 57 5 2 44 No 39 22 7 68 Chi2 = 8.80 df = 2 P = .02 The achievement of this function at Michigan State is also perceived differently by these two faculty groups. The faculty respondents workingcflosely with student groups indicated that this function is achieved :in an "Outstanding" manner to a much greater extent 'than do the faculty who do not have this close working JTelationship. The latter group responded to the "Satis- ikactory" and "Do Not Know (?)" categories concerning 'th3 achievement of this service, to a greater extent 'tllan.the faculty working closely with student organiza— tit fl:ll2:; 2222222 32.77 i 341.1? % 15.97 % 10.08 % h.20 1 33.61 x 12.61 % 10.33 a: 9.21; % 59.98 1 h.20 a: 26.05 X 11.76 i , it 14958S .8” 2.2% .5 z z 2.52 7‘ 1.2.02 7‘ .,.“..1V. O... ' rum“ ._. ‘4 :7. 4.5g.- .6. . .nf 189 and re—educative disciplinary actions. Thirty-three percent perceive this function as "Satisfactoryfl and four percent indicate that it is "Outstanding." Twelve percent of the faculty indicated that this is "Hot Accomplished" on this campus, and nine percent of the sample group did not respond to the question. However, the faculty members perceive that there is specific provision for this type of disciplinary functioning, with a response to this category by fifty- nine percent of the faculty group. Twenty-six percent indicated that they "Do Not Know (?)" if there is pro— vision for this function on the campus, While four per- cent perceive that there is ”no” specific provision for this action. No answer was given to this question by eleven percent of the total sample group. Approximately half of the responding group, forty-nine percent, indicated that rehabilitative dis- ciplinary action is performed by an "all-campus agency," with smaller percentages allocated to other of the response categories. Forty-two percent failed to answer the question. Regulating student conduct by means of positive rehabilitative and educative experiences is perceived as "Fairly Important" for higher education, but most of the faculty respondents indicated that they "Do Not 190 Know (?)" if this is achieved on the Michigan State University campus. The faculty perceives that there is specific provision for educative disciplinary func- tions, and that these actions are performed by an "all- campus agency." "Specific information and instructions on standards, regulations, and traditions of the institution are provided to incoming students.” Table 81 presents the faculty responses received from questions regarding statement number 55. Forty- eight percent of the reapondents indicated that this function is "Fairly Important” for higher education, with an additional thirty-seven percent indicating that it is "Very Important" for higher education. Ten per-e cent perceive that this service to students is "Not Significant" for the purpose of higher education. More than fifty percent of the responding fac- ulty perceive the achievement of this function as "Satisfactory" on the Kichiga State campus. It is con- sidered to be an "Outstanding" accomplishment by twelve percent of the faculty members, while four percent indicated that it is "Not Accomplished." Twenty—six percent of the group "Do Not Know (?)" about the achieve- ment of this service. TABLE 81 TOTkL,GRDUP RESPONSE: DISCIPLINARIIFUNCTIDNS 191 STATEEENT NUMBER.33 - “Specific intonation and instructions on standards, regulations, and traditions of the institution are provided to incaning students." b. Ce d. Importance for higgr education? Very Important . . Fairly'lhportant e e e e e e e e e e e 0 ”Ct Significant e e e e e e e e e e e e (No Answer Given). 0 e e e e e e e e e e 39!. adeguatelz achieved an this amp s Outstanding e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Satisfactory’. e e e e e e e e e e e e e NOt ACCOMplished o o o e o e e e e e e e no ”Gt KnOI (7) e e e e e e e e e e e e (NoAnswerGiven)........... ycific provisions an this cans? Yes e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e N0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0 D0 ”0t Know (7) e e e e e e e e e e e e (No Answer Given) e e e e e e e e e e e E z_e_s., where _i_._s_ _t_t_1_e_ service perfumed? all-calpufl ‘genc’ e e e e e e e e e e 0 college 0 e e e e o e e e e e e e e e e d‘plrtlint e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Other a. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e CllncaIPUB ‘nd 0011.8’ 0 e e e e e e e e Illpcanpus and dflpartlflnt e e e e e e e 001198. and department 0 e e e e e e ell-cmpus, college, and departsent . . (Ho ADBUUT 611.3) 0 e e e e e e e e e e «119 responses to each question H.119! hS 15 63 31 U1 mkflg 'uc-HHu-te} to CDC» 2222.2 37081 % ham; % 10.08 % 3.36 % 12.61 % 52.9h% n.20 % 26.05 § h.20 A' 68.91 23:89 h.20 hflifibfihfi h) a bfliflbfli‘ifiifiiQEQbQ 31.23 192 The majority of the faculty members, sixty—eight percent, indicated that this information is specifically provided to students. Twenty—six percent indicated that they "Do Not Know (?)" if this function is specifically provided by Michigan State University. Fifty—two percent of the respondents perceive this function as being performed by an "all-campus agency," while an additional six percent indicated that it is performed by ”all-campus, college, and departmental" offices on the campus. No answer was given to this question by thirty-one percent of the faculty respond- ents. The provision of information on standards, regulations, and traditions of the institution for incoming students is perceived to be important for higher education, and accomplished in a "Satisfactory" manner on the Michigan State University campus. The faculty considers that this function is performed by an "all-campus agency” provided for this specific pur— pose. "Campus disciplinary policy covers students involved in violations of public laws." Statement number 50, above, is perceived as having different importance values by about equal num- bers of the faculty respondents. Thirty percent of the faculty group indicated that it is "Very Important" 195 for higher education, thirty-three percent indicated that this function is "Fairly Important," and twenty- nine percent perceive this disciplinary function as "Not Significant" for the purposes of higher education. Six percent of the faculty respondents did not answer this question. The numbers of responses and percentage values for each category are presented on Table 82. The achievement is perceived as "Satisfactory" by forty percent of the faculty members, while an addi- tional nine percent indicated that it is an "Outstanding" accomplishment at Michigan State University. Thirty- nine percent of the respondents "Do Not Know (?)" if campus disciplinary policy includes violations of pub- lic laws, and whether or not it is enforced on this campus. Three percent believe that it is "Not Accom- plished." No answer was given to this question by seven percent of the faculty sample group. Fifty-six percent of the faculty believe that specific campus disciplinary policy includes student violations of public laws, while one percent of the respondents do not believe that this is included. Thirty-one percent "Do Not Know (?)" whether or not this is a part of the disciplinary program at Michigan State University. No answer was given by ten percent of the faculty. 194 TABLE 82 MAI. GROUP MPONSE: STAMIENT means 50 -- DISCIPIJNAH FUNCTIONS “Campus disciplinary policy covers students involved in violations of public lasts.“ a. Importance for bigger education? Very Important e e e e e e. e e e e e e e e e e 36 30.25 % Fairly hportmt- e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0 ho 33.61 % 8013 Significant e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 35 29.1‘l% (Ho ADM Oinn)e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 8 6.72 7: b. g2! adequately achieved 93 this capes? Guam 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 11 9.2.4 % Satisfactory e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0 he 1.0.33 % NOt Accomplished e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e h 3.36 % Do Not Know (7) e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e [,7 39.119 % ("0 mr Given) e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 9 7.56 g c. genie provisions 92 this segue? I33 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 67 56.30 % nooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 2 1.68% no ”at m (?) e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 38 31.93 5 (lo. M Given) 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e 12 10.08 i d. _I_f_ 293', where 1.3 313 so ce pgrfomed? mOCmua agency 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e 63 52.914 % 3011089 | e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 1 .81‘ % “Patent 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e .... ... % am” a. e e e e e o e e e e e e e e e e e e e “1.63”“ ”Id 0011089 e e e e e e e e e e e e i :3]? % all-cap 03 and (189th e e e e e o e e e e -_ __ S collegeanddepartnent.... ...... _ __ % all-campus, college, and department . . . . . 1 ' 8h 1 (80 Abner 01703) e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 52 ”:70 1 all? responses to each question 195 This disciplinary function is performed by an "all-campus agency" according to fifty-two percent of the respondents, while forty—three percent of the sample did not reply to the question. This function of disciplinary policy is perceived as having importance for higher education, although approximately one-third of the faculty indicated that it is "Not Significant" for the purposes of higher education. The accomplishment of this function is con- sidered to be "Satisfactory," and is not known by about equal numbers of faculty respondents. However, the faculty perceives that this disciplinary action is performed by an "all—campus agency" which is specifically delegated with this responsibility. "The institution encourages acceptance by the individual of societal standards of morality." The responses to statement number 58 are pre- sented on Table 85. This function is considered to be "Very Important" by forty-four percent of the faculty group, while an additional twenty-seven percent indi- cated that it is "Fairly Important" for the purposes. of higher education. Seventeen percent indicated that it is "Not Significant," and no answer was given by ten percent of the faculty sample. Slightly more than one—third of the respondents perceive the achievement of this function as "Satisfac- tory" on the Michigan State University campus, while 196 TABLE 85 TOTAL GRIUP RESPONSE: STAWT NLMBER 58 - DISCIPIJNIARY FUNCTIONS 'The institution encourages acceptance by the individual of societal standards of morality. " IP119§ Percent a. Importance for bigger education? Very Important . . Fairlyhportant.::::::::::III: 33 27.73% NOto Significant e e e e e e e e a e e e e e a 21 17.65 % (30 mm Given). a e a a e a e e e e e e a e 12 10008 d b. Lo! adequately achieved 93 this egos? Outltanding e e e e e e a a e e e a e e e e e 9 7.56 % Satisfactory a e e e e e e e e e e e e e e a a ’43 36.13 % NOt Accomplished e e e a a e e e e e e a e e e 8 6.72 5% Do NOt m (?) e e a e a e a e a e e e e a e ’46 38.65 % (loAnswerGiven).............. 13 10.92% c. figcific provisions 9}; this c us? Yes eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eoee m; 36.97% No...........oo......... S h.20% DO N013 K110" (?) e a e a e e e e e e e a a e e 57 ’47.?0 (NO ADM Given) e e e e e e a a e o e e e a 13 10.92 5 d. _I_i'_ :93, where i_s_ _t_t_1_e_ service perfomed? all-emu’ agency a a e e e e e e e e e e e e % 0011389 0 e e e e e e e e a e e e e e a e a a a}. 23:05 g bpsrhent a e e a e e e e e e e e e e a a e e Other as e e e e e e e e e a e e e e eh e e e a i 3:36 f “1.03”“, and 00119g° a a a a a e a e e e e e 1 8h % all-campus and department a a e e e e e a a e 3 2.9 % collegeanddepartment.... ...... __ __°_ % ”Jr-mp“, 001.1889, and ma;tnflnt e e e e e 5 14.20 x ("O W” Given) a a e a e e e a e e e e e e 75 63.03 5 all? responses to each question 197 seven percent indicated that it is an "Outstanding" accomplishment. In contrast, six percent believe that it is "Hot Accomplished," and thirty-eight percent "Do Not Know” whether or not it is achieved on the campus. Forty-seven percent "Do Not Know (?)” whether or not there is specific provision for the performance of the function on the campus, although thirty-six percent of the faculty members indicated that it is provided. Four percent of the total faculty sample in- dicated that it is not provided, and no answer was given to this question by ten percent of the respond- ents. The majority of the faculty did not respond to the question regarding the agency performing this func- tion. Sixty-three percent did not give any answer, and only slightly more than twenty-five percent indi— cated that it is performed by an "all-campus agency." The responsibility of the institution to encour— age student acceptance of campus and the larger society's moral standards is considered to be "Very Important" by the faculty of Michigan State University, but this group is well divided in their perception of the achievement of this function. Equal numbers indicate that it is a "Satisfactory" accomplishment of the cam- pus, and that they "Do Not Know (?)" if it is achieved or not. The majority of responses indicate that faculty 198 ”Do Not Know (?)" if there are specific provisions for this function, nor where it is performed. Chi Square Analysis Statistical analyses employing the Chi2 techni- que were utilized to determine differences in the re- sponses given to questions concerning disciplinary functions by faculty members on the basis of tenure as determined from academic rank, and whether or not they indicated working closely with a student organization. Twenty Chi Squares were analyzed for this section, and seven of them are considered to be "Significant" on the basis of a P of .05 or below. None of the Chi Squares computed for the response comparisons of tenure and non-tenure staff were signifi- cant. However, there were seven Chi Squares with a significant P determined in the computations of the responses for the faculty members who work closely with student groups when compared with faculty members who do not. Table 84, below, presents the responses and Chi Square data for statement number 9 regarding the importance of a definite policy for student behavioral standards. The faculty members who work closely with student groups have a significantly higher proportion of responses in the "Very Important" category, with no 199 responses in the "Not Significant" category. The fac- ulty members who do not work with student groups have indicated less importance for this function, and greater numbers of ”Not Significant” responses. TABLE 84 RESPCKSLS CF FACULTY JHO LCRK CLCSELY JITH ”TUDh- CHGANIZAIICLS CCKEARED ”ITI hhoPolono E THOSE JHC DO NOT: STAT‘HLET KUI'KH 9--DISCIPLIRARY HU'Cilo“" "There is a well-defined policy regarding standards of student behavior." a. Importance for higher education? Very Fairly Not Group Imp. Imp. Signif. N Yes 25 21 O 46 No 26 31 15 72 2 Chi = 11.78 df = 2 P = .01 Significant differences in responses were deter- mined for parts a and b of the questions relating to statement 27 concerning the rehabilitative and educa- tional nature of discipline. Table 85 gives the re- sponses and Chi Square data for this comparison. The faculty members who work closely with student groups indicate that this function of the discipline procedure is "Very Important" for higher education to a greater extent than the faculty members who do not work with student groups. The latter faculty members perceive 200 this educational aspect of discipline "Not Significant" for higher education in a greater prOportionate response than does the comparison group which works closely with student organizations. .4. TABLE 85 RESPOFSHS CF FACULTY JHO JORK CLOSEL NITH STUDEET ORGANIZATIONS COMPARED WITH RHSPCESES OF THOSE JHO DO NOT: STATHhEhT N thR 27--DISCIPLIKARY FUKCTIehS. "The regulation of student conduct utilizes the disciplinary situation as a rehabilitative and educational experi- ence.“ a. Importance for higher education? — __ Very Fairly Not Group Imp. Imp. Signif. N Yes 20 18 2 40 No 19 51 l7 67 Chi2 = 9.08 df = 2 P = .02 Table 86 gives the responses and Chi Square data for the question concerning achievement on this campus for statement number 27. Faculty members who work closely with students perceive this function as "Out- standing" and "Satisfactory" in larger proportionate responses than does the comparison group. Further, the faculty not working with student organizations per- ceives this function as "Not Accomplished," and they respond that they "Do Not Know (?)" about the achieve- ment of this function in much greater percentages than the faculty working with student groups. 201 TABLE 86 RESPONSES OF FACULTY WHO WORK CLOSELY WITH STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS COHPARED WITH RESPONSES OF THOSE WHO DO NOT: STATEMENT NUMBER 27—-DISCIPLINARY FUNCTIONS "The regulation of student conduct utilizes the disci— plinary situation as a rehabilitative and educational experience." b. How adequately achieved on this campus? Not Group Outstand. Satis. Accomp. (?) N Yes 3 21 5 14 41 No 2 l9 l2 54 67 Chi2 = 8.25 df = 3 P = .05 The provision of specific information and instruc- tions about standards, regulations and traditions of the institution to incoming students is perceived in differ- ent ways by these two faculty groups. Table 87 presents the data used for the Chi Square computation of state- ment number 53 responses concerning the "Importance for higher education?." The faculty members working closely with student organizations indicate a significantly higher prOportion of responses in the "Very Important" for higher education category, and proportionately fewer in the "Not Significant" response category. The faculty members who do not have a close working relationship with student organizations gave a higher percentage of responses to the "Fairly Important," and "Not Significant" for higher education categories than the staff members who work closely with student groups. 202 TABLE 87 RESPOESES CF FACULTY JHO FORK CLOSELY WITH STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS COHPARED WITH RESPONSES OF THOSE WHO DO NOT: STATEKENT NUMBER 55--DISCIPLINARY FUNCTIONS "Specific information and instructions on standards, regulations, and traditions of the institution are pro- vided to incoming students." a. Importance for higher education? Very Fairly Not Group Imp. Imp. Signif. N Yes 26 17 2 45 No ' 19 41 10 70 Chi2 = 11.46 df = 2 P = .01 The accomplishment of providing this information about the institution to incoming students is perceived as "Outstanding" to a greater degree by those faculty members who work closely with student groups. They also did not give any responses in the "Not Accomplished" category. In comparison, the faculty members who do not work closely with student organizations responded that this function is "Not Accomplished," and that they "Do Not Know (?)" about the adequacy of the provision of this information to incoming students, in greater pro- portionate responses than the comparison group of fac- ulty members. Chi Square data for section b of state- ment 5} are presented on Table 88. 205 TABLE 88 RESPONSES OF FACULTY JHO JORK CLOSELY WITH STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS COMPARED WITH RESPONSES OF THOSE WHO DO NOT: TATEXENT NUHBER 55--DISCIPLINARY FUNCTIONS "Specific information and instructions on standards, regulations, and traditions of the institution are pro- vided to incoming students." b. How adequately achieved on this campus? Not Group Outstand. Satis. Accomp. (?) N Yes 10 26 O 9 45 NO 5 57 5 22 69 Chi2 = 9.40 df = 3 P = .05 Statement number 58, concerning the responsi- bility of the institution of higher education to encour- age the acceptance of societal standards of morality within the student body, received differing responses from the faculty groups divided on the basis of working with student groups. Table 89 indicates the responses for part a, dealing with the importance of this function for higher education. Faculty members who work closely with student groups gave a significantly higher percent- age of responses to "Very Important." This group also had fewer responses of "Fairly Important" and "Not Sig- nificant" for higher education, in comparison with re- sponses received from faculty members who do not work closely with student organizations. 204 TABLE 89 RESPONSES OF FACULTY WHO WORK CLOSELY WITH STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS COMPARED WITH RESPONSES OF THOSE WHO DO NOT: STATEIENT NUMBER 58--DISCIPLINARY FUNCTIONS "The institution encourages acceptance by the individual of societal standards of morality." a. Importance for higher education? Very Fairly Not Group Imp. Imp. Signif. N Yes 29 l 2 52 No 24 23 19 66 Chi2 = 25.70 df = 2 P = .001 Table 90 presents the responses received from part b of statement 58, "How adequately achieved on this campus?." The reSponse of faculty members who do not work with student groups indicates significantly higher perceptions within this group of "Not Accomplished," and more response of "Do Not Know (?)" than were received from the comparison faculty group. The faculty members working closely with student organizations perceive the accomplishment of this function as more "Outstanding," and "Satisfactory." The results of the Chi Square analyses of dif- ferences in responses given to the questions concerning disciplinary functioning on the Michigan State University campus and its importance for higher education indicate that there were no differences in perception of these functions on the basis of tenure. Faculty members 205 TABLE 90 RESPONSLSCE‘FACULTY WHO JORK CLOSELY WITH STUDENT ORGANIZATICnS COKPARE HITH RESPONSES OF THOSE 3H0 DO NOT: STATELENT NUMBER 58--DISCIPLINARY FUNCTIOLS "The institution encourages acceptance by the individual of societal standards of morality." b. How adequately achieved on this campus? Not Group Outstand. Satis. Accomp. (?) N Yes 5 23 l 15 45 No 4 20 7, 55 64 Chi2 = 9.55 df = 5 P = .05 working closely with student groups view these functions as more important for higher education, achieved in a more satisfactory and outstanding manner, and have fewer indications of lack of information than faculty members who do not have a close working relationship with student organizations. Summary of Salient Data On the basis of the data received from the re— sponses to statements of student personnel function included for this chapter concerning disciplinary functions, the following information seems pertinent for student personnel services at Michigan State Uni- versity. All of these disciplinary functions are per- ceived as having some importance for higher educational 206 institutions. However, the functions can be ranked in terms of the percentage of responses given to the com- bined categories concerned with importance for higher education. The range of responses indicating impor- tance for higher education for these functions includes from 65 percent to 85 percent of the faculty group. The ranking is as follows: (l) incoming students are given specific information and instructions on stand- ards, regulatiors, and traditions of the institution; (2) there is a well-defined policy regarding standards of student behavior; (5) the regulation of student con- duct utilizes the disciplinary situation as a rehabili- tative and educational experience; (4) the institution encourages acceptance of societal standards of morality; and, (5) campus disciplinary policy covers students involved in violations of public laws. The last func- tion received approximately a one-third response from the faculty indicating that it is not significant for the purposes of higher education. A similar ranking of the adequacy with which these functions are performed on the Michigan State University campus includes a percentage range of from 57 percent to 64 percent of the faculty indicating a satisfactory, or better, performance. A descending order ranking indicates: (l) incoming students are 207 given specific information and instructions on stand- ards, regulations, and traditio s of the institution; (2) there is a well-defined policy regarding standards of student behavior; (5) campus disciplinary policy covers students involved in violations of public laws; (4) the institution encourages acceptance of societal standards of morality; and, (S) the regulation of stu- dent conduct utilizes the disciplinary situation as a rehabilitative and educational experience. It should be noted that in all cases approximately one-quarter, or more, of the faculty respondents indicated that they did not know about the performance of these functions on the Michigan State University campus. In addition, approximately this same prOportion of response was given to the category which indicates lack of knowledge con- cerning whether or not-there is specific provision for these disciplinary functions on the campus. Therefore, although these functions are per- ceived as important for higher education by faculty members at Michigan State University, the faculty mem- bers perceive the functions to be performed in a satis- factory manner, and a significant number of the re- spondents indicated that they did not have sufficient information upon which to base an Opinion regarding the provision or achievement of these functions. This response suggests that insufficient information is 208 available to faculty members concerning the disciplin- ary functions of the campus. Significant differences were determined between the perceptions of disciplinary functions given by faculty members who work with student organizations, in contrast to responses from faculty members who do not. Differences were determined in responses to four of the five functional statements. Examination of these data suggest that faculty members who work closely with student organizations perceive disciplinary functions to be of greater significance for higher education, and better achieved on the Michigan State campus than the faculty members who do not work closely with student groups. In addition, this latter faculty grouping more frequently indicated a lack of information con- cerning the performance of these functions, and the specific provisions for these services. These responses suggest that close contact with students provides faculty members with information about disciplinary policy and functions which is not available for the faculty members who do not work closely with a student group. CHAPTER X SPECIAL CLINICS, AND SPECIAL SERVICE FUNCTIONS "ll. Assistance is given for the special prob— lems of foreign or exchange students.” "l2. Campus protective services (police or fire) are provided." "15. There is provision for the driving and parking of student vehicles on the cam- pus.” "16. A prOgram of new student orientation is provided." "5?. Counseling services are extended to non- college persons in the community on a fee basis.” The responsibilities and functions of special clinics, and special services often are included in the SCOpe of the student personnel services program. Some of these functions require full-time, or nearly full- time staffing, while others may be distributed among the student personnel and academic staff of the insti— tution. Extending counseling services to non-college persons in the nearby ge0graphical area of the insti- tution is being undertaken by many colleges and uni- versities. Frequently work with the Veterans Admin- istration is included in this service. Campus police -209- 210 and fire protection must be provided, whether this be— comes the sole responsibility of the institution, or is arranged on a c00perative basis with a local commu- nity. The orientation of new students, and assistance given to foreign and exchange students frequently involves academic and administrative staff in addition to the per- sonnel workers on a campus. Examination of Cumulative Responses The totaled reSponses from the five statements included for this chapter indicate a well-divided expres- sion of perception regarding the importance for higher education of special clinics, and special services func- tions. However, these cumulative percentage data are not representative of the responses given to individual statements because of dispr0portionate percentages ac- corded to one of the five statements. However, the figures on Table 91 include these totaled reSponses, and indicate that thirty-seven percent of the responses fell to "Very Important," thirty-four percent indicated that these functions are "Fairly Important," and twenty- four percent were given to the category indicating that these functions are "Not Significant” for the purposes of higher education. The accumulated responses for section b, deal- ing with the adequacy of achievement on this campus, b. co d. 211 TABLE 91 SW OF RESPONSES: SPECIAL CLINICS, AND SPECIAL SERVICES FUNCTIONS Questionnaire statmnts nunbered 11,12,35,16,57 Ingortanoe for higger education? Very Important . . Fairly Important . ”Qt Significant e (No Answer Given). £12! adequate]; achieved 93 ont'tanding o e Satisfactory . . Not Accomplished Do Not Know (?) (No Answer Given) @3de provisions 9}: Yes NO 0 C O C C O C Q Do Not Know (?) . (No Answer Given) £1; zes, where i_s_ 232 all-camus agency college . dopartlent e e e e e e amorDOOOOOOOOOO all-campus and college . . all-campus and department college and department . . this cyns‘? all-campus, college, and department (No Answer Given) 0 e 0 file 0 e e e 2?. 8'. e . 0 service performed? *5 o e e e e e e e e O g'e o e e o e o e e [-1 P40 0 e e E. 0 e e 0 e o 9 e e 230 e e e e 25. e e e 22 e e o e e o e e e 221 37.1% 201. 31..28% m3 2M3; :3} “'5‘” 128 21.51% 250 mom: 29 h.8'I% 158 26.55% 30 5.01:23 3'93 1432 72.61% 5 .81.?5 122 20.50% 33% 6.05% 359 60.31;?5 6 1.01% 10 1.68% h .015‘ 15 2.52% 1.1 1.857‘ 1 21 3.53% 168 28.2h7‘ '55? *119 responses to each question. 5 questions included 212 also are not accurate in reflecting the general responses given to this section for the individual functions. Be- cause of the diversity of these functions, they received varying percentages in the similar categories for each of the statements. The percentages indicated on Table 91, however, present the totals for each category of part b. The cumulative response accorded to "Satis- factory" achievement on this campus was forty-two per- cent, with an additional twenty-one percent falling to the "Outstanding" accomplishment category of response. Twenty-six percent of the total responses indicate "Do Not Know (?)" about the performance of these functions, with an additional four percent indicating that these functions are "Not Accomplished." The majority of the responses, seventy-two per- cent, indicate recognition of specific provision for the performance of these functions inthe student per- sonnel program at Michigan State University. Twenty percent of the cumulative responses were given to the "Do Not Know (?)" category. More than sixty percent of the totaled responses were given to the response category indicating that these services are performed by an "all-campus agency." Much smaller response percentages were given to other possible categories. Twenty-eight percent of the total possible responses were not given for this question. 215 Discussion of Response to Individual Functional State- ments "Assistance is given for the special prob- lems of foreign or exchange students." Sixty percent of the faculty respondents indi- cated that this service is "Very Important" for higher education. An additional thirty-two percent perceive this function to be "Fairly Important" for higher edu- cation. It is considered "Not Significant" by four percent of the respondents in the faculty sample group. The numbers of responses given each category of the questions concerning this statement of function, number ll, are presented on Table 92. The achievement of this function on the Michigan State University campus is perceived as "Satisfactory" by forty percent of the faculty respondents. Twenty- six percent of the group indicated that they "Do Not Know (?)" if assistance is adequately given for the special problems of foreign and exchange students. Twenty-three percent of the sample group indicated that this service is an "Outstanding" accomplishment of the campus, while five percent responded that it is "Not Accomplished." More than three-quarters of the respondents in- dicated that this service is specifically provided on this campus, with an additional twenty percent of the 214 TABLE 92 MAI. cmup W: SWT NIHBER 11 - SPECILL CLINICS, AND SPECIAL SERVICES FUNCTIODS I'Assistence is given for the special problans of foreign or exchange students.‘ a. Importance for higher education? Very hporunt e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 72 60.50 % Fairly Ilportant e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 39 32.77 % NOt Significant e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e S h.20 % (80 mm 017011). e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 3 2.52 % b. 19: adequatelz achieved 23 this campus? Outstanding e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 28 23.53 S Satisfactory e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e ’48 h0g33 % "Ct ACOOmPHShed e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 7 5.88 % D0 NOt Know (7) e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 32 26.89 % ("0 WP Given) 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e h 3.36 g c. §pecific provisions 93 this eyes? IDS e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 91 76.:h7% NO 0 e e e e(e)e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e .. é DO Nat Know 7 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 2 (NoAnsverGiven) .............. l}: 2332% d. _I_f_ Leg, where is 213 service p_erformed? all-campus agency 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e 68 57.113 3 0011689 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 1 .81.; ‘ ”fluent e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 6 5.0h% Other as e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 1 .814; ‘11-me ”1d mllege e e e e e e e e e e e e 3 2.52 % mmpus and deparwt e e e e e e e e e e 7 5.88 % collegeenddepartmnt..-o ...... .. % all-canpus, college, and department . . . . . 7 5.88 i (”0 mar 617011) e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 26 21.85 x *119 responses to each question 215 sample responding that they "Do Not Know (?)" if this service is specifically provided by the student person- nel services of Michigan State University. Fifty-seven percent of the faculty indicated that this service is performed by an "all-campus agency." The response categories of "department," "all-campus and department," and "all-campus, college, and department" each received five percent of the responses indicating that foreign or exchange students receive special assist- ance by means of these agencies. No response was given by twenty-one percent of the sample group. Assistance for the problems experienced by foreign or exchange students is perceived as "Very Impor- tart" for higher education, and accomplished in a "Satis— factory" manner at Michigan State University. The fac- ulty members perceive that this service is specifically provided by an "all-campus agency," and is assisted by college and departmental level agencies. "Campus protective services (police or fire) are provided." Table 95 Presents the response data for statement number 12. This special student personnel services func- tion is perceived as "Very Important" and "Fairly Impor- tant" for higher education in about equal prOportions, :forty;four and thirty—six percent responses, respectively. IFifteen percent of the faculty respondents perceive this JPunction as "Not Significant" for higher education. 216 TABLE 95 TOTALGROUP W: swnmm NEHBHI 12 -- SPECIAL CLINICS, AND SPECIAL SERVICES FUNCTIONS ‘canpns protective services (police or fire) are provided.‘ a. Importance for higher education? Very Ilportant e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 53 ”4.513% Fairly hportant e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e ’43 36.13 % N01} Significant e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 18 5.13 % (80 mm Given). 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e 5 n.20% b. .122! adequatelz achieved 25 this campus? Outstanding e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 39 32.77% Satisfactory e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0 61', 53.78% NOt ACOOMPHShed e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 3 2.52% Do NOt m (7) e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 7 5.88% (NoAnswerGiven) .............. 6 5.0h% c. gecific provisions 9}; this cans? 108 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e % NO 0 e e 0 0(0). 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 1E 92:76; DO NOt Know ? e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0 (NO m Given) e e e e e e e e e o e e e e g kggx d. _I_f_ 223: where is 212 service pertained? all-Cmus agency e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 103 86.55% collega e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e o e e -- .- % dopartnent e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 1 .8h% other 0. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 1 .8h% Oil-08mm! "Id 0011380 0 e e e e e e ‘e e e e 0 en- ee- % all-campus and departnent . . . . . . . . . . 1 ,8hfi 0011880 and departmnt e e e e e e e e e .- % all-canpus, college, and department . . . . . 1 ,8h% ("0 Answer 61'”) e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 12 10.08 S ”119 responses to each question 217 The achievement of these services on the Michigan State University campus is perceived as "Satisfactory" by fifty-three percent of the faculty sample group. In addition, thirty-two percent indicated that it is an "Outstanding" accomplishment on the campus. Two percent of the sample group responded that it is "Not Accom- plished," while five percent indicated that they "Do Not Know (?)" about the achievement of these services. Jo answer was given to this question by five percent of the respondents. Ninety percent of the faculty respondents recog- nize that specific provision is made for these protec- tive services on the campus. Four percent indicated that they "Do Kot Know (?)" whether or not these services are provided, and an additional five percent of the group did not answer the question. These services are performed at the "all-campus agency" level according to the responses received from eighty-six percent of the faculty sampling. No answer was given by ten percent of the total group. Provision of protective services on the campus is perceived as having importance for higher education, and is accomplished in a "Satisfactory" manner on the Campus. The majority of the faculty recognize that these services are provided by "all-campus" agencies Specifically designated for this responsibility. 218 "There is provision for the driving and park- ing of student vehicles on the campus." The responses to statement number 15, above, are given on Table 94. The faculty Opinions regarding the importance of this service for higher education are about equally divided between "Fairly Important," forty- one percent, and ”Not Significant," thirty-six percent. Eighteen percent of the faculty respondents indicated that provision for student vehicles on the campus is "Very Important" for higher education. This function is performed in a "Satisfactory" manner on the campus, according to fifty-seven percent of the faculty group replies. In addition, eighteen percent of the respondents indicated that it is an "Out- standing" achievement on the Kichigan State University campus. Six percent of the group perceive this function as "Not Accomplished," and fourteen percent indicate that they "Do Not Know (?)" about the achievement of this function on the campus. Kinety-one percent of the faculty perceive that specific provision is made for the accomplishment Of this function. Five percent "Do Not Know (?)" whether Or not this service is provided by Michigan State Uni- 'VErsity. Provision for the driving and parking of student vehicles on the Michigan State University campus is 219 TABLE 94 mm GROUP RESPONSE: smmmvr mean 15 .. 5mm. CLINICS, AND SPECIAL SERVICES FUNCTIONS 'There is provision for the driving and parking of student vehicles on the campus.‘ ”.119" Percent :1. Importance for bigger education] Very Ilportant e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 22 18.119 5 Fairly Inportant e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e ’19 ”1.17 % HOt Significant e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e ”4 36.97 % (NoAneriven)............... h 3.36% b. 1325 “equal; achieved 92 this campus? Guam 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 22 18.119 % Satisfactory e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 68 57.m% “Gt AccompliShed e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 8 6.72 Z Do NOt Know (7) e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 17 ”.29 % (NO mar Given) e o e e e e e e e e e e e e h 3.36 g c. figcific provisions 931 this cages? Yes..................... 109 91.60% NO 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e -- I— DO Nat Know (?) e o e e e e e e e e e e e e e 6 5.0).]. 5 (NO ADM Given) 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e h 3.36 d. ii; 122’ where is 233 service performed? All-campus agency e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 105 88.23 % college 0 e e e e o e e e e e e e e e e e e e .- _ g “Ferment e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Other as e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e i imz all-calm» “Dd 001198; e e e e e e e e e e e e 1 .8’4 % all-Cap“ and department 0 e e e e e e o e is - _ i 0011686 and (bpartnant e e e e e e e e e e _- _ % ‘11- mp I18 , college , and depar ”Ht 0 e e e e __ .- z ("0 Answer Given) 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e 12 10.08 % ell? responses to each question 220 regulated by an "all-campus agency" according to eighty-eight percent of the faculty respondents to this question. Ten percent of the group did not answer this question. Provision for student driving and parking on the campus is perceived as being "Fairly Important" and "Not Significant" for higher education in about equiva- lent numbers by the Michigan State faculty sample group. The achievement of this function is considered "Satis- factory" as it is performed by an ”all—campus agency” which is Specifically provided for this purpose. "A program of new student orientation is provided." New student orientation is perceived to be "Very Important" for higher education by fifty-five percent of the faculty respondents to this question. An addi- tional thirty-five percent of the responses were given to the "Fairly Important" response category. Six per- cent of the faculty members perceive this service as "Not Significant" for the purposes of higher education. The responses to statement number 16, given above, are recorded on Table 95. The faculty respondents indiéated this service is achieved in a "Satisfactory" manner, with a forty- seven percent response to this category. In addition, thirty-one percent of the sample group indicated that "A progrm at new student orientation is provided. b. C. d. TABLE 95 MAI. GROUP RESPONSE: STATE-{INT NUMBER 16 - SPECIAL CLINICS, AND SPECIAL SERVEES FUNCTIONS Importance for bigger educatiopz Very Important . . Fairly Important . . . . . Not Significant e e e e e (No Answer Given). . . . . is! adequate}: achieved 29 Guam 0 e e Satisfactory e e e e e e 0 Not Accomplished . . . . . Do N013 Know (7) e e e e e (No Answer Given) . . . 0 this cgpus? gecific provisions 92 this w 198....... NO 0 e e e e e e e e e e e DC "at W (?) e e e e e ("0 m Given) e e e e _I_1: zes, where 1.3 33 servi ell-campus agency college . . . . . “patent! e e e e other .. . . . . . ell-camus and college ell-campus and department college and department . . all-canpus, college, and department (No Answer Given) . . . . ce performed? #119 responses to each question 0 O O O O O O O O O O C O N'll case 107 WW! Kfiwwgmlru 22222:. saw; 35.29% Mn am% 31.93 7» .. h7.9o % 1.68 z 5&75 a9% 8.1% 99% 7.56 5‘ 2.52 7‘ the achievement of this service is an ”Outstanding" accomplishment on this campus. Only two individuals perceived this service as "lot Accomplished," and fif- teen percent of the faculty sample group "Do Not Know (?)" about the achievement of this student personnel service. Eighty-nine percent of the faculty sample per- ceive specific provision for the accomplishment of new student orientation. Seven percent of the group ”Do Not Know (?)" whether or not this service is specifically provided by Michigan State University. More than half, fifty-nine percent, of the group indicated that new student orientation is performed at the "all-campus agency" level, with ten percent indi- cating that it is performed by "all-campus, college, and departmental" agencies, and eight percent of the faculty respondents perceiving the performance of this function is at the "all-campus and college" level. Thirteen percent of the faculty group did not respond to the question. Pregrams of new student orientation are per- ceived to be "Very Important" for the purposes of higher education, and accomplished in a "Satisfactory" and "Outstanding" manner at Michigan State University. 'The faculty recognizes that this is the specific responsi- bility of an "all-campus agency." 225 "Counseling services are extended to non- college persons in the community on a fee basis." Faculty responses and percentage data for state- ment number 57 are given on Table 96. The extension of counseling services to non-college persons of the community on a fee basis is perceived as "Not Signifi- cant" for higher education, with fifty-seven percent of the responses given to this category. Twenty-six percent of the faculty sample group perceive this ser- vice as "Fairly Important" for higher education, with an additional six percent indicating that it is "Very Important." No response was given to this question by ten percent of the faculty sample group. Sixty—nine percent of the faculty respondents indicated that they "Do Hot Know (?)" about the achieve- ment performance level of this service performed by Kichigan State University. Ten percent perceive this function as "Satisfactory," and seven percent indicate that it is "Not Accomplished." Sixty—five percent of the faculty sample group responded that they "Do Not Know (?)" if there is spe- cific provision for this service made by Michigan State University counseling personnel. Fourteen percent of the respondents indicated that there is provision, and four perCent indicated that no specific provision is made for fee counseling with community personnel. TABLE 96 TOTAL GIDUP RESWNSE: 2324 STATEMENT NUMBER 57 -— SPECIAL CLINICS, AND SPECIAL SERVICES FUNCTIONS aCounseling services are extended to non-college persons in the canmunity on a fee basis.“ b. (1. Importance for bigger education? veryhportanteeeeeeee Fairly 1"»th . e e e e e 0 Not Significant g3! “squall; achieved 92 Outstanding . . Satisfactory . . Not Accomplished Do Not Know (7) (No Answer Given) ficific provisions 92 Yes . e . No o e e e Do Not Know (?) (No Answer Given) Easw_.°r°isss all-campus agency . con-1°89 . e e e e O departnent . . . . . am” o. e e e e e e ell-camus and college . . ell-campus and department college and departmnt . . ell-capes, college, and apex-hunt (No Answer Given) service all? responses to each question (NO mm Gina). e e e e e e this cyan psi-fanned? this cgus? 000...... O... 0.... 0... :4-119* £33m 58x05...- gl—‘g :H' MP“ W 6.72 x 26.05 a: 57.11: % 10.08 g .81: 1 225 No answer was given to this question by fifteen percent of the faculty group. Eighty-five percent of the faculty sample group did not identify any campus agency as performing this service. Ten percent indicated that it is performed at the "all-campus agency" level. Counseling of community persons on a fee basis is perceived as "Not Significant" for higher education, and the faculty of Michigan State University "Do Not Know (?)" how adequately this is achieved, nor if there are specific provisions for this service to the commu— nity, nor where the service might be performed. Chi Square Analysis Responses to the statements of function pertain- ing to special clinics and special services were analy- zed by the Chi Square statistical technique to deter— mine if there were differences in the responses given by two designated groups. Questions a and b fer each statement were examined for differences in response between faculty members having tenure and those with- out tenure—-determined from academic rank--and compari- sons were made between faculty who indicated that they work closely with student organizations, and faculty members who do not. Twenty Chi Squares were computed for these analyses. 226 None of the comparisons of response for the tenure and non-tenure groups were found to be signifi- cant. Significant differences were determined by means of Chi Square computation for the responses to statement number 12 pertaining to protective services. The response comparison based upon working relation- ships with student organizations indicates that fac- ulty who work closely with student groups perceive the protective services as being "Very Important" for higher education in greater proportion than the faculty group not having a close working relationship with student organizatiors. Further, this latter faculty group perceives the protective service function of student personnel to be "Not Significant" for higher education to a greater degree than the faculty who work closely with student organizations. Data for this Chi Square are presented on Table 97. Table 98 reports the response data, and Chi Square P for part b of statement 12 relating to the protective services. Faculty members working closely with student groups perceive the achievement of these services to be "Outstanding" to a greater proportionate degree than do the faculty members not working closely with student groups. In addition, this latter faculty 227 TABLE 97 RES DUIISBS CF FACULTY H'HO JORK CLOSJLY WITH STUDEN' CHGALIZATICHS CCKPAHED RITE RASPCKSLS OF THOSE JHO DO NOT: STATELQET NUXBJR l2—-SPECIAL CLIKICS, AND SPECIAL BULCTIcnS. "Campus protective service (police or fire) are provided." a. Importance for higher education? - Very Fairly Not Group Imp. Imp. Signif. N Yes 29 15 l 45 No 25 28 16 69 Chi2 = 12.98 df = 2 P = .01 group perceives this function as "Not Accomplished" and indicates that they "Do Not Know (?)" about the accom- plishment of the protective services, whereas the com— parison group, working with student organizations, has no responses in the latter two categories. TABLE 98 RESPOESTS OF FACULTY WHO WORK CLOSELY JITH STUDENT ORGAEIZATICLS COKEAHED flITH RESEONSES OF THOSE dHO DO NOT: STATELELT NULBLR l2-—SEECIAL CLINICS, AND SEECIAL FUHCTICNS. "Campus protective service (police or fire) are provided." b. How adequately achieved on this campus? Not Group Outstand. Satis. Accomp. (?) N Yes 22 25 -- -— 45 NO 17 41 5 7 68 Chi2 = 11.50 df = 5 P = .01 228 Part b, "How adequately achieved on this campus?fl of statement of function number 16 relates to the provi- sion of a program of new student orientation. There are significant differences in the responses accorded the question for this student personnel function when analyzed on the basis of working relationship with student organi- zations. The data for this computation are presented on Table 99. Faculty members working closely with student organizations perceive the achievement of this service as "Outstanding" to a much greater degree than does the comparison faculty group. 'In addition, the faculty re- spondents having this close relationship to a student group have no responses in the "Not Accomplished" response category, and significantly fewer responses in the "Do Not Know (?)" category than the comparison group. TABLE 99 RESPONSES OF FACULTY WHO WORK CLOSELY WITH STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS CONPARED WITH RESPONSES OF THOSE wHO DO NOT: STATEKENT NUhBER l6--SPECIAL CLINICS, AND SPECIAL SERVICES FUNCTIONS. "A program of new student orienta- tion is provided." ‘ b. How adequately achieved on this campus? Not Group Outstand. Satis. Accomp. (?) N Yes 22 25 . -— 1 46 NO 16 54 2 18 7O 229 The results from the three significant differ- ences between responses received from these two faculty groupings tend to indicate that faculty members who work closely with student groups perceive these functions as having greater importance for higher education, and as being better achieved on the Eichigan State University campus than the comparison faculty group, faculty mem- bers not working closely with a student organization. Summary of Salient Data On the basis of the data received from the re- sponses to statements of student personnel function in- cluded for this chapter concerned with special clinics, and Special service functions, the following information seems pertinent for student personnel services at Kichigan State University. The diverse nature of the student personnel functions included in this chapter makes generalization of data very difficult. The function included in this grouping which does not pertain to an on-campus service received a significant response indicating that it is not important for higher education. However, these five functions can be ranked in terms of the percentage of responses given to the combined categories concerned with importance for higher education. The range of responses 250 indicating importance for higher education for these functions includes from 52 percent to 92 percent of the faculty group. The ranking is as follows: (1) assist- ance is given for the special problems of foreign or exchange students; (2) a prOgram of new student orienta- tion is provided; (5) campus protective services are provided; (4) there is provision for the driving and parking of student vehicles on the campus; and, (5) counseling services are extended to non-college persons in the community on a fee basis. The last function is perceived to be not significant for higher education by more than half of the faculty respondents. A similar ranking of the adequacy with which these functions are performed on the Michigan State University campus includes a percentage range of from 10 percent to 86 percent of the faculty indicating a satisfactory, or better, performance. A descending order ranking indicates: (l) campus protective services are provided; (2) a program of new student orientation is provided; (5) there is provision for the driving and parking of student vehicles on the campus; (4) assistance is given for the special problems of foreign or exchange students; and, (5) counseling services are extended to non-college persons in the community on a fee basis. In addition, the majority of the faculty responses indicated a lack of information concerning 251 whether or not fee case counseling is provided by the University. One-quarter of the faculty members indica- ted that they did not know about the achievement of counseling assistance for foreign or exchange students. Examination of responses by faculty sub-groups indicatassignificant differences in responses to ques- tions concerning two of these statements of function. Faculty members who indicate a close working relation— ship with a student group perceive that these functions are achieved in a more outstanding manner, and also have significantly fewer responses in the categories indicating not accomplished or lack of information cor- cerning this performance, than do the faculty members who do not have a close working relationship with stu- dent groups. This suggests that contact with student organizations may provide these faculty members with information about student personnel services which is not available to faculty members who do not work closely with a student organization. CHAPTER XI SUHXARY, COICLUSICNS, AID RECCHIEEDATICKS Results of the Investigation This study was an attempt to determine the per- ceptions of student personnel services in higher educa- tion held by staff members with instructional responsi- bilities. A questionnaire instrument, "The Student Per- sonnel Services Questionnaire" was developed which facilitated the expression of these perceptions by the faculty members. The questionnaire was administered to a selected sample of faculty members with instructional responsibilities on the Michigan State University cam- pus. On the basis of several comparisons, the selected group appeared to be a representative sample of the total faculty membership. Chapters III through X of this text present the detailed response examinations which discuss the perceptions of the staff members concerning each of eight areas of student personnel work. The student personnel services areas included in this study were: 253 "Admissions, Registrations, and Records Functions," "Counseling Service Functions," "Health Service Func- tions," "Housing, and Food Service Functions," "Stu- dent Activities Functions," "Financial Aid, and Place- ment Functions," "Disciplinary Functions," "Special Clinics, and Special Services Functions." Brief sum— maries conclude the presentation of data for each sec- tion. In general, the faculty responses indicate that student personnel services functions are rec0gnized as having importance for the achievement of the philos0phy and purposes of higher education. The degree of impor- tance accorded these functions is, to some extent, dependent upon the nature of the service. Highest indications of the importance of these functions for higher education were placed on those functions relating most directly with the academic purposes of the institu- tion. Of slightly less importance are those functions which facilitate student life activities while the indi— vidual is engaged in academic pursuits, and of least importance, according to faculty ranking responses, are those functions which deal only indirectly with the stu- dent in the academic setting. Special note must be made of the nature of stu- dent personnel services included in Chapter X, "Special 254 Clinics, and Special Services." The special services, primarily involving non-intellectual activities and with less direct concern for students, were perceived to be significantly less important for higher education. Chi Square statistical analyses for the deter— mination of differences of perception within the fac- ulty sample indicated that faculty members who work closely with student organizations are more favorable in their perceptions of the importance of student per- sonnel services functions for higher education, and they indicate that these services are accomplished in a more satisfactory and outstanding manner than is expressed by faculty personnel not working closely with student groups. The latter faculty more frequently indicate that they do not have sufficient knowledge concerning these functions to be able to express an Opinion about their performance, or to indicate whether or not they are specifically provided on the campus. Statistical analyses to determine differences expressed by faculty on the basis of tenure with the institution proved to be not significant for the pur- poses of the study. The few differences in perceptions did indicate that non—tenure faculty chose responses requiring less definite expression of Opinion or know- ledge than the faculty members having tenure. 235 Conclusions By means of an instrument requiring diversified responses relating directly to statements of function involved in the student personnel program for an insti- tution of higher education, it is possible to obtain an assessment of the perceptions of student personnel services from faculty members with instructional responsi— bilities. Of particular interest and value to the student personnel services of the campus employing this type of research, is the frequency of indication of lack of knowledge of information concerning the achievement, specificity of provisions for, and location of the re- sponsibility for these student personnel functions. research might well become the stimulant for 1 I d (D O H) increased, and more effective communication eminating from the student personnel program offices. For example, there is sufficient indication from the responses re- ceived from the study on the Michigan State University campus to indicate a significant percentage of the faculty members do not believe that they have adequate information concerning the functions of student per— sonnel services on the campus. The differences determined between the responses indicated by faculty members who have a close working relationship with student organizations, and those faculty 256 personnel who do not, may be significant for staff selection in the institutions of higher education. The predictions relating to increasing enrollments for higher education may cause re-structuring of some of the student personnel functions on the college and univer- sity campus. If it should become necessary to involve the academic faculty personnel to a greater degree in the performance of some of the student personnel func- tions, one of the selection criteria for new academic personnel may well become an indication of whether or not this individual would be willing to work in an ad- visory capacity with a student organization of the campus. Recommendations for Further Research 1. The results of this study suggest that faculty members with instructional responsibilities have favorable perceptions of student personnel functions on the college campus. a. A replication of this study might be made on the campuses of public and private institutions with the expressed purpose of comparing faculty re- sponses with those received from this study of faculty of a large land-grant university. b. A replication of this study might be made on cam- puses of institutions of varying size, and with 257 the expressed purpose of comparing faculty responses with those received from this study. 2. By means of this study it has been determined that 5. differences in perceptions of student personnel ser- vices exist between faculty members who work closely with student organizations, and faculty members who do not. a. There is a need for research to determine if these differences are based upon the contacts that faculty members working with student organiza- tions may have had with the student personnel services of a campus, and/or if these favorable perceptions have develOped from the comments re— ceived from students with whom these faculty work on an advisory basis. There is Opportunity for research to assist in the determination of whether or not personality factors of the faculty personnel are the greatest contributors to the perception of student person— nel service functions on the college campus. What are the factors involved in determining whether or not a faculty member develops a close working relationship with a student organization? Since it may be assumed that faculty members working with student organizations may have more reason to be familiar with the student personnel functions on 258 a college campus, additional research might attempt to determine if perceptions of student personnel functions can be determined apart from the experi- ences of the faculty members as a participant in higher education on a specified campus scene. lO. BIBLIOG RA IIY Shoben, Edward Joseph, Jr. "A Rationale for IMO iern Student Personnel Mork," Pers onnel- -O-Gram, Volume 12, Number 5, March 1958, p. ll. Rackham, Eric N. The Determination pf Criteria for the Evaluation of Student Personnel Services in Institutions of Higher Learning. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) University of Michigan, 1950. Kamm, Robert B. "An Inventory of Student Reaction to Student CPersonnel Services." Educational and Psycholg al Pieasurement, 10:557-44; Autumn 1C )50. Hrenn, C. Gilbert, and Kamm, Robert B. "A Procedure for Evaluating a Student Personnel PrOgram." School and Sociepy 67:266-69; June 1948. Mahler, Clarence A. "A Study of Student and Faculty Reactions to Student Personnel Work. (Unpuolis hed doctoral dissertation) University of Minnesota, 1955- Student Personnel Work gs Deeper Teaching, Lloyd- Jones, Nsther, and Smith, Margaret Ruth editors. Harper and Brothers, New York 1954. Shaffer, Robert H. "Problems of Communication on the Expanding College Campus" Journal Of the National Association of women Deans and Counselors, Volume 22 - Number 2, January 1959. Journal of the Nation nal Association of Women Deans and Counselors, "Communication in Personnel work." Volume 22 - Number 2, January 1959. Catalog, Mich igan Stgte University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1958-l9 . Edwards, Allen L. Statistical Methods for the Behav— ioral Sciences, New York:Rinehart & Company, 1954 - 259 240 ll. Wrenn, C. Gilbert. Student Personnel Work in C l- leme, New Yorszhe Ronald Press Company, I951. O 12. "The Administration of Student Personnel Programs in American Colleges and Universities," American Council on Education Studies, Series VI - Student Personnel Work - Number 19, Volume XXII, Washing- ton, D.C., February 1958. APPENDIX A THE STUDENT PERSONNEL SERVICES QUESTIONNAIRE ~241— No. STUDENT PERSONCEL SERVICES QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire concerns some of the services other than class— room instruction which are provided for students by colleges and universities. The content refers to services for which specific pro- vision has been made on the college campus, not to those services which are incidental to instruction. The questionnaires are numbered only for the follow-up of non- respondents. Your name will not be mentioned in the use of the data you give. PERSONAL DATA 1. Are you teaching courses this term? Yes No If yes, please approximate the total number of students in your classes this term 2. What is your academic rank? Instructor ___ Assistant Professor ___ Associate Professor ___ Professor ___ 3. Number of completed years on the staff of this institution A. Have you been employed here in a non-teaching position? Yes No 5. If yes, please Specify the nature of work and the number of years 6. Total number of years you have been employed full-time in higher education 7. Do you work closely with a student organization on this campus? Yes _ No _ 8. Highest degree earned . Name of the college or university granting this degree . No. .le qubOduuL SE? L‘JICES VUVHOTIUHAALALE Listed below are sixty statements concerning functions or responsi- bilities of some of the services for students on the college and uni- versity campus. For each statement you are requested to respond in terms of three questions: HON DOES THE STATEEENT NELATE TO THE PHILOSOPHY AND PURPOSES OF HIGHER EDUCATION? In terms of your views of the philosophy and pur- poses of higher education, please give your opinion of the importance of the provision of this service on college and uni- versity campuses. HO.I DO YOU SVaLU.”“ '.E PnArOnnAI SOP THIS FUNCTION ON BHIS CAMPUS? As a second step, please indicate your evaluation of how well this service is accomplished on the local campus. HAS SPECIFIC PROVISION BEEN MADE F “ TIJS FUIHC ION ON THIS CAMPUS? Finally, please indicate whether official responsibility has been given to an office or offices for the performance of this function. Please respond on the basis of your present knowledge of the services, and without further investigation. IN SIRUCTIONS Step 1. For each statement check the response which best expresses your opinion of the IMPORTA“CE of this function or responsi- bility FOR HI HER HJJuhlALV. Please indicate whether the function is ... Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant Step 2. For the same statement, check the response which best indi- cates YOUN EVALUATIUN of the performance of this function on the local campus. Is the achieverzent of the function ... Outstanding_ Satisfactory_ ,Not Accomplished— If you DO NOT _LNOJ about the performance, please check (?)_ Step 3. Finally, check whether or not formal provision exists for the accomplishment of the function. One or more offices may share this responsibility. In this case, please check the appropriate sub-responses. If other is checked, please specify your response. Is there Specific provision on this campus? Yes No (?) If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college departmental othergsoecifib l. Specialized staff members work with faculty and students on prob— « lems concerning study habits, time scheduling, and other factors which may be causes of scholastic inefficiency. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other Information is available to individual students concerning all ’ types of occupational opportunities for college graduates, includ- ing requirements for these fields. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory;___Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other All types of financial aid are coordinated, including scholar- ships, loans, and placement assistance. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant___ How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding___ Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?)___ Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other A program of religious activity is made available through the institution. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant“ How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished__ (?)__ Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college___ department___ other 5. Counseling and psychiatric care are available for students with emotional problems. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency___ college___ department other The institution's requirements and services are interpreted to the; prospective student. ’ Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other Background information concerning individual students is provided to teachers to facilitate individualization of the educational process. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant___ How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other Records are maintained which reflect the student's apademic rela- tionship with the institution and administrative actions per- taining to the student. Importance for higher education? Very Important___ Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other 9. There is a well-defined policy regarding standards of student behavior. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all—campus agency college department other lO. Nell-balanced meals are available to the students through campus facilities. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other ll. Assistance is given for the Special problems of foreign or exchange students. Importance for higher education? _ Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adecuately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other 12. Campus protective services (police or fire) are provided. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fair y Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other 114. 13. 14. 15. 16. Special remedial services are provided for students with poorly developed academic skills. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other Physical examinations are required of new students. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other There is provision for the driving and parking of student vehicles on the campus. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory___ Not Accomplished___ (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?)___. If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other A program of new student orientation is provided. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory___ Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other 17. Alumni are assisted in further professional programs by acquaint- 18. 19. 20. ing them with Opportunities for advancement in their fields. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other Student organizations exist for the furtherance of social con- tacts and competence. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant___ How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other Causes of excessive absence are analyzed, and steps are taken toward the improvement of attendance and attitudes. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other The procedure for obtaining financial assistance is an educa- tional experience for the student. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this cam us? Outstanding Satisfactory - Not ccomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency___ college___ department other 21. 22. 23. Medical and hOSpital facilities are available for students. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other Off-campus student housing units are inspected regularly to maintain standards of good living. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other The housing of married undergraduate students is a responsi- bility of the institution. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other A wide range of recreational opportunities for students is pro- vided by the institution. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significanb___ How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other 250 26. 27. 28. All contacts with prospective students are coordinated. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other Counseling is available to students for better understanding of their potentialities and limitations. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?)___ Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other The regulation of student conduct utilizes the disciplinary situation as a rehabilitative and educational experience. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other Data are available to potential employers regarding the stus dents' educational preparation, job and extracurricular experi- ence, and letters of recommendation. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other 29. The living units contribute to the development of responsible group membership, leadership, and sound morale. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other 30. Preventive medicine is provided, including regular examinations, programs of inoculation, and health education. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other 31. Interviews are conducted with students desiring to withdraw from school to assist these individuals in terms of the student's aSpirations and the institutional welfare. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other 32. Financial aid is available to deserving and able students. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other 33. Specific information and instructions on standards, regula- tions, and traditions of the institution are provided to incom- ing students. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant how adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other 34. Special assistance is given to veterans regarding problems re- lated to college attendance. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other 35. All student vocational placement functions are coordinated. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other 36. A program of lectures and concerts is supported by the institu- tion. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other 37. 39. AO. Student activities are centrally scheduled and limited for bal- ance in the total program. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant how adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Hot Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other Counseling is available for students to assist them in overcoming personality defects which interfere with their personal happiness. Importance for higher education? Very Importan Fairly Important Hot Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Hot Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all- ampus agency college department other O the basis of a physical examination students are classified regarding their fitness for the variety of demands of college participation. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other Sorority and fraternity housihg'is under institutional super- / vision. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other bl. AZ. 43. Institutional policy makes provision for informing instructional faculty members about the student life program and services of the campus. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other Students of superior ability who are not achieving at their capacity receive individual assistance to stimulate achievement. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other Eligibility requirements, "rushing" regulations, and participatknm in campus activities by social organizations are regulated and supervised. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant HOW'adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other Pre-college counseling and college planning is offered on an individual basis. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important___ Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished___ (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other 45. Information is communicated to staff and students about the job market, salaries, and placement trends in a wide variety of fields. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service p rformed? all-campus agency college department other 46. Records of participation in extracurricular activities are included in the permanent record file of each student. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other L7. Special housing for unmarried graduate students is available on vg the campus. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other 48. A testing service is available for student use in the determina- tion of academic aptitudes, achievement, vocational interests, and personality development. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Acc mplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other A9. 50. 51. 52. Appropriate recommendations are made for enrolled students with special health problems. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other Campus disciplinary policy covers students involved in viola- tions of public laws. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other Assistance is provided for obtaining part-time employment. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other Student government shares in the educational program and policy development pertaining to student behavioral standards and methods of dealing with campus violations. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding___ Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other 53. Faculty supervision of student professional organizations is provided to further the educative eXperience of the activity. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other 54. Eedical and surgical care is available for injured students. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other 55. The residence halls are supervised by qualified personnel who are in communication with counselors and other faculty members. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other 56. Student activities are available to contribute to the develop— .// ment and training of student leaders. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other 57. 58. 59. 60. Counseling services are extended to non-college persons in the community on a fee basis. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other The institution encourages acceptance by the individual of societal standards of morality. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other_# The institution makes provision for assistance to students involved in violations of public laws. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other Counseling is available for students to assist them in overcoming personality defects which interfere with their academic effec- tiveness. Importance for higher education? Very Important Fairly Important Not Significant How adequately achieved on this campus? Outstanding Satisfactory Not Accomplished (?) Specific provisions on this campus? Yes No (?) . If yes, where is the service performed? all-campus agency college department other K ‘T 1‘10. A. Please list the campus offices to which you have directly referb red students. B. Place a check before those offices listed above which have sent you written information concerning their functions or responsi- bilities. If there are any additional offices which have sent you student personnel information, please list them below. Please return this questionnaire to: Laurine Fitzgerald A.E.S. Department College of Education c/o Halter Johnson APPENDIX B LETTER TO SELECTED FACULTY MEMBERS FOLLOW—UP LETTER THANK YOU LETTER _ 260 _ MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING COLLEGE OF EDUCATION . DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES November 7, 1958 A graduate research project is being conducted to inves- tigate faculty perceptions of student personnel programs in higher education. The study is concerned with stu- dent services for which specific provision has beenxmxb on the all-campus, college or departmental level. The research project is under the supervision of Professor Walter F. Johnson, Administrative and Educational Ser— vices, College of Education. Your indication of the importance of student personnel services to higher education in general, as well as your frank appraisal of these services on the local cam— pus, will contribute materially to the study. Youl'name was selected by means of a random sampling of Michigan State University staff members with instructional responsibilities. Your name will not be used in the treatment of the data you give. The number assigned to the questionnaire is to be used only for the follow—up of non-respondents. Will you please check the apprOpriate responses on the enclosed questionnaire? Although there are ten pages, there are only sixty items to which responses are . requested. A self-addressed envelope is attached for return by Campus Mail. Since there is a dearth of information about faculty understanding and attitudes concerning college student personnel services, it is hOped that this study will contribute significantly to knowledge in this area. Sincerely, Laurine E. Fitzgerald Graduate student MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 0 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES November 26, 1958 Recently you received a questionnaire concerning a study of instructional staff perceptions of student personnel services on the college and university cam- pus. This questionnaire is a part of a graduate research project. The instrument is not designed to "test" your knowledge of these services on the campus, but rather is to provide for an expression of your Opinion of the im ortance of the student personnel functions, as welg as an evaluation of these services. It would be verg much appreciated if you could find the time to check t e apprOpriate responses on the questuxw naire. Your reactions would contribute materially to the study. If you have misplaced the original ques- tionnaire sent to adup licate will be sent if you will call Universi y uExten31on 5561 and leave a mes- sage for me. If you have already completed and returned the ques- tionnaire, thank you very much. Sincerely, Laurine E. Fitzgerald Graduate student MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 0 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Thank you very much for your contribution to the research project concerning instructional staff perceptions of student personnel services. I am hOpeful that the completed research will have significance for student personnel workers, and that it may prove beneficial for higher education as a result of better understanding of attitudes and perceptions regarding these services. Sincerely, Laurine E. Fitzgerald Graduate student APPENDIX C SELECTED COMMENTS FROM WRITTEN COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM NON-RESPONDENTS WITHIN THE SELECTED FACULTY GROUP ._ 264 .. "I do not believe I'm qualified to answer your questionnaire. I do hold an appointment as Associate Professor Of ..., but only for the purpose of being on the graduate faculty staff, and to work with graduate students. Associate Professor College of Science and Arts" * t i "I am returning the questionnaire submitted to me for checking, inasmuch as I do not feel qualified to pass Opinions on most of the questions asked. I would suggest that you submit it to someone else who has the information. Professor College of Science and Arts" *** "I must beg to be excused from filling out your questionnaire. I have just returned from the hospital, and I am asked to guard my blood pressure. Assistant Professor _ College of Science and Arts" *## "I am willing to agree that most of the subjects considered are worthwhile human services, and have the distinct feeling that the vast majority have nothing more nor less to do with higher education than they do with any other collection of people. To give a rating in terms of significance of these services relative to higher education could at best only be a relative rating of importance which would make necessary the inclusion of the true aims of higher education (which are not in- cluded). In my Opinion, these services are 'frosting on the cake' which should be as thick and sweet as one can afford AFTER he has had a healthy, well-balanced meal. Associate Professor College of Engineering" *** "I think this is a case where random sampling fails. I do not believe all staff members have this intensive knowledge. Certainly I do not and am there- fore returning the questionnaire unmarked. Associate Professor College of Science and Arts" *** "You will probably have difficulty punching onto cards the answers on this questionnaire: this is because I refuse to say 'yes' or 'nO' to questions like 'Have you stOpped beating your wife yet?’ I am certain that any results you may get from these questionnaires will be invalidated by the ambiguity Of nearly all the questions on it: the haziness of the term 'higher edu- cation' itself assures this. P.S. This criticism is not meant personally; you can scarcely be blamed for having learned so well what is taught in the College of Education. Assistant Professor College of Science & Arts" *** "This is being returned incomplete. I do not feel justified in taking University time, which could better be used on our own work, nor do I wish to use my own time for this purpose. In my Opinion, little if any good to the agen- cies refered sic] to will come from this project. As to the need, justification, and value Of each agency I believe that there are administrative officers at M.S.U. who are competent to judge them. Assistant Professor i College of Agriculture" * * * "I studied carefully the Student Personnel Ser- vices questionnaire you sent me, but I do not feel qual- ified to fill it prOperly. My experience has been with a relatively limited number of students, and has been only class-room experience in most cases. With most of the services you mention I have had no contact whatso- ever and would be completely unable to judge of their good or bad functioning. I return the questionnaire to you hoping you can send it to somebody who knows more about these questions than I do. Assistant Professor College of Science and Arts" *** "The questions were of such a nature that, should I have filled out this questionnaire, I would have been inclined to rate the various items as being very desirable and the facilities on campus as being outstanding. However, these ratings would have been based on Opinions without information. The only way that a person can answer these questions is to be thoroughly familiar with the various Operations about which you ask as they are available on the Michigan State campus. It is my policy not to waste time filling out questionnaires of this sort; therefore, I recommend to you that you circulate my OOpy to someone else. Professor College of Agriculture" RooM USE om