STUDENT NEEDS AND COLLEGE ENVIRONMENTS 0F SELECTED UNLVERSLTLES IN THE PHILIPPINES Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNEVERSLTY EDELMIRA D. SINCO 1968 L/II/LI/IL’III/l/IM t’lllllfl/lI/A’ Ee'ifci, Jc‘Il’azt'i State University . l-i -' a ’J is. This is to certify that the thesis entitled Student Needs and College Environments of Selected Universities in the Philippines presented by Edelmira D. Sinco has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _£h_._11.. degree in _Ediicai;_io n f ~///€//‘7ZQ /¢..2; Major pl/fessor DateflfllflmhflLZMr 0-169 “\v _ X 3 sons my INC. :1 ABSTRACT STUDENT NEEDS AND COLLEGE ENVIRONMENTS OF SELECTED UNIVERSITIES IN THE PHILIPPINES BY Edelmira D. Sinco The Problem The purpose of this investigation was to study the personality needs of students and their perceptions of the environmental press of their institutions in three of the largest universities in the Philippines. These were a pub- lic university; a private and sectarian institution; and a private, non-sectarian university. It was the purpose of this study also to compare the differences between freshmen's and sophomores' personality needs and their perceptions of the press of their respective institutions. It was hypothesized that at the five per cent level no significant differences existed in perceptions of fresh- men and sophomores of the college environmental press based on eleven environment factors derived from the College Characteristics Index in the public university, the private, sectarian university, and the private, non-sectarian uni- versity. It was also hypothesized on the five per cent Edelmira D. Sinco level that no significant differences could be found in the personality needs of freshmen and sophomore students based on twelve personality factors as assessed by the Stern Activities Index. The Sample The sample for the study came from freshmen and soph- omore students enrolled in a public university, a private, sectarian university, and a private, non-sectarian university (three of the largest universities in the Philippines based on student population during the academic year 1966-1967). The students were enrolled in the second semester of the school year 1966-1967 and were drawn randomly from freshmen and sophomore classes. The Methodology The student respondents were given two questionnaires: the College Characteristics Index and the Stern Activities Index. Mean scores from the College Characteristics Index were combined to form eleven environment factors. The Stern Activities Index scores were also combined to arrive at twelve factors of personality. At the five per cent level significant differences for each of the twenty three factors were determined by the use of the t_tests. Edelmira D. Sinco The Findings It was hypothesized at the five per cent level that there would be no significant differences in the perceptions of the environmental press by freshmen and sophomore students on the eleven environment factors: namely, Aspirational Level, Intellectual Climate, Student Dignity, Academic Climate, Academic Achievement, Self-Expression, Group Life, Academic Organization, Social Form, PlayeWork, and Vocational Climate. It was also hypothesized at the five per cent level that no significant differences would be found in the person- ality needs of the respondents based on the following twelve personality factors: Self-Assertion, Audacity-Timidity, Intellectual Interests, Motivation, Applied Interests, Orderli- ness, Submissiveness, Closeness, Sensuousness, Friendliness, Expressiveness-Constraint, and ggoism-Diffidence. The public university environment was characterized by high scores on Academic Achievement, Academic Climate, Self- Expression, Intellectual Climate, Aspirational Level, and Social Form. No significant differences were found on each of the eleven environment factors. Hence hypothesis 1 to hypothesis ll that suggested that no significant differences would occur were all accepted. The students of the public university were found to have high needs in the following personality factors: Edelmira D. Sinco Applied Interests, Intellectual Interests, Motivation, Orderliness, Closeness, and Submissiveness. They showed low needs for Expressiveness-Constraint and Egoism—Diffidence. There were no significant differences in the personality needs of the students in all the personality factors except one, in Applied Interests, where the freshmen showed a greater need. Thus hypothesis 12 to hypothesis 25 were supported except hypothesis 16 which was rejected. In the private, sectarian university, the press of the environment was found strongest in Academic Climate, Academic Achievement, Social Form, Academic Organization, Group Life, and Vocational Climate and lowest in Student Dignity. There were no significant differences in the students' perceptions of the press of the environment. Thus hypothe- ses 1 to 11 were accepted. The student body, on the other hand, was found to have strong needs in the following areas: Applied Interests, Intellectual Interests, Closeness, Orderliness, and Submis- siveness. They showed only a low need for Expressiveness- Constraint. No significant differences existed in the personality needs of the students. Hence hypotheses 12 to 25 were sup— ported. The press of the environment in the private, non- sectarian institution was in the direction of Vocational Climate and Academic Organization. Low press was perceived Edelmira D. Sinco in the factors of Aspirational Level, Intellectual Climate, and Academic Climate. No significant differences were found in the students' perceptions of the college environment. Hypothesis 1 to hypothesis 11 were then accepted. Student personality needs in this university were found greatest in the following factors: Applied Interests, Intellectual Interests, Orderliness, and Closeness. Students had low need for Expressiveness-Constraint and Sensuousness. The students did not show any significant differences in their personality needs. Hence hypotheses 12 to 23 were accepted. STUDENT NEEDS AND COLLEGE ENVIRONMENTS OF SELECTED UNIVERSITIES IN THE PHILIPPINES BY Edelmira D. Sinco A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1968 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of this research was possible with the assistance of a number of people. The researcher would like to make special mention of the invaluable assistance of Dr. Walter F. Johnson during the research and throughout her doctoral studies. Sincere gratitude goes also to Dr. Laurine E. Fitzgerald, Dr. Floyd W. Reeves, and Dr. Edgar A. Schuler for their comments and criticisms which strengthened major points of the research. The researcher would like to acknowledge the help extended to her by the officials and faculty of the univer- sities involved in the study in the data gathering. Acknowledgment is also made of the helpful criticisms of Dr. Eleanor T. Elequin of the University of the Philippines. The researcher would also like to acknowledge the help- ful suggestions of Dr. George G. Stern on how to use the Indexes with Filipino respondents. To Leandro G. Sinco, without whose inspiration and encouragement the present study would not have been possible, goes the researcher's deepest appreciation. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page I. THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . 3 Theoretical Background of the Study . . . . 5 Importance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . 7 Setting of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Definitions of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . 13 II. REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES. . . . . . . . . . . 24 Studies of College Environments . . . . . 24 Studies on College Press and Student Needs. 35 III. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . 42 Population and Sample . . . . . . . . , . . 42 Description of the Instruments. . . . . . . 43 Procedures for Collecting the Data. . . . . 46 Procedures for Analyzing the Data . . . . . 47 Basic Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Hypotheses. . . . . . . . .o. . . . . . . . 49 IV. ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH RESULTS . . . . . . . . . 55 Analysis of Research Results. . . . . . . . 53 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Students' Perceptions of Their Institutions 63 Students' Personality Needs . . . . . . . . 71 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 The Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 The Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 The Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Implications for Further Research . . . . . 92 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Page BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 APPENDIX A--College Characteristics Index . . . . . . 104 APPENDIX B—-Changes Made in Some Items of College Characteristics Index . . . . . . . . . . 120 APPENDIX C--Stern Activities Index. . . . . . . . . . 122 APPENDIX D-—Changes Made in Some Items of Stern Activities Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 iv TABLE II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. LIST OF TABLES Reliability Coefficients for the Scales of the Stern Activities Index and the College Charac- teristics Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations Between Intellectual Climate Score (CCI) and Other Measures of Academic Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Mean Scores and Standard Devia- tions on the College Characteristics Index for Freshmen and Sophomores at the Public Univer- Sity O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Comparison of Mean Scores and Standard Devia- tions on the College Characteristics Index for Freshmen and SoPhomores at the Private, Sectarian University . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Mean Scores and Standard Devia— tions on the College Characteristics Index for Freshmen and Sophomores at the Private, Non- sectarian University . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Mean Scores and Standard Devia- tions on the Stern Activities Index for Fresh— men and SOphomores at the Public University. . Comparison of Mean Scores and Standard Devia— tions on the Stern Activities Index for Fresh- men and Sophomores at the Private, Sectarian University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Mean Scores and Standard Devia- tions on the Stern Activities Index for Fresh- men and Sophomores at the Private, Non- sectarian University . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 33 36 56 57 58 60 61 62 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction College environments and personality needs of students are two fields which have been explored extensively and intensively by researchers in the United States of America for the last ten years. Findings of these researchers have helped make people involved in higher education aware of the impact of the college environment on the students. As a result, university and college administrators have developed very important and useful insights in their efforts to make college years more meaningful and satisfying to the students. Knowledge of the impact of the college environment on the students cannot be overemphasized, especially in a developing country like the Philippines. However, there has not been any study along this line in our country except a pilot study conducted by the present investigator in Foundation College, a small, private, and non-sectarian in- stitution in the southern part of the country. Several studies (10, 20, 27, 95) have shown that Philippine schools, colleges, and universities have failed to prepare adequately the students for the task of nation building. Indeed, in order to enable higher education to prOpel our country to a more rapid socio-cultural and economic growth, school administrators must have a broadened understanding and a better insight into the workings of the college environment. There are many types of educational institutions in the Philippines as listed by Carson (20). The public schools and the more than four thousand private institutions seek the mental and cultural uplift of the people. To serve more meaningfully and attain their objectives more truly, college and university administrators need to have a realistic and better conception of the college environment and its impact on the students. Growth in number and types of students entering higher education, growth in the types of curricular offerings, and growth in co-curricular problems have brought with them com- plexities. However, college and university authorities are not sure that the emergent and differentiated approaches adopted by their respective institutions agree closely with the Operative psychological environment. Probing into the situation, college and university authorities may come up with realistically designed and supported programs, policies, and goals. Hence this study, which hopes to give administra- tors of different types of colleges and universities in the Philippines a better insight and understanding of the work- ings of the college environment and its impact on the students. Statement of the Problem College students at the outset have certain personality needs arising out of their own individual motivations, drives, objectives, and the sum total of their nature. Upon admission into college, they step into an atmosphere which acts as a powerful force on them and which, after a time, permeates to a considerable extent their lives and activities. Putting it more simply, since the college environment of the student includes rules, regulations, and policies; teaching and classroom activities; the curriculum; student organiza- tions; and other features of the university and its campus, it is quite possible that certain student personality needs and behavior patterns would be affected by these factors. The problem in this investigation is two-fold. First, it is to determine how freshmen and soPhomore students in three types of institutions of higher learning in the Philippines perceive the environmental press (this term is to be defined subsequently) of their respective institutions. Second, it is to ascertain the personality needs (defined subsequently) of these freshmen and sophomore students. It is hypothesized that these two different class levels of students attending the same university have the same person- ality needs and that the freshmen's perceptions of the environmental press of their institution will not differ in a significant manner from the perceptions of the sophomores in this respect. More specifically, the following questions will be in— vestigated: A. How do freshmen and sophomore students in the three types of institutions of higher learning included in the study perceive the environmental press of their respective institutions and in what ways do they differ? B. What are the personality needs of freshmen and soph- omore students in the three types of institutions studied here and in what ways do they differ? The variables of personality needs and perceptions of the environmental press of the freshmen and s0phomore stu- dents of the three institutions will be measured by instru- ments developed by George G. Stern and C. Robert Pace (64, 89) for this purpose. The freshmen who will be included in this study are those enrolled in the second semester of their first year in the university. The sophomores will be students enrolled in the second semester of their second year in the university. These students will be drawn from those enrolled in the largest state-supported, public uni— versity; a large sectarian university; and a large, private, non-sectarian university; all are located in urban centers in the Philippines. No attempt will be made to make any statistical or rigorous inter—comparisons of results obtained from the three universities since it is outside the purpose of this study. However, some descriptive observations of the findings will be presented for the general interest of the reader and where they might suggest some implications for further research. Theoretical Background of the Study The concept of press and needs or situational and person- al determinants of behavior underlies this research. From the environment spring the situational determinants of behavior and those features of the environment which exert a force in the determination of behavior are termed by Murray (59) as "press." Press refers to the influence of the environ- ment on the individual. Murray also termed "needs" the internal counterparts of these external influences. These needs are the personal determinants of behavior stemming from an individual's drives, motives, and goals. Thus it is necessary to study what Murphy (58) states as the situations that act upon persons and the internal counterparts of these situations. Man, his society, and his environment are closely inte- grated and their interaction is continuous. An individual is dependent on this fellow beings for the satisfaction of his needs and wants. His drives and motives impel him and direct his behavior toward some goal. In satisfying these drives and motives, he interacts with others and in the process, his behavior is altered in manner and degree by the pressure of others. Man is by nature variable and malleable in the face of social conditions under which he grows and develops. He grows and matures into a particular kind of man as a result of what he learns from others in society. The process of socialization brings him an aware- ness of position and status in his community and the role he is expected to play in order to validate his membership in the group. As a result, he develops and organizes patterns or types of behavior which, to him, appear situationally in accordance with the demands of his group and in keeping with his motives and drives. A wide range of behavior and activi- ties, therefore, arise out of an individual's interaction with others, which may be undertaken one after the other on the basis of priority impelled by demands and expectations of his social and cultural milieu. In understanding behavior, due weight and consideration have to be given to personal and situational determinants of behavior by way of analyzing the personality needs character- izing the individual in the context of his environment. Individual behavior, therefore, must be understood in terms of a combination of personal and situational determinants. Murray (59) has made explicit in his writings the inte- gration of these determinants of behavior, using the concept of role as basic to the integration of press and needs. A role calls for one action or another depending on the person's need and the press of the environment. With Murray's dual concept of personal needs and environ- mental press, Stern devised the Stern Activities Index (89) to assess student needs which are externalized and reflected by things that an individual student typically does. The Pace and Stern College Characteristics Index (64) describes the college environmental press which is inferred from things typically done to and for the students in a particular aca- demic setting. These two instruments, therefore, rely on the integration of personal and situational determinants of behavior. In the academic setting then, the ideal would be a congruence between the college environmental press and the personality needs of the students. If Murray's theory of press and needs applied in the academic situation, then the students in a university, regardless of year levels and courses, would have about the same personality needs and perceptions of the environmental press of their institution. Likewise, it could be expected that the students in different institutions would have dif- ferent personality needs and different perceptions of the environmental press along the lines of admissions, guidance and counseling, instructional plans and programs, curricular and co-curricular features, school policies and goals, etc. In this research, situational analysis is concentrated and limited to the environment of three types of institutions of higher learning in the Philippines. Importance of the Study Colleges and universities have certain pre-determined objectives as bases for being and their Operational plans and programs are supposedly closely geared to them. However, often what has been formulated and put into operation tends to veer the institutions away rather than steer their move— ments toward their pre-determined ends. The full significance of this may be appraised when we consider that in a college or university, it is the actual environmental press that the students have to cope with and not the explicitly stated pur- poses and objectives. An inquiry into the environmental characteristics of a university will lend clarity to the question of what kind of orientation is given to the students, what kind of personality needs the environment does provide or fail to provide, and in general, what kind of students the university will be able to develop and nurture within its fold. The orientation provided by the university environment may emphasize certain values, instill others, submerge some, and overtly or subtly run counter to all the rest. It may be conducive to the explora- tion of ideas and abstract concepts, to intellectual excur- sions into profound studies, or it may controvert all these and promote the less desirable values and personality vari- ables, play up certain secondary traits, and obstruct the more important ones. The achievement of the fundamental purposes of the university, the determination of the effectiveness of the learning situations, and the development of the students are matters that require an analytical review by a university so that it may be able to chart its course toward its pre- determined objectives. Results are related to means and means to the operative environment. Therefore, the study and discovery of the Operative environment is essential to the realization of the Objectives, for within this environ- ment lie the determinants of a university's evolution and emergence into one with a definite character and purpose. Knowledge of what actually occurs in a university environ- ment strikes at the very base of the problem and prescribes the solution. It is against such a background that one can intelligently scrutinize and assess the character of a uni- versity. There is much to be gained in knowing and understanding the environmental characteristics of a university. For one thing, it gives a truer concept of the Operative situation, a knowledge important to the university policy makers. This knowledge will enable them to adopt a realistic approach to more efficacious and productive programs and more effective methods. A certain amount of unity is, therefore, achieved and emphasized, a unity which meaningfully connects univer- sity policies and goals to programs. Teaching, classroom activities, and curricular and co-curricular features of the campus are geared to help the students find the operative environment of the university more satisfying and rewarding. An inquiry into the basic nature of the university environment will provide better guiding principles in the 10 selection and recruitment of students and faculty members. It will serve to determine what educational values to serve, the contents of the curriculum, programs and activities that tend to give expression and sense to such values, the re- vision and change in the improvement of teaching techniques. It will serve to provide for a more effective program of student counseling and guidance and other measures designed to achieve more from the known patterns of interplay between the university and its population. The need to know the impact of the college environment on the students cannot be understated, especially in the Philippines. There has been unprecedented rise in college enrollments both in private institutions, which handle nearly ninety per cent of the total college enrollment, and public colleges and universities. Setting of the Study The study was conducted in three different loci: a government-supported university; a private, sectarian insti- tution; and a private, non-sectarian school. Two were located in the Greater Manila area and the third was in the central part of the country. The government-supported institution was established for the Filipino people at the turn of the century to provide advanced instruction in literature, philosophy, the arts and sciences, and to give professional and technical training as provided in its charter. 11 It has many colleges (situated in many parts of the country), both graduate and undergraduate, offering a whole range of courses designed to meet the needs of the develop- ing country. It is selective in admissions, and coeduca- tional with more men than women in all the colleges except in the colleges of education and pharmacy. Faculty and facilities are excellent and academic standards are very high. Thus its graduates hold a good eighty per cent of the country's positions of leadership. In addition, the university finds itself the center of Specialized training programs available to students of other Asian nations in cooperation with the various international agencies and philanthropic foundations. The private, sectarian institution is related to the Roman Catholic Church, basing its education on "the princi- ples of the Catholic faith contained in the teachings of Christ, and on the proven facts and laws of true science found in human reason." It has been working to produce men and women "able and willing to provide constructive leader- ship in the religious, cultural, social, political, educa- tional, economic, and scientific life of the community" for the last thirty-one years. Courses offered on the graduate and undergraduate levels are many and varied, most of which are highly specialized. Admission is not selective although the university reserves the right to refuse readmission of students it deems unde- sirable. 12 The faculty consists of priests belonging to the Society of the Divine Word and Roman Catholic laymen trained in their fields of specialization. Buildings and facilities are situated in the heart of the downtown area, including a well-stocked library. Religion is a required subject for the first two years, regardless of a student's choice of course work. A University chapel is also provided to enable students and faculty members to fulfill their religious obligations. Students' social and academic life is highly controlled with detailed regulations to govern their con- duct inside and outside the classrooms. The private, non-sectarian school, now thirty-four years old, started as a business college, later becoming a university in answer to the needs and demands of the emerg- ing nation. The University's goal is to produce young men and women needed by business and industry, the schools, and the government. From purely business courses and programs, the university has expanded to include medicine, nursing, law, education, engineering and other technology courses. Admission is non-selective although there are plans to introduce a program of selective admission and selective retention to curb the growth of the student population and limit the enrollment to only those who can comply with the proposed rigid scholastic requirements. The faculty are trained in various fields of concentration. Buildings and 15 facilities are located in a twenty-acre campus in the heart of the metropolis. It is a commuter university attracting students from all over the country. A recent circular from the administration expounded on new directions to be taken by the University in answer to rapid changes taking place the world over. Definitions of Terms The following definitions are given for the various terms used for purposes of understanding the procedures and results of the investigation. Needs refer to denotable characteristics of individuals, including drives, motives, and goals. This is the defini- tion developed by Murray (59). Press is a term developed by Murray (59) to be used as a general label for stimulus, treatment, or process vari- ables, reflected in the characteristic pressures, stresses, rewards, and influences of the college environment. A public university is a government-supported institu- tion given university status. For purposes of this study, it will be one which has the largest student population. A privatel sectarian uniyersity is one which is church— related and receives major support from religious groups. In this study it will be the second largest Catholic univer- sity in the Philippines (the largest one refused to cooperate). 14 A private, non-sectarian institution is one which is not church-related and is owned and controlled by private individuals. Sophomores, in all types of institutions included in the study, are students enrolled full time in the second semester of their second year in an institution of higher learning. Freshmen are students enrolled full time in the second semester of their first year in the university. The definitions of each of the factors of the College Characteristics Index used as indices of college character- istics were done by Pace and Stern and were taken directly from the CCI and AI manual of instructions (87). 1. Aspirational_;evel. A high score on this factor indicates that the college encourages students to set high standards for themselves in a variety of ways. These include opportunities for students to participate in decision-making processes involving the administration of the school, and administrative receptivity to change and innovation, thus implying that a student's efforts to make some impact on his environment have some probability of being successful. A high level of aspiration is also encouraged by introducing students to individuals and ideas likely to serve as models of intellectual and professional achievement. 2. Iptellectual Climate. All the various items con- tributing to this factor reflect the qualities of staff and 15 plant specifically devoted to scholarly activities in the humanities, arts, and social sciences. 3. Student Dignity. This factor is associated with institutional attempts to preserve student freedom and maxi- mize personal responsibility. Schools with high scores on this factor tend to regulate student conduct by means other than legislative codes or administrative fiat. There is a minimum of coercion and students are generally treated with the same level or respect accorded any mature adult. 4. Academic Climate. This factor stresses academic excellence in staff and facilities in the conventional areas of the natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities. 5. Academic Achievement. Schools high in this factor set high standards of achievement for their students. Course work, examinations, honors, and similar devices are employed for this purpose. 6. §e1f_§xpression. This factor is concerned with Opportunities offered to the student for the development of leadership potential and self assurance. Among the activi- ties serving this purpose are public discussions and debates, projects, student drama and musical activities, and other forms of participation in highly visible activities. 7. Group_§ife. This factor is concerned with various forms of mutually supportive group activities among the student body. These activities are of a warm, friendly character, more or less typifying adolescent togetherness, 16 but the items also reflect a more serious side to this cul- ture as represented in activities devoted to the welfare of fellow students and less fortunate members of the com- munity. 8. Academic Organization. The various components of this factor may be regarded as the environmental counterpart of the needs for orderliness and submissiveness in the individual. High scores on this factor are achieved by in- stitutions which stress a high degree of organization and structure in the academic environment. 9. Social Form. In some respects this factor represents the formal institutionalization of those activities repre— sented in Factor 7 (Group Life). There is in fact consider- able overlap between these two factors, but Factor 9 minimizes the friendly aspects of Factor 7 while stressing its welfare components. Schools characterized by this factor also offer Opportunities for the development of social skills of a formal nature and in some respects suggest the finishing school counterpart of the vocational climate represented in Factor 11. 10. Play-Work. Schools high in this factor offer Oppor- tunities for participation in a form of collegiate life reminiscent of the popular culture of the 1920's. These are the institutions sometimes referred to as the fountains of knowledge where students gather to drink. 11. Vocational Climate. The items of Factor 11 empha- size practical, applied activities, the rejection of 17 aesthetic experience, and a high level of orderliness and conformity in the student's relations to the faculty, his peers, and his studies. The definitions of each of the factors of the Stern Activities Index were developed by Stern and were taken directly from the CCI and AI manual of instructions (87). 1. Self Assertion. This factor reflects a need to achieve personal power and socio-political recognition. It is based on items which emphasize political action, directing or controlling other people, and the acceptance of roles involving considerable group attention. 2. Audaciterimidity. The second factor is more per- sonally than socially oriented. The emphasis here is on aggressiveness in both physical activities and in inter- personal relationships. It is of interest that this personal aggressiveness should also be associated with a high level of interest in science. 3. Intellectual Interests. The factors with the highest loadings in this dimension are based on items involving various forms of intellectual activities. These include interests in the arts as well as the sciences, both abstract and empirical. 4. Motivation. This factor represents another form in which need achievement may be expressed. Here, however, are the more conventional forms of striving most recogniz- able among students, involving elements of competitiveness and perseverance as well as of intellectual aspiration. 18 5. Applied Interests. A high score on this factor sug- gests an interest in achieving success in concrete, tangible, socially acceptable activities. The items involve orderly and conventional application in business and science. 6. Orderliness. People with high scores in this factor have indicated a marked interest in activities stressing personal organization and deliberativeness. Although some of the items are concerned with long range planning and relatively high level time perspective, the major emphasis here is on the maintenance of ritual and routine and the avoidance of impulsive behavior. 7. Submissiveness. The preceding factor suggests a strong defensive system, based on rigid internal controls, for guarding against the expression of impulses. The Sub- missiveness factor also implies a high level of control, but one which is based on social conformity and other- directedness. The items emphasize humility, deference, getting along with others, keeping in one's place, etc. 8. Closeness. This factor is closely related to Factor 7, with which it shares both the Nurturance and Deference scales. However, the abasive and self-denying qualities implicit in Factor 7 are absent here. In their place is an acceptance of items which recognized one's needs for warmth and emotional supportiveness. 9. Sensuousness. The thirty items associated with this factor are concerned with activities of a sensual character. 19 The items suggest a measure of self-indulgence along with a delight in the gratifications which may be Obtained through the senses. 10. Friendliness. Persons with high scores on this factor are indicating an interest in playful, friendly rela- tionships with other people. These interests involve simple and uncomplicated forms of amusement enjoyed in a group setting. 11. Exppessiveness-Constraint. This factor stresses emotional lability and freedom from self—imposed controls. Individuals with high scores on this factor are outgoing, spontaneous, impulsive, and uninhibited. 12. Egoism—Diffidence. This factor reflects an extreme preoccupation with self. The items are concerned with ap- pearance and comfort, as well as with fantasies in which the self obtains unusually high levels of gratification. The responses to other items in this group suggest that reality itself is interpreted in egocentric terms, but this may not be so much a matter of autistic distortion as of narcissistic egoism. Definitions of each of the scales in the College Characteristics Index and the Stern Activities Index were developed by Pace and Stern and were also directly taken from the CCI and AI manual of instructions (86). 1. Abasement-Assurance. Self-depreciation and devalu- ation as reflected in the ready acknowledgment of mistakes, failures, and humiliations. 2O . 2. Achievement. Surmounting obstacles (physical, per- sonal or interpersonal) and proving personal worth. 3. Adappability-Defensiveness. Acceptance of criticism or advice publicly versus concealment or justification of failure and humiliation. 4. Affiliation-Rejection. Close, friendly, reciprocal association with others versus disassociation from others, withholding friendship and support. 5. Aggression—Blame Avoidance. Overt or covert hostil- ity towards others versus the denial or inhibition of such impulses. 6. Change—Sameness. Unroutinized, changeable behavior versus repetitive and perseverative action. 7. Conjunctivity-Disjunctivity. Organization of cog- nitive activities versus uncoordinated, diffuse, or non- conforming behavior. 8. Counteraction-Inferiority Avoidance. Restriving in order to overcome experienced frustrations, failures, or humiliations versus avoidance, withdrawal or protective measures in situations which might result in such outcomes. 9. Deference-Restiveness. SyCOphantic submission to the Opinions and preferences of others perceived as superior. 10. Dominance-Tolerance. Ascendancy over others by means of assertive or manipulative control. 11. Ego Achievement. Self dramatizing, idealistic social action; active or fantasied achievement oriented in terms of dominance or influence. 21 12. Emotionality-Placidity. Intense, open emotional display versus calm, serene, or restrained responsiveness. 13. Energy-Passivity. Intense, sustained vigorous effort versus sluggish inertia. 14. Exhibitionism-Inferioripy Avoidance. Self—display and attention-getting versus avoidance, withdrawal or pro- tective measures in situations which might result in atten- tion from others. 15. Fantasied Achievement. Daydreams of success in achieving extraordinary personal recognition; narcissistic aspirations for personal distinction and power. 16. Harm Avoidance-Risktaking. Avoidance, withdrawal or protective measures in situations which might result in physical pain, injury, illness or death versus indifference to danger, challenging or provocative disregard for personal safety; thrill—seeking. 17. Humanities-Social Sciences. The symbolic manipula- tion of social objects or artifacts through empirical analy- sis, reflection, discussion, and criticism. 18. Impulsiveness-Deliberation. Impulsive, spontaneous or impetuous behavior versus careful, cautious, considered reflectiveness. 19. Narcissism. Preoccupation with self; erotic feel- ings associated with one's own body or personality. 20. Nurturance—Rejection. Supporting others by provid- ing love, assistance, or protection versus disassociation from others, withholding support and friendship. 22 21. Objectivipy-Projectivity. Detached, non-magical, unprejudiced, impersonal thinking versus superstitious, autistic, irrational, paranoid or otherwise egocentric perceptions and beliefs. 22. Order-Disorder. Compulsive organization of the immediate physical environment, manifested in a preoccupa- tion with neatness, orderliness, arrangement, and meticulous attention to detail. 23. Play-Work. Pursuit of amusement and entertainment versus persistently purposeful, serious, task-oriented behavior. 24. Practicalness-Impracticalnegg. Useful, tangibly productive, nontheoretical applications of skill or experi- ence in manual arts, social affairs, or commercial activities. 25. Reflectiveness. Intraceptive activities; intro— spective preoccupation with private psychological, spiritual, aesthetic, or metaphysical experience. 26. Science. The symbolic manipulation of physical objects through empirical analysis, reflection, discussion, and criticism. 27. Sensuality-Puritanism. Voluptuous sensory stimula- tion and gratification. 28. Sexuality-Prudishness. Erotic heterosexual interest or activity versus the denial of such impulses. 29. Supplication-Autonomy. Dependence on others for love, assistance and protection versus detachment, independ- ence, self-reliance. 23 30. Understanding. Detached intellectualization; problem-solving, analysis, and abstraction as ends in them- selves. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES In 1938 H. A. Murray (59) headed a team that made a clinical and experimental study of fifty men of college age. Using 44 variables of personality, he evolved a theory of personality based on situational and personal determinants of behavior or what he called the needs-press concept. Based upon Murray's dual concept of personal needs and environmental press, C. Robert Pace and George G. Stern (63) devised instruments to assess student needs and to describe college environments. Both instruments were develOped in terms of Murray's taxonomy for classifying both the environ- mental pressures and the characteristic ways in which an individual strives to structure the environment for himself. Studies of College Environments With the publication of Stern and Pace's needs and press instruments, researchers began to study college environ- ments and their influence on the students. Jacob (47) studied changes in the patterns of values held by students during their college years. He found that 24 25 colleges do have distinctive climates but there are no teaching methods, curricular offerings and features, or teachers that would and could insure changes in the values of students in college. Reisman (66) who reviewed Jacob's work and studied student culture and faculty values tended to attribute the college climate to the characteristics of the students whom it attracts and admits. From the Center for the Study of Higher Education of the University of California at Berkeley (96) came the study of eight colleges to ascertain changes in student attitudes and values in each of the eight colleges. Students described their colleges in different ways in accordance with the pre- vailing intellectual and non-intellectual features of the environment. Colleges differed and students differed, too. It would seem that the reputation of a college or university plays an important role in determining the kinds and types of students that seek admission year after year. Eddy and his associates (28) in a study of twenty American colleges and universities in seventeen states, assessed the college influence on student character. Among other things, the researchers saw the over-all college climate as stemming from such things as the level of expectancy in academic performance, the nature of teaching done, the organi- cation of the curriculum, the interpersonal relationships between and among the faculty and the students, religious opportunity and the degree of student responsibility allowed and encouraged. 26 In a study of the academic excellence of Vassar girls, Brown (15) found excellence to be a function of the college environment and the personality of the students. A college, therefore, can maximize a student's potential if it has the environment for the fullest intellectual develOpment of the particular type of students it has and attracts. There are varied types of environment for learning as there are varied types of students. Stern (83) in his studies concluded that the same educational goals might be pursued but some students would find one kind of learning environment as more effective than another. What is the optimal learning environment? It must be one where "the characteristics of the student and the objectives of the program are both employed as guides in the design of the most effective environments for learning" (83). McConnell and Heist (58,54) like Holland (40,41,42) in their study of college students noted that a whole range of factors including goals, interests, attitudes, personalities, and social and cultural backgrounds of the students goes into the college environment of a particular college or university. In a study by Astin (2) of 246 colleges involving 36,000 students, certain factor patterns came out which were diver- gent from patterns derived from other measures of environ— mental press. It, therefore, becomes apparent that campus activities and student behavior help define and shape a par— ticular college environment. 27 Students are a significant institutional factor who contribute to the educational outcomes of an institution. Bushnell's study (18) of student culture at Vassar pointed to the fact that a student's peer group determines to a con- siderable degree what and how acculturation and enculturation take place during the college years. Hughes and his associ- ates (44) Observed the same phenomenon among medical students. Student culture provides a "basis for a modus vivendi" between students and faculty, used partly against the faculty. To understand student culture best is to understand it in the light of the history of the institution as pointed out by Berry (13). Dressel and Mayhew (26) in a study of nineteen colleges noted better test performance in Inventory of Beliefs, Critical Thinking in the Natural Sciences, and Critical Thinking in the Social Sciences of students in colleges with certain distinctive features. In short, these colleges had greater impact on the students than other colleges with no such distinguishing characteristics. To Mayhew (52) the learning environment is conditioned by several institutional factors such as size and quality of the faculty, the student body and the campus, educational philosophy of the institution, the administrative structure, admissions policies, and the institution's location, among other things. To create a con- ducive environment for learning, therefore, people in higher education must pay close and particular attention and consid- eration to the above mentioned factors. 28 The college environment is fraught with varied stresses stemming from non-academic pressures, constituting what Snyder (79) calls an invisible curriculum. Students have to cope with these stresses if they are to continue with their affiliation with the institution. Colleges, therefore, must be aware and familiar with these stresses and help students cope with this invisible curriculum. Schoen (71) studied certain aspects of the experimental New College at Hofstra University to find out differences in perceptions of students of the social and intellectual en— vironment of the new college. He found no significant dif- ferences in the perceptions of the environment between the experimental college students and the regular students. However, there were significant differences between the per— ceptions of the environment held by the students and the college climate desired by the faculty. Froe (30) in an independent study on the non-intellec- tive factors in student achievement pointed out the inevit— ability of variation in the achievement performance of freshmen at Morgan State College. From this study it seems obvious that school programs are affected by personal and situational variables. Along this line, Alfred N. Whitehead (101) once observed that the intellectual climate of a pro- gressive college is conducive to learning when it is respon- sive to the individual temperament and needs of the student. In other words, it is highly desirable for the intellectual 29 climate of a college to assume a somewhat resilient character to be able to meet the changing conditions occasioned by the regular annual turnover of the senior student population. Rowe (67) in his study of the implications of background and personality factors for student selection in three women's colleges, stated that application of the measurement of the college environment to the selection procedure would probably increase the effectiveness of student selection. The foregoing studies point to the growing interest in and importance of college environments and their role in the development of students during their college years. Research (81) with the College Characteristics Index and the Stern Activities Index based on samples ranging from psychiatric patients to college students from some 100 col- leges and universities, tends to support the following con- clusions regarding their validity and reliability: 1. Responses to needs scale items appear to be resistant to faking (72,92). 2. The social desirability of needs scale items is relatively homogeneous, none being considered important to accept or to reject by any significant number of subjects (Unpublished data). 3. Behavioral descriptions based solely on needs scale profiles appear to be recognized and confirmed by peers, psychiatrists, and administrators (70). 30 4. There are significant relationships between needs scale profiles and other forms of overt behavior, including: a. academic performance (23,93). b. study habits (31). c. reading skills (14.32.73). d. attitudes and values (25,37,82,83,90). e. deviant behavior (14,23,88). f. other personality processes (24,46,100). 9. career choice (56,74,80,90,91,93). h. social background (Unpublished data). 5. Professionals tend generally to have higher scores on scales reflecting intellectual needs and emotional con— trols than students in the same fields, except for teachers who are characterized by weaker intellectual needs than the education majors matched with them (90). 6. Student bodies tend to be characterized by needs scale profiles readily recognizable as personalized versions of the prevailing press at their institution. There is greater variability between students as they descrfbe themselves, however, than there is in their descriptions of their college press (82,83,90). This is not attributable to the fact that the same students may serve as sources for both sets of data, for there is no relationship between the needs preferences a student records for himself and the press characteristics he attributes to the college either at the same institution (55) or across institutions. 31 7. Press scale profiles based on miscellaneous student samples tend to be consistent with those from more specialized samples of National Merit Scholars and finalists, faculty, and administration at the same institution (63,97,99). 8. There is as much agreement in student response to subjective and impressionistic press items as there is to items more readily verifiable by reference to empirical facts (55). 9. Environmental descriptions based solely on press pro- files appear to be recognized and confirmed by academic participants and observers (Unpublished data). 10. There are significant relationships between press scale profiles and the types of institutions sampled (83,90). a. The majority of schools studied have high scores involving various aspects of constraint and dependency. Denominational colleges are the most extreme in their emphasis on conformity, the so-called elite private liberal arts schools least so. b. These same small liberal arts colleges are also highest in intellectual press. The combined image of high academic achievement and personal autonomy presented by these schools is sharper and further in advance of relevant student characteristics than is true of any other type of institution studied, suggesting a built-in and self-conscious strain toward academic excellence at the elite schools sampled. Wilson and Lyons (102) in their press analysis of work-study programs have also 32 . noted the extent to which this characteristic overrides other bases for the classification of schools. Variants in the orientation of this image of academic excellence suggest two broad dimensions: (a) arts, science or service, and (b) appreciation ver— sus creation. Pace (60) and Thistlethwaite (97,98,99) have elaborated on some of these distinctions in press analyses employing a somewhat different analytic model, as has Hutchins (45) in a study of medical school en— vironments. c. The third group of schools identified by needs- press analysis constitutes the remaining stronghold of a collegiate tradition in American higher education immortalized by Scott Fitzgerald: fountains of knowledge where students gather to drink. Although this species has been on the decline since the 1930's, it is appar- ently saved from total extinction at a few large state schools. These schools are described by their students as sources of social pleasures and togetherness, although lacking in academic strength and direction. Analyses of difference in the images held by various majors at one such large and complex institution indicate that different subcultures within the same school may hold radically different impressions of its character, however (84). Table I gives the reliability coefficient for the scales of the Stern Activities Index and the College Characteristics 33 TABLE I--RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR THE SCALES OF THE ACTIVITIES INDEX AND COLLEGE CHARACTERISTICS INDEXa Scales Reliabilipyb AI CCI Abasement .51 .67 Achievement .73 .81 Adaptiveness .64 .58 Affiliation—Rejection .81 .69 Aggression-Blame Avoidance .69 .72 Change-Sameness .67 .44 Conjunctivity-Disjunctivity .70 .72 Counteraction-Inferiority Avoidance .66 .50 Deference .56 .60 Dominance .77 .57 Ego Achievement .80 .58 Emotionality-Placidity .64 .56 Energy-Passivity .40 .70 Exhibitionism-Inferiority Avoidance .75 .57 Fantasied Achievement .72 .40 Harm Avoidance .67 .70 Humanism .83 .77 Impulsion-Deliberation .64 .50 Narcissism .71 .74 Nurturance—Rejection .73 .70 Objectivity .56 .70 Order .82 .59 Play .71 .75 Pragmatism .74 .69 Reflectiveness ,.68 .76 Science .88 .77 Sensuousness .53 .80 Sexuality .78 .71 Supplication .67 .34 Understanding .74 .75 MEAN .69 .65 aFrom Table 1 (Stern, 1962). Kuder-Richardson formula no. 20. 34 l2§§§ (84). The average scale reliability is .67 using the Kuder-Richardson formula 20; the reliabilities seem high for scales of such short length, using Ebel's simplified method. . An item analysis was made on the 30 scales in five dif— ferent institutions resulting in the following figures. Of the 1500 discrimination indexes, 1% was negative, 18% fell between .0 and .19, 30% fell between .20 and .39, and 15% were.40 or higher. In other words, 81% of the items had, on the average, moderate to high discrimination in their respective scales (63). Perhaps the most important approach in studying the reliability and the validity of the Indexes is to treat re- liability and validity as inseparable and deal with the instrument as a whole. For example, do different peOple characterize the institution in the same way? This involves the reliability of profiles with all their interrelationships. As a first approximation of this, the rank order of mean scores from the students' responses can be compared with the rank order of mean scores from faculty responses within the same institution. Thus, do these groups see the institu- tion in relatively the same pattern? For the two colleges which had the largest number of faculty respondents, these rank order correlations were .96 and .88 (63). Stern (81) studied the characteristics of the intellec- tual climate in college environments involving 23 institutions 35 and 1076 students. Using six factors associated with differ- ent types of institution, Stern found elite liberal arts colleges scoring high on the intellectual orientation factor, liberal arts denominational schools were high on effective- ness factor, large state universities and large private uni- versities had the play factor as dominant, the friendliness factor characterizing a mixed group of schools, the constraint or compliance factor dominating denominational institutions, and the dominance-submission factor characterizing state teacher colleges. Stern also came up with correlations be- tween the intellectual climate score (CCI) and other measures of academic quality. Table II shOws these correlations: with the Knapp-Greenbaum Index, .80: with Ph. D. output, .76; with National Merit Scholars Entrants, .49; with National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test Means, .71; with College Board Verbal mean scores, .83. All these figures point to the close relationships between the intellectual climate of a college and the quality of its students in college and out. Studies on College Press and Student Needs Some of the researches with the Indexes have some rele- vance in this section since they studied college press and student needs. Stern (82) in his study of congruence and dissonance in the ecology of college students, found, among other things, that there were more variations between college press than 36 TABLE II--CORRELATIONS BETWEEN INTELLECTUAL CLIMATE SCORE (CCI) AND OTHER MEASURES OF ACADEMIC QUALITY n r Knapp-Greenbaum Index 50 .80 "Scholars" per 1000 Per Cent Grade Receiving Ph.D. 37 .76 1936-1956 Per Cent Merit Scholar Entrants 41 .49 1956 Merit Scholars per 1000, 1960 25 .59 National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test Means 16 .83 College Board Means Verbal 16 .83 Mathematical 16 .34 37 between student bodies, students at the same college differed more in their needs than in their perceptions of the institu- tion, student needs seemed likely to resemble the press of the environment, and students with similar characteristics seemed to have similar needs. Thistlethwaite (99) in a study related the environmental press to student achievement and concluded that the college environment determined to a great extent the students' desire to pursue post graduate studies, to engage in advanced intel- lectual activities. The results of another study by Thistlethwaite (97) showed that the school faculty members had a great motivation- al role in talented students wanting to pursue Ph. D. degrees. The study showed that the kind of undergraduate instruction which encouraged students to pursue advanced training in the natural sciences differed considerably from that which en- couraged students toward graduate work in the arts, humanities, and social sciences. College press and study plans of talented students were also studied by Thistlethwaite (98). He found that the press and the faculty were related to students' plans in pursuing advanced training. A student's major field influences the student's percep- tion of the total university environment. This was the result of a study conducted by Centra (21) using Pace's College and University Environment Scales. Using the same instrument, 38 Abbot (1) investigated college environmental perceptions of prospective college freshmen and their relationships to the choice of a university. He found direct relationships be— tween college press perceptions and college choice of prospective students. With the develOpment and publication of important data on the Indexes, many researchers used both Indexes in their study of environmental press perceptions and student per- sonality needs. Barger and Hall (7) studied the psychological environ— ment at the University of Florida and found the majority of the students perceiving student togetherness, informality, and a socially inclined student body. Differences in per— ception were evident regarding faculty and administration accessibility to students, degree of student seriousness in intellectual and academic pursuits, and degree of harmony among students and between the students and the faculty. The college environment of a floating university was noted to differ significantly from the environment of the previous colleges attended by the floating university enrollees (33). Three women's colleges in Virginia were studied by Rowe (67) to get an insight into the characteristics of the stu- dents and the college environments. Results Showed consistency between College Characteristics Index and Stern Activities Index scores. Differences in college environments went hand 39 in hand with differences in student needs. For instance, colleges that greatly emphasized intellectualism had students who were more intellectually-inclined than students in colleges with a different emphasis. Studies of the campus climate involving two different groups of students were conducted to find out any significant differences in the climate perceptions. One such study was made at Hofstra University's New College with students of the experimental college and regular students evaluating cer- tain aspects of the New College. There were no significant differences in the perceptions of the social and intellectual climate of the New College. However, there were significant differences between perceptions of the environment held by students and the college climate desired by the faculty (71). Another study along similar lines was conducted at Wisconsin State University between honor and nonhonor freshmen groups (5). Environmental press of the institution was perceived differently by students in accordance with their perceived needs. Hence, the environment exhibited a personalized need profile of the students. On the other hand, Kaspar (49) found that most aspects of the college climate were perceived in much the same way by students of varying mental abilities. Using the premise that commuter students spend less time on the campus and consequently are less attached to the college as compared to resident college students, Lindahl (50) studied the impact of living arrangements on student 40 environmental perceptions. He found significant differences in commuter and resident students' perceptions on four of five dimensions used in the study. Baker (6) also found differences in environmental press perceptions as related to type of residence of the students. Campbell (19) studied community college and university students and found differences in their personality needs and in their perceptions of the press of their respective institutions. Thirteen small colleges across the nation were subjects in a study to find out the relationship between the college climate and student personality. Findings showed a high degree of congruence between institutional characteristics and student personality, with students seeking out the insti- tutions which they felt could meet and satisfy their person- ality needs (22). Morrill's study (57) had similar conclusions. Johnson and Kurpuis (48) made a cross-sectional and longitudinal study of students' perceptions of their college environment at the University of North Dakota. Differences perceived by the groups under study were in the same direction as previously noted but they were not as great. Results of the study of environmental press preferences of students and faculty suggested that knowing the differences between preferred environment and actual environment could facilitate such things as student selection and admission and 41 changing some aspects of the college environment to suit student needs (39). Changes in student attitudes and characteristics as re- lated to college experiences were studied with 7000 freshmen at the University of Minnesota (12). It was noted that changes were related to some college experiences and yet un— related to some others. The catholic college climate was the object of the study by Hassenger and Weiss (37). Studying catholic colleges across the nation, the authors found so wide a variation in the intellectual and social climate of the institutions that any generalization was impossible to make. There have been other attempts to measure college en- vironments with different instruments. Pace's work (61) with his College and University Environment Scales is one of them. Fanslow, Chadderdon, and Wolins (29) have devised a 200-item instrument to describe college environments. Astin (4) has his environmental assessment technique. Many more research— ers have followed, all attempting to contribute to the literature on college environments and student needs. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES Population angSample The population from which the respondents for the College Characteristics Index and the Stern Activities Index were taken consisted of all freshmen and sophomore students in three large universities in the Philippines. The sample of freshmen and SOphomores was obtained by administering the Indexes to all freshmen and SOphomore physical education classes during the second semester of the school year 1966- 1967. The physical education classes were chosen as the source of sample because all university students are required to take physical education courses during their first two years in college. It was thought, therefore, that these classes were the best source for selecting a representative sample. A table of random numbers was used to get a random start in identifying the freshmen and SOphomore reSpondentS. There were 200 respondents from each institution under con- sideration, 100 freshmen with equal number of males and females, and 100 SOphomores with equal number of males and females, too. These students came from the different colleges 42 43 of the universities studied, falling within the age range of 16 and 21 years with a mean age of 17.38 years. Description of the Instruments Two instruments based on H. A. Murray's dual concept of needs and press were used in this study. These were the Stern Activities Index to assess student personality needs and the College Chapacteristics Index to measure the college environmental press. The rationale of the Indexes is that the needs of an individual can be inferred from the inter- action characteristics he has in a particular environment. In addition, instead of actual interactions the individual's needs can be inferred from his preferences in answer to many and varied activities he is made to consider. Although the relationship between these preferences and actual behavior is not perfect, the procedure provides a useful approximation and has been the rationale behind many widely used psycho- logical instruments including the Strong Vocational Interest Blanks, the Kuder Preference Record, the Edwards Preference Schedule, Gough'S California Psychological Inventory, the Omnibus Personality Inventory, as well as the Indexes here considered (85). The Stern Activities Index develOped by George G. Stern consists of 300 statements of commonplace activities to which the respondent gives "like-dislike" answers. There are 30 scales of 10 items each. Some scales are scored positively 44 or negatively like order-disorder, abasement-assurance, and conjunctivity-disjunctivity. In each scale of the Stern Activities Index a respondent may score from 1 to 10. A high score will indicate that there is a great need for that particular scale in the college environment and a low score will mean there is little need for that particular scale in the particular college environment. The College Characteristics Index develOped by C. Robert Pace and George G. Stern also consists of 300 statements about college environments to which the respondent gives "true-false" responses. The items refer to activities, policies, procedures, classroom teaching and activities, features of the campus, etc., which might be characteristic of the college. There are 30 scales of 10 items each, each scale corresponding directly to a scale in the Stern Activi- ties Index. To illustrate the relationship between the Stern Activi- ties Index and the College Characteristics Index, the follow- ing examples are given: A need for conjpnctivity would be inferred from liking activities such as "finishing something I have begun, even if it is no longer enjoyable" and "Planning ahead so that I know every step of the project before I get to it." What features of the college environment would be frustrating or supporting to such a need? The following items from the College Characteristics Index would be satisfying: "Most 45 courses are well-organized and progress systematically from week to week," "Instructors exPlain the goals and purposes of their courses," and "Activities in most student organiza- tions are carefully and clearly planned." A high score for deference in the Stern Activities Index results from one's liking of activities such as "Doing what most peOple tell me to do, to the best of my ability," "Listening to older persons tell about how they did things when they were young," and "Listening to a successful person tell about his experience." The needs of such a person will be fulfilled in a college environment where "Many students try to pattern themselves after people they admire," "Students almost always wait to be called on before speaking in class," and "Student publications never lampoon dignified peOple or institutions." Needs are inferred from the characteristic responses of an individual and press are evident from the characteristic pressures and conformity-demanding influences of the college environment. The thirty scales for both the Stern Activities Index and the College Characteristics Index are as follows: abasement-assurance, achievement, adaptability-defensiveness, affiliation vs. rejection, aggression vs. blame avoidance, change vs. sameness, conjunctivity vs. disjunctivity, counteraction vs. inferiority avoidance, deference vs. restiveness, dominance vs. tolerance, ego achievement, 46 emotionality vs. placidity, energy vs. passivity, exhibition- ism vs. inferiority avoidance, fantasied achievement, harm avoidance vs. risktaking, humanities, impulsiveness vs. deliberation, narcissism, nurturance vs. rejection, objectiv- ity vs. projectivity, order vs. disorder, play vs. work, practicalness vs. impracticalness, reflectiveness, science, sensuality vs. puritanism, sexuality vs. prudishness, suppli- cation vs. autonomy, and understanding. All these scales are defined in the section for definition of terms for this paper. Since the Indexes are not culture-free tests, some changes had to be made to adapt them to the Philippine college or university setting and to the Filipino students. The changes were made with the permission of the author, George G. Stern of Syracuse University. These changes, however, were rather minor. They are listed in Appendix B and Appendix D. Procedures for Collecting the Data Collecting the data for this investigation proved to be a rather difficult task. In the first place, the university officials were very reluctant to give permission to the investigator to conduct her research in their respective institutions. They were wary about the research findings and their subsequent ramifications. However, permission was finally granted after a careful explanation of the purpose was given. In the second place, the two questionnaires administered to the respondents were rather long and some of 47 the students could not finish answering them within the class period. Another meeting (class period) had to be set with the students for them to complete the questionnaires. The third difficulty encountered was the physical distance in— volved, especially since all the questionnaires were personal- ly administered by the investigator herself. The third uni- versity wasEMDfar from the other two so that the investigator had to take several plane trips in the process of collecting the data. Procedures for Analysing the Data The data collected were analyzed independently for each of the three types of universities. Since the primary interest in this investigation was to compare the environ- :mental press perceptions and personality needs of freshmen and SOphomore students as two groups, no data were analyzed in terms of the sex variable. An earlier study by Campbell (19) of press perceptions and personality needs was conducted for junior college and university students in the same manner. The thirty scales of the College Characteristics Index ‘were combined to form the eleven environment factors of Aspirational Level, Intellectual Climate, Student Dignity, Academic Climate, Academic Achievement, Self Expression, Group Life, Academic Organization, Social Form, Play-Work, and Vocational Climate. These thirty scales were also com— bined to form the twelve personality factors for the 48 Stern Activities Index of Self Assertion, Audacity-Timidity, Intellectual Interests, Motivation, Applied Interests, Orderliness, Submissiveness, Closeness, Sensuousness, Friendliness, EXpressiveness—Constraint, and Egoism-Diffidence. To illustrate, to have the environment factor of Aspirational Level, raw scores on the scales of Counteraction, Change, Fantasied Achievement, and Understanding were added. To have the personality factor of Motivation, the score sum of the scales of Achievement, Counteraction, Understanding, and Energy would give the answer. These 23 factors were derived ‘by Saunders (69) through factor analysis. Both factors and scales were described in the definition section of this paper. The eleven environment factors and the twelve personal- ity factors of freshmen and sophomores in each of the three universities were compared. 2 tests were employed to deter- Inine significant differences of means for each of the 23 factors. Confirmation of statistical procedures was obtained from the office of coordination of research in the College of Education at Michigan State University. Basic Assumptions In this research, the following basic assumptions were made: 1. All respondents answered all the items to the best of their ability. 2. The responses of the random sample represented the total population. 49 3. The instruments as adapted could be used with Filipino students, because cultural patterns of college stu— dents in the Philippines and in the United States oanmerica were similar to a great extent and therefore, the instruments were germane to the problem under investigation. 4. The language problem did not exist among the Filipino respondents so they understood the questions and did their best to answer. Hypotheses The measuring instruments employed in this investiga- tion provided three major sets of results, one set each for the state-supported university, the private, sectarian uni- versity, and the private, non-sectarian university. There were 23 separate hypotheses in each set to be tested with the use of p tests. The following are the null hypotheses to be tested: Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference be- tween the Aspirational Level factor among freshmen and SOphomore students in the same university. Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference between the Intellectual Climate factor among freshmen and SOphomore students in the same university. Hypothesis 3: There is no significant difference be- tween the Student Dignity factor among freshmen and sophomore students in the same university. 50 Hypothesis 4: There is no Significant difference be- tween the Academic Climate factor among freshmen and sophomore students in the same university. Hypothesis 5: There is no significant difference between Academic Achievement factor among freshmen and SOphomore students in the same university. Hypothesis 6: There is no Significant difference be- tween the Self Expression factor among the freshmen and sophomore students in the same university. Hypothesis 7: There is no significant difference between the GrOUp Life factor among freshmen and SOphomore students in the same university. Hypothesis 8: There is no significant difference be- tween the Academic Organization factor among freshmen and SOphomore students in the same university. Hypothesis 9: There is no Significant difference between the Social Form factor among freshmen and SOphomore students in the same university. Hypothesis 10: There is no significant difference between the Play factor among freshmen and SOphomore students in the same university. Hypothesis 11: There is no significant difference between the Vocational Climate factor among freshmen and SOphomore students in the same university. Hypothesis 12: There is no significant difference be- tween the Self Assertion factor among freshmen and SOphomore students in the same university. 51 Hypothesis 13: There is no significant difference between the Audacity-Timidity factor among freshmen and SOphomore students in the same university. Hypothesis 14: There is no significant difference between the Intellectual Interests factor among the freshmen and SOphomore students in the same university. Hypothesis 15: There is no significant difference between the Motivation factor among the freshmen and SOphomore students in the same university. Hypothesis 16: There is no significant difference between the Applied Interests factor among the freshmen and SOphomore students in the same university. Hypothesis 17: There is no significant difference between the Orderliness factor among the freshmen and SOpho- more students in the same university. Hypothesis 18: There is no significant difference between the Submissiveness factor among the freshmen and sophomore students in the same university. Hypothesis 19: There is no significant difference between the Closeness factor among the freshmen and SOpho- more students in the same university. Hypothesis 20: There is no significant difference between the Sensuousness factor among the freshmen and SOpho- more students in the same university. Hypothesis 21: There is no significant difference between the EXpressiveness-Constraint factor among the freshmen and SOphomore students in the same university. 52 Hypothesis 22: There is no significant difference between the Friendliness factor among the freshmen and sophomore students in the same university. Hypothesis 23: There is no significant difference between the Egoism-Diffidence factor among the freshmen and SOphomore students in the same university. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH RESULTS Analysis of Research Results The research design used in the present study provided the data on the personality needs of students and their perceptions of the environmental press of their institutions. It also provided comparative data on the foregoing variables among 600 freshmen and SOphomore students in a public uni- versity, a private, sectarian institution, and a private, non-sectarian academic entity. Hence there are three sets of data, one set each for the three types of institutions studied. The College Characteristics Index and the Stern Activi- ties Index were administered tO all freshmen and SOphomore physical education classes during the second semester of the school year 1966-1967. As already pointed out elsewhere, physical education classes were made the source of the sample because all freshmen and SOphomore students were required to take physical education courses in their first two years in college. A table of random numbers was employed to identify the freshmen and sophomore respondents--200 students from 53 54 each institution under consideration. Hence a total of 600 students formed the sample for this study. The College Characteristics Index scores provided the data on the perceptions of the college environments by the students and personality needs were gathered from the Stern Activities_Index scores. T_tests were employed to determine whether any signifi- cant differences existed in"the responses of freshmen and SOphomore students in each of the universities for both the College Characteristicsplpdex and the Stern Activities Index. It was hypothesized that no Significant differences existed in the eleven environment factors and the twelve personality factors between freshmen and sophomore students in each of the universities studied. The eleven environment factors which were extracted from the 30 scales of the College Characteristics Index by Saunders (69) were as follows: Aspirational Level, Intellec- tual Climate, Student Dignity, Academic Climate, Academic Achievement, Self Expression, Group Life, Academic Organi- zation, Social Form, Play-Work, and Vocational Climate. Table III shows the group mean scores and the standard deviations on the eleven environment factors of freshmen and sophomore students of the public university. There were no significant differences found for any of the eleven environment factors in this particular academic setting. Thus the null hypotheses were all accepted. 55 Table IV shows the results of the analysis of the data for the private, sectarian university. It indicates that there were no significant differences in the perceptions of the environmental press among the freshmen and SOphomore students at this university on any of the eleven environment factors. All the null hypotheses were accepted. Table V presents the data Obtained from the respondents at the private, non-sectarian university. Results of the ptests showed no significant differences in any of the eleven environment factors among the freshmen and sophomore students of the university whereby all the null hypotheses were accepted. No significant differences were found for any of the eleven environment factors in any of the three institutions studied. Hence hypothesis 1 to hypothesis 11 were all accepted in all the three university environments studied. The twelve personality factors which were also derived by Saunders (69) from combinations of the thirty scales of the Stern Activities Index were Self Assertion, Audacity- Timidity, Intellectual Interests, Motivation, Applied Inter- ests, Orderliness, Submissiveness, Closeness, Sensuousness, Friendliness, Expressiveness-Constraint, and Egoism- Diffidence. Table VI shows the group mean scores and the standard deviations on the twelve factors of personality of freshmen and sophomore students at the state-supported university. 56 ummuua .mflm soc mm. mm.k mm.am mm.m mo.Hm mumeflso Hmc0flumuo> .aa ammuua .msm uoc mm. sm.m sm.mm om.o sm.mm xuoz1smsm .oa ammoum .mflm you so. «o.m mm.mm Nk.s am.mm anon ngoom .m umwuoa .mflm yes on. mm.m oa.mm mo.m mm.sm coflumuscmmuo oflsmemua .m Sewage .mflm soc oa. em.m mm.¢m mm.m 44.4m muss macho .s humane .msm you we. om.m em.mm N¢.m sm.mm cosmmmumxm mswm .m pamuoe .msm soc em. km.s m>.km No.5 am.mm pam2m>msnu¢ oflememue .m ummooa .mflm uo: ea.a em.m ma.«fi km.m sm.mfi mumefiao us2m6m0< .4 ammuua .msm uoc me. mm.¢ ma.ma mm.s me.ma assumed pawnsum .m ummuue .mflm so: cs. mm.s mm.¢m ks.s mm.¢m mumenso Hmnuomasmuca .m ummuoa .mflm uoc ma. mm.m sm.sm mm.m k¢.sm Hm>mq amnesumuflmmm .H mononuommm mosam>.w .Q .m cmmz .Q .m cmmz Houomm Hasz ooeuz coauz cmanmmnm mmuoeonmom NBHmmEHZD UHQmDm "HEB HR mflmozommom 92¢ ngmmh mom XNQZH mUHBMHMMBUEO NOMAQOU WEB ZO mZOHB¢H>WQ ggfim 924 mWMOOm 2% mo ZOmHm¢$aOUIlHHH Hamlin. 57 ummuum .mflm soc mm. mm.m mm.mm mm.m oo.mm mumeflso HmcoHumoo> .afi ammuoa .msm uoc om.a em.m mm.em em.m mm.om xuozwmmam .oa ummuoa .mfim no: so.e ak.k mm.¢m mm.s km.em auom Hasuom .m udmou¢ .mflm so: me. m>.m m¢.oe «m.m mm.ee coflumuscmmuo usfimcmua .m udmooc .mflm so: we. mm.m mm.mm a¢.m ak.mm mung msouw .s ummoo< .msm so: mm. mo.m ms.em mm.m mm.mm coflmmmumxm mama .m ammooa .mgm so: 05. mo.s «c.4m mm.o om.mm unmam>mflno< adamnmu< .m summed .msm uoc mm. mm.m ma.¢a sm.m mm.ma mumeflso unamcmum .4 ammoua .mflm so: me. mm.e «6.4a m«.e mm.¢e Suflcmfln unmosum .m ammuua .msm soc om. «N.k m¢.am km.m mm.om mumEEHo HmnuomaamucH .m ammuum .mflm uoc mm. me.m sm.wm mm.m mm.¢m Hm>mq HacOHumuHmm< .a mommsuomxm mmDHm>.M .Q .m com: .Q..m cmmz Houomm Hasz ooanz ooanz cmfinmmum mmuofiosmom NBHmmfi>HZD ZflHmHmm HEB 84 HMOEOfimOm 024 Zmzmmmmm mom NQDZH mUHBmHmWBO¢M¢mU wOmAAOU HEB ZO mZOHB¢H>mQ QfidQZGBm QZd mmmovm Z¢fi2 m0 ZOmHm¢mSOUII>H aflmdfi 58 ammoue .mflm no: em. m>.m mm.mm ma.s mm.mm mumsflao Hmcoflumoo> .ea ammuoe .mHm you an. no.6 om.am mm.m em.am xuoz.smsm .oa ummoofi .mfim #0: ma. am.> No.mm m>.> mm.am Euom HMHUOm .m udooofi .mHm uoc he. mm.m mm.mm md.m >N.O¢ cOHumuficmmuo OHEmpmod .m umwoofi .mHm no: mm. mm.m ed.mm >d.m H>.Hm OMHA QSOHO .5 udmuod .mHm no: me. mm.m mm.mm mm.m no.mm coflmmwumxm mama .m ammoud .mHm uoc mm. am.m mm.dm em.m md.mm ucmEm>OHnud OHEmpmod .m ammood .mHm uoc mm. Sw.m mw.m mm.N om.w oumEflHO OHEmpmofl .w ummood .mfim no: mu. mo.¢ Sm.aa mm.¢ NN.dH muflcmfla ucmpsum .m udmoud .mam no: mo.a mm.m mm.md mm.m em.ma mumEHaO HmsuomaaoucH .m udmuoE .mHm uoc om.a m>.¢ ma.ma mw.¢ md.ma Hm>mq HMSOADMHHmmfl .H mommnuommm mosam>.w .Q .m com: .Q .m cmmz HouOMh HHDZ ooalz ooalz cmanmmum mmHOEOsmom MBHmmfl>HZD ZdedBUHMIZOZ .HB¢>Hmm HEB E¢ mflmozommOm 92¢ ZNSEmHMh mom NMQZH mUHBmHmm804m¢mU mOWJQOU HEB ZO mZOHB¢H>HQ QMdQZ¢Bm 924 mmmoum z¢fiz ho ZOmHm¢mZOUII> Hflmdfi 59 The £_tests yielded no significant differences in the twelve personality factors save one, the factor of Applied Interests. Thus hypotheses 1 through 4 and hypotheses 6 through 12 were accepted and hypothesis 5 was rejected. Table VII shows the analysis of the data from the fresh— men and sophomore students of the private, sectarian institu- tion. No significant differences existed in the personality needs of the two grOUps of respondents. Thus all the null hypotheses for the twelve factors of personality were accepted. Table VIII presents the data obtained from the respond— ents who came from the private, non-sectarian university. The £_tests yielded no significant differences in the person- ality needs of the freshmen and SOphomore groups. Thus all the null hypotheses were accepted in this academic setting. Only freshmen and sophomore students at the public university showed a significant difference at the five per cent level in only one factor, Applied Interests. All the other groups with the different factors of personality showed no significant differences. Hence the hypotheses regarding differences in personality needs among the freshmen and SOphomore students in the three types of universities were supported, except in one factor among the respondents from the public university. To summarize, there were no significant differences in the perceptions of the college environment of freshmen and SOphomore students in the three different types of 60 ammuue .mHm no: 4m. 04.0 mm.m4 0m.0 m4.44 mocmEHMMHOISmflomm .me ucflmuumcoo ammooa .044 nos 40. 00.5 00.44 mm.0 04.04 ummmcm>flmmmumxm .44 ummuua .04m so: 00. No.4 44.44 00.0 00.44 mmmcfiascmflum .04 ammooa .04m “on 44.4 00.0 00.04 40.0 mm.ka mmmcmsosmcmm .0 ammuoa .mHm you 00. 00.4 04.4w 00.4 44.4m mmmcmmoao .0 unmoua .mHm you 40.4 00.0 44.0m m0.0 mm.mm mmmam>smmsensm .4 Smmoum .044 ac: 00.4 04.0 00.0m 00.0 00.0N mmmcflaumsuo .0 uumnmm .mHm 00.m 04.0 00.4w 00.0 sm.mm mummumucH cmflammm .m udmoom .04m uoc 00. 00.0 Sm.mm 00.0 mm.sm cofium>fluos .4 udmuu¢ .mnm uoc 04. 00.0 04.00 44.4 44.0w mummumucH HmsuumaamucH .m ammuua .044 so: 40. 00.0 04.40 00.0 44.NN su404949|SEHUmesa .N ummuue .mflm you 44. 40.0 mm.mm ma.m mm.4m cofluummmm mamm .4 mommzuomhm mODHm>.M .Q .m COOS .Q .m cam: Houomm 4452 004-2 004-2 cmfinmmum wmuoaozmom NBHmmm>H2D UHAmDm HEB B¢ mflmozommom 92¢ 2MEEmeh MOE NNQ2H mMHBH>HBU¢ ZMflBm HEB 2O mZOHB¢H>MQ Qm¢92¢8m 02¢ mmmoum 2mm: mo 2OmHm¢mZOOIIH> Hflm¢8 61 000000 .040 000 04. 04.0 40.04 04.0 04.04 0000040040-004000 .04 uC4mnumc0O ummoo¢ .04m no: 00. 40.4 4m.m4 mm.> mN.ON Immmcm>wmmmumxm .44 000000 .040 000 00. 00.0 04.44 00.0 00.44 000044000400 .04 000000 .040 000 0004 00.0 00.04 04.0 40.04 000000000000 .0 000000 .040 000 40. 00.0 00.40 40.0 00.40 000000040 .0 000000 .040 000 00. 00.0 40.00 04.0 04.00 00000040040000 .4 000000 .040 000 04. 44.0 04.00 04.0 00.00 00004400000 .0 000000 .040 000 04. 00.0 04.40 04.0 04.00 000000004 0044000 .0 000000 .040 000 00. 04.4 04.40 44.4 00.00 0040004002 .4 ummuo¢ .mflm 000 mm. Ho.m 0m.mN mm.> mm.mm mummumucH HmsuumaamucH .m 000000 .040 000 00. 00.0 00.00 40.0 00.40 00404044-00400000 .0 000000 .040 000 40. 00.4 00.00 04.4 00.40 004000000 0400 .4 mmmmnuommm 00540>.M .Q .m c002 .Q .m 0002 400000 4402 004-2 004-2 swanmmuh mmHOEonmom MBHmmm>H2D 2¢Hm¢809m .98¢>Hmm HEB B¢ mmmozommom 92¢ 2922mmmm MOW 2992H mHHBH>HBU¢ meflm 928 20 m2OHB¢H>99 9¢¢92¢Bm 92¢ mmmovm 2¢92 mo 20mHm¢MEOOIIHH> fiflm¢8 62 000000 .040 000 00. 00.0 00.04 40.0 00.04 0000040040-004000 .04 0:4muumcou 000000 .040 000 04. 40.0 00.04 04.4 40.04 -00000>400040xm .44 000000 .040 000 04. 00.0 44.44 00.0 00.44 000044000400 .04 000000 .040 000 44. 00.0 00.44 00.0 40.44 000000000000 .0 000000 .040 000 00. 04.4 00.00 04.4 04.00 000000040 .0 000000 .040 000 00. 04.0 00.40 40.0 00.00 00000>4004Sn00 .4 000000 .040 000 00. 00.0 04.00 00.0 00.40 00004400000 .0 000000 .040 000 00.4 04.0 04.00 44.0 00.00 000040004 0044000 .0 000000 .040 000 00. 40.0 44.40 40.4 00.40 004000400: .4 000000 .040 000 40. 04.0 00.40 00.4 00.00 000000004 400000440004 .0 000000 .040 000 00. 04.0 04.00 04.4 00.00 00404044-00400000 .0 000000 .040 000 00. 04.4 40.40 40.4 44.40 004000000 0400 .4 mmmmnuommm 00940>.M .Q .m £002 .0 .m :00: 400000 4492 004-2 004-2 00230040 mmuofionmom 444000>420 204004000-202 .040>MM0 004 40 0000200000 020 20200000 000 00024 00444>4a00 20040 004 20 0204404>00 00002040 020 000000 2002 00 2004000=oo-444> 0400a 63 universities on the eleven environment factors. \Neither were there significant differences in the personality needs of the students in the three institutions studied except in one personality factor, Applied Interests, in which a significant difference on the five per cent level showed between the freshmen and sophomore students of the public university under consideration. Discussion All the observations which follow are taken from an ob- servational analysis of the items in the two Indexes used in the study. Hence the observations represent the students' perceptions of the university environment and their person- ality needs in terms of specific items in the questionnaires. The observations regarding the university environment repre- sent what the students felt was generally true or character- istic of the university. In the same manner, the observa— tions related to personality needs of the respondents repre- sent what the students felt were things or events they would like, enjoy, or find more pleasant than unpleasant. Students' Perceptions of Their Institutions A. The Publichniversity, In the previous section it was shown that the freshmen and sOphomore students saw the university environment in much the same way in all the eleven environment factors. They felt a high press in the 64 university environment in the following factors: Academic Achievement, Academic Climate, Self Expression, Intellectual Climate, Aspirational Level, and Social Form. The respondents perceived the university as a place that put a premium on high standards of achievement through course work, examinations, honors, and the like. Competition for grades was intense with most courses being real intellec— tual challenges, requiring intense study and preparation by the students. The university stressed academic freedom and academic excellence in faculty and facilities in the natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities. Many professors were actively engaged in research. Lectures by outstanding figures in literature, art, music, and science would be well attended. Students got together often to criticize important works and discuss trends in art, music, and drama. Within this milieu students were encouraged to set high standards for themselves in a number of ways. Professors really pushed the students' capacities to the limit. Breadth and understanding, perSpective, and critical judgment were emphasized in class discussions and in reading and grading papers and examinations by the faculty. Students were given to introspective contemplation. Books dealing with psychological problems or personal values were widely read and discussed by them. Long, serious intellectual discussions were common on such tOpics as value 65 systems and relativity of societies and ethics. There were many Opportunities and facilities given to the students for individual creative activity. There were many opportunities open to the students to deve10p their leadership potential and self-assurance. Students often discussed and argued with professors vigorously and intensely in and out of the classroom. Many of them de- velOped a strong sense of responsibility about their role in contemporary social and political life. Student leaders were recognized and respected. Student organizations were actively involved in both campus and community affairs. Student elections would generate a lot of intense campaigning and strong feeling. Students were concerned with national as well as international affairs. Opportunities were provided, too, for the develOpment of social skills among the students. PrOper social forms and manners were important here. Poise and SOphistication were highly valued and respected by both the students and the faculty. Students were also given to helping others, with upper- classmen helping new students adjust to campus life. Fund drives would receive a great deal of enthusiasm and SUpport. Students were serious and purposeful in their studies and yet could find the time to enjoy themselves, help others, and get more out of their collegiate life. 66 There were no significant differences in the environ- mental press perceptions between the freshmen and SOphomore students. Hence hypothesis 1 to hypothesis 11 were supported in the public university. B. The Private, Sectarian University. Students in this private, church-related, coeducational institution of higher learning perceived the press of the university as greatest in the following environment factors: Academic Climate, Academic Achievement, Social Form, Academic Organization, Group Life, and Vocational Climate, and low in Student Dignity. Academically the university was rated as excellent insofar as staff and facilities in the areas of natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities were concerned. The university was perceived as setting high standards of achievement for its students. A student had to work hard to pass his courses. Most courses required much preparation out of class. Clear understanding and careful reasoning were emphasized by professors, a number of whom were very thorough teachers. Courses were well organized and would progress systematically from week to week. Professors would clearly explain the goals and purposes of their courses. This element of organization and deliberation was also evident in the activities of student organizations and in the students' schedule for studying and recreation. Student activities were carefully and clearly planned and there were but only a few spur of the moment decisions. 67 Many upperclassmen helped new students get oriented to the campus life and there were many opportunities for them to get together in extracurricular activities. Students often would run errands or do other personal services for the faculty. There was a great deal of borrowing and shar- ing among the students. The university was seen as a friend- ly place, characterized by a high degree of organization and structure. Students were assigned seats and professors would take attendance in class, with students presenting excuse slips for absences. Classes met only at their regularly scheduled time and place. Students were conscientious about taking care of school prOperty and classrooms were kept clean and tidy. Rules and regulations of the university were strictly followed. Student papers and reports had to be neat. PrOper social forms and manners were considered important here. Students were prOperly groomed and would take a lot of pride in their personal appearance. In short, the university tended to emphasize a high level of orderliness and conformity in the students' relations to the faculty, their peers, and their studies. Education provided by the university tended to be perceived as practical and realistic. Students seldom talked about art, music, poetry, and drama, much less dis- cussed trends in these areas. Concerts and art exhibits 68 rarely drew big crowds of students. Instead students con— cerned themselves about job security, family happiness, and good citizenship as their goals. The university was seen to be a place where student freedom was curtailed. Students were not encouraged to criticize administrative policies and teaching practices. Students would not argue with professors and they must ask permission before deviating from common policies and prac- tices. Also the important peOple at the university expected students to show prOper respect for them. Regulations of student conduct was done through administrative fiat. In short, students were looked upon as young people and were to be treated as such. Thus personal responsibility was not maximized. There were no significant differences in the perceptions of the press of the environment among freshmen and sophomore students in this academic community. Thus hypothesis 1 to hypothesis 11 were accepted at the five per cent level of significance in the private, sectarian institution. C. The Private, Non-sectarian University. Students of the university felt the high press of the university environ- ment in the following areas: Vocational Climate, Academic Organization, and Social Form. .Low press was perceived in the following factors: Academic Climate, Intellectual Climate, and Aspirational Level. 69 The respondents from this institution saw the university as emphasizing practical, applied activities. Many courses stressed the concrete and the tangible rather than the speculative or the abstract. The academic atmosphere was practical, emphasizing efficiency and usefulness. Students were more interested in Specialization than in general liberal education. They seldom talked about poetry, music, painting, sculpture, architecture, and other humanistic areas. Concerts and art exhibits drew only a trickle of students who would rather concern themselves with more mundane affairs. There were few public debates. No classes ever met out of doors even on nice days. ‘Students would exhibit great respect and deference for professors and superiors. They would wait to be called on before speaking in class. Student publications never lampooned dignified peOple on the campus. Classes where all students were assigned seats met only at their scheduled time and place. Professors always took students' attendance. Students had to present a written excuse for their absences. They were also expected to follow rules and regulations and practice caution and self-control in their behavior. Before doing anything that would not be normally done, a student had to ask permission first from the faculty or the adminis- tration. Otherwise he would surely be censured or, which would not be far-fetched, expelled. Activities in and out of the classroom were carefully planned. Only carefully and clearly planned activities of 70 student organizations were approved. Class assignments and presentations were clear and specific and most courses progressed systematically from day to day throughout the semester. It is, therefore, evident that the institution stressed a high degree of organization and structure in the academic environment. Students would quickly learn what was done and what was not done in this campus. Upperclassmen would help new students get adjusted to the campus. Students engaged in mutually supportive activities. The university had a repu- tation for being friendly although there was definitely a group of student leaders and faculty that exerted a dominant influence on the students. On the other hand, the university did not encourage students to set high standards for themselves. Students were not given the opportunities to participate in decision- making processes involving the administration of the uni— versity. Channels for expressing students' complaints were not readily accessible. Professors would not provoke arguments in class. Some of them would react to the ques- tions in class as if the students were criticizing them personally. The administration did not seem to be receptive to change and innovation. Thus a student's efforts to have some impact on the environment would not have much prob— ability of becoming successful. 71 The quality of the staff and the physical plant of the university specifically devoted to scholarly activities in the humanities, the arts, and the natural and social sciences seemed to be sadly low to make any significant contribution to the students' develOpment and knowledge in the areas cited. Few professors, if any, were actively engaged in research and there was hardly any emphasis on preparing for graduate work. Most students had very little interest in panel meet- ings, academic discussions, science lectures, and abstract games. They would rather talk about motion pictures and politics. Understanding, perspective, and critical judgment seemed to receive little stress in class discussions, papers, and examinations. Education tended to be practical and job security was the foremost goal for students who hardly received any encouragement from the faculty about exciting and unusual careers. No significant differences existed in the environmental press perceptions of freshmen and SOphomore students. Thus hypothesis 1 to hypothesis 11 were all accepted. Students' Personality Needs A. The Public University, Students in this institution of higher learning seemed to have high needs in the follow- ing factors: Applied Interests, Intellectual Interests, Motivation, Orderliness, Closeness, and Submissiveness and low needs in the following factors: Expressiveness- Constraint and Egoism—Diffidence. 72 Students were interested in achieving success in con- crete, tangible, socially acceptable activities. They liked being efficient and successful in practical affairs. They were an orderly lot, liking to have a place for everything and everything in its place. They enjoyed doing such things as arranging their bureau drawers, recopying notes to make them neat, and keeping their rooms in perfect order. They showed marked interest in intellectual activities, including interests in the arts and sciences, both abstract and empirical. They enjoyed conducting experiments to prove a theory or to arrive at general laws concerning the universe. They liked reading articles which told about new scientific develOpments, discoveries, or inventions. They would like to understand themselves and others better. They liked to explain the behavior of people under varied circumstances. They pursued these interests by reading stories and books that tried to show what people thought and felt inside them— selves. They also liked to learn about political and social problems and their causes. They enjoyed studying music, dif- ferent types of government, art, languages, and literature, and talking about these subjects with people who were interested in them. Over all, students of the university enjoyed doing work that required intense concentration, losing themselves in the process. They concerned themselves with complicated prob- lems, working out solutions though the answers might not have apparent, immediate usefulness. 75 Achievement need was high among the students along lines involving elements of competitiveness and persever- ance as well as intellectual aspiration. They liked to set high standards for themselves, compete with others for a prize or an award, preferred difficult tasks to easy ones, and were willing to sacrifice in order to achieve something outstanding. They applied themselves to whatever they were doing, exerting themselves to the utmost for something unusually important, enjoyable, or interesting. They found it pleasant to do things requiring effort and concentration. There was marked interest in activities stressing per- sonal organization and deliberativeness. There was emphasis on the maintenance of the ritual and the routine and the avoidance of impulsive behavior. The students liked to schedule time for work and for play, to plan ahead, and to organize their activities so that time would be used efficiently. They hated doing things on the spur of the moment and would not think of doing some— thing crazy occasionally, even for the fun of it. Only a few would act impulsively, letting their feelings be guided by their reasoning. They would make up their minds only after considerable deliberation, with many of them being generally consistent and unchanging in their behavior. There was a great need for warmth and emotional suppor- tiveness among the students. Students liked to talk to their 74 family and close friends about their personal problems. Working for someone who always told them exactly what to do and how to do it was not considered unpleasant. In fact they sought out older people for guidance and direction. They liked having others offer their opinions when they had to make a decision. They liked helping people with problems, comforting those who were feeling low, and discussing with younger people what they liked to do and how they felt about things. They showed respect for superiors and older people. They like listeningtx>successful people talk about their experiences. They would prefer going along with a decision made by a superior to starting an argument about it. They would not mind turning over the leadership of a group to someone more capable. There was a strong need for humility, deference, getting along with others, and keeping in one's place. In other words, the students were characterized by a high level of control based on social conformity and other-directedness. Hence, students in this academic setting were polite or humble no matter what happened. They would give due respect to people higher or better in status than they. They would admit defeat and offer apology for mistakes committed. However, they felt uncomfortable when people laughed at their mistakes. Thus the students were generally highly con- trolled because of their desire to conform with the social group and because of their concern for others. 75 The students strongly rejected unrestrained and open expression of emotion. They would want to be calm and preferred the company of placid people. They would never think of going into emotional binges. Neither would they want to be the center of attention. They would do things and work hard in student activities but they would rather stay in the background so as not to call attention to them- selves. They were a romantic lot but they would not talk about how it was to be in love nor would they consent to any public display of affection. This is true to the Filipino character of being very reserved and modest, the phiy§_(concept of shame) which is very strong in the Filipino. Bulatao (17) found in his study on Philippine values that erotic-tinged expressions of affection are severely indicted in Philippine culture. The students in this setting did not show extreme pre- occupation with self. They did not like daydreaming and would not think of themselves as movie stars. They strongly rejected superstitious beliefs. There were no significant differences in the person— ality needs of freshmen and SOphomore students in all twelve personality factors except in Applied Interests where fresh- men students exhibited a greater need than sophomores. One likely reason for this is that freshmen were harder pressed for success in concrete, tangible, socially acceptable activities in this particular setting. If they were to 76 continue their affiliation with the university, they had to conduct themselves in a way that would assure their con— tinued affiliation. This, too, was a reflection of the extension of the rural origins of the students where they had had some relative success. It also reflected the stress in the orientation program provided for freshmen students, and the pressures from sorority-fraternity groups and the university paper. It has been shown that personality needs of freshmen and sophomore students in the public university under study did not differ significantly from each other except in one area where the freshmen felt a greater need than the sophomores. Hence hypotheses 12 to 23 were accepted. B. The Private, Sectarian University. Strong needs of students in this academic setting could be discerned from high scores on the factors of Applied Interests, Intellectual Interests, and low score on the Expressiveness-Constraint factor. Concrete, tangible successes in socially acceptable activities available in the college environment were regarded with a premium. Students were interested in typewriting, stenography, handicraft, and similar skills. They tried to be efficient and successful in practical affairs, being rather orderly and organized in the process. Interest was shown in various forms of intellectual activities. The students were interested in the humanities. They would also like to learn about social and political problems, comparing them with those of various times in 77 the past. They would like to understand better themselves and others, reading stories and books in the process. Scientific activities were found to be pleasant chores; hence students enjoyed conducting experiments in physics, chemistry, or biology in order to prove a theory. Students in this university environment needed the warmth and emotional support of other students. Nobody cared to be a lone wolf, with no family and friends. In fact stu- dents would prefer having people around with whom they could talk about their problems, whose opinions they could seek before making a decision, who could help them out when they were in trouble. HOwever, they did not particularly like being romantic with someone they loved nor talking how it felt to be in love with someone. This is true to the Filipino sense of modesty and prOpriety. Guthrie (55) in his study of the Filipino child and Philippine society found that Filipino women emphasized modesty as one of the desir- able attributes of women. Students liked things organized and they tended to be deliberative. There were no impulsive, spur of the moment behaviors for them. Instead they would schedule time for work and play, planning ahead and keeping to the regular schedule. Hence students did not like change and innovation very much. They preferred regularity and they would stick to the ritual and the routine. They enjoyed a well-ordered life with regular hours. 78 Submissiveness tended to be a great need of the students of this private, sectarian university. Students did not mind having their mistakes pointed out to them and were quick to admit and apologize when they were wrong. This did not mean, however, that they had a strong need for abasement. In fact they seemed more inclined toward self-confidence. Only a few would think of taking the part of a servant or a waiter in a play, for example. But they liked helping other people. They liked comforting people who would be feeling low, help— ing those with problems, providing companionship and personal care for very old people. At the same time they like to show respect due people in accordance with their rank and/or status. They would follow directions and orders of their superiors and would go along with an unpOpular decision made by the administrator rather than start an argument. They were willing to be followers if there were people more capable than they in leading the group. They also liked to listen to older people tell of their experiences and thereby learn from them. Students here tended to be with self-imposed controls, shy, deliberative, and highly inhibited. They seemed re— strained in their emotional make up. They did not like emo- tional people and would rather be with those who always seemed calm and collected. They hardly let loose and have a good cry. They avoided excitement and emotional tension. In other words, they avoided open emotional expression. And 79 they would rather let their feelings be guided by their reasoning. They were not impulsive. Guthrie (56) in his study of Filipino child-rearing practices concluded that techniques of child-rearing used by Filipino mothers made the peOple shy and highly inhibited. Hollnsteiner (43) wrote that Philippine culture has a built-in sociostat to regulate the behavior of its members. There is a technique of leveling a person to his face so that he does not deviate from the acceptable behavior patterns. The students disliked making quick, on-the-spot deci- sions. They would rather make up their minds slowly, after considerable reflection, drawing as little attention as possible to themselves. Many of them would not think of speaking before a large group or do anything where attention would be drawn to them. They were a rather shy, inhibited group of students. No significant differences could be discerned in the personality needs of freshmen and SOphomore students in this particular university environment. Thus hypotheses 12 through 25 were accepted. C. The Privatenyon-sectarian University. Personality needs of private, non—sectarian university students were shown in high scores in the personality factors of Applied Interests, Orderliness, and Closeness and from low scores on the factors of Expressiveness—Constraint and Sensuousness. Students would like to achieve success in concrete, tangible ways. They were eager to see themselves successful 80 in practical affairs. Most of them enjoyed doing things like typewriting, stenography, carpentry, crocheting, and other practical skills. They would like to manage a store or a business enterprise where their desire for order and deliberativeness could find room. They wanted things around them in order and they did not mind keeping a record of their money or of the things they had done or had to do as yet. This desire for order was related to their interest in science where order was a necessary adjunct. Students, too, liked to understand themselves better. They also liked to know why people behaved the way they did, reading stories and other materials toward this end. They seemed anxious to know what the end of the world would be like, what eternity could mean. They showed some interest in music and literature and would not mind talking about these things with people who were interested. There was a marked interest among the Students in activities stressing personal organization and deliberative- ness. Their activities were scheduled and their parties were well-planned. They liked to organize their work so as to use time efficiently. They would go for sameness and would find security in the ritual and the routine. They avoided impulsive behavior and there were no quick, Spur of the moment Opinions when a decision was to be made. They talked to other peOple about their problems and in the pro- cess, they hOped to get a better perspective, hence a better 81 decision. This strong other-oriented personality was the result of the Filipino upbringing which strongly emphasizes other-directedness and smoothness of interpersonal relation- ships (56). They showed a strong need for warmth, for dependency, for helping others. They looked up to older, more experienced people. They liked to listen to them talk about their experi— ences. They also enjoyed talking to younger peOple and to hear them talk about the things they liked to do and how they felt about certain things. Old, helpless people would receive companionship and personal care from them without second thoughts about it. They were neither indifferent to taking care of sick persons. Decisions of superiors were followed and students did not particularly like to argue with profes— sors even if their decision seemed foolish. This is typical Filipino attitude of respecting anyone who is above a person in status or rank in any category, indicative of a tradition- oriented society with heavy emphasis on authoritarianism (8,17). Students of this private, non-sectarian university were rather withdrawn. They were shy and inhibited in many ways and in many things. They would not think of doing things that would draw attention to themselves. They disliked speak- ing before a group or acting in a play before a large audience, or being along on the dance floor with everyone around watching. In other words, they would rather keep in 82 the background, away from the center of attention. There was inhibition of heterosexual interests. Students were not eager to talk about being in love. They did not want being romantic with someone they loved nor did they like flirting. vEmotions were restrained and generally everyone was not in favor of being unrestrained and Open about their feelings and emotions. They were not impetuous. Rather they tended to be reflective, deliberating slowly before doing anything. Students here did not show interest in sensory and aesthetic experiences. They did not show any liking for painting or sketching. Neither did they enjoy such sensory experiences as rain falling on the roof or the wind blowing through the trees. They did not enjoy walking in the rain either. They were not given to sensuousness. This lack of interest in sensory and aesthetic experiences could stem from a lack of emphasis in the curriculum of art and related subjects. It could also indicate the fact that the level of economic self-sufficiency of the people is such that it pre- cludes the enjoyment of nature as yet. Personality needs Of freshmen and SOphomore students of this private, non-sectarian university did not seem to differ significantly from each other. Thus hypothesis 12 to hypothesis 23 were accepted. It has been shown that the college environment of each of the three types of universities included in this study differed from one another as perceived by their respective students. 85 The public university was perceived as a thoroughly intellectual institution, dedicated to learning and scholar- ship. It set high standards of achievement for its students, stressing academic excellence in staff and facilities, and develOping vigorously the leadership potential and self- assurance of students in an environment rich in cultural offerings. It attracted highly motivated students who showed marked interest in intellectual activities and in achieving success in concrete, tangible, socially acceptable activi— ties. The students were highly organized and deliberative, with a tendency toward other-directedness and with high needs for humility, deference, warmth, and emotional suppor- tiveness. The private, sectarian institution was characterized as a place with academically excellent staff and facilities but where the administrative structure was tightly and high— ly structured. Students were encouraged to set high standards for themselves and develOpment of social skills was emphasized. The university tended to emphasize practi- cal, applied activities, rejected aesthetic experiences, and required a high level of orderliness and conformity in the student's relation to the faculty, his peers, and his studies. Students' freedom was curtailed and there was but little effort to maximize personal responsibility. The regulation of student conduct was done through administrative fiat. Sectarian university students tended to be pragmatic and achievement-oriented. They liked to be efficient and 84 successful in practical affairs, with some interest in intellectual activities. They had marked interest in activi- ties stressing personal organization and deliberativeness, avoiding impulsive behavior. They exhibited strong depend- ency needs and they tended to be shy and highly inhibited. Students at the private, non-sectarian institution saw the university environment as mainly practical and prag- matic, emphasizing practical, applied activities. Little or no opportunities were provided students toward aesthetic growth and develOpment. It was highly structured in its academic organization and this high degree of organization greatly affected the relationships that existed between the student and the faculty, between the student and his class- mates, and between the student and his studies. The univer- sity was further perceived as a place that did not encourage students to set high standards for themselves. They were not given the Opportunities for self-expression and the student's efforts to have some impact on his environment seemed to have very little probability of success. The qualities of the staff and the facilities of the university specifically devoted to scholarly activities in the humani- ties, the arts, and the sciences seemed to be sadly low to make any significant contribution to the students' develOp- ment and knowledge in the areas cited. The students that this university attracted were vocationalism-oriented, whose future goals emphasized job security, family happiness, and good citizenship. They 85 showed some interest in intellectual activities in the arts and the sciences, however. They had a great need for the maintenance of the ritual and the routine, with little in— clination for change and innovation. They needed close friendly ties with their peers but were rather shy and with- drawing, very deliberative and inhibited, and not sensuous at all. It should be pointed out at this juncture that this study did not include inter-comparisons of the universities studied. This does not mean, however, that inter-comparisons are not important. In fact, they are necessary if we are to understand better the varieties of college environments and students' personality needs throughout the Philippines. The descriptions, however, imply areas of comparisons. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS. AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH The Problem The purpose of this investigation was to study the personality needs of students and their perceptions of the environmental press of their institutions in three of the largest universities in the Philippines. These were a public university, a private, sectarian institution, and a private, non-sectarian university. It was the purpose of this study to compare the differences between the freshmen's and SOphomores' perceptions of the press of their respective institutions. The study also assessed the differences be- tween the personality needs of freshmen and SOphomore stu- dents in each of the three institutions considered in this study. It was hypothesized that no significant differences at the five per cent level existed in the perceptions of the college environmental press based on the eleven environment factors derived from the College Characteristics Index among freshmen and SOphomores in the public university, the 86 87 private, sectarian university, and the private, non-sectarian university. It was also hypothesized that no significant differences on the five per cent level could be found in the personality needs of freshmen and SOphomore students based on the twelve personality factors as assessed by the Stern Activities Index. The Sample The sample for the study was composed of freshmen and SOphomore students enrolled in a public university, a private, sectarian institution, and a private, non-sectarian entity, three of the largest universities in the Philippines based on student population during the academic year 1966-1967. A table of random numbers was used to identify the freshmen and SOphomore respondents from each of the institutions studied. The Methodology The student respondents were given two questionnaires: the College Characteristics Index and the Stern Activities Index. Mean scores from the College Characteristics Index were combined to form eleven environment factors. The Stern Activities Index scores were also combined to obtain the twelve factors of personality. Significant differences on the five per cent level of the twenty-three factors were determined by the use of £_tests. 88 The Findings It was hypothesized that there would be no significant differences in the perceptions of the environmental press by freshmen and SOphomore students in their respective institu- tions on the eleven environment factors: namely; Aspirational Level, Intellectual Climate, Student Dignipy, Academic Climate, Academic Achievement, Self Expression, Group Life, Academic Organization, Social Form, Play-Work, and Vocational Climate. It was also hypothesized that no significant differences would be found in the personality needs of the freshmen and SOphomore respondents based on the following twelve factors of personality: Sglf Assergipp, Audacity-Timidity, Intgl— lectual Interests, Motivatipp, Applied Interegpp, Orderliness, Submissiveness, Clgpepgpg, Senguousness, Friendliness, Expressiveness-Constraint, and Egoigm-Diffidence. The public university environment was characterized by high scores on Academic Achievement, Academic Climate, Sglf Expression, Intellectual Climate, Aspirational Level, and SocialfForm. NO significant differences were found on each of the eleven environment factors. Hence hypothesis 1 through hypothesis 11 were supported. The students of the public university were found to have high needs in the following personality factors: Appliedggnterests, Intellgctualggnterespg, Motivation, Orderliness, Closeness, and Submissiveness. They showed low 89 needs for Expressiveness-Constraint and Egoism-Diffidence. There were no significant differences in the personal- ity needs of the students in all the personality factors except one, in Applied Interests, where the freshmen showed a greater need. Thus hypotheses 12 to 25 were accepted except hypothesis 16 which was rejected. In the private, sectarian university, the press of the environment was found strongest in Academic Climate, Academic Achievement, Social Form, Academic OrganizatIpp, Group Life, and Vocational Climate and lowest in Student Dignity. There were no significant differences in the students' perceptions of the press of the environment. Thus hypothesis 1 to hypothesis 11 were accepted. The student body, on the other hand, was found to have strong needs in the following areas: Applied Interests, Intellectual Interests, Closeness, Orderliness, and Submissive- pppg. They showed only a low need for Expressiveness- Constraint. No significant differences existed in the personality needs of the students. Hence hypotheses 12 to 23 were accepted. The press of the environment in the private, non- sectarian institution was in the direction of Vocational Climate and Agggemic Organization. Low press was perceived in the factors of Aspirational Level, Intellectual Climate, and Academic Climapg. NO significant differences were found in the studentS' perceptions of the college environment. Hypotheses 1 to 11 90 were accepted. Student personality needs in this environment were found greatest in the following factors: Applied Interesng, Intellectual Interests, 90000110000, and Closeness. Students had low need for Expressiveness-Constraint and Sensuousness. The students did not show any significant differences in their personality needs. Hence hypotheses 12 to 23 were accepted. A review of the foregoing findings will indicate that in all the three universities studied, the environments per- ceived by the students were different from one another. There was no high nor low press in any of the eleven environ- ment factors that was common to all the three settings. It would seem that these three universities just have three different environments. An examination of the personality needs of freshmen and SOphomore students in the three universities would reveal areas of similarities. These similarities were evident in the personality factors of Applied Interests, Intellectual Interests, Orderliness, Closeness, and Expressiveness- Constraint. Specifically, the students in the three universi— ties taken together would appear to be a group interested in achieving success in concrete, tangible, and socially accept- able activities. At the same time, they showed interest in the arts as well as the sciences, both abstract and empirical. They seemed to be a warm and emotionally supportive group, 91 well-ordered, stressing personal organization and delibera- tiveness in their many activities, maintaining the ritual and the routine, and avoiding impulsive and uninhibited behavior. Conclusions In the light of the results of the present study, cer- tain conclusions may be drawn. .1. The college environment of the public university was perceived by both its freshmen and sophomore groups as one that emphasized academic excellence in its staff, faculties, and students, dedicated to scholarship and learning and the development of the leadership potential and self assurance of its highly motivated students. It was also a well-mannered and well-ordered community. 2. The private, sectarian university students felt that the university was academically excellent with stress on deliberateness and organization in activities in and out of the classrooms. However, student freedom was curtailed and there was no attempt to maximize personal responsibility. Education provided tended to be practical and realistic. 5. The environmental press of the private, non-sectarian university pointed in the direction of practical academic atmosphere, with hardly any encouragement and Opportunity given to students to excel academically. The academic and intellectual climate in the arts, the humanities, and the 92 sciences seemed rather low to make any significant contribu- tion to the students' develOpment and knowledge in the areas cited. However, it was a place that stressed human rela- tions, group welfare, and the well—ordered and well-mannered community. 4. The public university students were characterized by interests in applied and intellectual areas. They were high- ly motivated, not given to self-gratification, and with strong needs for order, emotional supportiveness, and deference. 5. The predominant needs of the private, sectarian uni? versity students were those of efficiency and success in practical affairs. They seemed to strongly need warmth and emotional support from other people, were given to order and submissiveness, and tended to be with self-imposed controls. They were highly inhibited. 6. The private, non-sectarian university students would like success in concrete, tangible ways, with a tendency toward practicality. They showed marked interest in activi- ties stressing personal organization and deliberateness. They had strong needs for order, dependency, and nurturance. However, they showed only a low need for expressiveness and sensuousness. They were highly inhibited and were not given to self-indulgence. Implications for Further Research 1. It should be useful to study the congruence and dissonance of college environments and student personality 93 needs in the three universities included in the study. 2. Research could include intracomparisons of environ- mental press perceptions and personality needs of students enrolled in the different colleges in each of the three universities considered here. The sex variable could be an aspect of this research. 5. A comparison of faculty perceptions and student per- ceptions of the college environmental press in the three institutions of higher learning studied here might provide some insights regarding the manner in which the two groups perceive the environment of which they are a part. 4. Also it would be helpful to analyze the explicitly stated purposes of the three institutions in relation to the perceptions of the environmental press of the students. 5. This study could be expanded to include many more universities and colleges, both large and small, throughout the Philippines. This study could provide data on how dif- ferent institutions of higher learning are from one another and could probably categorize college environments into definite types. Intercomparisons of universities could be an aspect of this research. 6. Research could be initiated by university and college administrators who are desirous of studying the relationships between college policies and goals and programs, using the Indexes, with the end in view of introducing changes. 7. Research could be done on the congruence of the press of the college environment and personality needs, and 94 academic achievement of students in the three types of uni— versities included here. 8. Specific research on sectarian and non-sectarian college environments could provide important data and infor- mation on their similarities and differences. Together with this would be a study of the personality needs of sectarian and non-sectarian college students. This study could result in some very useful generalizations regarding these particu- lar types of colleges and their students. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbot, C. F. "An Investigation of the College Environ- mental Perceptions of Prospective College Freshmen and their Relationships to the Choice of a College or University." Unpublished Ed. D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. Astin, A. W. "Recent Studies of College Environment." Paper read at the American Personnel and Guidance Association, Minneapolis, April, 1965. Astin, A. W. "The Inventory of College Activities: Assessing the College Environment through Observable Events." Paper read at the American Psychological Association, Chicago, 1965. Astin, A. W. and Holland, J. L. "The Environmental Assessment Technique: A Way to Measure College Environments," JournaI_Of Educational Psychology, LII (1961), 508-516. Baker, S. R. "A Comparative Study of the Perceptions of a University Environment Between Honor and Nonhonor Freshmen Groups," Educational andpggychologicnI Measurements Journal, XXVI (Winter, 1966), 973-976. Baker, S. R. "The Relationship Between Student Residence and Perception of the Environmental Press," Journal of the Colleg§78tudent PersonneI, VII (July, 1966), 222-224. Barger, B. and Hall, E. "A Description of the Psycho- logical Environment at the University of Florida," Mental Health Project Bulletin, No. 28, University of Florida, September, 1966. ‘ Batacan, D. Looking_at Ourselves. Manila: Philaw Publishing Company, 1941. Becker, 5., Goodstein, L. and Mittman, A. "Relationships Between the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inven- tory and the College Characteristics Index," Journal of College Student gprsonnel, VI (June, 1965), 219-225. 95 10. 11. 12. 15. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 96 Bell, D. W} A Rpport to the President of thp United States by the Economic Survey_Mission to the Philepines. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1961. Benedict, R. Patterns of CuIture. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1954. Berdie, R. F. "College Expectations, EXperiences, and Perceptions," Journal of College Student Personnel, VII (November, 1966), 556-558. Berry, M. "Campus Culture: A Product of Its Own History," Journal of College Student Personnel, VIII (January, 1967) I 5-9. Briggs, D. A. "The Stern Activities Index as a Means of Predicting Social Acceptability and Improvement in Reading Skills." Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Syracuse University, 1958. Brown, D. R. "Academic Excellence: The Crucial Effects of Environment and Personality," in College and Character edited by Nevitt Sanford. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964. Bulatao, J. "Personal Preferences of Filipino Students," in Symposium on the Filipino Personalipy, compiled by J. Bulatao. Manila: Psychological Association of the Philippines, 1965. Bulatao, J. "Philippine Values: The Manileno Main- springs," in Four Readings on Philippine Values, compiled by F. Lynch. Manila: Ateneo De Manila University Press, 1964. Bushnell, J. H. "Student Culture at Vassar," in College and Character edited by Nevitt Sanford, New York: John Wiley and Sons,.1964. Campbell, P. S. "Personality Needs of Community College and University Students and their Perceptions of the Press of their Institutions." Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1964. Carson, A. L. Higher Education in the Philippines. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1961. Centra, J. A. "Student Perceptions of Total University and Major Field Environments." Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965. 22. 25. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 50. 51. 97 Chickering, A. W. "Institutional Differences and Student Characteristics." Paper read at the American College Health Association, San Diego, May, 1966. Chilman, C. S. "A Comparative Study of Measured Person- ality Needs and Self-perceived Problems of Ninth and Tenth Grade Students: Half of the Group Possessing Characteristics Associated with Early School Leaving and the Other Half Not Possessing Such Characteris- tics." Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Syracuse University, 1959. Cole, D. "Some Emotional Factors in Couples Presenting a Pattern of Habitual Abortion." Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Syracuse University, 1958. Di Vesta, F. J. and Merwin, J. C. "The Effects of Need- Oriented Communications on Attitude Change," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LX (1960), 80-85. Dressel, P. L. and Mayhew, L. B. General Education: Explorations in Evaluation. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1954. Dyde, W. F. "A Report of Private Higher Education in the Philippines." A Report to the Bureau of Private Schools, Manila, Philippines, 1955. Eddy, E. D., Jr. The CoIIege Influence on Student Character. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1959. Fanslow, A. M., Chadderdon, H. and Wolins, L. "An Instru- ment to Measure Women Students' Perceptions of their College Environment." Paper read at the American Educational Research Association, New York, February, 1967. Froe, O. D. "Some Research Activities Concerned with Non-intellective Factors in Student Achievement at Morgan State College," in Institutional Research on College Students edited by Kenneth Wilson. North Carolina: Southern College Personnel Association, 1962. Gladstein, G. A. "The Relationship Between Study Behavior and Personality for Academically Successful Students." Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1957. 52. 55. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 40. 41. 42. 45. 44. 98 Glass, G. G. “A Study of Certain Selected Variables, their Relationship to Rate of Reading and the Effect of the Relationships upon the Improvement in Reading Rate Due to Training." Unpublished Ph. D. Disserta- tion, Syracuse University, 1957. Greene, J. E. "Student Perceptions of the College Environment of a Floating University." Paper read at the Southeastern Psychological Association, New Orleans, April, 1966. Guilford, J. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. Guthrie, G. M. The Filipino Child and Philippine Sociepy. Manila: Philippine Normal College Press, 1961. Guthrie, G. M. and Jacobs, P. J. Child Rearing and Personalitnyevelopment in the PhIlippines. Pennsyl- vania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1966. Haring, N. G., Stern, G. G. and Cruickshank, W. M. Attitude of Educators Toward Exceptional Children. Syracuse: Syracuse University, 1958. Hassenger, R. and Weiss, R. "The Catholic College Climate," The_§chool Review, LXXIV (Winter, 1966), 459-445. Hendrix, V. L. "Environmental Press Preferences of Stu- dents and Faculty." Paper read at the Association for Institutional Research, Boston, May, 1966. Holland, J. L. "Determinants of College Choice," College and University, XXXV (1959), 11-28. Holland, J. L. "Parental EXpectations and Attitudes about Colleges," College and University, XXXIV (1959), 164-170. Holland, J. L. "Undergraduate Origins of American Scientists," Science, CXXVI (1957), 455-457. Hollnsteiner, M. R. "Social Control and Filipino Person- ality," in Symposium on the Filipino Personality com- piled by J. Bulatao. Manila: Psychological Associ- ation of the Philippines, 1965. Hughes, E. C., Becker, H. S. and Greer, B. "Student Culture and Academic Effort," in The American College: A Psychological and Social Interpretation of the Higher Learning edited by Nevitt Sanford. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 55. 54. 55. 56. 99 Hutchins, E. B. "The 1960 Medical School Graduate: His Perception of His Faculty, Peers, and Environment," Journal of Medical Education, XXXVI (1961), 522-529. Jackson, D. N., Messick, S. J. and Solley, C. M. “A Multidimensional Scaling Approach to the Percep- tion of Personality,“ Journal of Psychology, XLIV (1957), 511-518. Jacob, P. E. Changinngalues in College. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. Johnson, R. W. and Kurpuis, D. J. “A Cross-sectional and Longitudinal Study of Students' Perceptions of their College Environment," Journal of College Stu- dent Personnel, VIII, No. 5 (May, 1967), 199-205. Kaspar, E. A. "An Investigation of the Perception of College Climate Among Students of Varying Ability: Comparisons Within the Albion College Climate and Across Types of College Climate." Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Indiana University, 1966. Lindahl, C. "Impact of Living Arrangements on Student Environmental Perceptions," JournaI of College Stu- dent Personnel, VIII (July, 1967), 10-15. Lynch, F. "Social Acceptance," in Four Readings on Philippine Values compiled by F. Lynch. Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1964. Mayhew, L. B. "Institutional Factors and the Learning Environment," in The College and the Student edited by L. E. Dennis and J. F. Kauffman. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1966. McConnel, T. R. and Heist, P. A. "Do Students Make the College?" College and University, XXXIV (1959), 442-452. McConnel, T. R. and Heist, P. A. "The Diverse College Student POpulation," in College and Character edited by Nevitt Sanford. New York: John Wiley and Sons, .1964. McFee, A. "The Relation of Students' Needs to their Perceptions of a College Environment," Journal of Educational Psychology, LII (1961), 25-29. Merwin, J. C. and Di Vesta, F. J. "A Study of Need Theory and Career Choice," Journal of Counseling Psychology, VI (1959), 502-508. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 65. 64. 67. 68. 69. 100 Morrill, W. H. -"The Relationship of Student Personality, Area of Concentration, and College Environment." Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Missouri, 1966. Murphy, G. PersonaIity: A Biosocial Approach to Origins and Structure. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947. Murray, H. A. Explorations in Personality, New York: Oxford University Press, 1958. Pace, C. R. "Five College Environments," College Board Review, XLIV (1960), 24-28. Pace, C. R. "Perspectives on the Student and His College," in The College and theygnudent edited by L. E. Dennis and J. F. Kauffman. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1966. Pace, C. R. and McFee, A. "The College Environment," Review of Educational Research, XXX (1960), 511-520. Pace, C. R. and Stern, G. G. "An Approach to the Measure- ment of Psychological Characteristics of College Environments," Journal onyducational Psychology, XLIX (1958), 269-277. Pace, C. R. and Stern, G. G. College Characteristics Index. Syracuse: Syracuse University Psychological Research Center, 1958. Reeves, F. W. UNESCO Consultative Educational Mission to the Philippines. Paris: UNESCO, 1949. Reisman, D. "The Jacob Report," American Sociological Review. XXIII (1958), 752-758. Rowe, F. B. "Background and Personality Factors and their Implications for Student Selection in Three Women's Colleges," in Institutional Research on College Students edited by Kenneth Wilson. North Carolina: Southern College Personnel Association, 1962. Rowe, F. B. Characteristics of WOmen College Students. SREB Research Monograph No. 8, Southern Regional Education Board, 1964. Saunders, D. R. "A Factor Analytic Study of the Activi- ties Index and the College Characteristics Index." Unpublished, undated report. 447 Walnut Lane, Princeton, New Jersey. 70. 71. 72. 75. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 101 Scanlon, J. "The Activities Index: An Inquiry into Validity." Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Syracuse University, 1958. Schoen, W. T., Jr. "The Campus Climate: Student Per- ceptions and Faculty Idealism," Journal of Education- al Research, LX, No. 1 (September, 196677 5-7. Schultz, D. "Simulation by College Students of Pre- scribed Patterns in the Activities Index." Unpub— lished MA Thesis, Syracuse University, 1955. ShrOpshire, L. "An Investigation of the Relationships Between Some Properties of Closure and Reading Performance." Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Syracuse University, 1955. Siegelman, M. and Peck, R. F. "Personality Patterns Related to Occupational Roles," Genetic Psychology Monographs, LXI (May, 1960), 291-549. Sinco, E. D. "The Psychological Characteristics of the College Environment and their Implications for Foundation College." Unpublished MA Thesis, Univer- sity of the Philippines, 1964. Sinco, V. G. The Case of Philippine Private Education. Manila: Community Publishers, 1966. Sinco, V. G. Education in Philippine Society. Quezon City, Philippines: University of the Philippines Publications Office, 1959. Sinco, V. G. "The Philippine Private Schools in Retrospect," Panorama (December, 1967), 6-15. Snyder, B. R. "The Invisible Curriculum." Paper read at the American Council on Education, Washington, D. C., October, 1965. Stern, G. G. "Assessing Theological Student Personality Structure," Journal of Pastoral Care, XVIII (1954), 76-85. Stern, G. G. "Characteristics of the Intellectual Climate in College Environments," Harvard Education- al Review, XXXIII, No. 1 (Winter, 1965), 5-41. Stern, G. G. "Congruence and Dissonance in the Ecology of College Students," Student Medicine, VIII (1960), 504-559. 85. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 95. 94. 102 Stern, G. G. "Environments for Learning," in The Ameri- can Colle ege: A Psychological and Social Inter rpr reta- tion of the Higher Learning edited by Nevitt Sanford. New YOrk: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Stern, G. G. "The Measurement of Psychological Character- istics of Students and Learning Environments," in Measurement in Personality and Cognition edited by S. J. Messick and J. Ross. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Stern, G. G. People in Context. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1967. Stern, G. G. Preliminary Manual of the Activities Index and thenCollege Characteristics Index. ~Syracuse: Syracuse University Psychological Research Center, 1958. Stern, G. G. Scoring Inetructiene and College Norme—- Activities Index and the College Characteristics Index. Syracuse: Syracuse University Psychological Research Center, 1965. Stern, G. G. Some Reflections on Delingyencpresearch. Syracuse: Syracuse University Youth DevelOpment Center, 1958. Stern, G. G. The Stern Activities Index. Syracuse: Syracuse University Psychological Research Center, 1958. Stern, G. G. "Student Values and their Relationship to the College Environment," in Research on College Students edited by H. T. Sprague. Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1960. Stern, G. G. and Scanlon, J. S. "Pediatric Lions and Gynecological Lambs," Journal of Medical Education, XXXIII, Part 2 (1958), 12-18. Stern, G. G., Schultz, D. and Naugle, G. "Resistance to Faking on the Activities Index," American Psychologist, XII (1957), 7. Stern, G. G., Stein, M. I. and Bloom, B. S. Methods in Personality Assessment. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1956. Sutherland, R. L. et al. (eds.). Personality Factors on the College Campus. Austin: The Hogg Foundation, 1962. 105 95. Swanson, J. C. A Survey of the Public Schools of the Philippines-~1960. Manila: United States Operations Mission to the Philippines, 1960. 96. "The Invisible Thread: A University's Reputation," Carnegie Corporation of New York Quarterly, XIV (January, 1966), 1-4. 97. Thistlethwaite, D. L. "College Environments and the Development of Talent," Science, CXXX (July, 1959), 71-76. 98. Thistlethwaite, D. L. "College Press and Changes in Study Plans of Talented Students," Journal of Educa- tional Peychology, LI (1960, 222-254. 99. Thistlethwaite, D. L. "College Press and Student Achievement," Journal of Educational PsyehologY, L (1959),r185-191. 100. Wassertheil, S. M. "A Study of the Need Patterns of Negative and Positive Individuals." Unpublished MA Thesis, Syracuse University, 1955. 101. Whitehead, A. N. The Aims of Education and Other Essays. New York: The New American Library, 1960. 102. Wilson, J. W. and Lyons, E. H. WOrk-Study College Pro- grams. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961. APPENDICES APPENDIX A COLLEGE CHARACTERISTICS INDEX APPENDIX A COLLEGE CHARACTERISTICS INDEX There are 500 statements in this booklet. They are statements about college life. They refer to the curricu— lum, to college teaching and classroom activities, to rules and regulations and policies, to student organizations and activities and interests, to features of the campus, etc. The statements may or may not be characteristic of your college, because colleges differ from one another in many ways. You are to decide which statements are characteristic of your college and which are not. Your answers should tell us what you believe the college is like rather than what you might personally prefer. You won't know the answer to many of these statements, because there may not be any really definite information on which to base your answer. Your re- sponse will simply mean that in your Opinion the statement is probably true or false about your college. Do not omit any item. DIRECTIONS On the special answer sheet print your name and the other information requested. Then, as you read each 104 .h '. . ‘0: L "~7hn.‘- l‘z' 105 statement in the booklet, blacken space. T--when you think the statement is generally TRUE or characteristic of the college, is something which occurs or might occur, is the way people tend to feel or act. F--when you think the statement is generally FALSE or not characteristic of the college, is something which is not likely to occur, is not the way peOple typically feel or act. Be sure to fill in the whole Space between the dotted lines on the answer sheet with a heavy black mark, using the special pencil provided to you. YOU MUST ANSWER EVERY ITEM. Work rapidly, going through the entire list of statements as quickly as you can. Please do not make any marks in this booklet. Copyright 1958 by George G. Stern and C. Robert Pace CD UHF- (NN P 10. 11. 12. 15. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 106 Legend: T-True. Generally true or characteristic of the college, is something which occurs or might occur, is the way people tend to feel or act. F—False. Generally false or not characteristic of the college, is something which is not likely to occur, is not the way peOple typically feel or act. Students are encouraged to criticize administrative policies and teaching practices. The competition for grades is intense. In many courses grade lists are publicly posted. There are no fraternities or sororities. Students are conscientious about taking good care of school prOperty. The students represent a great variety in nationality, religion, and social status. Most courses are very well organized and progress system- atically from week to week. Professors often try to provoke arguments in class, the livelier the better. Students address faculty members as "professor" or "doctor." There is a recognized group of student leaders on this campus. Student pep rallies, parades, dances, carnivals, or demonstrations occur very rarely. Students here learn that they are not only expected to develop ideals but also to express them in action. Discussions get quite heated, with a lot of display of feeling. There is a lot of interest here in student theatrical groups. Many famous people are brought to the campus for lectures, concerts, student discussions, etc. There is an extensive program of intramural sports and informal athletic activities. Many of the social science professors are actively engaged in research. In most classes there is very little joking and laughing. 19. 20. 21. 22. 25. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 50. 51. 52. 35. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 39. 40. 41. 42. 45. 107 Receptions, teas, or formal dances are seldom given here. Many upperclassmen play an active role in helping new students adjust to campus life. No one needs to be afraid of expressing extreme or unpopular vieWpoints in this school. In many classes students have an assigned seat. Students really get excited at an athletic contest. It's important socially here to be in the right club or group. Books dealing with psychological problems or personal values are widely read and discussed. The library is exceptionally well equipped with periodi- cals, journals, and books in the natural sciences. On nice days many classes meet outdoors on the lawn. There is lots of informal dating during the week--at the library, snack bars, movies, etc. Students often help one another with their lessons. There is a lot of emphasis on preparing for graduate work. Resident students must get written permission to be away from the campus overnight. It is fairly easy to pass most courses without working very hard. Student organizations are closely supervised to guard against mistakes. There is a lot of group spirit. Most people here seem to be especially considerate of others. Courses, examinations, and readings are frequently revised. Instructors clearly explain the goals and purposes of their courses. When students do not like an administrative decision, they really work to get it changed. Many students try to pattern themselves after peOple they admire. Student elections generate a lot of intense campaigning and strong feeling. Students and faculty are proud of their tough-mindedness and their resistance to pleaders for special causes. Most students get extremely tense during exam periods. Students put a lot of energy into everything they do in class and out. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 108 When students run a project or put on a show everybody knows about it. Students spend a lot of time planning their careers. Initiations and class rivalries sometimes get a little rough. The school offers many oppprtunities for students to understand and criticize important works in art, music, and drama. New fads and phrases are continually springing up among the students. Students take a great deal of pride in their personal appearance. There are courses which involve field trips to slum areas, welfare agencies, or similar contact with under- privileged people. The values most stressed here are open-mindedness and objectivity. Students must have a written excuse for absence from class. The big college events draw a lot of student enthusiasm and support. There are psychology courses which deal in a practical way with personal adjustment and human relations. There would be a capacity audience for a lecture by an outstanding philos0pher or theologian. When students get together they seldom talk about science. The college has invested very little in drama and dance. Student gathering places are typically active and noisy. There is a student loan fund which is very helpful for minor emergencies. The school is outstanding for the emphasis and support it gives to pure scholarship and basic research. Students are seldom kept waiting when they have appoint— ments with faculty members. Most courses require intensive study and preparation out of class. Students are expected to play bridge, golf, bowl together, etc., regardless of individual skill. There are many Opportunities for students to get together in extra-curricular activities. Most students show a good deal of caution and self- control in their behavior. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 75. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 85. 84. 85. 86. 87. 109 There are many students from widely different geographic regions. A lot of students who get just passing grades at mid- term really make an effort to earn a higher grade by the end of the term. Pe0ple here really play to win, not just for the fun of the game. Religious worship here stresses serVice to God and obedience to His laws. Students are expected to report any violation of rules and regulations. Many students here deve10p a strong sense of responsibil- ity about their role in contemporary social and political life. The way peOple feel around here is always pretty evident. Few students here would ever work or play to the point of exhaustion. Students have many Opportunities to develop skill in organizing and directing the work of others. Most students would regard mountain-climbing, rugged camping trips, or driving a car all night as pretty pointless. Fire drills are held in student dormitories and residences. A lecture by an outstanding literary critic would be poorly attended. Many informal student activities are unplanned and spon- taneous. Poise and sophistication are highly respected by both students and faculty. Most students here would not want pets (dogs, cats, etc.), even if they were allowed to have them. Most faculty members are liberal in interpreting regula- tions and treat violations with understanding and toler- ance. Student papers and reports must be neat. There are lots of dances, parties, and social activities. Many courses stress the speculative or abstract rather than the concrete and tangible. There are many facilities and opportunities for individual creative activity. A lecture by an outstanding scientist would be poorly attended. Student rooms are more likely to be decorated with pen- nants and pin-ups than with paintings, carvings, mobiles, fabrics, etc. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110 Most students here really enjoy dancing. The person who is always trying to "help out" is likely to be regarded as a nuisance. , Most students have very little interest in round tables, panel meetings, or other formal discussions. If a student wants help, he usually has to answer a lot of embarrassing questions. Personality, pull, and bluff get students through many courses. In many courses there are projects or assignments which call for group work. The professors seem to have little time for conversa- tion with students. The faculty and administration are often joked about or criticized in student conversations. Everyone here has pretty much the same attitudes, opin- ions, and beliefs. Activities in most student organizations are carefully and clearly planned. Channels for expressing students' complaints are readily accessible. Students almost always wait to be called on before speaking in class. Personal rivalries are fairly common. Boy-girl relationships in this atmosphere tend to be practical and uninvolved, rarely becoming intensely emotional or romantic. There is a lot of excitement and restlessness just before holidays. There are so many things to do here that students are busy all the time. Most students here would not like to dress up for a fancy ball or masquerade. Most students are more concerned with the present than the future. Many students drive sports cars. Few students are planning post-graduate work in the social sciences. Dormitory raids, water fights, and other student pranks would be unthinkable here. Most students here enjoy such activities as dancing, skating, diving, gymnastics. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 111 Students often run errands or do other personal services for the faculty. Many students have Special good luck charms and practices. Campus architecture and landscaping stress symmetry and order. There is very little studying here over the week-ends. Students are more interested in specialization than in general liberal education. Modern art and music get little attention here. Few students are planning careers in science. This is mainly a meat and potatoes community, with little interest in gourmets or anything unusual. Students spend a lot of time talking about their boy or girl friends. Students here are encouraged to be independent and individualistic. A lot of students like chess, puzzles, double-crostics, and other abstract games. For a period of time freshmen have to take orders from upperclassmen. Students who work hard for high grades are likely to be regarded as odd. In most classes every student can expect to be called on to recite. The school helps everyone get acquainted. Many students seem to eXpect other peOple to adapt to them rather than trying to adapt themselves to others. Many students travel or look for jobs in different parts of the country during the summer. Assignments are usually clear and specific, making it easy for students to plan their studies effectively. PeOple around here seem to thrive on difficulty--the tougher things get, the harder they work. In talking with students, faculty members often refer to their colleagues by their first names. The important people at this school expect others to show proper respect for them. There are practically no student organizations actively involved in campus or community affairs. Most students respond to ideas and events in a pretty cool and detached way. There seems to be a lot of interest here in health, diets, vitamin pills, anti-histamines, etc. There are a good many colorful and controversial figures on the faculty. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151.' 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 112 Education here tends to make students more practical and realistic. Students are frequently reminded to take preventive measures against illness. A student who insists on analyzing and classifying art and music is likely to be regarded as a little odd. Students often start projects without trying to decide in advance how they will develOp or where they may end. Students who are not prOperly groomed are likely to have this called to their attention. The college regards training people for service to the community as one of its major responsibilities. A well reasoned report can rate an A grade here even though its viewpoint is Opposed to the professor's. Professors usually take attendance in class. New jokes and gags get around the campus in a hurry. Family social and financial status may not be talked about but everyone knows who's who. The student newsPaper rarely carries articles intended to stimulate discussion of philOSOphical or ethical matter. Course offerings and faculty in the natural sciences are outstanding. There is a lot of interest here in poetry, music, painting, sculpture, architecture, etc. Bermuda shorts, pin-up pictures, etc. are common on this campus. There is a high degree of respect for noncomformity and intellectual freedom. "Alma Mater" seems to be more important than "subject matter" at this school. No one is expected to suffer in silence if some regula- tion happens to create a personal hardship. Examinations here provide a genuine measure of a student's achievement and understanding. Student's mid-term and final grades are reported to parents. Students almost never see the professors except in class. Students occasionally plot some sort of escapade or rebellion. Most Students dress and act pretty much alike. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 113 Faculty advisers or counselors are pretty practical and efficient in the way they dispatch their business. If a student fails a course he can usually substitute another one for it rather than take it over. .A lot of students here will do something even if they know they will be criticized for it. There are no favorites at this school--everyone gets treated alike. Students are actively concerned about national and international affairs. An Open display of emotion would embarrass most professors. Students get so absorbed in various activities that they Often lose all sense of time or personal comfort. It is easy to Obtain student speakers fOr clubs or meetings. There is little sympathy here for ambitious daydreams about the future. Drinking and late parties are generally tolerated, despite regulations. When students get together they seldom talk about trends in art, music or the theater. There seems to be a jumble of papers and books in most faculty offices. There are no mirrors in any of the public rooms or halls. There is a great deal of borrowing and sharing among the students. Some of the professors react to questions in class as if the students were criticizing them personally. The campus and buildings always look a little unkempt. Everyone has a lot of fun at this school. Many students enjoy working with their hands and are pretty efficient about making or repairing things. Special museums or collections are important possessions Of the college. ~Laboratory facilities in the natural sciences are excellent. The library has paintings and phonograph records which circulate widely among the students. There are several pOpular spots where a crowd of boys and girls can always be found. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 114 Most of the faculty are not interested in students' personal problems. Very few students here prefer tO talk about poetry, philosophy, or mathematics as compared with motion pictures, politics, or inventions. Faculty members are impatient with students who inter- rupt their work. Students set high standards Of achievement for them— selves. Students quickly learn what is done and not done on this campus. Faculty members rarely or never call students by their first names. When students dislike a faculty member they make it evident to him. There are many foreign students on the campus. In most classes, the presentation Of material is well planned and illustrated. Everyone knows the "snap" courses to take and the tough ones to avoid. Professors seem to enjoy breaking down myths and illusions about famous peOple. Anyone who knows the right people in the faculty or administration can get a better break here. Students are encouraged to take an active part in social reforms or political programs. Graduation is a pretty matter-of-fact, unemotional event. Faculty members put a lot Of energy and enthusiasm into their teaching. There is a lot of fanfare and pageantry in many of the college events. Nearly all students expect to achieve future fame or wealth. All undergraduates must live in university approved housing. Humanities courses are Often elected by students major— ing in other areas. Students who tend to say or do the first thing that occurs to them are likely to have a hard time here. There are definite times each week when dining is made a gracious social event. A good deal of enthusiasm and support is aroused by fund drives for Campus Chest, CARE, Red Cross, refugee aid, etc. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 115 There always seems to be a lot of little quarrels going on. Most student rooms are pretty messy. It's easy to get a group together for card games, sing— ing, going to the movies, etc. The academic atmosphere is practical, emphasizing efficiency and usefulness. Tutorial or honors programs are available for qualified students. A student who spends a lot of his time in a science laboratory is likely to be regarded as a little Odd. There are paintings or statues of nudes on the campus. Students frequently go away for foOtball games, skiing weekends, etc. Students commonly share their problems. Most of the professors are dedicated scholars in their fields. The school administration has little tolerance for student complaints and protests. Standards set by the professors are not particularly hard to achieve. Frequent tests are given in most courses. Students spend a lot of time together at the snack bars, taverns, and in one another's rooms. Students are sometimes noisy and inattentive at concerts or lectures. The history and traditions of the college are strongly emphasized. Most students follow a systematic schedule for studying and recreation. NO one gets pushed around at this school without fight- ing back. Faculty and administrators see students only during scheduled office hours or by appointment. Students exert considerable pressure on one another to live up to the expected modes of conduct. National elections generate a lot of intense campaign- ing and strong feeling on the campus. Students here can be wildly happy one minute and hOpe- lessly depressed the next. Many lectures are delivered in a monotone with little inflection or emphasis. Public debates are held frequently. 225. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 116 The faculty encourage students to think about exciting and unusual careers. Students rarely get drunk and disorderly. Course offerings and faculty in the social sciences are outstanding. Spontaneous student rallies and demonstrations occur frequently. Proper social forms and manners are important here. Many church and social organizations are especially interested in charities and community services. The faculty tend to be suspicious of students' motives and often make the worst interpretation of even trivial incidents. Classrooms are kept clean and tidy. There isn't much to do here except go to classes and study. The college offers many really practical courses such as typing, report writing, etc. Long, serious intellectual discussions are common among the students. Many of the natural science professors are actively engaged in research. In papers and reports, vivid and novel expressions are usually criticized. Some of the most popular students have a knack for making witty, subtle remarks with a slightly sexy tinge. The professors go out of their way to help you. In class discussions, papers, and exams, the main emphasis is on breadth of understanding, perspective, and critical judgment. Students don't argue with the professor; they just admit they are wrong. Learning what is in the text book is enough to pass most courses. The professors regularly check up on the students to make sure that assignments are being carried out properly and on time. Students frequently study or prepare for examinations together. Students pay little attention to rules and regulations. Old grads are always pleased to discover that few things have changed. 247. 248. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 254. 255. 256. 257. 258. 259. 260. 261. 262. 263. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. 271. 117 It is hard to prepare for examinations because students seldom know what will be expected of them. The campus religious program tends to emphasize the importance of acting on personal conviction, rather than the acceptance of tradition. Student publications never lampoon dignified peOple or institutions. People here are always trying to win an argument. There are a number of prominent faculty members who play a significant role in national or local politics. Students tend to hide their deeper feelings from each other. Class discussions are typically vigorous and intense. The college tries to avoid advertising and publicity. The future goals for most students emphasize job secur— ity, family happiness, and good citizenship. Few students bother with rubbers, hats, or other special protection against the weather. The library is exceptionally well-equipped with journals, periodicals, and books in the social sciences. There are frequent informal social gatherings. Society orchestras are more pOpular here than jazz bands or novelty groups. Chapel services on or near the campus are well attended. The school has an excellent reputation for academic freedom. Campus buildings are clearly marked by signs and directories. Students are very serious and purposeful about their work. Education for leadership is strongly emphasized. Students who are concerned with develOping their own personal and private system of values are likely to be regarded as Odd. Introductory science or math courses are often elected by students majoring in other areas. To most students here art is something to be studied rather than felt. This college's reputation for marriages is as good as its reputation for education. Students are expected to work out the details of their own program in their own way. Most of the professors are very thorough teachers and really probe into the fundamentals of their subjects. There is a lot of apple-polishing around here. 272. 273. 274. 275. 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281. 282. 283. 284. 285. 286. 287. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 293. 294: 295. 296. 118 Most courses are a real intellectual challenge. Students have little or no personal privacy. The professors really talk with the students, not just at them. Students ask permission before deviating from common policies or practices. Most students look for variety and novelty in summer jobs. It is easy to take clear notes in most courses. It is very difficult to get a group decision here without a lot of argument. A controversial speaker always stirs up a lot of student discussion. The student leaders here have lots of special privileges. The expression of strong personal belief or conviction is pretty rare around here. Very few things here arouse much excitement or feeling. The professors really push the students' capacities to the limit. Student parties are colorful and lively. Quite a few faculty members have had varied and unusual careers. Rough games and contact sports are an important part of intramural athletics. In many courses the broad social and historical setting of the material is not discussed. Students frequently do things on the spur of the moment. Students think about dressing appropriately and inter- estingly for different occasions--classes, social events, sports, and other affairs. This school has a reputation for being very friendly. Many faculty members seem moody and unpredictable. Classes meet only at their regularly scheduled time and place. Every year there are carnivals, parades, and other festive events on the campus. Most students are interested in careers in business, engineering, management, and other practical affairs. There is considerable interest in the analysis of value systems and the relativity of societies and ethics. There is a lot of interest in the philosoPhy and methods of science. 297. 298. 299. 300. 119 Concerts and art exhibits always draw big crowds of students. Nearly everyone here has a date for the weekends. Counseling and guidance services are really personal, patient, and extensive. Careful reasoning and clear logic are valued most highly in grading student papers, reports, or discussions. APPENDIX B CHANGES MADE IN SOME ITEMS COLLEGE CHARACTERISTICS INDEX APPENDIX B CHANGES MADE IN SOME ITEMS The following were the changes made in some of the items in the College Characteristics Index to suit the Philippine setting. Item 63: Students are expected to play bridge, golf, bowl together, etc., regardless of individual skill. Changed to: Students are eXpected to play cards, bowl together, etc., regardless of individual skill. Item 75: Most students would regard mountain-climbing, rugged camping trips, or driving a car all night as pretty pointless. Changed to: Most students would regard hiking, mountain-climbing, or rugged hunting trips as pretty point- less. Item 106: Most students drive sports cars. Changed to: .Many students drive their own cars. Item 108: Dormitory raids, water fights and other student pranks would be unthinkable here. Changed to: Boarding house raids, serenades, and other student pranks would be unthinkable here. 120 121 Item 117: This is mainly a meat and potatoes community, with little interest in gourmets or anything unusual. Changed to: This is mainly a fish and rice community, with little interest in gourmets or anything unusual. Item 200: A good deal of enthusiasm and support is aroused by fund drives for Campus Chest, CARE, Red Cross, refugee aid, etc. Changed to: A good deal of enthusiasm and support is aroused by fund drives for Community Chest, Red Cross, calamity victims, etc. Item 208: Students frequently go away for football games, skiing weekends, etc. Changed to: Students frequently go away for basketball games, swimming weekends on the beach, etc. Item 214: Students spend a lot of time together at the snack bars, taverns, and in one another's rooms. Changed to: Students spend a lot of time together at the snack bars, cafeterias, and in one another's rooms. Item 234: The college offers many really practical courses such as typing, report writing, etc. Changed to: The college Offers many really practical courses such as typing, stenography, filing, bookkeeping, etc. Item 256: Few students bother with rubbers, hats or other special protection against the weather. Changed to: Few students bother with umbrellas, hats, or other special protection against the weather. APPENDIX C STERN ACTIVITIES INDEX APPENDIX C STERN ACTIVITIES INDEX George G. Stern, Syracuse University This booklet contains a number Of brief statements describing many different kinds of activities. You will like some of these things. They will seem more pleasant than unpleasant to you, perhaps even highly enjoyable. There will be others that you will dislike, finding them more un— pleasant than pleasant. The activities listed in this book- let have been Obtained from a great many different persons. People differ in the kinds of things they enjoy, like to do, or find pleasant to eXperience. YOu are to decide which of these you like and which you dislike. DIRECTIONS Print the information called for at the tOp of the special answer sheet: your name, the date, your age and sex, etc. Then, as you read each item, blacken the space. L--if the item describes an activity or event that you would like, enjoy, or find more pleasant than unpleasant. 122 123 D--if the item describes an activity or event that you would dislike, reject, or find more unpleasant than pleasant. Be sure to fill the whole space between the dotted lines with a heavy, black mark, using the special pencil provided. You need not Spend much time on any one item; go through the list quickly, being sure to answer every item. DO not make any marks in this booklet. Copyright 1958 by George G. Stern (Dd 0) (DP (NNH [A 0&0 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 124 Legend: L--If the item describes an activity or event that you would like, enjoy, or find more pleasant than unpleasant. D—-if the item describes an activity or event that you would dislike, reject, or find more unpleasant than pleasant. Taking the blame for something done by someone I like. Setting difficult goals for myself. Concealing a failure or humiliation from others. Having other peOple let me alone. Getting what is coming u: me even if I have to fight for it. Being quite changeable in my likes and dislikes. Scheduling time for work and play during the day. Working twice as hard at a problem when it looks as if I don't know the answer. Seeing someone make fun of a person who deserves it. Persuading a group to do something my way. Being a newspaperman who crusades to improve the community. _ Listening to music that makes me feel very sad. Taking up a very active outdoor sport. Keeping in the background when I'm with a group of wild, fun-loving, noisy people. Toughening myself, going without an overcoat, seeing how long I can go without food or sleep, etc. Diving Off the tower or high board at a pool. Learning about the causes of some of our social and political problems. Doing something crazy occasionally, just fOr the fun of it. Imagining what I would do if I could live my life over again. Feeding a stray dog or cat. Taking special precautions on Friday, the 13th. Washing and polishing things like a car, silverware, or furniture. Making my work go faster by thinking of the fun I can have if it's done. Being good at typewriting, knitting, carpentry, or other practical Skills. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.- 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 125 Understanding myself better. Learning how to prepare slides of plant and animal tissue, and making my own studies with a micrOSCOpe. Holding something very soft and warm against my skin. Talking about how it feels to be in love. Belonging to a close family group that expects me to bring my problems to them. Concentrating intently on a problem. Suffering for a good cause of someone I love. Working for someone who will accept nothing less than the best that's in me. Defending myself against criticism or blame. Going to the park or beach with a crowd. Shocking narrow minded peOple by saying and doing things of which they disapprove. Getting up and going to bed at the same time each day. Planning a reading program for myself. Returning to a task which I have previously failed. Doing what most people tell me to do, to the best of my ability. Having other people depend on me for ideas or Opinions. Being an important political figure in a time of crisis. Crying at a funeral, wedding, graduation, or similar ceremony. Exerting myself to the utmost for something unusually important or enjoyable. Wearing clothes that will attract a lot of attention. Working until I'm exhausted, to see how much I can take. Being careful to wear a raincoat and rubbers when it rains. Studying the music of particular composers, such as Bach, Beethoven, etc. Acting impulsively just to blow Off steam. Thinking about ways of changing my name to make it sound striking or different. Discussing with younger people what they like to do and how they feel about things. Waiting for a falling star, white horse, or some other Sign of success before I make an important decision. Keeping my bureau drawers, desks, etc., in perfect order. Spending most of my extra money on pleasure. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 126 Learning how to repair such things as the radio, sewing machine, or car. Thinking about different kinds Of unusual behavior like insanity, drug addiction, crime, etc. Studying wind conditions and changes in atmosphere pressure in order to better understand and predict the weather. Eating after going to bed. Watching a couple who are crazy about each other. Working for someone who always tells me exactly what to do and how to do it. Finding the meaning of unusual or rarely used words. Being polite or humble no matter what happens. Setting higher standards for myself than anyone else would, and working hard to achieve them. Admitting when I'm in the wrong. Leading an active social life. Doing something that might provoke criticism. Rearranging the furniture in the place where I live. Putting off something I don't feel like doing, even though I know it has to be done. Having to struggle hard for something I want. Listening to a successful person tell about his eXperi- ence. Getting my friends to do what I want to do. Taking an active part in social and political reform. Avoiding excitement or emotional tension. Staying up all night when I'm doing something that interests me. Speaking at a club or group meeting. Imagining myself president of the United States. .Crossing streets only at the corner and with the light. Listening to TV or radio programs about political and social problems. Being in a Situation that requires quick decisions and action. Pausing to look at myself in a mirror each time I pass one 0 Helping to collect money for poor peOple. ,Paying no attention to omens, signs, and other forms of superstition. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 127 Keeping an accurate record of the money I spend. DrOpping out of a crowd that spends most of its time playing around or having parties. Helping to direct a fund drive for the Red Cross, Community Chest, or other organizations. Imagining life on other planets. Reading articles which tell about new scientific develOpmentS, discoveries, or inventions. Chewing on pencils, rubber bands, or paper clips. Talking about who is in love with whom. Being a lone wolf, free of family and friends. Spending my time thinking about and discussing complex problems. Trying to figure out how I was to blame after getting into an argument with someone. Competing with others for a prize or goal. Being ready with an excuse or SXplanation when criticized. Meeting a lot of peOple. Arguing with an instructor or superior. Being generally consistent and unchanging in my behavior. Going to a party where all the activities are planned. Doing a job under pressure. Going along with a decision made by a supervisor or leader rather than starting an argument. Organizing groups to vote in a certain way in elections. Living a life which is adventurous and dramatic. Having someone for a friend who is very emotional. Sleeping long hours every night in order to have lots of rest. Playing music, dancing, or acting in a play before a large group. Thinking about what I could do that would make me famous. .Riding a fast and steep roller coaster. Comparing the problems and conditions of today with those of various times in the past. Doing whatever I'm in the mood to do. Daydreaming about what I would do if I could live my life any way I wanted. Comforting someone who is feeling low. Avoiding things that might bring bad luck. Arranging my clothes neatly before going to bed. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 128 Getting as much fun as I can out of life, even if it means sometimes neglecting more serious things. Learning how to make such things as furniture or clothing myself. Trying to figure out why the people I know behave the way they do. Doing experiments in physics, chemistry, or biology in order to test a theory. Sleeping in a very soft bed. Seeing love stories in the movies. Having someone in the family help me out when I'm in trouble. Working crossword puzzles, figuring out moves in checkers or chess, playing anagrams or scrabble, etc. Admitting defeat. Taking examinations. Being corrected when I'm doing something the wrong way. Belonging to a social club. Teasing someone who is too conceited. Moving to a new neighborhood or city, living in a dif- ferent country, etc. Finishing something I've begun, even if it is no longer enjoyable. Staying away from activities which I don't do well. Following directions. Being able to hypnotize peOple. Playing an active part in community affairs. Going on an emotional binge. Walking instead of riding whenever I can. Doing something that will create a stir. Thinking about winning recognition and acclaim as a brilliant military figure. Standing on the roof of a tall building. Studying different types of government, such as the American, English, Russian, German, etc. Doing things on the Spur of the moment. Having lots of time to take care of my hair, hands, face, clothing, etc. Having peOple come to me with their problems. Being especially careful the rest of the day if a black cat Should cross my path. ReCOpying notes or memoranda to make them neat. Finishing some work even though it means missing a party or dance. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 129 Working with mechanical appliances, household equip- ment, tools, electrical apparatus, etc. Thinking about what the end Of the world might be like. Studying the stars and planets and learning to identify them. Listening to the rain fall on the roof, or the wind blow through the trees. Flirting. Knowing an older person who likes to give me guidance and direction. Being a philosopher, scientist, or professor. Having people laugh at my mistakes. Working on tasks so difficult I can hardly do them. Keeping my failures and mistakes to myself. Going to parties where I'm expected to mix with the whole crowd. Annoying people I don't like, just to see what they will do. Leading a well—ordered life with regular hours and an established routine. Planning ahead so that I know every step of a project before I get to it. Avoiding something at which I have once failed. Turning over the leadership of a group to someone who is better for the job than I. Being an official or a leader. Actively supporting a movement to correct a social evil. Letting loose and having a good cry sometimes. Taking frequent rest periods when working on any project. Being the only couple on the dance floor when everyone is watching. Imagining situations in which I am a great hero. Driving fast. Talking about music, theater or other art forms with people who are interested in them. Controlling my emotion rather than expressing myself impulsively. Catching a reflection of myself in a mirror or window. Lending my things to other people. Carrying a good luck charm like a rabbit's foot or a four-leaf clover. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198 O 199. 200. 130 Making my bed and putting things away every day before I leave the house. Going to a party or dance with a lively crowd. Managing a store or business enterprise. -Seeking to explain the behavior of people who are emotionally disturbed. Going to scientific exhibits. Chewing or popping gum. Reading novels and magazine stories about love. Having others Offer their Opinions when I have to make a decision. Losing myself in hard thought. Accepting criticism without talking back. Doing something very difficult in order to prove I can do it. Pointing out someone else's mistakes when they point out mine. Having lots of friends who come to stay with us for several days during the year. Playing practical jokes. Doing things a different way every time I do them. Keeping to a regular schedule, even if this sometimes means working when I don't really feel like it. Quitting a project that seems too difficult for me. Listening to older persons tell about how they did things when they were young. Organizing a protest meeting. Getting my friends to change their social, political, or religious beliefs. Yelling with excitement at a ball game, horse race, or other public event. Having something to do every minute of the day. Speaking before a large group. Imagining how it would feel to be rich and famous. Playing rough games in which someone might be hurt. Finding out how different languages have developed, changed, and influenced one another. Letting my reasoning be guided by my feelings. Dressing carefully, being sure that the colors match and the various details are exactly right. Taking care of youngsters. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 131 Having a close friend who ignores or makes fun of superstitious beliefs. Shining my shoes and brushing my clothes every day. Giving up whatever I'm doing rather than miss a party or other opportunity for a good time. Fixing light sockets, making curtains, painting things, etc., around the house. Reading stories that try to Show what people really think and feel inside themselves. Collecting data and attempting to arrive at general laws about the physical universe. Sketching or painting. Daydreaming about being in love with a particular movie star or entertainer. Having people fuss over me when I'm sick. Engaging in mental activity. Making a fuss when someone seems to be taking advantage of me. Choosing difficult tasks in preference to easy ones. Apologizing when I've done something wrong. Going to the park or beach only at times when no one else is likely to be there. Questioning the decisions of peOple who are supposed to be authorities. Eating my meals at the same hour each day. Doing things according to my mood, without following any plan. Doing something over again, just to get it right. Disregarding a supervisor's directions when they seem foolish. Talking someone into dOing something I think ought to be done. Trying to improve my community by persuading others to do certain things. Being with people who seem always to be calm, unstirred, or placid. ‘ Giving all of my energy to whatever I happen to be doing. Being the center of attention at a party. Setting myself tasks to strengthen my mind, body, and will power. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. 248. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 132 Skiing on steep SlOpes, climbing high mountains, or eXploring narrow underground caves. Learning more about the work of different painters and sculptors. Speaking or acting spontaneously. Imagining the kind of life I would have if I were born at a different time in a different place. Talking over personal problems with someone who is feeling unhappy. Going ahead with something important even though I've just accidentally walked under a ladder, broken a mirror, etc. Keeping my room in perfect order. Being with people who are always joking, laughing, and out for a good time. Being treasurer or business manager for a club or organization. Imagining what it will be like when rocket Ships carry peOple through Space. Reading scientific theories about the origin of the earth and other planets. Eating SO much I can' take another bite. Listening to my friends talk about their love-life. Receiving advice from the family. Solving puzzles that involve numbers or figures. Taking the part of a servant or waiter in a play. Sacrificing everything else in order to achieve some- thing outstanding. Having my mistakes pointed out to me. Going on a vacation to a place where there are lots of people. Fighting for something I want, rather than trying to get it by asking. Avoiding any kind of routine or regularity. Organizing my work in order to use time efficiently. Avoiding something because I'm not sure I'll be successful at it. Carrying out orders from others with snap and enthusiasm. Directing other peOple'S work. Being a foreign ambassador or diplomat. Seeing sad or melodramatic movies. Avoiding things that require intense concentration. 254. 255. 256. 257. 258. 259. 260. 261. 262. 263. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. 271. 272. 273. 274. 275. 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281. 133 Telling jokes or doing tricks to entertain others at a large gathering. Pretending I'm a famous movie star. Swimming in rough, deep water. Studying the development of English or American literature. Being guided by my heart rather than by my head. Making my handwriting decorative or unusual. Taking care of someone who is ill. Finding out which days are lucky for me, so I can hold off important things to do until then. Having a special place for everything and seeing that each thing is in its place. Doing something serious with my leisure time instead of just playing around with the crowd. Learning how to raise attractive and healthy plants, flowers, vegetables, etc. Thinking about the meaning of eternity. Reading about how mathematics is used in developing scientific theories, such as explanations of how the planets move around the sun. Walking along a dark street in the rain. Being romantic with someone I love. Having people talk to me about personal problem of mine. Following through in the development of a theory, even though it has no practical applications. Telling others about the mistakes I have made and the sins I have committed. Picking out some hard task for myself and doing it. Concealing my mistakes from others whenever possible. Inviting a lot of people home for a snack or party. Proving that an instructor or superior is wrong. Staying in the same circle of friends all the time. Striving for precision and clarity in my Speech and writing. Giving up on a problem rather than doing it in a way that may be wrong. Having friends who are superior to me in ability. Influencing or controlling the actions of others. Converting or changing the views of others. 282. 286. 287. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 293. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298. 299. 300. 134 Thinking about how to become the richest and cleverest financial genius in the world. Being extremely careful about sports that involve some danger like sailing, hunting, or camping. Reading editorials or feature articles on major social issues. Making up my mind slowly, after considerable delibera- tion. Trying out different ways of writing my name, to make it look unusual. Providing companionship and personal care for a very Old helpless person. Going to a fortune-teller, palm reader or astrologer for advice on something important. Keeping a calendar or notebook of the things I have done or plan to do. Limiting my pleasures so that I can spend all of my time usefully. Being efficient and successful in practical affairs. Concentrating so hard on a work of art or music that I don't know what's going on around me. Studying rock formations and learning how they developed. Reading in the bathtub. Reading about the love affairs of movie stars and other famous peOple. Being with Someone who always tries to be sympathetic and understanding. Working out solutions to complicated problems, even though the answers may have no apparent, immediate usefulness. APPENDIX D CHANGES MADE IN SOME ITEMS STERN ACTIVITIES INDEX APPENDIX D CHANGES MADE IN SOME ITEMS The following were the changes made in some Of the items in the Stern Activities Index to suit the Philippine setting. Item 15: Toughening myself, going without an overcoat, seeing how long I can go without food or Sleep, etc. Changed to: Toughening myself, going without a rain- coat, seeing how long I can go without food or sleep, etc. Item 24: Being good at typewriting, knitting, carpen- try, or other practical Skills. Changed to: Being good at typewriting, crocheting, carpentry, or other practical Skills. Item 75: Imagining myself president of the United States. Changed to: Imagining myself president of the Philip— pines. Item 171: Carrying a good luck charm like a rabbit's foot or a four-leaf clover. Changed to: Carrying a good luck charm like a rabbit's foot or an anting-anting. 135 136 Item 226: Skiing on steep lepes, climbing high mountains, or exploring narrow underground caves. Changed to: Hunting, climbing high mountains, or exploring narrow underground caves. Item 297: Reading in the bathtub. Changed to: Reading in bed. MICHIGAN STQTE UNIV. LIBRARIES ! ININIHHIH‘IUIIFIWININIIHiIIINIIHIMIIHWI 103470203 31293