0V FINE :

25¢ per du pol- it.

RETUMIM LIBRARY MTERIAL§:
Place in book return to move

charge fro- circulation records

 

 

 

 

 

AN ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
(OF THE RESIDENCE HALLS ENVIRONMENT
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA

BY

Mitchel Dean Livingston

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration
and Higher Education

1980

ABSTRACT

AN ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
OF THE RESIDENCE HALLS ENVIRONMENT
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA

BY

Mitchel D. Livingston

The study tests the ecosystem model (micro-level) for
environmental assessment and redesign with the department
of Residence Services at The University of Iowa. The in-

troduction to the model was at Stage V - measuring student

perceptions of the residence halls environment. Data from

this assessment were utilized by a planning team composed
of residence halls staff and students, faculty and student

services representatives, to develop a list of recommenda-

tions for environmental intervention. These recommenda-

tions were either implemented immediately or they were in-
corporated into the departmental Management by Objective

program for staged implementation. A major focus of the

study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the ecosystem
model for generating data that were to improve conditions
in seven different residence halls environments (e.g.
Physical: Regulatory, Programming, Security, Food, Intel-
lectual/Academic, and Interpersonal Relations and Respon-
sibility) -
Seven procedural stages that were utilized to con-

duct the study included 1) obtaining sanction, 2) se-

lecting a planning team, 3) determining what to assess,

Mitchel D. Livingston
4) instrumentation, 5) distribution and collection of in-
strument, 6) data analysis, and 7) redesign and evaluation.

The University of Iowa Residence Halls Environmental As-

 

 

sessment Survey (UIRHEAS) was deve10ped by the planning

 

team to operationalize the study.
The five research questions examined in the study in-
cluded:
1. How do students perceive the residence
halls environment along different en-
vironmental subscales?
2. Why do students say they have certain
perceptions about the residence halls
along different environmental subscales?
3. What do students recommend to improve
the residence halls along different en-
vironmental subscales?
4. What environmental interventions will
be made as a result of data generated
from the above questions?
5. Is the ecosystem methodology an effec-
tive means of making environmental im-
provements in residence halls?
A review of the seven procedural stages revealed that all
research questions were answered.
Findings of the study also demonstrated that the eco-
system model is an effective means of assessing residence

halls environments and developing recommendations for

planned intervention.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To Dr. Gary North I offer many thanks for helping me
get my committee reestablished and the dissertation com—
pleted.

To my other committee members, Dr. Walter Johnson, Dr.
Richard Featherstone, and Dr. Keith Groty, I extend a deep
appreciation for staying with me throughout.

To Carol Epling, I am deeply grateful for the support,
inspiration, confidence and affection that she gave un-
selfishly. To her I also express gratitude for ten years
of friendship and helping to pick up the pieces.

I would like to thank Dr. Ursula Delworth and Rina
Weerts for the special colleagueship they provided by
serving as consultants on the ecosystem planning team.

Thanks to the other wonderful members of the planning
team (including Professor Larry Lafore, Kim Cox, Steve
Bowers, Fred Moore, Dave Pierce, Mike Struck, Larry
Lambertsen, Maggie Van Gel and Rosanne Proite) for staying
with the project and for their enthusiasm throughout the
academic year.

To my family I am indebted for their continued sup-

port and confidence over the years. A special thanks to

ii

my father for the inspiration to complete this project by
the time of our first extended family reunion - "We Are
Family" - a dream that Uncle Charles died trying to fulfill.
Lastly I am thankful for the support of my staff and
students in residence halls at The University of Iowa, and

to Karla Thompson for putting the ideas into print.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Chapter

II.

III.

INTRODUCTION: HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
AND OBJECTIVES OF STUDENT HOUSING .

The Impact of the Residence

Hall Environment . . . . . . . . . .
Statement of the Problem . . . . . .
Purposes of the Study . . . . . . . .
Research Questions . . . . . . . . .
Ecosystem Methodology . . . . . . . .

Theoretical Foundation . . . . . . .
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . .
Limitations of Study . . . . . . . .

Organization of Study . . . . . . . .
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . .

Theoretical Orientation . . . . . . .
Research Supporting the
ModelB=f(P,E) . . . . . . . . .
Theory-Based Models of Person-
Environment Relationships . . . . .
Limitations of Theoretical Models . .
Other Assessment Techniques for
College and Residence Environments .
Techniques for Evaluating the

College Environment . . . . . . . .
Methodological Approaches for

Residential Intervention . . . . . .
Ecosystem Studies . . . . . . . . . .

smary o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

iv

Page

vi

1?
19
20
21
27
33
36
38

44
45
46

50
7O

74
81
84

93
112

Chap te r

IJII.

I‘f.

.METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . .

Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Instrumentation . . . . . . . . .
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . .
Review of Planning Team Meetings
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RESULTS . O O O O O O C O O O C I

IResults of The University 9§_Iowa
Residence Halls Environmental
.Assessment Survey, Part I . . .

ZResults of The University of Iowa
Residence Halls Environmental
.Assessment Survey, Part II - ER
.Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . .

IIntegration of Part I and
Part II Data Analysis . . . . .

Ianironmental Redesign . . . . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
AND IWLICATIONS . O O O O O O 0

:Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1Findings and Conclusions . . . .
Implications . . . . . . . . . .
Concluding Statement . . . . . .

 

 

Page
123

125
129
134
147
149

151

151

176

222
225

234

234
238
244
251

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Total Number of Men and Women in
Specific Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

2 Percentage of Students By Classification
in Specific Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . 126
3 Number and Percentage of Responses

byResidenceHall............. 127

4 Frequency Distribution of Selected
Items from the Overall Analysis of
Responses - Physical Environment . . . . . . 153

5 Frequency Distribution of Selected
Items of the Overall Analysis of
Responses - Regulatory Environment . . . . . 158

5 Frequency Distribution of Selected
Items from the Overall Analysis of
Responses - Programming Environment . . . . 162

7 Frequency Distribution of Selected
Items from the Overall Analysis of
Responses - Security Environment . . . . . . 164

3 Frequency Distribution of Selected
Items from the Overall Analysis of
Responses - Food Environment . . . . . . . . 166

9 Frequency Distribution of Selected
Items from the Overall Analysis of
Responses - Intellectual/Academic
Environment................169

10 Frequency Distribution of Selected
Items from the Overall Analysis of
Responses - Interpersonal Relations
and Responsibility Environment . . . . . . . 173

vi

I.

,
"F 1
\fi

Table Page

11 Frequency Response of Environmental
Referents from Part II of the UIRHEAS . . . 178

12 ER Response RateturEnvironmental
Subscale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

13 ER Analysis of the Physical
Environment Subscale . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

14 ER Analysis of the Regulatory
Environment Subscale . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

15 ER Analysis of the Programming
Environment Subscale . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

16 ER Analysis of the Security
Environment Subscale . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

17 ER Analysis of the Food
Environment Subscale . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

18 ER Analysis of the Intellectual/
Academic Environment Subscale . . . . . . . 213

19 ER Analysis of the Interpersonal
Relations and Responsibility
Environment Subscale . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

20 Tabular Data on Overall
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

vii

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND
OBJECTIVES OF STUDENT HOUSING

Student residences are as old as universities.1 One

of the problems that confronted students in medieval uni-
versities in EurOpe was the procurement of adequate hous-
ing. Without the historical account of these problems
that students faced with medieval landlords, the origin of

2 Thus, the

universities would remain a mystery today.
early development of universities is inextricably joined
with that of student residences.

Housing was necessary for the basic purpose of pro—
viding food and shelter rather than an esoteric tie to
learning and development. Students often came from far-
away places to study together in the few communities that
had universities. Many of the best known housing arrange-
ments, from an historical perspective, entailed a gather-
ing of students from the same area who would rent a house
and operate it as a residence. These houses of residence
came to be called Nations, named according to the area of
origin of the occupants, and they formed key structural

3

components of the university. The principal factor that

1

2

joined the Nations was the concept of citizenship. Stu-
dents would band together in Nations to create an artifi-
cial citizenry and through their commercial value to the
city, work for the rights of jurisdiction over their mem-
bers. However, the power and autonomy of the Nations were
soon lost to the university because of their inability to
provide continuity and security.

College housing, as it developed in the United States
during the colonial era, was a modification of the British
system, with its idea that the student's place of resi-

4 Tutors

dence was a vital part of the college experience.
lived with the students and were responsible for their con-
duct away from the classroom. In contrast to the British
method, which was intended to enhance the total education
of the student, dormitories in America became mere places
for board and lodging, and the administration of a strin-
gent set of regulations governing the daily lives of stu-
dents.5
There were a number of factors that led to a decreased
emphasis on college housing by the mid 1800's. In fact,
many new colleges founded at the time offered no on-campus
housing for students. Two of the more significant changes
that occurred during this period were 1) a general move
from religious to secular control of the colleges, accom-
panied by a lessening of commitment to regulate the reli-

gious and moral aspects of student life, and 2) many ad-

ministrators of the time, as well as faculty members, had

3
studied at German universities and became followers of the
German system, which advocated little or no responsibility
for the student outside of the classroom.6 Faculty mem-
bers were therefore less interested in accepting positions
in residence halls. In fact, Francis Wayland, president of
Brown University, described the dormitory as the major con-
tributor to all that was evil in American higher education.
According to him, the requirement that students live to-
gether, often learning bad habits from one another, forced
to adhere to the same regulations regardless of age, and
isolated from the rest of society, led to an "unnatural"
situation.7

Further compounding the problem of college housing
was the poor financial stability of colleges and univer-
sities. Thus housing of students off campus became a
pragmatic, as well as a philosophical, consideration.

The tide of sentiment regarding college-provided
housing changed around the turn of the century. Noted ad-
ministrators, such as William Rainey Harper of the Uni-
versity of Chicago and Jacob Schurman, expressed a deep
commitment to the educational value of residence hall
living. Prominent educators like Andrew West, who became
president of Princeton in 1901, and Abbott Lawrence, who
replaced Charles Eliot as president of Harvard in 1909,

8

also supported their views. The significant point is

that college officials were starting to express concern

4
for the "total education" of the student - an attitude
which has generally prevailed to the present.

Residence halls experienced tremendous growth subse-
quent to World War II when college enrollments began to
mushroom. Huge federal expenditures provided through the
G.I. Bill put colleges and universities within the finan-
cial grasp of the general citizenry. Federal funds also
played a significant role in the development of housing
projects that solidified the residence experience as an
inextricable part of college life both in terms of basic
needs (ire.,food and shelter) and educational development.

Today, in addition to professional staffs trained in
sociological and psychological concepts useful in dealing
with students, one finds managerial personnel trained in
institutional management providing for students' physical
needs and an extensive array of student government groups
all working to insure that the college experience will
truly be a total education.9

Riker and DeCoster (1971) offer a model including five
"General Objectives for College Student Housing" which de-
scribes the interrelationship between managerial and edu-
cational functions.10 These objectives of residence hall
programs represent a broad spectrum of student development
in differing environments. Riker and DeCoster suggest
that these objectives are organized in a hierarchy in or-
der to illustrate how the success of a total housing pro-

gram depends upon the mutual cooperation and support of

5
both management and educational personnel. These authors

depict the model as follows:11

General Objectives for College Housing

 

W»

Interpersonal Level 5

Environment Opportunities for individual

(Student- growth and development

Oriented)
Level 4

1 Development of an interper-
sonal environment that re- kEduca-

 

flects responsible citizen- tional
ship and a concern for others, Functions
as well as an atmosphere con-
ducive to learning

 

Level 3 1
Establishment of guidelines
that provide structure for
compatible and cooperative
community living

 

 

Level 2 Management
Adequate care and maintenance Functions

of the physical facilities

 

 

¢ Level 1

Physical Provisions of a satisfactory

Environment physical environment through

(Facility- new construction and renova-

Oriented) tion J

 

 

Each level in the above model represents a somewhat
distinct set of student needs. As with Maslow's Hierarchy
of Needs Model (1959), success at any one level will depend
to a large degree on how well student needs are fulfilled

12 It is also significant to note that in

at lower levels.
the Riker-DeCoster model the residence hall environment is
categorized both in terms of the physical environment and

the interpersonal or non-physical environment.

6
In order to determine environmental impacts and need
fulfillment in college housing a substantial volume of
professional research has been conducted. Significant
findings regarding residence halls impact on college stu-

dent development are discussed briefly.
THE IMPACT OF THE RESIDENCE HALL ENVIRONMENT

A number of authorities have advanced the prOposi-
tion that residence halls have a significant impact on the
growth and development of resident students (Feldman and
Newcomb, 1969; Chickering, 1969; Riker, 1965; Brown, 1972;

1977).13' 14' 15' 15' 17 Their belief in the

and Astin,
educational value of the residence hall experience has
prompted many university administrators to construct multi-
million dollar living and learning residence halls which
provide not only basic services such as room and board,
but also classrooms, libraries, faculty offices, advising
centers and program instruction centers. Staff in these
programs are significantly different from the "house-
mother" type of previous years. Such develOpments have
evolved in an effort to address the needs of the total
individual. The Committee on Higher Education (1968) ex-
pressed this concern dramatically with the following state-
ment:

Despite our limited behavioral knowledge, the col-

lege must recognize that even its instructional

goals cannot be effectively achieved unless it as-
sumes some responsibility for facilitating the

.7

development of the total human personality. A
student is not a passive digester.of knowledge
elegantly arranged for him by superior curric-
ulum design. He listens, reads, thinks,
studies, and writes at the same time that he
feels, worries, hopes, loves and hates. He
engages in all these activities not as an iso-
lated individual but as a member of overlapping
communities which greatly influence his reac-
tions to the classroom experience. To teach
the subject matter and ignore the realities of
the student's life and the social systems of
the college is hopelessly naive.

In their book, The Impact of College on Students,

 

Feldman and Newcomb (1969) condensed over four decades of
research on college and university impact on students.19
Their work was an attempt to integrate a wide variety of
studies (many of them unpublished) of the effects of col-
leges on students covering a period from the mid-twenties
to the mid-sixties.

Although most of their research on the impact of
residence groupings covered greek-letter organizations,
some studies examined the impact of residence halls on
student behavior. And while it cannot be said with cer-
tainty, Feldman and Newcomb concluded that there does
seem to be a tendency for students living in organized
groupings (such as residence halls, c00peratives and the
like) to be more "socially adjusted" and to participate
more in extracurricular and campus activities than stu-
dents living elsewhere - especially those living in
rooming houses and with parents and relatives.20 They

go on to suggest that there are exceptions, however,

8
that appear to be a function, among other things, of the
particular school and college class of students.21
Perhaps the most comprehensive examination of the
impact of higher education on student development was

offered by Chickering (1969) in his book Education and

 

Identity. He identifies and describes seven develop-
mental vectors which confront young adults as they ex-
perience their college education: 1) achieving compe—
tence,, 2) managing emotions, 3) becoming autonomous, 4)
establishing identity, 5) freeing interpersonal relation-
ships, 6) clarifying purpose, and 7) developing integ-
rity.22

In his book Chickering asserts that college resi-
dences do provide a significant context for student de-

23 It is within the residence halls that close

velopment.
associations with students from different backgrounds
occur. These associations provide numerous opportuni-
ties for residents to increase the ease and freedom in
their relationships with others. A student living in a
residence hall can observe the impact of his behavior on
others and, in turn, feel the force of the group's be-
havioral norms and standards. Chickering suggests that
the resident student can better develop a personal system
of values that he can hold with integrity.24 And because

the college can control housing arrangements and the

placement of students within the houses, it can create

9
conditions that more effectively contribute to the feeling

of interpersonal relationships and to the development of

integrity.25

Dressel and Lehmann (1965) provide evidence of the
importance of these relationships when they found that:

The most significant reported experience in the
collegiate lives of these Michigan State Univer—
sity students was their association with dif-
ferent personalities in their living unit. The
analysis of interview and questionnaire data
suggested that discussions and bull sessions
were a potent factor in shaping the attitudes
and values of these students.2

Newcomb (1962) found that roommates, whose proximity
to each other was greatest of all, were particularly
prone to develop close relationships.27 Propinquity, of
course, is not the only influential factor in the develop-
ment of meaningful relationships, but at the outset it is
a primary factor. Newcomb sums up its significance in
this way:

For any individual there are many others, poten-

tially, with whom he might form significant re—

lationships. Those with whom he does in fact
develop them are limited by opportunities for
contact and reciprocal exploration, which in

turn are influenced by physical propinquity.

And, other things equal, he is most apt to main-

tain close relationshfips with those with whom he

first develops them.2

Proximity also has a negative side when closeness be-
comes a problem of crowding. For example, Griffitt and
Veitch (1971) found a relationship among the variables
of room density, decreased attraction to another person,

29

and self-reports of negative affective states. High

10

population density has also been linked with indices of
social pathology (Zlutnick and Altman, 1971)30 and af-
fective relationships (Munroe and Munroe, 1971).31

In a complex study of the effects of crowding in the
residence hall environment Zuckerman and Schmitz (1977)
conducted a survey of students in eighty randomly
selected double occupancy rooms from two different resi-
dence halls. The questionnaire included fourteen items -
two pertaining to relationship with roommate, nine to the
subject's mood, and three to the experience of crowding.
One of the residence halls had smaller rooms and more stu-
dents per corridor. The data supported the hypothesis
that conditions which create less crowding may well serve
as a better environment as far as the student's mood and
interpersonal relationships are concerned.32

Sherif and Sherif (1964) in Reference Groups provide

 

a rationale regarding the significance of reference groups
such as those found in residence halls. They suggest that
peOple are strongly prompted to establish social ties with
others for two major reasons. First, secure social ties
provide a dependable basis for a consistent and stable
self-picture, and a firm sense of identity. Although
major personality changes may occur over a period of time,
the feedback from day-to-day associations with friends
gives a sense of personal constancy. Second, social ties
provide both instrumental and emotional support as the

business of living is carried out. The social ties that

'1

 

..

q!

 

q.

'-

 

‘t

 

'1

CU

 

 

 

ll
serve these functions are, for the most part, linked with
membership in groups - informal friendship groups as well
as more formal structures related to work, communtiy ac-
tivities and the like.33

Centra (1968) complemented the reference group theory
provided by Sherif and Sherif when he studied the extent
to which living-learning residence halls differed from
conventional residence halls in selected dimensions of
their environment.34 Large living and learning units,
according to Centra, were viewed by students as being as
friendly and cohesive as small, conventional residence
halls, and he found that students in living-learning units
did not perceive their residence environment as more in-
tellectual than did students in conventional units.

Brown (1968), however, found intellectual attitudes
increased as a result of residence hall programming that
focused on student involvement in intellectual discus-
sion groups.3S

Living in a residence hall, according to Astin (1973),
was found to have very positive benefits on the students'
education.36 He observed that those in residence halls
were less likely to drOp out of school and more likely
to graduate in four years. Astin further observed that
living in a residence hall increased the chances that a
student would be satisfied with the overall college ex-

perience.37

12

Riker (1965) illustrates that the architectural de-
sign of residence halls facilities influences student
interaction.38 Group size and group cohesiveness will
vary depending upon the arrangement of student rooms,
traffic patterns within living units, and the availabil-
ity of public areas such as floor lounges, study rooms
and classrooms, as well as space designated for social,
recreational and cultural purposes.39

Because of the significant impact that college hous-
ing has on students, Van der Ryn and Silverstein (1967)
developed a college housing and design analysis tech—
nique.40 Their premise is that existing residence hall
facilities have not been systematically evaluated to de—
termine whether they are providing the kind of environ-
ment students want and need. They indicate that among
administrators, there is much talk of the need of
university-operated housing to provide the student with a
humane, "educationally enriching" experience; yet these
ideas have seldom found their way into brick and mortar.41

In order to determine the impact of residence halls
on students relative to those who commute, Chickering
(1974) made several interesting observations about the
benefits of residence hall living.42 He states that
resident students engage more fully with the academic pro-
gram and associated intellectual activities. Chickering

also found that they have more frequent and wider ranging

contact with faculty members and fellow students.

13

Additionally, resident students more frequently partici-
pate in extracurricular activities and assume positions
of leadership. Chickering also affirmed that resident
students more frequently attend cultural eventsznuidiscuss
political, religious, and social issues.

The study of college impact on students was advanced
four decades as mentioned previously by the research of

Feldman and Newcomb in their book The Impact of College on

 

Students (1969). Their work summarized the research in
this area from the middle-twenties to the middle—sixties.

Astin's book, Four Critical Years (1977), is a similar

 

 

milestone in that it summarized the research on college

impacts for the past decade.43

In cooperation with the
American Council on Education, Astin conducted the Coop-
erative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) from 1966-
1977, covering some 200,000 students from a national sam—
ple of more than 300 post-secondary institutions of all
types. Astin's work differed from previous research in
two significant ways: 1) multiinstitutional data were
collected simultaneously from students at contrasting
types of institutions, and 2) longitudinal data, pro-
viding information on the ways in which students change
between admission and some subsequent point in time, were
utilized.44 Perhaps the most important outcome of this
research effort is what Astin called the initial "develop-
ment of a theory about how students learn and develop in

45

an educational environment". The concept in this theory

14
is what he called "student involvement". Briefly, the
theory states that the more the student is involved in

the academic experience, the greater the learning and

46

growth. The less the involvement, the less the learning

and the greater the chance that the student will be dis-
satisfied with the educational experience and drop out to
seek something more meaningful.

Astin makes several observations about the impact of
residence halls on students when compared to commuting
students that include the following:

1. Residents show slightly greater increases
in artistic interests, liberalism, and
interpersonal self-esteem and show slightly
larger declines in musical interests.

2. Residents show much larger declines in
religiousness and much larger increases
in hedonism.

3. Residents are more likely to interact
with faculty and to become involved in
student government.

4. Residents are more likely to persist
in college as well as being more likely
to aspire to graduate or professional
school.

5. Residents are more likely to achieve
in extracurricular areas, in particu-
lar leadership and athletics.

6. Among men, undergraduate grade point
averages increased as a result of
living on campus.

7. Residents express more satisfaction
than commuters with their undergrad-
uate experience, particularly in the
areas of student friendships, faculty-
student relations, instiiutional repu-
tation, and social life.

15
The above findings are consistent with Chickering's

results in Commuting Versus Resident Students. Astin's

 

theory about "student involvement", however, best describes
why residence halls have a significant impact on the lives
of students who live on campus. Residence halls provide

a unique context that maximizes the student's exposure to
the academic community and intensifies the quality of col—
lege experience.

The findings from these different studies document
three significant points: first, that residence halls im-
pact the "total" individual in terms of his attitudes,
beliefs, values, academic performance, perceptions, as-
sociations and involvement in the university experience;
second, the residence hall environment is complex and is
composed of many sub-environments tiae.,physical, organi-
zational structure, policy, social, educational and
others) that students move into and out of on a daily
basis; and, third, the impact of residence halls can be
either good or bad depending on how the "accommodation"
between the individual student and his various sub-
environments is managed.

Because colleges can impact the interior design and
structure, site planning and location of buildings, and
at least the initial placement of students, Chickering
(1969) suggests conditions that foster development can

be established by the following:

16

1. Let each unit be assigned - as far as pos-
sible, given the range of characteristics
of students enrolled - persons of diverse
backgrounds, differing interests, and dif-
fering values.

2. Let the interior of each unit be designed
so as to foster association among students
in the unit, and let each unit be located
so as to foster interrelationships with
other units nearby.

3. Let the members of each unit face meaning-
ful decisions that require significant ex-
change; in this way, the diversity of
orientation may be revealed, examined, and
tried on for size.

4. Let housing regulations be such as to per-
mit spontaneous, heated and extended dis-
cussions that can be held without the im-
position of arbitrary cut-off times and
that are free from adult interruption,
intrusion, or surveillance.

Brown concludes that, "The living environment (which
includes people as well as the physical setting) of the
student can have a profound impact upon his personal and
educational development".49 He goes on to assert the
following:

We must consider it (residence halls) as a
very complex environment and one that should
be considered as a whole - the people, the
physical facilities, the administration, and
the programming. When thinking about the
residence hall environment or especially when
studying it, we tend to sort out one or two
isolated variables. Sometimes it is the peo-
ple variable, for example, when we look at
roommate compatibility and grade point aver—
ages. At other times it is the physical
variable and occasionally the program vari-
able. This is the scientists' approach -
sort out all the factors except one and

study what happens when you manipulate that
one variable. But we need to consider the
whole and recognize that all dimensions are

17
important. A residence hall system is in a
sense hydraulic. To change one dimension
sometimes means affecting the whole; to bring

about one change sometimes means changing all
the dimensions.50

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Although there are notable exceptions, the develop-
ment of college and university residence halls is fraught
with lack of intentionality in planning facilities and
programs. Billions of dollars have been poured into the
construction of many residential facilities without suf-
ficient regard for the needs and interests of their in—
habitants. Van der Ryn and Silverstein (1967) suggest
that administrators responsible for the development of
housing programs were caught in a three-way squeeze: 1)
an increasing number of students looking for housing, 2) a
growing proportion of these students that were limited
financially, and 3) construction costs rising faster than

real income.51

As a result, the major preoccupation of
administrators has focused on problems of growth, costs
and budgets, thus basic assumptions about residence hall
design have seldom been questioned. Van der Ryn and
Silverstein also suggest that it is indeed ironic that
large universities who make investments in physical facil-
ities that run into the hundreds of millions of dollars,

have so rarely concerned themselves with the students

relationship to their physical environment.

18

For better or for worse, college administrators are
stuck with their current physical environments because of
past construction and financing. The challenge of the
next decade will be to creatively and responsively mold or
reshape these environments to adjust to the changing needs
of resident students.

With the prospect of declining enrollments and
spiraling inflation, student personnel administrators can
no longer afford the "luxury" of being either uninten-
tional or unsystematic when providing for the needs of
resident students. The traditional role of responding to
students who were not adjusting to their residence hall
environments by easing them out or referring them to a
service that would aid them in making an adjustment is no
longer acceptable. We know from the volumes of research
that equal attention must now be given to making the en-
vironment adjust to the needs of students. We have as
many "sick environments" as we have "sick students".

Also, with the increasing emphasis on student con-
sumerism, those residence hall programs that can provide
for reciprocal adjustment between the student and the
environment are those who are most likely to maintain
maximum occupancy without repressive rules and regula-
tions for required residency.

Although there is considerable research on the im-
pact of residence halls on students and the perceptions

that students have of their residence hall environments,

 

 

.u

“

“a

 

19
very little research has been conducted on the develop-
ment of methodologies for improving the reciprocal re-
lationships between resident students and their living
environments.

Student personnel administrators who are conducting
research in this area have dubbed their effort the "eco-
system" approach. A study of this nature is an impor-
tant step toward the advancement of ecosystem research,
because it goes beyond the mere assessment of residence
hall environments, and provides a mechanism for indivi-
duals to bring about change in their respective environ—
ments.

For students and environments to reach their full
potential, a systematic body of knowledge must exist to
help describe and predict behavior resulting from the
interaction between the students and the various resi-

dence hall sub-environments.

PURPOSES OF THE STUDY

The three primary purposes of this study are to
l) assess student perceptions of the residence hall en-
vironment along different environmental subscales, 2) de-
termine the usefulness of ecosystem methodology for making
environmental improvements in residence halls, and 3)
utilize the results from the assessment to make recom—

mendations for intentional program changes. These three

20
purposes are sequential and interdependent. It is through
their interdependency that the secondary purpose is de-
rived.

The secondary purpose is to establish a climate of
responsiveness to student needs in residence halls at The
University of Iowa. The entire sequence of instrument
development through program change will occur with student
involvement, over a period of time (one academic year)
where all those involved in the process of change will
have the opportunity to see the results of their efforts.

A tertiary purpose is to contribute to the growing
body of research pertaining to ecologically oriented in-

quiry.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The focus of the study is on the environmental or
ecological assessment of the residence halls at The Uni-
versity of Iowa. The methods used to answer questions
about the residence hall environment are consistent with
those used in the growing body of research regarding
ecological assessment. The following questions will be
examined:

1. How do students perceive the residence

hall environment along different environ-
mental scales?

2. Why do students say they have certain

perceptions about the residence halls
along different environmental subscales?

 

 

 

la-

21

3. What do students recommend to improve the
residence halls along different environ-
mental subscales?

4. What environmental changes will be made
as a result of data derived from the
above questions?

5. Is the ecosystem methodologywnieffec-

tive means of making environmental im-
provements in residence halls?

ECOSYSTEM METHODOLOGY

There is now growing interest within post secondary
education in the ecosystem approach that identifies ad-
justments institutions can make to facilitate student re-
tention and growth.52 The ecosystem theory does recog-
nize that some students should leave college because they
are either unable or unwilling to benefit from the learning
potential in the college environment. It also recognizes
that some students will need individual academic or per-
sonal assistance while in college. However, the primary
assertion of ecosystem theory is the identification of
data which permits the design of environments that ame-
liorate unnecessary problems and enhance student reten-
tion and growth.

Kaiser (1973) has identified eight central themes on
which the ecosystem model's design philosophy is rooted.
These are:

l. The campus environment consists of all the

stimuli that impinge upon the students'
sensory modalities and includes physical,

chemical, biological, and social stimula—
tion.

 

2.

22

A transactional relationship exists be—
tween college students and their campus
environment, i.e., the students shape

their environment and are shaped by it.

For the purpose of environmental design
the shaping properties of campus environ-
ments are focused upon; however, stu—
dents are still viewed as active, choice-
making agents who may resist, transform
or nullify environmental influences.

Every student possesses capacity for a
wide spectrum of possible behaviors. A
campus environment may facilitate or in-
hibit any one of these behaviors. The
campus should be intentionally designed
to offer opportunities, incentives, and
reinforcements for growth and develop-
ment.

Students will attempt to cope with any
educational environment in which they

are placed. If the environment is not
compatible with the students, the stu-
dents may react negatively or fail to

develop desirable qualities.

Because of the wide range of individual
differences among students, fitting the
campus environment to the students re-
quire the creation of a wide variety
of sub-environments.

Every campus has a design, even if the
administration, faculty and students
have not planned it or are not con-
sciously aware of it. A design tech-
nology for campus environments, there-
fore, is useful for both the analysis
of existing campus environments and
the design of new ones.

Successful campus design depends upon
input from every sector of the campus,
including students, faculty, staff,
administration, and trustees or re-
regents.5

(I)

-.
uh

On

.9
h

identify environmental shaping prOperties in order to

eliminate dysfunctional features and to incorporate fea-

23

The ecosystem model's design process is utilized to

tures that facilitate student academic and personal

growth.
ecosystem approach will be utilized.

its focus residence halls,

pus community (macro-level).

that

The design process itself consists of seven stages

include the following (Kaiser, 1975):

Stage 1 - The design team (students, faculty,
staff and regents) generate numerous environ-
mental values they consider desirable for the
college environment. These environmental
values are humanistic qualities built into
the habitat which have high probability of
evoking corresponding behaviors in the resi-
dents of the college environment . . . The
selection of environmental values is neces-
sarily a subjective process but must result
in enough consensus on core values to pro-
ceed with the design effort. To achieve

such consensus exercises in value clarifi-
cation may be necessary.

Stage 2 - From the list of environmental
values, a few are selected for design im-
plementation. Stage 2 thus represents a
prioritization of general values enumer-
ated as Stage 1 and also a level of com-
mitment by members of the design team.
The selected values are rephrased into
measurable goal statements. High level,
abstract, philosophic statements pro-
duced in Stage 1 are converted into pro-
grammatic goals in Stage 2.

Stage 3 - The goal statements are trans-
lated into tangible programs and activi-
ties in Stage 3. Each goal in a planned

For purposes of this study the "micro-level"
This method has as

a sub-environment of the cam-

24

space can be traced to visible events that
are its expression. Each visible event in
turn can be traced to a goal statement.

Stage 3 moves beyond paper planning to the
planning of observable student activities.

Stage 4 - The environmental programs are
fitted to the residents (students, faculty,
staff). A good program is only good in the
sense that it fits the consciousness of its
users . . . During this implementation
stage feedback loops are built in to as-
sistirlcustomizing the program fit and
making necessary adjustments.

Stage 5 - In Stage 5 the student's percep-
tion of the designed campus space is mea-
sured and compared with the goals in Stage
2. Is the space doing what it was designed
to do? A number of psychometric tests have
been deve10ped for measuring campus climate.
Depending upon the circumstances, any one of
them might be apprOpriate. The consensual
environment perceived by the student is then
related to the referents of these percep-
tions, i.e., stimuli in the college environ-
ment that evokes the perceptions. A con-
sensual referent environment constitutes the
data for the redesign effort. The tagged
stimuli can be redesigned. The referents
might include peOple, policies, procedures,
curriculum, building, and other campus
stimuli.

Stage 6 - Student behavior is observed and
if possible related to student perceptions
measured in Stage 5. The assumption is that
student behavior is related to student per-
ception of the campus environment.

Stage 7 - All of the design data collected
in the preceding six stages is gathered and
analyzed. The design process is then re-
peated. Through successive design approxi-
mations the values and goals in Stages 1 and
2 are even more nearly approached.5

25

THE DESIGN PROCESS

STAGE 1
‘r————+>-Generate Environmental Values
Valuing
STAGE 2
Translate Values into Goals
Goal Setting
STAGE 3
Translate Goals into Programs
Programming
STAGE 4
Fit Programs and Residents
Fitting
STAGE 5
Measure Resident Perception
of the Institutional Environment
Mapping
STAGE 6
Mbnitor Resident Behavior
in the Institutional Environment
STAGE 7
Feed Back Design Data

to Stage 1 of the Design Process
Recycling

 

 

26

The point of entry into this model for the study is
Stage 5 - measuring student perceptions because the cur—
rent residence hall environments are already established
with implicit and eXplicit values and goals. It follows
then that an important step is to assess how students
view the translation of these values and goals. How stu-
dents perceive what is happening to them in the residence
hall environment, and equally important, why they have
these perceptions and what can be done to improve dys-
functional aspects of the environment are key elements
to the implementation of an ecosystem model. It is in
this third area - what can be done, that makes this study
relatively unique.

Extensive research has been conducted utilizing
instruments that measure people's perceptions, however
the resultant data do not reveal why people have these
perceptions; consequently, there is not sufficient infor-
mation for redesigning environments. Without obtaining
environmental referents (ERs) - the specific causes and/
or conditions in the environment that produce student
perceptions - designers can eliminate good features With
bad ones, and thus redesign an environment that falls
short of its intended purpose. This research will there-
fore use an Environmental Referent (ER) questionnaire in
conjunction with the more common instrument for assessing

perceptions.

.
'1'!
d

nv“:
I. 4‘
.1

i

.qa

...’:'
9\A‘“
'fivu

a.

\Q
. 5.;

27

In summary, the ecosystem model is a political ap-
proach to problem solving both in terms of its design
personnel (planning team) and design process. It uti-
lizes input from the collaberation with all areas of
residence halls. It requires involving all the princi-
pals that might be affected by changes in the environment
in order to obtain support and ownership for these
changes. It requires the establishment of clear goals
and educational values that subsequently lead to the
development of specific programs and activities and en-
vironmental changes. The process calls for continuous
feedback on student behavior as it is measured through
the utilization of an environmental assessment tool.
This feedback data is then recycled to redesign dysfunc-
tional elements of the various residence hall environ-

ments.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

Residence halls professionals are inclined to be
practical people. They have important work to do that
includes a wide variety of programs and services. The
pressures to get the job done are constant - from the
State Regents, the administration, from the students and
their parents. Residence halls professionals, in short,
have a fiduciary responsibility for the care and well-
being for hundreds of lives on a twenty-four hour a day

basis.

 

-.V
5'5.

.
1w-
Ian.

I‘.

00‘

‘(

1».
V.‘

 

I
s

28

This situation results in costs that often go un-
noticed because of the demands of every day activities.
Often residence hall professionals proceed with only a
dim notion of how to perform complex jobs without benefit
of a blueprint or a guiding set of principles for job
performance. Cowley (1964), one of the pioneers in stu-
dent services, noted that student service professionals
are currently struggling with the same problems that af-
flicted them twenty-five years ago, and that the con-
fused and irritating situation of the past has continued
to prevail.55

One of the primary reasons that progress has been
slow is that there has been very little systematic re-
search with a theoretical basis on which professional
practice could be constructed. Wrenn (1959) commented:
"There is unmistakably a set of generally accepted value
oriented aims or scientifically based understanding of
human nature. In short, student personnel work has
philosophic and psychological foundations which have only
haltingly developed and are disturbingly incomplete."56

Widick, Parker and Knefelkamp (1978) suggest that if
residence halls educators are to encourage development,
they must know what development is - what changes can,
do and should take place in students and what particular

factors serve to challenge and support them. From their

29
perspective the creation of a develOpmental community in
residence halls requires a theoretical knowledge base
which describes:
1. Who the college student is in develop-
mental terms. We need to know what
changes occur and what those changes
look like.
2. How development occurs. We need to
have a grasp of the psychological
and social processes which cause de-
velopment.
3. How the college environment can in—
fluence student development. We need
to know what factors in the particu-
lar environment of a college/univer—
sity can either encourage or inhibit
growth.

4. Toward what ends development in college
should be directed.57

Nevertheless, a good theory is a practical tool that, if
used skillfully, holds great promise for problem solving
and development. It reduces the need for regarding every
problematic situation as unique, requiring different
skills and orientations for resolution. It affords an
opportunity for not having to repeat mistakes of the past.
More importantly, it provides a foundation upon which one
can develop an understanding of how residents develop and
reach maturity as a result of the residence hall ex-
perience.

What is a theory? In general, theory in the behav—
ioral sciences has its roots in the physical sciences.

The theoretical structures that have been utilized by

 

 

a-

5‘.

u"

.\;v

30
physical scientists have been used as models in order to
guide the development of theories in other disciplines.
According to Walsh (1973), a formal theory has the fol-
lowing characteristics:
1. A theory rests on a set of unproven as-
sumptions. These assumptions define the
field which the theory is investigating.
The assumptions must be verifiable, sus-
ceptible to develOpment, and suggest de—
duction of observable data.
2. Concepts are operationally defined in
order that may be related to observable
data in research experiments. The stated
assumptions and operationally defined
concepts make possible the development
of testable hypotheses. The theory should
predict new facts or relations and or-
ganize and interpret existing knowledge
in a meaningful frame of reference.
Walsh goes on to suggest that the effectiveness of a
theory depends on 1) how comprehensive it is, 2) clarity,
precision and explicitness, 3) the inclusion of extant
empirical findings within a logical, consistent frame-
work, 4) parsimony - communicable and understandable, and
5) empirical research generated by the theory.59
This researcher has thoroughly reviewed the ecosys-
tem literature and has been unable to find a complete
theory that utilized the person-environment interaction
format for predicting behavior. Person-environment in-
teraction as noted previously is the basic "theoretical
orientation" of the ecosystem approach to studying be-
havior.

The interrelationship among individuals, the en-

vironment and the behaviOr of those individuals has been

but.
5—
why

“a"

Ur.
-

II)
(I)

-.
IA ;

any i

(It
‘JJ
(I)

"-1" ‘u

:clv.

 

,9 ‘a
D .1:
:"3y

 

31
a matter of research for years. Lewin (1936) formulated
the classic statement, "Behavior (B) is a function of the
person (P) and the environment (E)".60 The equation reads
as follows:

B = f (P,E)

The equation is used as a coordinating system 1) for con-
sidering psychological theories and investigations and

2) for coordinating theoretical concepts with educational
practice.

B = f (P,E) is not in itself a theory to explain be—
havior, but, rather, it is a means of classification; it
is metatheoretical - a way of thinking about and con-
sidering theories - rather than being an actual theory.

Although incomplete, there are a number of partial
theories that have been developed to explain and predict
the interrelationship between the individual and the
environment. These partial theories will be explored more
fully in the review of literature in Chapter Two. WalSh
(1973) has characterized several partial theories on a
continuum from least phenomenological to most phenomeno-
logical.61 He considers Barker's Behavior Setting Theory
(1968) on the least phenomenological continuum because
of Barker's "objective" approach to the environment as
the primary determinantof behavior with emphasis on
overt behavior, to the neglect of individual perceptions.

The most phenomenological theory is Pervin's (1968)

-—=—. —r =———-‘—‘._— ——

__.__—_——__

 

 

 

32

transactional approach which emphasizes the individual's
perception of the ideal self and the environment. Be-
tween either end of the continuum are the subcultural
approaches (Clark and Trow, 1966 and Newcomb, 1967),
Holland's Theory of Personality Types and Model Environ-
ments (1966), Stern's Need x Press = Culture Theory
(1970), Moos' Social Ecological Approach (1974) and
Pervin's Transactional Approach (1967).

Although the theoretical orientations are not com-
plete (in that they do not satisfy all the criteria of
a formal theory) they do provide a foundation for ex-
plaining and predicting behavior. It must be emphasized
once again that the paradigm B = f (P,E) is not a theory;
however, it is a means of viewing various theoretical
orientations regarding the interaction between the indi-
vidual in the environment, many of which are suggested
above.

This ecological study (utilizing the B = f (P,E)
model) of the residence hall environment has three basic
assumptions: 1) student behavior cannot be understood
apart from the environment in which it finds its ex-
pression; 2) physical and non-physical environments must
be studied together since neither can be fully under-
stood without the other. For example, both architectural
design and psychological milieu significantly influence

behavior; and, 3) ecologically oriented inquiry has an

 

‘a'

day.

3?

:s.‘;

5.“

w...

~ -a

I I
i (1
(I)

33
explicit value orientation in that it attempts to poten-
tiate the development of the individual and the environ-

ment.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Most of the language used in this study is of a
general nature and thus provides a basis for common under—
standing. However, much of the ecosystem terminology re-
quires definition. Although some terminology are common
words, they take on new meaning when used in the context
of the discipline - social ecology. The following is a
list of definitions that will be helpful in terms of
understanding the language utilized in this study:

1. Environment - all of the conditions, circumstances
and influences surrounding and affecting the development
of a person or group of persons. For purposes of this
study the environment will be researched in terms of both
its physical and non-physical properties.

2. Physical Environment - those tangible properties of
the environment that influence the behavior of the indi-
vidual(s) including architectural design, geographic con-
ditions, climatic conditions, noise levels, and other fac-
tors.

3. Non-Physical Environment - those intangible proper-

ties of the environment that influence the behavior of

34
the individual(s) including mood states, interpersonal
policy, organizational structure, social climate, and
education.
4. Ecology - the general concept used to represent the
study of organism-environmental interactions.
5. Human Ecology - the investigation, principally by
sociologists and geographers, of the distribution of
human population groups in relation to material re-
sources, health, social, economic and cultural pat-
terns.
6. Social Ecology - the multidisciplinary study of the
impact that physical and social environments have on
human beings. It is concerned with the assessment and
development of optimum human milieus.
7. Person-Environment Fit - the degree of congruence,
harmony, agreement or suitability between an individual
and his/her environment.
8. Ecosystem Model - a design process utilizing an
ecological approach. The essence of an ecological ap-
proach is the interaction that occurs between persons
and their environment. The theory that underlies this
model was developed by Dr. Leland Kaiser and was refined
by members of the Western Interstate Commission on
Higher Education program task force (1970-1973). The
model has seven steps that include 1) selecting educa—

tional values, 2) translating values into goals,

La.)

'7"

l..

.
o‘-

b.4 -

.A‘

U:-

‘uo.

w.,

v‘.

‘n

"‘

y-

l‘

 

35
3) designing environments to reach totals, 4) fitting en-
vironments to students, 5) measuring student perceptions,
6) monitoring student behavior and, 7) feedback data on
the design.
9. Perceptual Survey - the first part of a two-part as-
sessment instrument used in Stage 5 of the ecosystem
model to measure how students perceive their environment.
Questions in the survey are categorized in order to pro-
vide general information about specific residence hall
sub-environments.
10. Environmental Referent (ER) Survey - the second part
of a two-part assessment instrument used in Stage 5 of
the ecosystem model to measure why students perceive
their environment as they do and what can be done to im-
prove the environment. The student is asked to refer back
to his/her perceptual responses in Part I of the instru-
ment and respond to a selected number of responses that
have particular significance.
ll. Consensual Response — statistical method used to de-
termine the level or degree of mutual concern on various
questions asked in the second part of the assessment in-
strument.
12. Ecomapping - method of assessing various aspects of
the environment.
13. Macro-level Assessment - for purpose of the study,
macro-level assessment would entail ecomapping the entire

university environment - a study of the whole.

(A.

__4

S

H;

 

..

cl-
' 1

36
14. Micro-level Assessment — the study is a micro-level
assessment - the study of a campus sub-environment or
part of the whole - residence halls.
15. B = f (P,E) - an equation developed by Lewin (1936)
that states that behavior (B) is a function (f) of the
individual person (P) and the environment (E).
16. Residence Halls — a system of ten buildings that
range in size from one hundred to thirteen hundred resi-
dents. The buildings are sometimes referred to as dorms.
17. Resident Assistants (RAs) - upperclass or graduate
students who are employed to provide basic support
programs and services for students who live in residence
halls. For the most part there is one RA per floor.
These individuals were instrumental in the distribution
and collection of survey forms.
18. Phenomenological - the definition of the behavioral
environment according to the individual's perceptions of

it and his or her reactions to these perceptions.

LIMITATIONS OF STUDY

The following limitations are significant because of
their impact on the interpretation of data and subsequent
environmental change:

1. There are no complete theories that provide a founda-
tion for ecologically oriented inquiry. There are, how-
ever, several partial theories that provide different

approaches to studying the relationship between the

37
individual and his/her environment, but all are incom—
plete. This weakness is significant because it limits
the predictive validity of the research effort and limits
the utility of application of resultant data.
2. There is a scarcity of research that uses the eco-
system approach to mapping - assessing environments and
making environmental change. Much descriptive research
is needed to categorize environments in order to prevent
overlapping environmental influences. Research efforts
must also focus on instrumentation. Many problems are
inherent in the current utilization of perceptual sur-
veys as the primary method of data gathering; efforts
are needed to objectify data without losing its per-
sonal significance. Environmental referents aid in the
personalization of data, however, their research applica-
tions are at a state of infancy in their develOpment.
3. Ecologically oriented inquiry should by definition
focus on problems of a general nature in the environ-
ment. The scientific methodology utilized by this tech-
nique focuses on holistic data - it does not attempt to
isolate and control environmental and personal elements
in order to establish cause and effect relationships. Al-
though ecologically oriented research is limited in the
above fashion, this limitation is also its strength. By
focusing on holistic data the researcher has a better con-
textual command of the data - a greater sense of the human

problem.

38
4. Ecological research is tailored to uncover informa—
tion about specific environments. As such, it is diffi-
cult to make generalizations to other environmental situa-
tions. Also, there are enough significant differenCes
among residence halls programs that caution should be used
in generalizing the results of this study beyond the sub-
ject population.
5. Although it is desirable to redesign the environment
in the same year that participants are involved in the re-
search effort, there may not be sufficient time to accom-
plish this objective. Nevertheless, it is imperative
that some environmental changes are made within the de-
sired time frame in order to insure a maximal level of

commitment.
ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

Chapter One provides a comprehensive review of the
importance and scope of the problem within a methodologi-
cal and theoretical context. Chapter Two is devoted to
a review of the literature related to theoretical orien—
tations of person-environment interaction, methods of
assessing environments, university application of environ-
ment assessment techniques and residence hall applica-
tions of the ecosystem method. A description of mea-
sures employed and the research design and procedures is

presented in Chapter Three. A thorough review of

39
ecosystem methodology will also be provided in this chap-
ter. Analysis techniques and a description of finds
relative to each research question is presented in Chap-
ter Four. Chapter Five contains the summary, conclu-
sions, discussion of results and implications for further

study.

Footnotes

Chapter One

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

FOOTNOTES

CHAPTER ONE

Howard Adelman, The Beds of Academe (Toronto. Praxis
Books, 1969), p. 15.

 

Ibid 0
Ibid., p. 16.

John R. Powell, Samuel A. Plyler, Barbara A. Dickson
and Stephen D. McClellan, The Personnel Assistant 13
College Residence Halls (Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1969): P. 4.

 

 

Ibid.

Ibid., p. 6.

Ibid.

Ibid., p. 8.

Ibid., p. 9.

David A. DeCoster and Phyllis Mable, Student Develop:
ment and Education in College Residence Halls (Washing-

ton, D. C.: American Personnel and Guidance Associa-
tion, 1974), p. 27.

 

 

 

Ibid., p. 28.

A. H. Maslow, "A Theory of Human Motivation," Readings
in the Psychology of Adjustment, eds. L. Gorlow and
W. WalkowskyITNew York. McGraw Hill, 1959).

 

 

Kenneth A. Feldman and Theodore M. Newcomb, The Im-
pact of College on Students (San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1969).

Arthur W. Chickering, Education and Identity (San
Franciso: Jossey-Bass, 1969).

 

Harold C. Riker, College Housing as Learning Centers
(Washington, D. C.: American Personnel and Guidance
Association, 1965).

 

 

R. D. Brown, Student Development in Tomorrow's Higher
Education: A Return to the Academy (Washington, D. C.:
American College Personnel Association, 1972).

 

 

 

 

4O

17.

18.

19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

41

Alexander W. Astin, Four Critical Years (San Francis-
co: Jossey-Bass, 1977).

 

Committee on the Student in Higher Education, The
Student 32 Higher Education (New Haven: Hazen Foun-
dation, 1968), p. 5.

 

Feldman and Newcomb.

Ibid., p. 198.

Ibid.

Chickering.

Ibid., p. 221.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Paul L. Dressel and I. J. Lehmann, "The Impact of
Higher Education on Student Values and Critical

Thinking Abilities," Educational Record, 46 (1965),
p. 245.

 

Theodore M. Newcomb, "Student Peer-Group Influence
and Intellectual Outcomes of College Experience,"
Personality Factors 93 the College Campus, eds. Robert
Southerland, Wayne Holtzman, Earl Koile and Bert
Smith (Austin, Texas: Hogg Foundation, 1962), pp.
69-92.

 

 

Ibid.

W. Griffitt and R. Veitch, "Hot and Crowded: In-
fluences of Population Density and Temperature on
Interpersonal Behavior," Journal 9: Personality and
Social Psychology, 17 (1971), pp. 92-98.

 

 

S. Zlitnick and I. Altman, "Crowding and Human Be-
havior," Environment and the Social Sciences: Egg-
spectives and Applications, eds. J. F. Wohlwill and
D. H. Carson (Washington, D.C.: American Psychologi-
cal Association, 1972).

 

 

 

R. L. Munroe and R. H. Munroe, "Population Density
and Affective Relationships in Three East African
Societies," Journal 9: Social Psychology, 88 (1972),
pp. 15-18.

 

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.
38.
39.

40.

41.

42.

43.
44.

45.

46.
47.

48.

42

Miron Zuckerman, Marie Schmitz and Andrew Yosha,
"Effects of Crowding in a Student Environment,"
Journal 9; Applied Psychology, 7 (1977), p. 72.

 

M. Sherif and C. Sherif, Reference Groups (New York:
Harper and Row, 1964).

 

John A. Centra, "Student Perceptions of Residence Hall
Environment: Living Learning vs. Conventional Units,"
The Journal pf College Student Personnel, 9 (1968),

p. 266.

 

 

R. D. Brown, "Manipulation of the Environmental Press
in a College Residence Hall," The Personnel and Guid-
ance Journal, 46 (1968), p. 555.

 

 

Alexander W. Astin, "The Impact of Dormitory Living
on Students," Educational Record, 54 (Summer, 1973),
p. 204.

 

Ibid.

Riker.

Ibid.

Sim Van der Ryn and Murray Silverstein, Dorms 3E
Berkele (Berkeley, California: The Center for
Plann1ng and Development Research, 1967), p. 6.

Ibid.

Arthur W. Chickering, Commuting Versus Resident Stu-
dents (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974), p. 53.

 

Astin, Four Critical Years.

 

Ibid.

Alexander W. Astin, "Observations on Higher Educa-
tion: An Interview with Alexander Astin," NASPA Field
Report, 3 (Fall, 1978), p. 1.

 

Ibid.

Astin, Four Critical Years, pp. 220-221.

 

Chickering, Education and Identity, p. 225.

 

a»-
\ a)

I
n

u
U

 

49.

50.
51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

43

R. D. Brown, "Student Development and Residence Edu-
cation: Should it be Social Engineering?," Student
Development and Education 13 College Residence Halls,
eds.David A. DeCoster and Phyllis Mable (Washington,
D.C.: American College Personnel Association, 1974),
p. 52.

 

 

Ibid.
Van der Ryn, Dorms 33 Berkeley, p. 6.

Lu Anne Aulepp and Ursula Delworth, Traininnganual
for 32 Ecosystem Model (Boulder, Colorado: Western

Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1976),

p. viii.

 

 

L. R. Kaiser, The Ecological Perspective: Mapping and
Designing the Student Educational Community (Prelimi-
nary Report for the Western Interstate Commission for
Higher Education Task Force II - Epidemiology, Campus
Ecology and Program Evaluation), Unpublished Manu-
script, Boulder, Colorado, 1972.

 

 

 

 

L. R. Kaiser, "Designing Campus Environments," Ng-
tional Association pf Student Personnel Administrators
Journal, 13 (1975).

 

W. H. Cowley, "Reflections of a Troublesome But Hope-
ful Rip Van Winkle," Journal 2: College Student Per-
sonnel, 6 (1964), pp. 66-73.

 

C. G. Wrenn, "Philosophical and Psychological Bases
of Personnel Services in Education," Personnel Ser-
vices ip Education, ed. N. B. Henry (Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 1959), P. 46.

 

 

Lee Knefelkamp, Carole Widick and Clyde A. Parker,
Applying New Developmental Findings, (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1978), p. x.

 

W. Bruce Walsh, Theories g: Person-Environment Inter-
action: Implications for the College Student, The
American College Testing Program, No. 10 (Iowa City,
Iowa: ACT Press, 1973): P. 5.

 

 

Ibid.

K. Lewin, Principles pf Topological Psychology (New
York: McGraw Hill, 1936).

 

 

Walsh, p. 7.

:4

n.

a“

~\~

.1.

.§

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The focus of the review of literature is to 1) in-
form the reader about the main theoretical orientations
and instruments that utilize the B = f (P,E) formula; 2)
present research findings that support this model; 3) sum-
marize the theories and their limitations; 4) review en—
vironmental assessment instruments for college and resi-
dence hall environments; 5) present methodologies for
data-based institutional intervention; and, 6) review
selected ecosystem studies that have been conducted in
the last five years.

This chapter is developmental in the sense that it
is organized in four stages that are sequential and in-
terdependent. The following model depicts the stages of
review:

Theory -)- Theory->Assessment —-)- Environmental

Based Instrument to Intervention
Models Operationalize
Models

Data Based Feedback L00p
Utilizing this model for reviewing the literature, the
reader can derive a unity of thought proceeding from the

ideal-theoretical to the real-environmental intervention.

44

fiFv

.ul.

THEORETICAL ORIENTATION

B = f (P,E), as stated earlier, is not a theory to
explain behavior but rather a means of classification;
it is a way of thinking about and considering theories -
rather than theoretical. The B - P - E paradigm states
the problem in an operational sense but does not solve it.
However, its primary value as an analytic tool is cap-
tured in the notion that defining the problem is the
critical part of finding the answer to significant ques-
tions about person-environment interaction. The para-
digm suggests that attention must be given to charac—
terizing persons in terms of their differential reactions
to environmental influences. As Lewin (1951) stated:

A law is expressed in an equation which re-

lates certain variables. Individual dif-

ferences have to be conceived as various

specific cases. In other words, general

laws and individual differences are merely

two aspects of one problem: they are

mutually dependent on each other and the

study of one cannot proceed without the

study of the other.6

Although it is important to characterize both the in-
dividual and the environment in order to understand and
predict behavior, it is the individual(s) that has the
primary focus of ecologically oriented inquiry. As Moos
(1974) stated, "Ecology has an explicit value orienta—

tion in that it attempts to provide knowledge relevant

to promoting maximally effective human functioning".63

45

46
It is likely, for this reason, that the study of en-
vironments is not as well researched in the literature

as is the individual.
RESEARCH SUPPORTING THE MODEL B = f (P,E)

Lewin (1936) observed that a "scientific psychology
must . . . find methods of representing person and en-
vironment in common terms as part of one situation . . . in
other words our concepts have to represent the inter—

relationships of conditions".64

Lewin goes on to assert
the reasons for this are methodological as well as theoret-
ical because 1) only those entities which have the same
conceptual dimensions can be compared as to their magni-
tude; and 2) everything which has the same conceptual
dimensions can be compared quantitatively; its magnitude
can be measured, in principle, with the same units of
measurements.65
Early findings from sociologists Park and Burgess
(1925) and Faris and Dunham (1939) supported the assump-
tion that behavior is influenced by the immediate en-
vironment.55r 57 Various psychologists, including
Angyal, Sears and Murphy, have espoused similar positions
regarding the transactional properties of behavior. How-
ever, the only formal system which lends itself to a de-
tailed analogous representation of both person and environ-

ment in common terms and in comparable magnitudes is the

need-press model developed by Murray (1938).68

47

Murray defines needs as organizational tendencies
which appear to give unity and direction to personality.
Press refers to the phenomenological world of the indi-
vidual, to the unique and inevitable private percept
which each person has of the events in which he takes
part.69 Based on a review of significant research the
following conclusions seem tenable regarding Murray's
need-press model:

1. Percepts of institutional environments

are not a function of the personal
characteristics of the participant
(McFee, 1961).70

2. Percepts of the environment by ex-

perienced participants are consen-
sual (Stern, 1962).71

3. The consensual percept of the environ-

ment reflects the objective personality
characteristics (Stern, 1960).72
4. The collective needs of selected groups
of persons reflect their objective per-
sonality characteristics (Stern, 1960).73

5. Although the need-press factors are in-
dependent of one another, their contents
are substantially parallel to Lewin's
model B = f (P,E) (Stern, 1963).

Piaget's theory of intellectual development is
generally viewed in the literature as an interactive
theory that emphasizes both person and environment in
describing the course of cognitive development. Four
transition factors from lower to higher stages of de-

velopment are considered by Piaget (1964) to clarify this

interaction:

48

l. Maturation: . . . cognitive structures are
not innate, but that the maturation of the
nervous system determines the possibilities
for development at a given stage.

2. Social interaction: . . . social interaction
is important because it helps the child pro-
gress from egocentric, concrete modes of
thought to more sociocentric, abstract modes
of thought.

3. Physical experience: . . . the child's ex—

perience in acting on objects enables him
to obtain knowledge about an object and to
abstract from this knowledge.

4. Equilibration: . . . this is a central pro—

cess that serves to balance assimilation
and accommodation . . . it is the progres-
sive interior organization of knowledge in
a stepwise fashion.

Other psychologists have called attention to the im-
portance of the environment in influencing behavior.
Sherif and Cantril (1947) emphasized the importance of
the social environment and criticized psychoanalysis for
missing the continuous relationship between the indivi-
dual and the environment.76 Barker (1960) has worked on
the importance of behavior setting as places containing
opportunities for achieving multiple satisfaction of mo-
tives.77 In a similar way, Chein (1954) emphasized the
environment as a limiting and determining factor in the
way an individual satisfies his motives.78

The issues of person-environment interaction and
satisfaction has particular salience to the academic situ-
ation. In one of their early works, Pace and Stern (1958)

suggested the study of congruence between needs and press

in determining successful performance and/or satisfaction

 

NIL

‘L5

«5

m:

49

in the college environment. They concluded that "the
total pattern of congruence between personal needs and
environmental press will be more predictive of achieve-
ment, growth and change than any single aspect of either
the person or the environment".79 Similarly, Funkenstein
(1962) reported results which suggest that many dropouts
from medical school result from an incongruity between
the basic attributes of an individual and those of the
college.80 At the other extreme of attempts to measure
the college environment is the research by Pervin (1967)
which focuses on the way students as individuals and as

81 In this research,

groups perceive the environment.
students rate themselves and such concepts as My College,
Faculty, Students and Administration on the same scale.
Discrepancies between ratings on pairs of concepts are
then related to reported probability of drOpping out and
various types of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with

the college environment.

Recent studies indicate that the relative propor-
tions of variance attributable to different factors may
vary importantly according to particular sample of per-
sons, settings, and responses chosen for study. How-
ever, Moos (1969) found that the variance accounted for
by consistent differences among settings and by the inter-
action between environmental characteristics and personal

characteristics is generally as great or greater than the

variance accounted for by consistent differences among

50

persons.82 Later Insel and Moos (1974) affirmed, "the
climate of environments in which people function relates
to their satisfaction, mood, and self esteem and to their
personal growth. Environments shape adaptive potentials
as well as facilitate or inhibit initiative and coping

behavior".83

THEORY-BASED MODELS OF
PERSON-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONS HIP S

In recent years research into person-environment
interaction has increased substantially. The community
psychology movement of the late sixties and seventies
brought a return to the ideology and vocabulary of in-
teractionism - a concern with the immediate person x en-
vironment phenomenon. The college-based version of this
movement found acceptance in the early 1970's and has
continued as a primary force in the student services
literature. Six theoretical orientations utilizing the
person-environment relationship will be reviewed in this
section. These include: 1) Barker's (1968) theory of
behavior settings; 2) the subcultural approach (Clark
and Trow, 1966); 3) Holland's (1973) theory of person-
ality types and model environments; 4) Stern's (1970)
need x press = culture theory; 5) Moos' (1973, 1974) so—
cial climate dimensions; and 6) Pervin's (1968) trans-
actional approach. The theories are ordered and pre-

sented on a continuum from least phenomenologically

 

 

51
oriented (Barker) to most phenomenologically oriented
(Pervin). The least phenomenologically oriented theo-
ries have attempted to define the environment more "ob-
jectively". The more phenomenologically oriented theo-
ries have attempted to define the environment as it is

perceived.

Barker's Behavior Setting Theory
Environments select and shape the behavior of peo-
ple who inhabit them is the basic rationale for Barker's

theory of behavior setting. In Ecological Psychology

 

(1968) Barker maintains that people tend to behave in
highly similar ways in specific environments, regardless
of their individual differences as persons.84 Thus Barker
asserts that human environments seem to have a coercive
influence upon human behavior.

Barker utilized a paper by Heider (1959) in the
development of his theory. The title of the paper was
"Things and Medium".85 In this paper Heider noted that
objects in the environment have physical properties which
differ from the behavior that intervenes between these
objects and the organism. He classified the former ob-
jects "things" (behavior settings) and the latter enti—
ties "media" (people). According to Heider there are two

differences between things and media: 1) things are

internally constrained, and they are relatively

52

independent of external stimuli for their form and energy,
and 2) things are unitary - the parts of things are inter-
dependent upon each other. A change in one part causes a
change in the next part.86

From the above information Barker developed three
basic assumptions that underlie his behavior setting the-
ory. The first assumption is that the media comply with
the forces of the thing: peOple tend to be receivers
and transducers in response to the structure and pattern
of forces from the behavior setting. The second assump-
tion states that the thing imposes its pattern upon media
via its own driving forces: the behavior setting is the
operator. The final assumption suggests that if we mea—
sure the docility of the media and measure the driving
forces of the thing, it may be possible to account in some
degree for the consequences which occur across person-
environment boundaries.87

To operationalize his theory Barker developed the

Behavior Setting Survey, which he considers the most ob-

 

jective way to measure and describe environments. Basic
Operations include 1) identifying potential behavior set-
tings, 2) eliminating potential settings that do not meet
criteria of behavior settings, and 3) describing the be-
havior settings. By completing these operations one is
able to test the association between the number of people
in a setting and the frequency, intensity, origin, and

termination of forces that impinge on these peOple.

53
According to Walsh (1973) the theory proposes that there
are differences between undermanned settings and optimally

manned settings.88

Undermanned settings have fewer peo-
ple but the same standing patterns of behavior. Setting
functions are threatened, and the people sense the possi-
bility of losing the satisfaction the setting provides.
Therefore, the inhabitants are involved in more actions,
stronger actions, and more varied actions in order to
maintain the behavior setting. The people tend to be
busier, more vigorous, more versatile and more involved in

the setting.89

Research. Studies of behavior settings provide that
they are stable, extra-individual units with great coer-
cive power over the behavior that occurs within them
(Barker and Wright, 1955; Gump and Sutton-Smith, 1955;
Gump, Schoggen and Redl, 1957; Raush, Dittman and Taylor,
1959 and 1960; Barker, 1960; Jordan, 1963; Gump, Schoggen
and Redl, 1963; Soskin and John, 1963; Ashton, 1964;
Barker and Gump, 1964; Wicker, 1967).90

Walsh (1973) summarized the results of several stud-
ies focusing on the effects of the size of the behavior
setting on the behavior of the individual. He found that
relevant behavioral differences exist between the inhabi-
tants of small behavior settings and the inhabitants of

large behavior settings. Inhabitants of small behavior

54

settings differ from inhabitants in large behavior set-

tings in the following ways:

1.

3.
4.

10.

11.

They function in a wider range of activi-
ties, assume positions of responsibility
and importance more frequently, engage

in more social greetings, and are more
familiar with their setting.

They participate voluntarily more fre-
quently.

They are more satisfied.

They report more forces toward partici—
pation in behavior settings.

They are absent less often, more punctual,
more interested in the affairs of the be-
havior setting and more productive.

They exhibit more group cohesiveness.

They evidence less centralization of com—
munication, increased ease in communica-
tion, and greater social interaction a—
mong inhabitants.

They demonstrate more leadership behaviors
and exhibit greater ability to identify
outstanding persons.

They tend to be more important to beha-
vior settings and exhibit less turnover.

They show evidence of broader role con-
ception and seem to be more cognitively
complex.

They report more frequently on participa-
tion as having been meaningful. 1

The theory allows one to generate predictions from

one behavior setting to another. These behavioral pre-

dictions,

however, are within the bounds of a standing

pattern of a behavior setting, and limitations do exist.

For instance, motives and experiences of inhabitants can—

not be prediCted.

SUBCULTURAL APPROACHES

Identifying attitudinal or behavioral dimensions a-
long which students tend to vary is the central focus of
the subcultural approach. When analyzing the college en-
vironment these dimensions are cross categorized or the
variables are dichotomized and used to approximate stu-
dent subgroups or cultures. A subculture implies more
than a collection of people with similar attitudes or
behaviors; it implies that these people interact with one
another, that they are mutually attracted to one another,

and they are aware of their common orientation.92

Clark and Trow Subculture Model

In their 1960 publication Determinants 9: College

 

Student Subcultures, Clark and Trow discussed their model

 

which describes types of orientations of four student
subcultures.93 They hypothesized that there are certain
broad patterns of student orientation toward college
which give meaning to the informed relations among stu-
dents. They further hypothesized that these orientations
may be identified as subcultures if they tend to stimulate
shared perceptions and behaviors among students exhibiting
common orientation. The following is a representation of

their model:

55

 

rt v—a

F3

g")

.g;

;_ .
‘1‘

>8“

56

Involved with Ideas

 

 

 

 

 

much little
Identify with much academic collegiate
their College little nonconformist vocational

 

 

The four subcultures derive their identity from the com-
bination of two dimensions: 1) the level which students
identify with ideas; and 2) the extent to which students
identify with their college. Serious students who are in-
volved with ideas and who identify with their college make
up the academic subculture. Those students who are in-
volved in ideas but tend not to identify with their col-
lege are in the nonconformist subculture. In contrast,
those students who tend to be loyal to their college but
indifferent, if not resistant, to serious intellectual de—
mands are in the collegiate subculture. These individuals
tend to value social life and extracurricular activities
more than others. Likewise, the vocational subculture
tends not to be intellectually inclined. Moreover, to
these students a college education is off-the-job training
leading to a diploma and a better job.

Peterson (1965) operationalized the Clark and Trow

typology as part of the College Student Questionnaire

 

(CSQ).94 Through this instrument students are asked to
rank brief paragraph statements on each of the four ori-
entations in order of their accuracy as self—descriptions.

Peterson found that responses to the four paragraph

57

statements by entering college freshmen tend to be re-
lated in expected ways in the Clark-Trow frame of ref-
erence to a number of variables measured by the CSQ.

Other research suggests that the four orientations
tend to be related in predictable ways to scales mea-
suring similar constructs; however, no research shows
that students entering a common orientation actually in-
teract with one another. Walsh (1973) suggests that
there is also no evidence indicating that students in-
deed enter and participate in interactional environments
that are congruent with their major subcultural orienta-

tion.95

Newcomb Subcultural Model

Utilizing the subcultural approach, Newcomb and his
associates (1967) cross-categorized the two dichotomized
dimensions of individualism and intellectuality to obtain

the following four subcultures:96

 

 

 

Individualism
high low
1 3
high creative the
individuals scholars
Intellectuality
2 4
low the wild the social
ones group

 

 

 

 

58

Heist and Yonge (1962), utilizing the Omnibus Personality

 

Inventggy, found that the most striking group differences

 

were found between the creative individualists and the
social group.97
Research findings showed that creative individualists
and the members of the social group, in particular, seemed
to evidence a significant degree of intragroup attraction
to interact with one another, and to choose each other as
friends. Of the four groups research suggests that the
wild ones do not seem to be a subcultural group.
Holland's Theory of
Personality Types and Model Environments
In his theory of personality types and model environ-
ments Holland (1966) is concerned with assessing the indi-

98 Holland asserts that human

vidual and the environment.
behavior is a function of both the individuals' person-
ality and the environment in which he lives. According to
Holland the choice of a vocation is in part an expression
of personality. Thus vocational interests are not an iso-
lated entity, but moreover a product of an individual's
life history. Because the members of a vocation tend to
have similar personalities, they probably tend also to
respond in similar ways in many situations.

Holland states three basic assumptions about his

theory of personality types and model environments. They

are as follows:

59

1. People may be characterized by their
resemblance to one or more personality
types. Holland defines a type as a
cluster of personal attributes which
may be used to measure the person.
The six personality types are 1) re-
alistic, 2) investigative, 3) social,
4) conventional, 5) enterprising, and
6) artistic. An individual's domi-
nant type or orientation is the pro-
duct of his or her life history.

2. The environments in which people live
may be characterized by their resem-
blance to one or more model environ-
ments. Six model environments are
presented corresponding to the analo-
gous personality types. Thus, for
each personality type there is a re-
lated environment. The individual
is therefore concerned about the de-
gree of fit or congruence between his
personality and his environment.

3. Congruent person-environment relation-
ships lead to outcomes that are pre-
dictable and understandable from the
knowledge of the personality types
and the environmental models.9

In order to operationalize the personality aspect of

his theory, Holland developed the Vocational Preference

 

Inventory (VPI, 1965).100 The rationale for the develop-

 

ment of this assessment instrument is based on the assump-
tion that preferences for occupations are expressions of
personality. The formulation of personality types de-
veloped out of Holland's clinical experiences and were
subsequently utilized to provide the foundation for the
VPI.

The VPI is composed of one hundred sixty occupa-

tional titles. It is self administering - individuals

60

record their preferences for occupations on an answer
sheet. Although the primary purpose of the VPI is to
assess personality, it may also be used as a conventional
interest inventory as well as to stimulate occupational
exploration by the person taking it.101
Holland also asserts that it is necessary to assess
the environment as well as the person in order to pre-
dict behavior effectively. Therefore, to compliment the
personality types, Holland proposed six model environ-
ments to characterize the physical and social settings

in our society. To assess these environments Astin and

Holland (1961) developed the Environmental Assessment

 

Technique (EAT).102 The EAT is based on the notion, sub-

 

tested by Linton (1945) and others, that a major portion
of environmental forces is transmitted through other
people.103 One can infer from this that the character of
a social environment is dependent upon the nature of its
members. Therefore, the dominant features of an environ-
ment are dependent upon the typical characteristics of
its members. It follows, then, that if we know the
character of the peOple in a group, we should know the
climate of that group.

The EAT is composed of eight variables that include:
1) the total number of students in the college; 2) the
average intelligence of the students; and 3) the six
model environments. To obtain a measure of the six orien-

tations at any institution, the number of majors (i.e.,

61
students in a major field) of each orientation was ex-
pressed as a percentage of the total number of classi-
fiable majors. For example, the realistic orientation of
college would be:
Number of Majors
Classified Realistic x 100

Total Number
of Classifiable Majors

 

Realistic Orientation =

In this way, each institution can be characterized by the
proportion of its students belonging to each of the six
personal orientations, as determined by their choice of
major field.

The following are the six theoretical model orien-
tations that apply to both personality and environment:

1. Realistic - characterized by an orienta—

tion toward the physical, concrete or the

practical.

2. Investigative - characterized by thinking,
scientific orientation, or the abstract.

3. Social - characterized by humanistic,
interpersonal, or helping orientation.

4. Conventional - characterized by systematic
routine, structured orientation. Also,
little emphasis on physical skills.

5. Enterprising - characterized by verbal
skills, supervisory roles or power orien-
tation.

6. Artistic — characterized by original and
individualistic expression, imagination
or personal interpretation of feelings,
ideas, and facts. 05

Research based on the theory seems to support the

existence of the personality types and environmental

 

 

62
models as elaborated in Holland's original theoretical
formulation. Holland and others have conducted more than
one hundred fifty studies related to the theory and its

constructs (Walsh, 1973).105

Need x Press = Culture Theory

Stern's theoretical approach (1970) is based on the
work of Lewin (1936) and Murray (1938).107 The basic
rationale for the theory is that the organism must be
studied within the context of the environment. Behavior
is defined Shl terms of its functional relationship to
the person and the environment. As stated earlier,

Lewin's classic definition of behavior is:

B = f (P,E)

where B = Behavior
f = Function
P = Person

E = Environment

To Stern this model suggests the necessity of developing
methods of representing person and environment in commen-
surate terms as a part of a unitary situation. Within the
same frame of reference Murray developed a need-press
model predicated on the assumption that behavior is an
outcome of the relationship between the person and the
environment.

There are four formal assumptions that underlie

Stern's model. They are as follows:

C:

«b

e Qt
o. l
h .s \Q
a]... 1 r.
s «\w

e
0 «\w
L. b D;

. . 1‘
Ft ' AIM
3 ~\»

"—7

 

 

63

1. Behavior is a function of the transac-
tional relationships between the indi-
vidual and his environment.

2. The psychological significance of the
person may be inferred from behavior.
Here, the person is represented in
terms of needs, as indicated by his
self-reported behavior.

3. The psychological significance of the
environment may be inferred from be-
havioral perceptions.

4. A relatively congruent person—environment
relationship may produce a sense of sat-

isfaction or fulfillment for the parti-
cipants.108

As a part of the fourth assumption Stern describes a
congruent-dissonance dimension (described above) and an
anabolic-catabolic dimension. A pattern of relation-
ships that are anabolic in nature tend to stimulate self-
enhancement and self-actualization. Patterns that are
catabolic hinder personal development and self-actualiza-
tion.

The Activities Index (AI) was developed by Pace and

 

Stern (1958) in order to operationalize Murray's concept

of need.109 The rationale for the development of the AI

is based on the assumption that an individual's needs may
be inferred either from his behavior or from his reported
personal behavioral preferences. The AI is composed of
three hundred items, ten items for each of the thirty need
scales, to which the individual responds "like" or "dis-
like". The index may be used to measure personality traits
or to explore individual or group need-press relation-

ships when used with an environmental index.

 

 

 

 

‘4

b.

be:

«.1.

2..

4

64

Pace and Stern (1958) developed the College Charac-

 

teristic Index (CCI) in order to measure the environmental
press in the need-press framework.110 They assert that

if students differ on certain variables, it is probably
realistic to think that college environments also differ.
The basic rationale behind the development of the CCI is
that the press may be inferred from the consensual or
aggregate behavioral perceptions of interpretations about
the environment.111

The CCI was developed to measure the thirty kinds of
press, each paralleling the analogous need scale of the
AI. This instrument may be used for institutional self-n
analysis and to study individual or group need-press re-
1ationships when used in conjunction with the AI.

In summary, research testing the need-press inter-
action theory is limited (Walsh, 1973).112 The lack of
sound research in this area appears to be related to the
technical problems involved in associating needs with
press for individuals. The two sets of scales (CCI and
AI) were designed to be commensurate to each other, how—
ever one would have difficulty attempting to relate each
instrument on a scale for scale basis. Behavior to some
extent may be functionally related to needs and press,
but more research is needed to validate this and other

assumptions about the theory.

Moos' Social Ecological Approach
Moos (1974) developed the social ecological approach
while attempting to understand how environments function,

113 In his

particularly in psychiatric treatment settings.
approach, Moos suggests that environments, like people,
have unique personalities that can be characterized along
common dimensions.

The following are the two basic assumptions to Moos'
approach:

1. The psycho-social qualities of environ-

ment (perceived climate) may be inferred
from behavioral perception. Here Moos
is primarily concerned with describing
environments as perceived by the peOple
in them.

2. The way one perceives his/her surroundings
influences the way one behaves in that en-
vironment. Environments tend to shape
potentials as well as facilitate or inhi-
bit initiative and c0ping behavior.

Moos and his associates deve10ped a number of per-
ceived climate scales in order to characterize the psycho-
social qualities of environments of different social or-
ganizations. They studied nine different types of en-
vironments relatively extensively and developed perceived
climate scales for each. The environments are: l) psy-
chiatric wards; 2) community-oriented psychiatric treat-
ment programs; 3) correctional institutions; 4) military
basic training companies; 5) university student resi-

dences such as residence halls; 6) junior high and high

school classrooms; 7) group environments; 8) work

65

66
environments; and 9) family environments.115 A signifi-
cant aspect of this work is that conceptually similar
dimensions seem to be relevant to this wide variety of
environments.

Moos conceptualized three basic types of dimensions
that characterize and discriminate among different sub-
units in each of the nine environments that include the
following:

1. Relationship dimensions assess the ex-

tent to which individuals are involved
in the environment and the extent to
which they tend to support and help
each other.

2. Personal development dimensions assess
the opportunity afforded by the environ-
ment for self-enhancement and the de-
velopment of self-esteem.

3. System maintenance and system change
dimensions tend to be relatively simi-
lar across the nine environments
studied. The basic dimensions are or-
der agg organization, clarity and con-
trol. 6

Research shows that these techniques which are used
to assess the psychosocial and organizational climate
characteristics of institutions have been used relatively
widely and are potentially important in the identification
of salient environmental dimensions.117 Moos also sug-
gests that they appear to be highly relevant to the

measurement of personality - environment congruence and

to effecting environmental change.

Pervin's Transaction Approach

The most phenomenologically oriented theory of
person-environment interaction that will be reviewed in
this chapter is Pervin's transaction approach (1968).118
Pervin defines the individual and the environment by the
individual's self-reported perceptions and his or her
reaction to these perceptions. This approach focuses on
the transactions and interactions that occur between the
individual and the environment.

The theoretical retionale of this approach is that
human behavior can best be understood in terms of the
interactions (cause-effect relationships) and transactions
(reciprocal relationships) between the individual and his
environment.119 Pervin asserts that for each individual
there are interpersonal and non-interpersonal environ-
ments which tend to match or to fit the individual's per-
sonality characteristics. A match of individual to en-
vironment will probably contribute to a higher degree of
performance and satisfaction. A low degree of fit will
probably result in decreased performance and satisfac-
tion.120

The transactional approach derives its foundation
from the cognitive balance orientation where it is as-
sumed that: 1) cognitive consistency permits individuals
to predict more accurately and behave more effectively in

their interactions with others; and 2) there is a basic

67

68

tendency for individuals to attempt to reduce imbalanced
states such as cognitive dissonance and inconsistencies
(Argyris, 1969).121

Pervin hypothesized that high performance and satis-
faction are associated with environment which tend to re-
duce the discrepancies between the individual's perceived
self and his perceived ideal self. His three basic theo-
retical assumptions are as follows:

1. Individuals find painful and unpleasant
large discrepancies between their per-
ceived actual selves and their per-
ceived ideal selves.

2. Individuals are positively attracted
toward objects in the perceived en-
vironment which hold potential for
moving them toward their perceived
ideal selves; conversely, individuals
are negatively disposed toward stimuli
that hold potential for moving them
away from their ideal selves.

3. Similarity in regard to objects of
importance to the individual is de-
sirable where the individual has a
low actual self/ideal self discre-
pancy and undesirable where the indi-
vidual has a high ggtual self/ideal
self discrepancy.l

Pervin's theoretical approach has been operationally

defined in an instrument called the Transactional Analysis

 

9: Personality and Environment (TAPE, 1967).123 Subjects

 

are asked to rate their actual selves, their ideal selves,
and the college environment on various semantic differen-
tial scales. On the standard form TAPE requires that cer—
tain concepts (College, Self, Students, Faculty, Adminis-

tration, and Ideal College) be rated on fifty-two scales.

69
Each scale consists of polar adjectives on an eleven-
point semantic differential. Thus, the student indicates
which adjectives he perceives to be the most descriptive
of his college and the degree to which they are descrip-
tive.

The TAPE instrument has two forms (A and B). The
forms consist of the same format but the content of the
scales differ. Each form opens with initial information
where students report biographical material. In the mid-
dle of the questionnaire, the student responds to sixteen
questions about his satisfaction with the college environ-
ment. In the final section of the questionnaire students
rate the concepts on the same polar adjective scales. Ap-
proximately forty-five minutes are required for a student
to respond to the TAPE.

Although the results of TAPE can be used in a number
of different ways, the instrument was developed in order
to pursue interinstitutional research, intrainstitutional
research, and the dynamics of student-college relation-
ships.

Most of the research on this model has been concerned
with the congruency-satisfaction hypothesis. A few stud-
ies tend to support the hypothesis, however additional
research needs to be completed in order to verify and to

generalize the transactional approach.

LIMITATIONS OF THEORETICAL MODELS

Each of the above models to some degree utilize a
similar orientation in terms of describing and predicting
behavior of the individual(s) in various environmental
situations. Although their theoretical constructs differ,
they all recognize that behavior is a function of the in-
teraction between the individual in his/her environment,
and therefore help explain behavior. There are limita-
tions that Walsh (1973) summarizes regarding each theo-
retical model.124

One of the major limitations of Barker's behavior
setting theory is its complexity, utilizing terms and de-
tail that would discourage even the most skilled re-
searcher. Problems may also exist regarding the sampling
unit. It is quite possible that a small unit or small
group is not undermanned according to Barker's definition.
Likewise, it is possible that a large unit or large group
may be overmanned rather than optimally manned. Never-
theless, the various sampling units may not be consis-
tently defined. Barker's model does not account for any
assessment of the perceived environment, nor does he ac-
count for individual change or personal growth.

Most subcultural models only partially meet the re-
quirement that individuals or students in a subculture
interact with one another and that they be aware of their

common orientation. Another weakness of the subcultural

7O

71
models is that they do not differentiate between a type
and a subculture. Students may be classified as a type
if they share common characteristics. However, if the
subculture concept is to be a distinct and meaningful con-
cept, it must be differentiated in theory and practice
from the concept of type. A basic limitation of these
models is that the existing research does not really test
the model - no studies clearly indicate that the Clark—
Trow subcultures actually exist in the first place.
Another limitation of the subcultural model is that there
is no conceptually distinct orientation to the individual
and to the environment. Finally, the models discussed
here appear to be restrictive in nature - it would be dif-
ficult to generalize the models to a noncollege popula-
tion.

Research based on Holland's theory seems to support
the existence of the personality types and environmental
models, however, there are some shortcomings that must be
discussed. One of the major shortcomings of Holland's
theory is the failure to study more representative sam-
ples over longer periods of time. As a result problems
occur in terms of the validity and the relevance of the
theory to certain populations including the noncollege
population and older students. The theory also has limi-
tations in terms of making very little contribution to the
study of individual change and learning. Although certain

types of people tend to vary in their sensitivity to

72
environmental pressure, the exact nature and process of
these changes remain unanswered. A further limitation of
this theory is that it explains very little about the un-
derlying foundation and process of personality development.
The theory also encounters problems in terms of its dif—
ferential treatment of men and women. Specifically, many
of the occupational titles of the VPI are not appropriate
for women.

Research on Stern's Need x Press theory is limited.
Those findings that are available suggest that satisfac-
tion and achievement behavior are not positively re-
lated to person-environment congruency. This may, in
part, be due to a lack of parallelism between the needs
measured by the AI and the press measured by the CCI. As
with Holland's theory, there is very little in Stern's
theory that directly focuses on learning and change. The
theory also does not explain the process of need develop-
ment. Stern does suggest that individuals develop need
patterns, however, he does not identify a developmental
process. As a result one is left to make inferences a-
bout the dynamic relationships between individual need
patterns and environmental situations. Evidence also sug-
gests that behavior is not necessarily a function of only
needs and press. This problem is further compounded by
the reliance upon self-reported behavior to define per-

sonal needs and environmental press.

73

One of the major problems with the more phenomeno-
logical theories is their reliance on individual percep-
tions to validate objective conditions. Such is the
case with Moos' social-ecological approach. Social cli-
mates as perceived by the individual(s) provide the
foundation for this theory. Obvious problems are pre-
sented because divergent settings are perceived differen-
tially, thus creating variability within general dimen-
sions. As the range of variability increases the use—
fulness of the tool diminishes. Considerable research is
also needed in order to develop an environmental descrip-
tion system that will enable one to answer more questions
about the effects of various types of programs. Without
such systems the effect of overlapping settings will blur
the precision of predicting specific environmental impacts
on behavior.

Little research has been conducted on Pervin's trans-
actional approach. As a result it is not knownithis
model will survive in its present form. As with the pre-
vious model Pervin does not attempt to define the environ-
ment in an objective sense. He relies completely on the
discrepancy between the individual's perceived selves and
perceived ideal selves to explain behavior. Pervin as-
sumes that large discrepancies between the way students
perceive themselves is a source of pain. From this as-
sumption, it is hypothesized that such discrepancies will

be related to dissatisfaction and low performance.

 

f(-,

'(11

74
However, in some individuals there is a greater degree of
tolerance for these differentials and for more flexibility
in coping with such differences. A broader base of re-
search is needed before the value of the theory can be
satisfactorily judged.
OTHER ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES
FOR COLLEGE AND RESIDENCE ENVIRONMENTS

The preceding section discusses a number of different
assessment instruments used to operationalize various the-
oretical orientations of person—environment interaction.
However, it is likely that the most frequently used instru-
ment for the assessment of college and residence environ-

ments is the College and University Environment Scales

 

(CUES). This section will describe the CUES and three
other distinguished techniques for measuring residence

hall environments that include the Residence Hall Environ-

 

mental Index (Duvall, 1969), Southern Illinois University

 

 

Residence Environment Scale (Miller and Moore, 1972), and

 

the University Residence Environment Scale (Moos, 1974).

 

DevelOped by Pace (1963), CUES is an outgrowth of the

College Characteristics Index (CCI).125 The primary pur-

 

pose of the CUES instrument is to aid in defining the
atmosphere or intellectual, social, or cultural climate of
a college as students see it. Students are asked to say
whether each of one hundred basic and sixty experimental
statements is generally true or false regarding their cam-

pus. The one hundred basic items form five scales of

75
twenty items each. In addition, two special subscales
have been created using items from the five basic scales:
Campus Morale, and Quality of Teaching and Faculty-Student
Relationships. The five major dimensions assessed are the
student's view of the Practicality, Sense of Community,
Awareness, Priority, and Scholarship of their particular
campus.

Duvall (1969) developed the Residence Hall Environ-

 

mental Index (RHEI) in an attempt to measure student and

 

residence hall staff perceptions of the total residence

126 Much of the

hall program at the Indiana University.
research related to residence halls at this time only
dealt with one particular aspect of the total residence
hall program (e.g. building construction, room assignment
procedures, staffing, etc.). The RHEI was designed to
measure: 1) whether certain residence hall environmental
conditions are perceived as being worthwhile and desir-
able; and 2) the extent to which these conditions are be-
lieved to exist in the residence halls. Fifty statements
describing conditions in residence halls are used in the
index. Each statement describes a condition which might
exist in a hall. Statements are then placed in five
broad categories which were developed into the following
five scales of the index:
1. Group Living: This scale described some
of the kinds of learning situations which
are the result of interactions between

residents in the hall (i.e., promotion of
tolerance of others, developing competence

 

76

in social relationships, increasing
one's respect for the rights of others,
etc.

2. Programming: This scale includes state-
ments which are concerned with the edu-
cational and social programs activities
which are conducted in the residence halls
(i.e., faculty speakers, discussion groups,
dances, picnics, etc.).

 

3. Student Government: On this scale stu-
dents are provided an opportunity to
evaluate certain purposes and objectives
which have been established for residence
hall student government (i.e., developing
leadership skills, enforcing hall rules,
promoting high academic atmosphere, etc.).

 

4. Counselor: This scale included statements
regarding the counselor's role in encour-
aging students to participate in campus
and hall activities, setting a good exam-
ple for students, orienting the student to
college life, and being fair and objective
in disciplinary matters.

 

5. Physical Facilities: This scale dealt with
some of the major aspects of the physical
surroundings and facilities in the halls
(i.e., the hall libraries as a place for
quiet study, adequate facilities in each
room for study, aesthetic aspects of build-
ing design and furnishings, etc.).

 

Students are asked two different questions for each
of the fifty statements in the index. First, the odd-
numbered questions request the student to respond "yes"
or "no" to the question on whether he/she felt the condi-
tion was worthwhile and desirable. Second, the even-
numbered questions request the student to rate on a five-
point scale from almost never (1) to almost always (5)
the extent to which he/she felt the particular condition

to exist in the halls. Thus, responses numbered one and

77
two both related to the same statement, and so on. Space
is also provided on the index for respondents to write
any comments or suggestions which he/she might care to
make regarding the residence halls.

In the original study where the index was first ap-
plied, results indicated that as a student progressed
toward the completion of his/her college career, they be-
came increasingly discontented with the residence hall
environmental conditions. However, the results also in-
dicated that satisfaction with the residence hall environ-
ment had a spill-over effect in terms of overall satis-
faction with the university.

Southern Illinois University
Residence Hall Environment Scale

 

 

(SIURHES) was developed by the university's Counseling

Center under the direction of William G. Miller and James

2.127

Moore in 197 This instrument is composed of one

hundred sixteen items categorized into seven scaled-item
scales and one informational scale that include the fol—
lowing:
1. Individual Rights and Freedom, i.e., the
sense of personal freedom, and right to
act independently in a living unit.
2. Personal Conduct and Responsibility, i.e.,
acceptance of the consequences of per-

sonal actions affecting self and other
persons in the living unit.

 

3. Assimilation and Homggeneity, i.e., the
perceived pressure to adapt to group
goals and attitudes and commonality of
perception, background, interests and
attitudes among residents.

 

78

4. Academic emphasis, i.e., perceived em-
phasis on academic success, combining
of living with learning and group in-
volvement with ideas and intellectual
pursuits.

5. Facilities, i.e., perception of the phy-
sical characteristics of the residence
hall and its administrative arrangements.

 

6. Personnel, i.e., reactions of residents
to resident staff and interactions with
university personnel.

 

7. Integpersonal relations and social in—
teraction, i.e., social and personal
interaction among residents in a living
unit.

 

8. Informational, a collection of non-scaled
items providing specific information on
student opinions, regarding services,
costs, conveniences, etc.1 8

 

Six professional staff members from the Division of
Student Affairs at Southern Illinois University assisted
in the development of this instrument. They were asked
to categorize items according to concept measured, using
the description of each scale. Items that were correctly
categorized by four or more staff members were retained.
Items were then scaled by submitting them to twelve addi-
tional Student Affairs professionals.

The purpose for develOping this instrument was to
measure certain aspects of residential life and to pro-
vide specific observations on other areas of interest to
the central administrative staff of the residence hall
program. One of the strengths of the SIURHES is its
adaptability or ease of modification for use in the mea-

surement of differing residential programs.

79
The majority of four-year schools in the country have

probably utilized the well-known assessment techniques
constructed by investigators such as Astin and Pace.

These techniques vary considerably in their methods of
comparing institutions. Researchers have paid much less
attention to the dynamics of environmental interaction
such as those found in college and university residence

halls. The Universitngesidence Environment Scale (URES)

 

has been expressly designed by Moos (1974) for use in as-
sessing the important features of the univeristy student
living unit and in understanding the dynamics of this
setting over a period of time.129

The URES is one of nine Social Climate Scales de-
veloped by the Social Ecology Laboratory at Stanford Uni-
versity to measure the social milieus of educational en-
vironments, treatment environments, total institutions,
and community settings.130 The rationale used for the de—
velopment of the URES has its foundation from the theo-
retical contributions of Henry Murray (1938) and his con-
ceptualization of environmental press. Moos suggests that
an environmental "climate" can exert a directional in-
fluence on behavior and that a consensus of individuals
characterizing their environment constitutes one measure
of such a climate.

The URES consists of one hundred items grouped on ten

subscales, each containing nine or ten items. The sub-

scales cover Relationship Dimensions (involvement,

80
emotional support), Personal Growth or Development Dimen-
sions (independence, traditional social orientation, com-
petition, academic achievement, intellectuality) and Sys-
tem Maintenance and System Change Dimensions (order and
organization, student influence, innovation). The fol—
lowing is a brief description of the subscales:

Subscale Description

 

Involvement Degree of commitment to the
house and residents; amount of
interaction and feeling of
friendship in the house.

Emotional Support Extent of manifest concern for
others in the house; efforts to
aid one another with academic
and personal problems; emphasis
on open and honest communica-
tion.

Independence Diversity of residents' behav-
iors (versus socially proper
and conformist behavior) allowed
without social sanctions.

Traditional Social Stress on dating, parties, and
Orientation other "traditional" heterosexual
interactions.

Competition Degree to which a wide variety
of activities such as dating,
grades, etc., are cast into a
competitive framework.

Academic Achievement Extent to which strictly class-
room and academic accomplish-
ments and concerns are prominent
in the house.

Intellectuality Emphasis on cultural, artistic,
and other scholarly intellectual
activities in the house, as dis-
tinguished from strictly class-
room achievements.

81

Order and Organization Amount of formal structure or
organization (e.g. rules, sche-
dules, established procedures,
etc.) in the house; neatness.

Student Influence Extent to which student resi-
dents (not staff or administra-
tion) perceive their own con-
trol in running the house; for—
mulating and enforcing the
rules, controlling use of money;
selecting staff, food, room—
mates, policies, etc.

Innovation Organizational and individual
spontaneity of behaviors and
ideas; number and variety of
activities; new activities.131

Students or staff members in a living unit (floor,
house, wing, building, etc.) respond true or false for
each item on the questionnaire. The average score across
all individuals in the unit on each subscale is the unit
score for that subscale. Information derived from this
instrument can be used for internal understanding and pos-
sible change, or for comparison with other houses, either

on the same campus or at other schools.
TECHNIQUES FOR EVALUATING THE COLLEGE ENVIRONMENT

Presently there is a considerable amount of interest
in studying institutions of higher education. The reasons
for this interest are as varied as the assessment instru-
ments that have been developed to measure college environ-
ments. The major focus of environmental assessment to
date has been on classifying and/or differentiating insti-
tutions rather than on studying the unique features of a

single institution.1 Nevertheless, a review of the

82
literature reveals that environmental assessment tech-
niques can be classified under four major approaches -
demographic, perceptual, behavioral, and multimethod.
Many of the instruments and techniques could be placed in
more than one category, in that they contain elements of
each approach. However, they are classified in the cate-
gory that reflects their major emphasis of approach.

The demographic approach to environmental assessment
emphasized objective, readily-measured institutional
characteristics such as number of students, percentage
of males, tuition, operating budget per student, class
size, number of library books, etc. Astin and Holland
(1961) are two of the first to use this approach. Astin's

Environmental Assessment Technique (EAT) is an example of
132

 

the demographic approach. The demographic technique,
therefore, is largely a descriptive approach.

The perceptual approach to environmental assessment
characteristically involves responses to a series of de-
scriptive statements that yield an overall perspective of
the institution in terms of a predetermined series of
scales or factors. Perceptual measures are quite sensi-
tive to environmental change, and resultant data is easier
to interpret and apply. However, perceptual measures may
only reveal the "perceived" environment and not neces-
sarily the actual environment. Nevertheless, the percep-

tual approach to environmental assessment is the best de-

veloped and most widely used technique available today.

83

Some perceptual instruments include College Characteristic

 

Index (CCI, Pace and Stern, 1958), College and University

 

Environment Scale (CUES, Pace, 1969), College Characteris-

 

 

tic Analysis (CCA, Pace, 1964), Institutional Functioning

 

 

Inventory (IFI, Peterson and others, 1970), Transactional

 

 

Analysis pf Personality and Environment (TAPE, Pervin,

 

1967), College Student Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSSQ,

 

Staff, Betz and Menne, 1971), and the University Residence

 

Environment Scale (URES, Gerst and Moos, 1974).133

 

The behavioral approach to environmental assessment
is less developed than the first two. This approach,

characterized by Astin's Inventory gt College Activities

 

 

(ICA), emphasizes behavioral measures that provide a de-
tailed account of activities within a university setting.
It measures specific observable student behaviors such as
time spent in study, number of extracurricular activities
per week, attendance at cultural events, etc. A major ad-
vantage of this approach is its ability to pinpoint issues
specific to a particular campus that may inadvertently be
missed by demographic or perceptual approaches.

Other assessment techniques combine the demographic,
perceptual and behavioral approaches in an attempt to
gather a variety of information in a single effort. The

Questionnaire 93 Student and College Characteristics (QSCC,

 

 

Centra, 1970) is an example of this approach.135
An evaluation of these four approaches to environmen-

tal assessment must take into account the specific purpose

84
for which the assessment is to be conducted. Each method
has its advantages and disadvantages. It would be ironic
to attempt to measure the degree of person-environment
"fit" by using an instrument that is "ill-fitted" to do
the job.
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES
FOR RESIDENTIAL INTERVENTION

While the environment is generally considered to be a
pervasive and extraordinarily powerful influence on behav-
ior, the exact specification of environmental or situa-
tional variables has been relatively neglected.136 In-
struments have been developed in an attempt to measure
certain aspects of environments, however, few methodo-
logical approaches beyond administering surveys have been
developed for residential intervention. This section will
discuss five such approaches that include Van der Ryn and
Silverstein's Environmental Analysis Method (1965),
Menne's Intervention Paradigm (1967), Moos' Social Eco-
Ilogical Intervention Approach (1974), Daher, Corazzini and
McKinnon's Residence Environment Adaptation Intervention
Program (1977), and Kaiser's Ecological Intervention
Method (1973).
Van der Ryn and Silverstein's
Environmental Analysis Approach

In a near classic study Van der Ryn and Silverstein
(1965) developed a multimethod technique for measuring

the effectiveness of a complex residence hall svstem that

85
was designed for living and learning.137 Their focus was
on the "silent partner" in the design process - the stu-
dent who is affected by design decisions. Van der Ryn and
Silverstein found that some of the most cherished assump—
tions of administrators and designers of environments are
inconsistent with the actual preference and activity pat—
terns of students.138 Thus, they relied on describing and
evaluating activities and processes as they took place in
the residence hall setting. The following is a summary of

their intervention technique:

Observation

Interview

Questionnaire

Activity Log

Literature

86

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Qualify Quantify
Identify Use of Use of
Issues Environment Environment
Informal re- Structured
connaissance observations
of building of hallway
complex - behavior 15
written two-hour
notes periods
Non-directed 40 directed
interviews interviews of
with stu- students in
dents - tape their rooms
recorded
Open-ended Specific ques-
questionnaire tions on use
to determine and fur-
range of nishings of
problem the student's
rooms - 115
respondents
80 students
kept diaries
over 4 days,
noting use of
space and
equipment
Books, jour- Directed re-
nals, local search of
newspapers, comparative
reports literature
portraying
situations
on other
campuses

 

 

 

Five methods as described above were employed in this

study - observation,

"diary" or activity log, and literature search.

interview, questionnaire,

student

Each

method provided information that personalized the environ-

ment assessment process.

87
Four basic reasons for environmental analysis and
systematic design were asserted by Van der Ryn and
Silverstein:

1. Environmental analysis has an evaluative
function. Evaluation may reveal con-
flicts between owner's goals and those
of the users.

2. Analysis has an informative function.
It provides organized information for
the designer and reduces the realm of
uncertainty in which he works.

3. Environmental analysis has an innova-
tive role to play in the design pro-
cess. By unlocking relationships be—
tween form and function, environmental
analysis opens the way for innovation
in programming and design.

4. Environmental analysis has a scien-
tific function. Analysis adds to our
knowledge about the relationship of
individuals to their environment.

It becomes the perplexing job of the analyst to identify
constancies - "fit" between form and activity, and be-
tween individuals and their environment. Van der Ryn and
Silverstein summarized this dilemma in the following way:
Such invariant relationships express connections
between human needs, forces, or tendencies and
physical environments. These may be physiologi-
cal, psychological or culturally based. Design
problems result when needs are not readily ac-
commodated by the environment and can find no
adaptive outlet. Issues, as we have defined
them, result when conflicting needs and values
are not resolved by the environment.
Menne's Intervention Paradigm
Menne's (1967) intervention paradigm is Operation-

alized by asking the question, "What approach to environ-

ment assessment should be used given a certain set of

88
objectives?".141 If the purposes of the environmental
study are to 1) provide information to serve as a basis
for manipulation of the environment, 2) measure the ef-
fectiveness of such manipulations, and 3) provide informa-
tion to prospective students which will facilitate their
adaptation to the residence hall environment, then the
following paradigm for intervention is applicable:

1. A systematic assessment is made of the
environment at the first stage. The as-
sessment may concern behaviors in the
environment; or it may concern both
image and behaviors. Thus the first
assessment in the paradigm would include
the following types of studies:

a. Perceptions of the environment . . .

b. The perceptions of the "ideal" en-
vironment . . .

c. The expectations of the environ-
ment . . .

d. The changes in the perceptions of
the environment over time . . .

2. The second stage in the paradigm would
then be accomplished as follows:
a. Manipulations attempting to change
the residence hall environment.
b. Manipulation of the public image
of the residence halls.

3. The third stage of the paradigm in-
volves a reassessment, a replication
of the studies in the first stage.
The second assessment will result in
a measure of the effectiveness of the
environmental manipulation as well as
providing new first stage information
as a basis for further manipulative
efforts.142

Moos' Social Ecological Intervention
Moos (1974) developed an intervention methodology for
facilitating social change which is particularly relevant

to small environments such as residence halls that have a

89

moderate to high frequency of interaction among milieu

members.

1.

143

This methodology has four components:

Everyone involved in the residence hall
environment is given the opportunity to
report his/her view of how the current
environment is functioning . . . In ad-
dition all participants are asked to
convey information about their concep-
tualization of an ideal social system.
Thus, the goals and general value orien-
tations of residents are systematically
assessed.

Individualized feedback is then given
on the results of these assessments.
Particular attention is paid to simi-
larities and differences in the per-
ceptions of various important groups
within the environment. In addition,
emphasis is placed on the similarities
and differences between the "real" and
the "ideal" social environment and the
subsequent implications for change.

Practical planning of specific methods
by which change might occur along spe-
cified dimensions is then instituted . . .

The change process itself is assessed by
one or more reassessments of the charac-
teristics of the social environment.
These results are continuously fed back

to the participants providing an ongoing
systematic approach to achieving the kind
of environment residents would like to
have.

This intervention methodology includes elements of problem-

solving, goal setting, c0ping, and adaptive behavior. Thus

important human needs are accounted for, in terms of ac-

tively helping to mold one's social environment in de-

sired directions.

Daher, Corazzini and McKinnon's
Resident Environment Adaptation Program

Although it has been demonstrated that environments
are major contributing factors to student growth and/or
dysfunction, little effort has been applied to campus re-
design (Craig, 1973; Insel and Moos, 1974; Moos, 1973).145
Past targets of intervention have been individuals and
groups rather than the environment. Daher, Corazzini and
McKinnon assert that a systematic program that maximizes
the congruence between student's needs and their environ-
ment seems necessary.146 To this end they developed the

Resident Environment Adaptation Program (REAP, 1977).

 

REAP is composed of five stages that are designed to
help students identify the different components of their
environment, provide a structure to discuss and evaluate
the environment, and, where desired, to develop the means
for improvement. The stages include the following:

1. Stage I involves the entry process and
attends to contact and contract issues.
The planning team usually makes initial
contact with hall directors who are pro-
vided a written rationale and overview
of the program. The directors, in turn,
provide this information to the student
assistants who work with them on dif-
ferent floor sections. Once the assis-
tants have been oriented to the pro-
gram, they are invited to schedule a
contract interview with the REAP team
to discuss how the service can benefit
their living unit . . .

2. Stage II involves data collection. Dur-
ing this phase of the program, the REAP
team meets with the residents, presents
an overview of the service, and answers

90

91

questions. Once it is clear how the ser-
vice will be used, a questionnaire, con-
sisting of Moos and Gerst's University
Residence Environment Scale (URES), is
administered. It is important to clarify
that the data collection is necessary for
redesign and is not primarily for a re-
search project . . .

 

 

3. In Stage III data is analyzed and a report
is prepared for the residents. The report
includes a written description of the en-
vironment and a profile that contrasts the
ideal environment with the actual one . . .
The primary focus of interpretation is on
the degree of the differences between what
is desired (the ideal) and what is experi-
enced (the real).

4. Stage IV provides consultation to the resi-
dents. Soon after the data has been ana-
lyzed, a meeting is arranged between the
entire floor section and the REAP team . . .
If more than 70 percent of the residents
agree on the need for change and there are
some individuals who are willing to work
on an environmental change team, then a
meeting with the REAP team is scheduled.

5. Stage V consists of program development.
Depending on what areas are chosen for
strengthening or change, resource persons
from the university community may be asked
to join the change team . . 147

This REAP intervention model has several elements that are

comparable to the ecosystem model that follows.

Kaiser's Ecological Intervention Model

The ecosystem intervention model is a design process
that was developed by Leland Kaiser (1973) utilizing an
ecological approach to environmental change.148 The focus
of the ecological approach is the interaction that occurs
between persons and their environment or how an environ-

ment affects peOple, their work, their leisure, and their

92
personal growth. The theory and philosophy that underlies

this model is presented in Chapter One. Subsequent re-
finements to the model were made by members of the Western
Interstate Commission on Higher Education (WICHE) program
task force on which Dr. Kaiser served. Members of the
task force represented all segments of the campus com-
munity - students, faculty, governing boards and staff.
The charge of the task force was to develop a delivery
system for student services that would foster well-being
on campus. Through the utilization of the ecosystem ap-
proach, the model becomes a tool for the creation of cam—
pus environments that can foster both educational and
personal growth among students.

The design process includes seven steps that are in-
teracting components. Unless one is establishing an en-
tirely new environment, the entry into the model is most
natural at step five. The seven interdependent steps in-
clude the following:

1. Designers, in conjunction with community
members, select educational values.

2. Values are then translated into specific
goals.

3. Environments are designed that contain
mechanisms to reach the stated goals.

4. Environments are fitted to students.

5. Student perceptions of the environments
are measured.

6. Student behavior resulting from environ-
mental perceptions is monitored.

93
7. Data on the environmental design's suc-
cess and failures, as indicated by stu-
dent perceptions and behavior, are fed
back to the designers in order that they
may continue to learn about student/en-
vironment fit and design better environ-
ments.
Along with the traditional instrument for assessing per—
ceptions this model advocates an Environmental Referent
(ER) questionnaire in order to determine "why" students
have certain perceptions of the environment and "what"
can be done to improve the negative aspects of the en-
vironment. (For more detail in this model see Chapter
One.)
Because one of the basic philosophic assumptions of
this model is that of successful campus design a planning

team composed of various campus constituencies is utilized

to implement the ecosystem model.
ECOSYSTEM STUDIES

The ecosystem model attempts to provide an interven-
tion methodology of how to assess (map) environments and
construct (design) environments to produce more optimal
person-environment fits. Therefore, on a university cam-
pus, the emphasis is on designing environments in which
the transactions between the student and environment will
foster optimum educational growth and development. The
ecosystem model suggests that the design process can be
implemented at three different levels: Level I (campus

community - macrodesign), Level II (groups on campus -

94

microdesign), and Level III (individuals on campus - life
space design).150 The following section will review two
Level I studies and five Level II studies that have been

conducted at various campuses.

Macrodesign Studies

Studies conducted at the macrodesign level focus on
how to design campus environments that will fit large num-
bers of students. For example, if one were developing a
new institution, the design process would demand that the
environment's community members spell out the educational
values for the institution and then proceed from step to
step in the model. Since this opportunity is seldom af-
forded, a more practical entry into the redesign process
begins at step five - mapping out student perceptions of
the entire campus environment. Two such efforts include
the macrodesign studies at Colorado State University (1975)

and the Community College of Denver (1975).

Colorado State University Ecosystem Study. In 1975 a
study was conducted at Colorado State University that was

intended to contribute to macrodesign.151 The College and

 

University Environment Scale (CUES) and the College Stu-

 

dent Questionnaire (CSQ) were used as sourcesrfifdata on

 

mismatches between students and their environments. The
results of this study strongly suggested that there were
serious mismatches between students and the CSU environ-

ment and that many students were not satisfied with their

95

environment. A report was distributed to the university
vice-presidents, deans and other administrators, sum-
marizing the results of the study. High emotions, criti-
cism and accusation immediately followed. Claims were
made that the sampling was unrepresentative, not random
and quite small with only two hundred eighty-four students
being surveyed. As a result the Research and Evaluation
Team was asked to replicate the study utilizing a larger,
representative, random, stratified sample from the entire
student population.

The second study was conducted the following winter.
This time the sample (1,454 students or nine percent of
the student population) was broader with 952 or 65.7 per-

cent of the students responding. The College Student

 

Questionnaire (composed of two hundred multiple choice

 

items) and Environmental Satisfaction Questionnaire

 

(Corazzini, Wilson and Huebner, 1976) were used as the
assessment instruments.152 The ESQ was specifically de-
signed by members of the research team because existing
instruments were not easily applied to environmental
redesign. Also, the ESQ was tailored to meet the prac-
tical and unique requirements of the CSU environment.
The ESQ is a two-part instrument. Part one validates

mismatches between students and their environment by re-

sponses to questions on a five-point Likert Scale contiuum

96
from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree". Part two of
the ESQ elicits environmental referents and include coping
mechanisms and recommendations for change.

The data from this second study suggested that stu-
dents were much more satisfied than they had appeared to
be in the previous study (this fact seemed to confirm
sampling error from the first study). As a result the
model broke down at this point because university adminis-
trators did not feel compelled to respond to the specific
mismatches validated by the ESQ.

Although the broad goals of macrodesign were not
achieved, some program changes were suggested as a result
of the assessment process. Along with these changes three
recommendations for future environmental interventions
were suggested that included the following:

1. In order to have a major impact on the

university, it is important to have
sanction from the upper levels of the
administrative arm of the university.
The researchers must employ consulta-
tive expertise to effect a liaison that
will result in change . . . It is es-
sential that team members integrate the
skills of the researcher with those of
the change agent and consultant.

2. Most environmental assessment instru-
ments are descriptive of environments
but do not provide data that facilitate
the redesign of environments. The ESQ
does pinpoint specific mismatches be-
tween students and their environment
and furnish recommendations for change.

There is a need for more new instrumen-
tation.

97

3. Environments change as people come and
go. One group's mismatches are not
necessarily those of another group.
The environmental assessment and de-
sign process is an ongoing one. As
such we concur with Banning and Kaiser
(1974) who have suggested that campus
design centers be created . . .

Community College of Denver Ecosystem Study. The
Counseling Division at the Community College of Denver,
much like other counseling centers elsewhere had been
working directly with individuals in the remediation of
student problems. The goals and objectives of the Coun-
seling Center were relatively narrow and reactive, rather
than broad and proactive. In short, the philosophic point-
of-view placed emphasis on therapy and crisis intervention
rather than on educational and developmental activities.

To change this orientation the Counseling Division under-
took a macrodesign study in 1975 in order to broaden the
scope of outreach programming and to take a more proactive
approach to intervention.154

Early in 1975, the Counseling Center contacted the
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE)
to seek assistance in conducting a needs assessment of the
relationship between students and the campus environment.
An equally important need was to design an environment
that is more conducive to learning and good mental health.
After receiving administrative approval to apply the Eco-

systems Assessment and Design model, a planning committee

composed of the following was developed:

98

1. General Studies student

2. Occupational Studies student

3. General Studies instructor

4. Occupational Studies instructor
5. Instructional Labs Coordinator
6. Counselor

7. Counseling Division Director

8. Assistant to the Vice-President
9. Two consultants from WICHE

The committee met for three hours weekly for almost a year
and a half. During this period the committee developed

its own assessment instrument - Student Opinion Survey

 

(SOS).

The SOS is a two—part instrument that is designed to
l) assess student opinions regarding campus environments,
utilizing a five-point Likert Scale in Part I, and 2) ob-
tain environmental referents in Part II, that would be
subsequently used to redesign environments, based on ex-
pressed needs. Eighty-one questions are contained in Part
I of the SOS. In Part II of the survey students were
asked to go back and choose five items that were signifi—
cant based on their direct experience, and state why the
item was significant, and what should be done to change
or improve the situation.

Fifteen implementors were trained to administer the
SOS. The actual sample was seven hundred forty-two stu-
dents, which represented 10.5 percent of the student en-
rollment (6,905). The response rate to the questionnaire
was near 100 percent because the SOS was administered to

students and collected while they were in class.

’3'

5):

 

99

The results of the SOS were presented in terms of
six different categories: 1) Learning Needs, 2) Physical
Needs, 3) Transactional/Communication Needs, 4) Informa-
tion Needs, 5) Psychological Needs, and 6) Social Needs.
Although the results in each category were specific and
revealing, they were not utilized to design campus en-
vironments. As one team member put it:

"The entire process took too long, drained

our energy and we had very little energy

left to implement the changes that were

needed. We also failed to provide status

reports to the administrative council, con-

sequently, almost no one knew what we were

doing except taking up valuable time away

from our regular work and causing others

to take up the slack . . ."155
When questioned further regarding an overall evaluation of
the ecosystem study the same person responded:

"The experience was very positive in spite

of previous comments. Because we were a

model site we had to learn as we went along,

consequently we took too much time. We a1-

so profited by our mistakes. It was a very

rewarding professional experience. The pro-

cess is very worthwhile." 56
Microdesign Studies - Residence Halls

Microdesign studies are concerned with designing en-
vironments for specific groups on campus, including
groups like class level, ethnic origin, special interest,
residence halls, etc. The design effort is focused on
determining the congruities and incongruities that spe-

cific groups are experiencing with their immediate en-

vironment. This section will review five microdesign

100
studies that include the University of Arizona (1974),
the University of Northern Colorado (1975), Arizona State

University (1976, 1977) and Indiana University (1978).

University of Arizona Ecosystem Study. In 1974 the
University of Arizona participated with the Western In-
terstate Commission for Higher Education in testing the
ecosystem approach to assessing student perceptions of
residence hall environment. Staff members were con—
cerned about the "fit" students experience when enrolling
in the university. It was apparent to university offi-
cials that the adjustment process was entirely on the
shoulders of the students. As a result the ecosystem
study was undertaken to check the total environment to see
if the university could make some changes and get the
"fit" just a little better.157

The Dean of Students, Counseling Center, Student
Health and Student Housing were the primary forces behind
the project. The committee was chaired by the director
of Student Health and included representatives from each
of the four offices. After careful study the planning
group selected the residence halls for their area of study.
It was believed that the residence hall system was large
enough to give a valid picture of the university commu-
nity, yet small enough to study within a short time frame.
A random sample (940) of the total residence hall popula-

tion (4,700) was selected to test the ecosystem approach.

lOl

Particular attention was given to informing the resi-
dence hall pOpulation as well as the general university
community about the ecosystem study. Individual letters
were sent to head residents, articles were printed in the
student newspaper and time was spent with individual stu-
dents. A great deal of time was also spent developing
confidence that the study was not just another research
project, but that changes would be made where problems
were evident.

The instrument that was used for the study was an

adaptation of the Southern Illinois - Residence Hall Eg—

 

 

vironment Scale, that included additional information

 

specific to the University of Arizona. The eight cate-
gories of the instrument included 1) Demographic Data,

2) Activities - Interpersonal Relationships and Charac-
teristics, 3) Decision Making, 4) Facilities, 5) Student
Government, 6) Staff and Administration, 7) Communication
of Rules and Regulations, and 8) Hall Programs and their
Impact on Students.

Initially, individual testing was considered the best
approach because it personalized the research part of the
study. However, it soon became evident that this method
would require a considerable amount of time. Therefore,
the planning group decided to use a "mass testing" ap-

proach for the remaining subjects.

102

Representatives from WICHE provided extensive
training for the planning group which facilitated the
group's understanding and implementation of the ecosys-
tem model.

The results of the survey data were written up in
five separate reports that were submitted to senior ad-
ministrative officers of the university. The fifth report
summarized the significant findings along with recommenda-
tions for environmental change. The planning group was a
very positive experience for group members, many of whom

still meet and re-hash elements of the ecosystem study.

University of Northern Colorado Ecosystem Study. In
1975 a doctoral dissertation was undertaken to study the

Social Ecologygt the Universityef Northern Colorado
158

 

 

 

Residence Halls. The three major objectives of the

 

study were 1) to investigate resident student and staff
perceptions of an ideal residence hall environment as com-
pared with their perceptions of an actual environment in
their respective halls throughout the school year, 2) to
compare resident student and staff ideal perceptions to a
theoretically ideal environment as indicated by a nation-
wide panel of housing administrators, and 3) to examine
the variables of residence hall size, sexual makeup, col-
lege class structure, and role position related to percep-
tions of ideal and actual residence hall environments. The
research also provided a detailed mechanism for assessing,

evaluating and planning residence hall environments.

103

The populations sampled included students and staff
members who lived in fourteen residence halls as well as
a panel of housing administrators selected from two
standing committees of the Association of College and Uni-
versity Housing Officers. A random sample, stratified by
individual residence hall floors was drawn to provide a
sample of one half of the student resident population.

The planning group was composed of six area directors
in the housing system and the researcher's dissertation
committee. Each area director was selected in order to
provide broad representation from each area complex. The
dissertation committee was included in order to satisfy
the research component of the study.

The University Residence Environment Scale, Form I-2

 

 

(Ideal Environment), was sent to resident subjects, to
residence hall staff members, and to the administrative
panel prior to the Fall Quarter, 1973. At five testing
dates throughout the 1973-74 school year, those students
not previously tested were sampled and, along with their

respective staff member, were administered the University

 

Residence Environment Scale, Form R-2 (Actual Environment).
Environmental referents (ERs) were not used in this
study. In retrospect, the chairperson of the planning
group believed that they should have been used in order to
make the necessary environmental changes. Because of the
limited nature of the study (i.e., assessing the psycho-

social climate of the residence halls) and the lack of

104

environmental referents no clear data was available to re-
design the environment. However, the ecosystem model was
perceived by the planning group as a useful tool that
broadened their thinking about interactions in the various

residence hall environments.

Arizona State Ecosystem Studies. During the Fall,
1976 term, the ecosystem model was implemented on the cam-
pus of Arizona State University.159 The purpose for im-
plementing the model was to assess student perceptions of
certain aspects of residence life at the university.

Because the level of interest in assessing the resi-
dence hall environment was so high, several members of the
Housing Department at Arizona State attended a workshOp
sponsored by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher
Education (WICHE) which focused on environmental assess-
ment. Little research had been done in the past on the
residence hall environment. Therefore, it was agreed be—
fore the training session that the ecosystem model would
be implemented at the ASU campus.

The original membership of the planning team con-
sisted of four members of the Housing Department. To ex-
pand the scope of the team, representatives from Food
Service, Health Services, Security Department and the Dean
of Student's office joined the team. One of the primary
reasons for expanding the team was because the Housing

Department provided only limited services for residential

105
students. A basic philosophic commitment to redesigning
the environment after data collection and analysis was
viewed as crucial by each team member.

The planning team decided to assess the living en—
vironment within the campus residence halls, including
the services represented by the team members. Only those
environmental factors that could be redesigned were re-
viewed by the team. Thus students responded to items
concerning housing, residence hall programs, Student
Health Services, Food Services, University Police Ser-
vices, and the Student Affairs Department.

A two-phase assessment instrument was developed by
the team instead of using one of the many standardized
instruments that are available for assessing campus en—
vironments. The first phase of the instrument is a
limited choice questionnaire, where each item referred
to a specific aspect of the environment. A goal statement
format was utilized for those items and subjects responded
by indicating on a modified Likert Scale the importance
of the items ranging from "of no importance" to "extremely
important". The total number of items were limited to
forty-four.

The second phase of the instrument was most impor—
tant in that it generated environmental referents for
program change. After completing the first phase, stu-
dents were asked to go back through items they had com-

pleted and identify no more than ten items they felt very

106
strongly about, either positive or negative. On these ten
items, the student was asked to write what it was about
the situation that made them feel strongly and what could
be done to enhance the situation.

A stratified random sample consisting of ten percent
of the population of each residence hall was selected, re-
sulting in four hundred fifteen students in the sample.
The total residence hall population was 4,200 students.

The questionnaires were distributed by the residence
hall staff six weeks after the semester began. The staff
members were informed as to the nature and purpose of the
project as well as their role in data collection and pro-
viding assistance to students who completed the instru-
ment. Seventy-seven percent of the sample responded to
the survey.

Data that was generated was organized in such a way
as to present an overall view of the environment, to iden-
tify specific problem areas within the environment, and to
develop recommendations for redesigning the environment.
After the data was analyzed, the team members went back to
their individual departments to begin evaluation and re-
design activities.

The team members unanimously agreed that the ecosys-
tem project had been very helpful in generating student
recommendations for changing the campus environment. The

following observations were made by the planning team:

107

Because the project took less than three
months to complete, the changes were seen
by students, which enhanced the credi-
bility of the entire project.

Having individuals on the team familiar
with research methods made some of the
technical problems, such as instrument
construction, easy to deal with and to
solve.

Having administrative support was neces-
sary since the team realized that changes
would be made as a result of their work. 60

A second implementation of the ecosystem model for

environmental assessment was undertaken the following

year.

This implementation of the ecosystem model was the

first time that it was administered for two consecutive

years at a large university.161 The same model was uti-

lized, however different departments represented were new

additions. Three major conclusions were drawn from the

second study:

1.

The data provided was very useful in re-
inforcing the actions taken as a result

of the first implementation. The changes
developed as a result of the first im-
plementation indicated that student needs
were being met. In those cases where stu-
dents recommended changes, but changes were
not made, the need was still very apparent.

For those departments which had partici-
pated in the first implementation, the
data yielded did not change markedly from
year to year. Such may be a reflection

of a relatively stable resident popula-
tion or that students needs did not change
drastically from year to year.

For those departments new to the process,
the data generated a number of recommen-
dations for change. The assessment pro-
cess was more beneficial to the new de-
partments in terms of making changes than

108

for the returning ones, simply on the
basis of the number of changes suggested
by students, and the changes made by the
departments.162

Indiana University Ecosystem Study. At Indiana Uni-
versity (1978), the ecosystem project was conducted be-
cause questions were being raised by faculty and students
concerning the quality of life on campus.163 The univer—
sity is a residential campus with over 12,000 students
living in the residence halls. It was determined that re-
search needed to be conducted to determine how students
perceived their environment, what problems there were, and
what changes would be necessary to improve the quality of
student life.

The Department of Residence Life and the Halls of
Residence Department provide comprehensive services and
programs for students on campus. As a result the project
was self-contained within these two areas. Members of
the planning team therefore, consisted only of housing
staff, with the exception of the representative from the
Counseling Center. This individual provided expertise for
the research component of the study. In developing the
planning team three criteria were used for the basis of
recruitment: 1) commitment to completing the project,

2) interest in the project, and 3) commitment to creating
change. After the planning team was formulated, each

member was asked to secure support from their direct

109
supervisor. Support also came from the Dean for Student
Services and the campus chief executive officer, both of
whom were very interested in the results of the study.

The planning team agreed in advance to keep meetings
to a minimum. It was their collective opinion, based on
prior efforts with the ecosystem model, that the best way
to make their study tedious and nonproductive was to de-
vote too much time to meeting. As a result the team did
not meet more than three times. Most work was done by the
subcommittee or individuals who were delegated certain as-
pects of the study.

The initial meeting of the planning team served to
make introductions, orient each member to the model, and
to delegate tasks to team members. Particular attention
was given to determining aspects of the environment that
were satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Only those items
that were subject to change were addressed in the develop—
ment of the assessment instrument.

The planning team members met independently to gener-
ate potential topic areas for review. When they came to-
gether for the second meeting, team members reviewed each
other's assessment targets. Content areas were examined
at this point in order to insure that items examined spe-
cific aspects of the environment - items should not be so
broad that they lose their meaning or do not focus on a

target area.

110

The assessment instrument developed by the planning
team utilized a perceptual format for the first part that
asked students to respond to items on a Likert Scale.
Responses could range from "very strongly agree" to "very
strongly disagree". Items were intentionally kept to a
minimum in order not to generate volumes of data for
analysis. The perceptual format was used because it would
satisfy this criteria as well as because of its simplicity.

The second part of the instrument contained environ-
mental referents. After completing the first part of the
questionnaire, students were asked to go back through all
the items and identify five that were particularly impor-
tant to them. Students wrote in why they felt strongly
about a situation or item, and what they would recommend
to improve the situation.

Because of the large residence hall population
(12,000 students) a random sample of five percent was
drawn for the study. In all cases the team was satisfied
that the sample drawn was representative of the residence
hall population.

Resident assistants provided the basic support for
the data collection process. They were thoroughly
briefed on their role in the project and how the results
could be utilized to benefit both staff and students. One
week before the questionnaires were distributed a "prop"
letter was sent to the sample informing them that they

would be receiving an important questionnaire from their

111
resident assistants. A week later the questionnaires were
delivered by the resident assistants who informed the re-
spondents that the questionnaire should be returned to
them or the main residence hall desk. The response rate
was sixty-one percent.

Item analysis and environmental referent ratings were
compiled and sent to participating subunits for their
study. Each subunit submitted a written report of their
analysis and interpretation to the planning team for in-
clusion in a final report. From these individual reports,
recommendations for environmental change were made.

Significant findings by the planning team included
the following:

1. Administrators involved in the ecosystem
process were pleased with the results.

2. The process was such that the project
took less than four months to complete.

3. Students appreciated seeing changes made
in their living areas during their tenure.

4. The costs involved in the process were
minimal.16

Other Ecosystem Studies

The above ecosystem studies represent a substantial
percentage of the total number of studies of this nature
that have been conducted at a college or university.
Studies not cited include Eastern Oregon State College
(campus study, 1974), Lewis and Clark College (campus
study, 1975), Wartburg College (campus studies, 1978 and

1979), Indiana University (residence hall study, 1979),

112

Arizona State University (residence hall study, 1978),
University of Utah (residence hall study, 1979), Univer-
sity of Texas (residence hall study, 1979), Boston College
(campus police study, 1978), University of Missouri (medi-
cal school study, 1976-78), University of Rhode Island
(campus study, 1978), Illinois State University (campus
study, 1977), and Central Michigan University (residence

hall study, 1978).
SUMMARY

A review of the literature and responses to this re-
searcher's questionnaires resulted in the identification
of only twenty applications of the ecosystem model at
different colleges and universities. Only a few of these
institutions have chosen to publish their efforts in the
literature. As a result, the research in this area is
limited. Consequently the implementation of the ecosystem
methodology is far behind the conceptual development of
the process.165 Nevertheles Paul (in press) has found
that most setting applications include the same general

166

sequence of steps. As such, the following has been

found to be evident from research conducted to date, uti-
lizing the ecosystem approach:
1. The area of person-environment interaction
is a long way from having a theory that
may be considered a full-fledged general
theory (Walsh, 1973).167

2. The ecosystem methodology has been found
to be an effective tool for environmental

113

research and environmental change (Blocher,
1974; Delworth, 1975; Conye, 1975 and 1978;
Schuh, 1976, 1977 and 1978; Corazzini and
Wilson, 1977; Schuh and Alan, 1978; Huebner,
in press, Paul and Morrill, in press; and
Elliott, l977).168-177

Even though a number of standardized in-
struments designed to measure various as-
pects of the college environment exist,
most ecosystem efforts have chosen to
develop their own data collection devices
that utilize a perceptual format.

Most environmental assessment instruments
are descriptive of environments but do not
provide data that facilitate the redesign
of environments. There is a need for more
new instrumentation utilizing the ER for—
mat. Most ecosystem studies that have
been conducted use a two-part instrument
with an ER format.

The size and composition of planning teams
for studies that have been conducted vary.
Schuh (in press) recommends that the planning
teams not exceed ten members and that

areas that are subject to change be re-
presented on the team. He also advises

that at least one cgmmittee member have
research expertise. 80

Early ecosystem studies were hampered by
excessive time committed to the first four
stages of the model. Recent studies, how-
ever, have been refined and are capable of
resolving this conflict. Schuh at Indiana
University, for example, has completed two
successful studies that required only four
months to complete. Most studies, however,
are completed in an academic year frame-
work. Schuh also suggests that meetings
should be kept to a minimum. 81

Early ecosystem studies were also hampered
because too many items were included in
the assessment instruments (some in excess
of 175 items). As a result respondents
were discouraged with the time required

to fill out questionnaires and too much
data resulted from the studies. Schuh

114

recommends that items be kept to a mini-
mum and has been very successful with
instruments that contain approximately
fifty items.182

8. Although some ecosystem studies were too
broad in scope, most studies focused only
on those areas that 1) could be changed,
2) were within the authority of those on
the planning team to change, and 3) needed
change (attempts were made to fecus pri-
marily on problematic areas).18

9. A11 ecosystem studies were conducted af-
ter students had enough time to "experience"
the environment in a broad fashion. Schuh
(in press) suggests that a minimum of eight
weeks transpire before the assessment stage
of the model is implemented.184

10. Ecosystem studies that have utilized the ER
format assessed a random sample of the en—
tire population under review. This has been
necessitated because of the volume of data
that is collected through a two-part instru-
ment and because of the open-ended nature of
ER questions.

11. Successful application of the ecosystem model
requires support both from the "top" of the
area to be studied and from the milieu inhabi-
tants. Model applications that have been un-
successful invariably did not secure support
from one or both of the above.

Current research seems to indicate that the ecosystem
approach to environmental change holds great promise for
college and university campuses. However, there is a need
for further applications and refinements of the model. Al-
though the stages in the design process appear to be sim-
ple and logical, the process of changing environments is
masked by complex human needs and desires.

The next chapter will focus on the methodology and

procedures used in the study.

Footnotes

Chapter Two

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

FOOTNOTES

CHAPTER TWO

K. Lewin, Field Theory and Social Science (New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1951), p. 243.

 

R. Moos and P. Insel, Issues tg Social Ecology: fig-
man Milieus (Palo Alto, California: National Press
Books, 1974), p. x.

 

 

Lewin, p. 12.
Ibid., p. 37.

R. E. Park and E. W. Burgess, The City (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1925).

 

R. Paris and H. Dunham, Mental Disorders i2 Urban
Areas (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939).

 

 

H. Murray, Etplorations ifl Personality (New York:
Oxford Press, 1938).

 

 

Ibid.

A. McFee, "The Relation of Students to Their Percep-
tion of a College Environment," Journal gt Educa-
tional Psychology: 52 (1961), pp. 25-29.

 

 

G. Stern, "Environments for Learning," The American
College: 5 Peychological and Social Interpretation
gt the Higher Learning, ed. R. N. Sanford (New York:
Wiley, 1962): PP. 690-730.

 

 

 

G. Stern, "Congruence and Dissonance in the Ecology
of College Students," Student Medicine, 8 (1960),
pp. 304-339.

 

G. Stern, "Student Values and Their Relationship to
the College Environment," Research gg College Stu-
dents, ed. H. T. Sprague (Boulder, Colorado: Western
Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1960),
p. 67-104.

 

G. Stern, "Character of the Intellectual Climate in
College Environments," Harvard Educational Review,
33 (1963), pp. 5-41.

 

115

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.
87.

116

J. Piaget, "Cognitive Development in Children: Piaget
Papers," Piaget Rediscovered: 5 Report 2:.EEE Egg-
ference gg Cognitive Studies and Curriculum Develgpé
ment, eds. R. E. Ripple and D. W. Rockcastle (Ithaca,
New York: School of Education, Cornell University,
March, 1964), pp. 7-20.

 

 

 

 

M. Sherif and H. Cantril, The Psychology gt Ego tg-
volvement (New York: Wiley, 1947).

 

 

R. Barker, "Ecology and Motivation," Nebraska S -
posium gg Motivation, ed. M. R. Jones (Lincoln,
Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1960),

pp. 1-49.

 

 

I. Chein, "The Environment as a Determinant of Be-
havior," Journal gt Social Psychology, 39 (1954),
pp. 115-127.

 

C. R. Pace and G. G. Stern, "An Approach to the
Measurement of Psychological Characteristics of Col—
lege Environments," Journal gt Educational Psychol-
ggy, 49 (1958): P. 227.

 

D. H. Funkenstein, "Failure to Graduate From Medical
School," Journal gt Medical Education, 37 (1962),
pp. 585-603.

 

L. A. Pervin and D. B. Rubin, "Student Dissatisfac-
tion with College and the College Dropout: A Trans-
actional Approach," Journal gt Social Peychologyr 72
(1967): pp. 285-295.

 

R. Moos, "Sources of Variance in Responses to Ques-
tionnaires and in Behavior," Journal gt Abnormal
PsycholQQY, 74 (1969): PP. 405-412.

 

P. Insel and R. Moos, "Psychological Environments -
Expanding the Scope of Human Ecology," American Psye
chologist, 29 (1974), p. 186.

 

R. Barker, Ecological Psychology: Concepts and
Methods for Studying the Environment gt Human te-
havior, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1968).

 

 

 

 

F. Heider, "On Perception, Event Structure and the
Psychological Environment, Selected Papers," Psycho-
logical Issues, 1 (1959).

 

Ibid.

Walsh, p. 10.

117
88. Walsh, p. 19.
89. Barker, p. 189.
90. R. Barker, "The Ecological Environment," Issues tg
Social Ecology: Human Milieus, eds. R. Moos and P.

Insel (Palo Alto, California: National Press Books,
1974), p. 255.

 

91. Walsh, p. 32.

92. Feldman and Newcomb, Impact gt College gg Students,
1969.

93. R. Clark and R. Trow, "Determinants of College Stu-
dent Subcultures," Mimeographed (Berkeley, Califor-
nia: Center for the Study of Higher Education, 1960).

94. R. Peterson, Technical Manual: College Student Ques-
tionnaire (Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Ser-
vice, Institutional Research Program for Higher Edu-
cation, 1965).

 

 

95. Walsh, p. 49.
96. Ibid., p. 51.
97. P. Heist and G. Yonge, Manual for the Omnibus Per-

sonality Inventoty (New York: The Psychological Cor-
poration, 1968).

 

 

98. J. L. Holland, The Psychology gt Vocational Choice:
A Theory gt PersonaIityTypes and Model Environments
(Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell, 1966).

 

 

 

 

99. Ibid.

100. J. L. Holland, Manual for the Vocational Preference
Inventory (Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psy-
chologists Press, 1965).

 

 

101. Ibid.

102. A. W. Astin and J. L. Holland, "The Environmental
Assessment Technique: A Way to Measure College En-
vironments," Journal gt Educational Peychologxr 52
(1961): pp. 308-316.

 

103. R. Linton, The Cultural Background gt Personality
(New York: Century, 1945).

 

 

 

104. Astin and Holland, p. 309.
105. Ibid., p. 310.

106.
107.

108.

109.
110.
111.
112.

113.

114.
115.
116.
117.

118.

119.
120.

121.

122.
123.
124.

125.

118
Walsh, p. 79-92.
Ibid., p. 97.

G. G. Stern, People tg Context (New York: Wiley,
1970).

Pace and Stern, pp. 269-277.
Ibid.

Ibid.

Walsh, pp. 146-477.

R. Moos, Evaluating Educational Environments (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1979), p. vii.

 

Insel and Moos, pp. 179-189.

Ibid., p. 18.

Ibid., pp. 18-19.

Ibid., p. 19.

L. A. Pervin, "Performance and Satisfaction as a

Function of Individual-Environmental Fit," Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 69 (1968), pp. 56-58.

 

Pervin and Rubin, pp. 285-295.
Pervin, pp. 56-68.

C. Argyris, "The Incompleteness of Social-Psychologi-
cal Theory: Examples from Small Group, Cognitive Con-
sistency, and Attribution Research," American Psy-
chologist, 24 (1969), PP. 893-908.

 

 

Pervin, pp. 56-68.
Pervin, pp. 285-295.
Barker, pp. 32-171.

R. Pace, CUES: College and University Scales (Prince-
ton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service, 1963).

 

 

126.

127.

128.

129.

130.
131.
132.

133.

134.

135.

136.

137.
138.
139.
140.

141.

119

W. H. Duvall, "Student—Staff Evaluations of Resi-
dence Hall Environment," Journal gt College Student
Personnel, 10 (1969), P. 52.

 

 

William G. Miller and James Moore, Measuring Student
Perceptions gt e Residence Hall Environment (Southern
Illinois University, July, 1973).

 

 

 

Ibid., p. 2.

A. DeYoung, R. Moos, B. Dort and M. Smail, "Expec-
tations, Perceptions and Change in University Resi-
dence Climates: Two Case Studies," Journal gt College
and University Student Housing, 2 (1972), p. 4.

 

 

Ibid.
Ibid., p. 5.

Astin and Holland, pp. 308-316.
Sue Hyne, Institutional Assessment tg Outreach Coun-
seling: 5 Comparison gt Two Techniques, Unpublished
Masters Thesis (Colorado State University, June,
1973).

 

 

 

 

A. Astin, Manual for the Inventory gt College Activi-
ties (Minneapolis: National Computer Systems, 1971).

 

 

J. Centra, "The College Environment Revisited: Cur-
rent Descriptions and a Comparison of Three Methods
of Assessment," College Entrance Examination Board
Research and Development Reports, RDR-70-71, No. 1
(Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service,
1970). -

 

 

 

R. Moos and M. Gerst, "The Social Ecology of Univer-
sity Student Residences," Issues 12 Social Ecology:
Human Milieus (Palo Alto, California: National Press
Books, 1974) p. 441.

 

 

Van der Ryn and Silverstein, p. 7.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid., p. 88

J. Menne, "Techniques for Evaluating the College En-

vironment," Journal gt Educational Measurement, 4
(1967) pp. 219-222.

 

142.
143.
144.

145.

146.

147.

148.

149.

150.

151.

152.

153.

154.

155.

156.

157.

120
Ibid.
Insel and Moos, p. 187.
Ibid.
D. Daher, J. Corazzini and R. McKinnon, "An Environ-

mental Redesign Program for Residence Halls," Journal
{gt College Student Personnel, 18 (1977), p. 11.

 

Ibid.

Ibid., pp. 112-114.

Aulepp and Delworth, p. vii.

Ibid, p. ix.

J. Banning and L. Kaiser, "An Ecological Perspective

and Model for Campus Design," Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 52 (1974), pp. 372-374.

 

J. Corazzini and S. Wilson, "Students, the Environment
and Their Interaction: Assessing Student Needs and
Planning for Change," Journal gt the National Asso-
ciation for Women Deans, Administrators, and Coun—
selors, 40 (1977) pp. 68-72.

 

 

 

J. Corazzini, S. Wilson and L. Huebner, The Environ-
mental Satisfaction Questionnaire (Fort Collins,
Colorado: Rocky Mountain Behavioral Science Insti-
tute, 1976).

 

 

 

Corazzini and Wilson, P. 72.

R. Harris, K. Hodgson and R. Riley, EcoSystem 527
port 5: Student Qpinion Survey (Community College of
Denver, Red Rock Campus, July, 1976), p. l.

 

 

This quote was taken from a questionnaire that was
completed by the coordinator of the planning team
for the Ecosystem Study conducted at the Community
College of Denver, Red Rock Campus, September, 1979.

Ibid.

R. Svob, "Designing Campus Ecosystems," National ge-
sociation gt Student Personnel Administrators Jour-

ggt, 13-14 (1975/1977), p. 42, (Panel Presentations

reviewed by Ursula Delworth).

 

 

158.

159.

160.

161.

162.

163.

164.
165.

166.

167.

168.

169.

170.

171.

172.

173.

174.

121

Michael Ford, The Social Ecology gt Northern Colo-
rado Residence Halls (Unpublished Doctoral Disserta-
tion, University of Northern Colorado, 1975).

 

 

 

John Schuh and Milissa Allan, "Implementing the Eco-
system Model," Journal of College Student Personnel,

19 (March, 1978) pp. 115:122.

 

Ibid., p. 121.

John Schuh, "Implementing the Ecosystem Model: Phase
II," Journal of College and University Student Hous-

ing, R‘TIF7F-7F), pp. 6-8.
Ibid., p. 8.

 

John Schuh, "Assessment and Redesign in Residence
Halls," Applying the Ecosystem Model, ed. Lois
Huebner (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, in press).

 

Ibid.
Aulepp and Delworth, p. vii.

Stephen Paul and Weston Morrill, "Applying the Eco-
systems Perspective to the Ecosystems Perspective,"
Applying the Ecosystem Model, ed. Lois Huebner (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, in press).

 

Walsh, p. 188.

D. Blocher, "Toward an Ecology of Student Develop-
ment," Personnel and Guidance Journal, 52 (1974),
pp. 360-365.

 

U. Delworth, "Designing Campus Ecosystems," NASPA
Journal, 13-14 (1975): PP. 40-44.

R. Conyne, "Environmental Assessment: Mapping for
Counselor Action," Personnel and Guidance Journal,
54 (1975): PP. 150-155.

 

R. Conyne, "An Analysis of Student-Environment Mis-
matches," Journal of College Student Personnel, 19

(1978), pp. 46124637

 

J. Schuh, in press.

Corazzini and Wilson, 68-72.

PP-
J. Schuh and M. Allan, pp. 119-122.

175.

176.

177.

178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.

184.

122

L. Huebner, "Emergent Issues of Theory and Practice,"
Applying the Ecosystem Model, ed. L. Huebner (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, in press).

 

Paul and Morrill, in press.

0. V. Elliott, "Assessing Student Needs," Program-
ming and Activities tg College and Univers1ty Resi-
dence Halls, ed. J. Schuh (Princeton, N. J.: Associa-
tion of College and University Housing Officers,
1977).

 

 

 

 

Huebner, in press.

Corazzini and Wilson, p. 72.
Schuh, in press.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Paul and Morrill, in press.

Schuh, in press.

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

This ecosystem study was conducted at The University
of Iowa to determine the perception of selected residence
hall students about their living environment, and to re-
design problematic areas of the environment. Thus the
focus was on developing a methodology for making inten-
tional program changes.

Traditional research is aimed at the advancement of
scientific knowledge through hypotheses and theory testing.
As such there is little need for research of this nature
to be immediately useful or practical; however, there must
be a primary concern for making sure that any findings are
stated as accurately as possible, and that the exact re—
lationship between independent and dependent variables
is known.

On the other hand, evaluative research, the method-
ology used for this study, is aimed at identifying prob-
lem areas and making environmental improvements. The in-
terpretation of results will focus on immediate, practical
application. Oetting (1976) distinguishes evaluative re-
search from more traditional scientific inquiry with the

following statement:

123

124

Evaluative research has a different purpose

than traditional modes of scientific in-

quiry. It is aimed at collecting data that

will help in making decisions about programs.

The decisions often involve further evalua-

tion, but cannot simply be 'we must wait for

further research'. If the best estimate by

the evaluator is that the program works,

then further effort might be devoted to it,

including further evaluation; if not, then

staff times and effort are needed else-

where . . . The evaluator's responsibility

is to design the research so that it can be

used, and unless research can be included

without interference or excess cost, the

design must favor short-term, more imme-

diate, and practical benefits.185

Recognizing the difference between traditional modes
of scientific inquiry and evaluative research is not, how-
ever, a call for "quick and dirty" research. Oetting sug—
gests that, "We should still attempt to design and carry
out the best and cleanest research that we can do. It is
a plea that evaluators become less defensive about the
practical limitations that are inherent in applied work
and not restrict their efforts to those few situations
where completely adequate experimental designs are pos-
sible."186

Data that were derived from the study were used to
enhance the positive aspects of the residence hall en-
vironment and to redesign those areas that required change.
Although usable data was an important "outcome", the focus
of the study was on "process" - deve10ping a viable mecha-
nism for environmental change.

The sample population used for the study, the assess-

ment instrument used to measure student perceptions about

125
the residence halls environment, and the procedures uti-

lized in the ecosystem approach, are described in this

chapter.

SAMPLE

The study was conducted during the Fall Semester,
1979, in residence halls at The University of Iowa. The
total university enrollment was approximately 23,000 and
the residence hall population was approximately 5,500 at
the time of the study (see Table l).

The subjects for this study were a ten percent ran-
dom sample of students drawn by computer from each of the

ten different residence halls on campus.

TABLE 1

TOTAL NUMBER OF MEN AND WOMEN
IN SPECIFIC BUILDINGS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEN WOMEN TOTAL
BURGE 576 695 1,271
CURRIER 361 363 724
STANLEY O 563 563
HILLCREST 561 353 914
DAUM 230 242 472
QUADRANGLE 211 159 370
RIENOW 270 254 524
SOUTH QUADRANGLE 54 46 100
SLATER 254 269 523
WESTLAWN 37 38 75
TOTAL 2,554 2,982 5,536

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

126
The buildings in residence halls differ according to
the percentage of students housed from each class. Table

2 shows the percentage of students by classification in

specific buildings.

TABLE 2

PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS BY
CLASSIFICATION IN SPECIFIC BUILDINGS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FRESH SOPH JR SR PROF UNCLASS %
BURGE 86.94 6.99 4.45 .69 .54 .38 100
CURRIER 28.90 38.62 19.17 8.90 3.83 .55 100
STANLEY 72.59 16.91 7.47 1.07 1.96 - 100
HILLCREST 47.12 27.04 16.82 7.50 .98 .54 100
DAUM 41.42 33.89 19.04 4.82 .63 .21 100
QUADRANGLE 61.93 22.53 10.99 3.22 .81 .54 100
RIENOW 22.31 50.48 19.85 5.86 1.51 - 100
S. QUAD 29.00 21.00 25.00 22.00 3.00 - 100
SLATER 43.66 36.01 14.93 3.54 1.31 .56 100
iWESTLAWN 14.67 14.66 26.67 10.67 26.66 6.67 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ten percent of the above students from each building

were randomly drawn by computer and were subsequently con-

tacted by personal letter from the chairperson of the en-

vironmental assessment planning team to request their par-

ticipation in this study. Of these 545 students, 384 com-

pleted the survey instrument and mailed it back to the

housing assignment office. This produced a seventy

127

percent response rate from those who received the survey.

Percentages and numbers of respondents are presented by

building in Table 3.

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE
OF RESPONSES BY RESIDENCE HALL

TABLE 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NUMBER OF NUMBER PERCENTAGE

RESIDENTS OF OF

CONTACTED RETURNS RETURNS
BURGE 126 92 73
CURRIER 72 47 65
STANLEY 56 44 79
DAUM 47 36 77
HILLCREST 91 55 60
QUADRANGLE 37 23 62
SOUTH QUADRANGLE 10 8 80
RIENOW 52 30 58
SLATER 52 44 85
WESTLAWN 7 5 71
TOTAL 550 384 70

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because of the lack of proportional representation

from all demographic categories (e.g.

sex ,

class, length

of stay, ethnic group, and building) in the various resi-

dence halls, no attempt was made to stratify the sample by

buildings. Stratification was impractical because some

buildings were single sex facilities, some were coed,

while other buildings were filled predominantly with

128
freshmen or upperclass students. Significant differences
were also found in building size (ranging from Westlawn
with seventy-eight students to Burge with 1,300 students)
and room types (some buildings had predominantly triple
rooms, such as Burge and Daum, while other buildings had
exclusively double rooms, such as Rienow and Slater). The
residence halls were also divided geographically by the
Iowa River with Currier, Stanley, Burge and Daum on the
east campus and Hillcrest, Quadrangle, Rienow, Slater,
South Quadrangle and Westlawn on the west campus.

Although the west campus had the greatest number of
residence halls, both sides of the river had approximately
the same number of students. This was accounted for be—
cause the greatest number of triple rooms and the largest
residence hall were on the east campus.

It is this researcher's opinion that the ten percent
random sampling of residence hall students from each
building, and the seventy percent response to the survey
mitigated problems of data bias. However, caution should
be exercised when making comparisons among the demographic
categories considering the diversity and composition of
the different residence halls.

Nevertheless, it should be emphasized again that the
major purpose of the study was not the scientific collec—
tion of data for its own sake, but, the development and
testing of the ecological approach to system evaluation

and change. Therefore, the most relevant questions were

129
1) did this approach support immediate, real-life appli-
cation, and 2) did the methodology permit the collection
of data about the residence hall environment that were

usable and sufficient for making environmental changes?

IN S TRUMENTAT ION

The instrument used in the study was The University

 

_o_f_ Iowa Residence Halls Environmental Assessment Survey

 

(UIRHEAS), developed by the ecosystem planning team - a
panel of expert judges composed of faculty, residence hall
staff, students, and student service representatives at
The University of Iowa (see Appendix A for survey form).
Instrument development was supervised by consultants with
research skills from the offices of Evaluation and Examina-
tion Services and the University Counseling Center. The
director of the Counseling Center pioneered the deve10p-
ment of the ecosystem approach while employed by the
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. Re-
cent research utilizing this approach strongly recommended
the development of instruments that were tailored for the
specific environment(s) that was to be studied. Although
several standardized tests were available to assess resi-
dence hall environments, they often included items or ter—
minology that was occasionally unfamiliar to persons in
certain settings, and did not account for the specific
needs that might have been problematic in certain environ-

ments. It was essential to the ecosystem methodology

130

that only relevant questions were asked in the assess-
ment instrument that were sufficient for making environ-
mental changes.

Since it was strongly recommended that the assess-
ment instrument be tailored to the specific residence hall
environment(s), and since this was done by the planning
team as a part of the ecosystem approach, it is impor—
tant to describe this process.

The UIRHEAS is the product of a series of steps that
included 1) brainstorming sessions by the planning team
regarding the perceived problem areas in residence halls,
2) categorizing problem areas into environmental scales
for the instrument, 3) developing items-questions within
each subscale, 4) pilot testing and validating both cate-
gories and items, and 5) developing the instrument format.

The results from the first two brainstorming sessions
of the planning team yielded thirty-six identifiable prob-
lem areas (see Appendix B). A problem area was defined as
a kind of activity, such as programming, as opposed to in-
dividual activities or events. Before the fourth meeting
the planning team was divided into subgroups chaired by
the assistant directors of residence halls for each func-
tional area (Maintenance, Student Development Program and
Food Service). Each of the subgroups took their respec-
tive lists back to their constituents in order to validate
them. Two groups chose personal interviews as their

method of validation while one group chose a combination

131
of personal interviews and group meetings as their method
for validation. When the results were compiled the list
had been expanded to forty-seven identifiable problem
areas (see Appendix C). The subgroups reconvened in order
to 1) categorize problem areas into subgroups, 2) drOp
those problem areas that could not be changed, and 3)
prioritize the categories according to level of importance.
When the planning team met again seven categories were
selected for the study.

The subgroups were reconvened once again in order to
develop items within each category. Two subgroups were
given two categories each to develop. The third group was
given three categories. Some categories required several
items while others needed only a few. Once this task was
completed, the subgroups reviewed their categories and
items with the research consultant from the office of
Evaluation and Examination Services to ensure the face
validity of the instrument, and to secure assistance in
the development of the format and wording of the instru-
ment.

Because the resident assistants (RAs) on each floor
of the residence halls served as disseminators of the sur-
vey and facilitators for those responding to the survey,
they were selected as the pilot test group. Living on the
floor with the residents also gave the RAs a unique op-
portunity to experience first hand many of the problems

students face in the residence hall environment.

132

Based on the results from the pilot test, final modi-
fications were made to the assessment instrument. Re-
sponses to the pilot test were not computer scored for
analysis because it was more important to review indivi-
dual reactions to the items, and to determine if the items
were prompting good ER responses. The latter was deter-
mined by comparing the ER responses to their parent items
on the instrument. The length of the instrument was de-
signed so that it would not take over forty-five minutes
to complete. This was verified during the pilot tests
with the resident assistants.

The final instrument, as constructed by the planning
team, had two parts. Part I was composed of seven en-
vironmental scales that contained ninety-two items. Resi-
dents were asked to respond to each item on a five point
Likert Scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly
disagree". This portion of the survey was constructed to
measure "how" students perceive certain aspects of the
residence hall environment. The seven scales measured by
the UIRHEAS were:

1. Physical environment — perceptions of

facilities and other tangibles and
their arrangement throughout the resi-
dence halls.

2. Regulatory environment - how students

perceived policies, rules and proce-
dures that govern their lives while

living in residence halls.

3. Programming environment - how students
perceived programs that addressed

133

their developmental needs including so-
cial, recreation, cultural and educa-
tional needs.

4. Security environment - the degree to
which students felt safe from external
and/or internal intrusions into their
living areas.

5. Food environment - the degree to which
students perceived their nutritional,
personal tastes and scheduling needs
being accommodated for by food services.

6. Intellectual/Academic environment - the
perceived emphasis on academic success,
combining living and learning with the
pursuit of ideas and educational acti-
vities.

7. Interpersonal Relations and Responsi-
bility environment - how students
interacted socially and personally in
a given residence hall.

Part II of the instrument was different from most
standardized survey instruments in that it was designed
specifically to yeild data that was sufficient to make en—
vironmental changes. Respondents were asked to go back
through the first part of the instrument and identify five
items that they felt strongly about, either positively or
negatively. In each case, the reSpondents were asked
"why" they had their particular perception and "what" they
would do to enhance that particular situation. The re-
sponses to the second part of the instrument were called
environmental referents (ERs) because they were either
qualitatively and/or quantitatively related to how respon-
dents perceived various aspects of the residence hall en-

vironment. Through this procedure, the researcher was

able to identify areas needing attention and change rather

134

than by using statistically significant perceptions alone.
One could easily have perceived the environment in a cer-
tain way, but without the ERs, specific environmental
changes would have been more difficult to identify.

It is the researcher's opinion that the series of
steps involved in the construction of the UIRHEAS (uti-
lizing a panel of expert judges), coupled with environ-
mental referents, provided a valid and reliable means of
l) assessing the residence hall environment, and 2) pro-
viding data sufficient for making decisions about environ-
mental changes. As Oetting suggests, evaluative research
is not concerned with disproving or proving a theory or
hypothesis, but whether the program (environment) should

be changed.187

PROCEDURE

The procedures utilized in the study included seven
stages: 1) obtaining sanction, 2) selecting a planning
team, 3) determining what to assess, 4) instrumentation,
5) distribution and collection of instrument, 6) data

analysis, and 7) redesign and evaluation.

Stage I - obtaining sanction

Approval for the study was sought from the vice
president of Student Services and dean of Academic Af-
fairs. By obtaining his sanction for the project, the

planning team was able to 1) get the authority of the

135
highest level administrative officer possible in support
of the project, 2) familiarize the vice president with
the nature and purpose of the study, 3) obtain Committee
D approval (Committee D is the group that approves all
research on human subjects at the university), and 4)
secure support to implement environmental changes that
were substantiated as needed from the results of the
study.

It was equally important to gain the approval of
residence hall staff and students who would be affected
by the process and results of the study. To accomplish
this objective, several staff meetings were held in
order to generate a high level of commitment and expec—
tation from the study. Staff were informed that they
would have a representative on the planning team to
provide input from their respective constituents. Thus,
they were assured that "outsiders" would not be uni-
laterally evaluating their programs and services, and
subsequently recommending changes. Students were also
assured that they would have representatives on the
planning team who would represent their point of view.

A series of articles appeared in the Residence
Services newsletter, the residence hall student govern-
ment newspaper, the local newspaper, and the university
newspaper notifying the various communities that a

major environmental study was underway that was designed

136

to improve the residence hall environment. As a result of
these efforts, a high level of interest and commitment was

obtained from staff and students.

Stage II - selecting the planning team

The ecosystem model required that a planning team be
formed to conduct its processes. There were a number of
important and practical reasons for this, some of which
included the following:

1. Environments are perceived in different
ways by different people. Therefore, a
team approach provides representation
for various groups that are impacted by
the process.

2. The ecosystem design requires a collab-
orative effort to improve environmental
conditions by those who are in the en-
vironment and those responsible for its
maintenance.

3. Research designed and implemented by one
individual often lacks credibility
with members and decision makers in that
environment.

4. Few environments exist alone. As such,
a team effort can afford representa-
tion from major, interrelating environ—
ments.

5. The team approach allows the work load
to be distributed among team members.

The criteria used in the selection of team members
included 1) representation from the various areas of resi-
dence halls that might be subject to change, 2) selecting
individuals who were willing to make changes, 3) selecting
individuals who were enthusiastic and willing to see the

project through, and 4) selecting at least one person who

137
had research expertise in the areas of instrument develop—
ment and data analysis. Utilizing these criteria the fol-
lowing individuals were chosen for the planning team:
1. Director of Residence Services - Chairperson
2. Assistant Director for Maintenance
3. Assistant Director for Student Development
4. Assistant Director for Food Service
5. Two resident assistants - one from each
side of the river
6. Two head residents - one from each side
of the river
7. Two student government representatives
8. One faculty representative
9. Assistant Director of Evaluation and Examina-
tion Services
Each functional area of residence halls was represented on
the team (i.e., maintenance, student develOpment program
and food service). Live-in staff assigned responsibility
for the delivery of programs and services were represented
on the team (head residents and resident assistants), as
well as students who are impacted by the residence hall
environment. Research expertise on the team was provided
by the assistant director of Evaluation and Examination
Services and the director of the Counseling Center. The
faculty representative was chosen because of his partici-
pation on the Educational Program Committee for Residence
Halls and because he conducted a class in residence halls.
The first two meetings of the planning team were de-
signed to accomplish a number of objectives that in-
cluded l) acquainting team members with each other, 2)

providing a rationale for why the study was being con-

ducted and why the ecosystem approach was being utilized,

138

3) providing each member with a workbook on a selected re-
view of ecosystem literature, as well as operating guide—
lines and information for the planning team, 4) estab—
lishing a meeting time and place, and 5) an initial ex-
ploration of problem areas in residence halls.

It was agreed in advance that in order to keep a high
level of enthusiasm and participation by team members,
meetings would be kept to a minimum in terms of length and
frequency. Group meetings of the team were also enhanced
after the third session by the establishment of subgroups,
chaired by the assistant directors for their respective
functional areas of residence halls. Each subgroup was
given an assignment to complete before each meeting of the
planning team. After the third session, most of the work
was accomplished in subgroups. Team meetings after the
subgroups were formed were basically information sharing
sessions that led to further assignments to each subgroup.
The planning team met nine times (nine weeks) in order to
finalize the instrument that was used in the study. Sub-
group leaders were utilized extensively to answer ques-
tions for their team members and to resolve problems and/

or conflicts that arose.

Stage III - determining what to assess

The first task of the planning team was the genera-
tion of ideas on what to assess. Brainstorming sessions
were used in the first two meetings of the planning team

to identify "problem areas". An example of a problem is

139

"programming". Programming in this case is composed of a
number of activities. Other examples of problem areas in-
cluded facilities, services, bureaucracy and housekeeping.
Ground rules that were established to facilitate the ex-
change of ideas included the following:

1. All suggestions would be recorded as long
as they were not too broad or too narrow.

2. Problem areas had to fall within the au—
thority of the residence hall system.

3. The list of problem areas would be ex-
panded as far as possible.

4. Problem areas would be validated at a
later time.

5. Problem areas would not be raised for
the sake of curiosity. Each problem
area was to be raised under the assump-
tion the time and resources would be
allocated to resolve them.
6. Each team member had the right to suggest
a problem area regardless of where it
might exist in residence halls.
A list of forty-seven problem areas were identified by the
planning team after two team meetings and two subgroup
meetings. Each subgroup was then asked to validate the
problem areas by surveying their respective constituencies
and to combine common problem areas into categories.
Fourteen categories were identified by the planning team
and seven of these categories were chosen for the study.
Although these categories do not represent all problem

areas, it was essential that the team limit the scope of

the study to manageable limits (one academic year).

Stage IV - instrumentation
The section on instrumentation is included in the
first part of this chapter, in keeping with established

procedures for detailing the methodology employed.

Stage V - distribution and collection of instrument

A distribution and collection mechanism was developed
to ensure a high response rate to the survey. These steps
included 1) notifying the media about the ecosystem
study, 2) soliciting support from resident assistants (RAs)
at their staff meetings, 3) pilot testing the instrument
with the RAs, 4) requesting the RAs personally deliver the
instruments to selected residents on their respective
floors, 5) utilizing the RAs as facilitators for their
floor residents who might have difficulty filling out the
survey, and 6) sending a letter to the sample population a
few days before the study, requesting their support in
carefully filling out the survey.

Articles were published in the media notifying resi-
dents that an important study was under way to change the
residence hall environment, based on their input. Speci—
fic emphasis in these articles was placed on assuring stu-
dents that this was not just another survey; but, that en-
vironmental changes would be made during the second semes-
ter, based on their feedback.

Resident assistants were given detailed information

about the ecosystem study, and the role they would play.

140

141

Several opportunities were provided at their staff
meetings to clarify any questions or concerns they might
have about the study.

The RAs were asked to serve as the pilot test group
for the instrument. Based on their first-hand experience
with the survey during the pilot testing sessions, recom-
mendations for changes were solicited. The RAs also re-
ceived a letter from the chairperson of the planning team
requesting that they personally deliver the assessment
instrument to the selected residents on their respective
floors, and to serve as facilitators for those students
who might have questions about filling out the survey
(see Appendix D - letter requesting RA participation in
the study).

Students also received a letter from the chairperson
of the planning team stating that they had been chosen to
participate in the ecosystem study, and their responses
would be significant determinants of subsequent changes in
the residence hall program. The letter also informed stu-
dents that their RAs would personally deliver the instru-
ment to them within a week and that the results of the
survey would be kept strictly confidential (see Appendix
E - letter requesting student participation in the study).

The RAs delivered the surveys to the selected resi-
dents on their floors instructing them that they should
fill out the survey, without assistance from others (ex-

cept for clarification that the RA or head resident could

142
provide) at their earliest convenience and mail them back
to the Housing Assignment Office in the enclosed self-
addressed envelope.

The RAs and head residents played a central role in
the distribution and collection of the survey instruments.
Therefore, it was essential that they receive extensive
training and support from their supervisors and the

planning team.

Stage VI - statistical examination of data

The statistical examination of data was accomplished
in two parts. Initially, the raw data from each part of
the survey were scored. Following this process the data
were ready for analysis. Frequency distributions of the
ratings in Part I were calculated by computer utilizing
the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)188°
Cross tabulation of the different demographic categories
in the SPSS program provided the chi square statistic

that minimized chance differences between groups (.01

level).

Scoring. A Likert Scale was used to score the sub-
jects' responses to Part I of the survey. Subjects were
asked to respond to items in terms of their perceptions,
ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1).
Percentage scores were generated from these responses
within each item for the purpose of comparative analysis.

If an item did not apply to a respondent's experience

143
he/she was asked to mark (0). Thus, the six options
paralleling the numerical values were strongly agree, a-
gree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree, does not ap-
ply. Hence, any score for a given item above three (3)
reflects a positive perception and any score below three
(3) other than 0 reflects a negative perception (this is
the case for those items that are phrased positively; the
reverse is true for those items that are phrased nega—
tively).

Scoring the environmental referents (ERs) in Part II
of the survey was accomplished by taking an ER count by
hand (each ER response refers back to an item in Part I
of the survey). The ER item count entails a simple tally
of the number of ER responses recorded per item from Part

I of the survey. A tally chart might look like the fol-

 

 

lowing:
Total ER Count
Item Number of ER Responses
1 3
2 O
3 25
4 15
92

Data Analysis. Responses to each item in Part I of
the survey were recorded directly on the survey form. The
surveys were forwarded to the computer center where the re—

sults were keypunched onto data cards. A "distribution

144
count" of all responses to each item in the survey was re-
corded by demographic category. The numbers and percen-
tage of responses to each scale (strongly agree to strongly
disagree) will be reported in Chapter Four. The data were
also treated statistically in order to compute chi square
scores (.01 level of significance) that were used to mini-
mize chance differences between groups within each demo-
graphic category.

The open-ended responses (ERs) in Part II of the sur-
vey required a different form of treatment before they
could be analyzed. After the responses were scored and
displayed in a tally chart, those items with a high ER
response rate were chosen for descriptive analysis. From
the sample illustrated below, items three and four are
good candidates for analysis:

Total ER Count

 

 

Item Number 9£_E3 Responses
1 l
2 0
3 20
4 23

Four raters from the planning team were trained by
the director of the Counsling Center to provide a de-
scriptive analysis of ERs. Once a high degree of inter-
rater reliability was achieved among the raters the ERs
were grouped according to environmental category for
analysis. Through this procedure the raters were able to

determine 1) the frequency count of ERs, 2) to which of

145
the seven parent environmental scales the ER response be-
longed, and 3) the category of ER responses. This proce-
dure was repeated for each category on the rating scale
(i.e., strongly agree or strongly disagree). The other
rating scales were omitted because the subjects were asked
to respond only to items they felt strongly about, either
positively or negatively.

Once the ER responses were grouped according to cate-
gory, each category was analyzed by "consensual response"
(i.e., agreement among a panel of trained raters), in
terms of why respondents had certain perceptions about a
given item, and what they recommended to improve the
situation (see Appendix F - guidelines for Part II ER

analysis).

Stage VII - environmental redesign and evaluation

A primary objective of this stage was to implement as
many environmental redesign projects as possible during
the current school year. The success of ecosystem studies,
in large measure, is dependent upon respondents, who live
in the environment, having the Opportunity to see imme-
diate environmental change as a result of their input.
Therefore, the focus of redesign activity may have been on
policy, programs, physical properties, food service or
others, but the primary concern at this stage was imme-
diate intervention.

After the data were analyzed in Stage VI the results

were given to each functional area head (i.e., assistant

146

directors for Maintenance, Food Service, and Student De-
velopment, and the director of Residence Halls) for re-
view. They shared the data with their respective staffs
and subgroups and then developed a set of recommendations
in order of priority that were forwarded to the planning
team. A "master" list of recommended environmental
changes were reviewed and ranked in order of priority by
the planning team. The following criteria were used to
rank-order the recommendations:

1. Part I data analysis

2. ER data analysis

3. Expense for environmental redesign

4. Timing (the magnitude of some recommen-

dations require scheduling over time)

5. Need for further study
Some recommendations were implemented during the second
semester while others were incorporated into existing
planning and budgeting systems.

Although the scope of this study was limited to ac-
tivity within the given academic year, ongoing evaluation
is an important part of the ecosystem process. However,
the evaluation of behavior, as a result of environmental
redesign, could not be conducted realistically until the
following year. Nevertheless, the evaluation stage com-
pleted the cycle for the ecosystem model as modified in

this study. The following depicts the seven procedural

stages that were utilized by the planning team:

147

Ecosystem Model

Stage I

Obtaining
Sanction

Stage I;

Develop
Planning
Team

4

 

Stage III“

Determining
What To
Assess

 

Stage IV

Developing
An Assessment
Instrument

Stage 2

Distribution
and Collection
of Instrument

Stage 2;

Data
Analysis

Stage VII

Redesign
and
Evaluation

L

 

 

Feed-
back
Loop

 

REVIEW OF PLANNING TEAM MEETINGS

After the planning team was selected at Stage II,

nine weekly meetings were conducted to carry out the eco-

system study. The following outline describes the acti-

vity of each weekly meeting:

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

148

First Team Meeting

A. Introduction of team members

B. Statement of purpose

C. Introduction to ecosystem methodology
D. Development of weekly meeting schedules

Second Team Meeting

A. Review workbooks that included literature on
ecosystem research

B. Initial brainstorming session on problem areas
in residence halls

Third Team Meeting

A. Training session on ecosystem methodology

B. Divide planning team into three subgroups (ac-
cording to functional area)

C. Continue brainstorming on problem areas, with-
in subgroups

Fourth Team Meeting

A. Review problem areas from each subgroup

B. Discussion about problem areas falling into
categories

C. Assign subgroups to validate problem areas

D. Brief discussion about developing the assess-
ment instrument

Fifth Team Meeting
A. Validate problem areas
B. Review categories

Sixth Team Meeting

A. Reduce the number of categories for study

B. Training session on item writing

C. Assign each subgroup two categoreis (one group
to have three because seven categories were
chosen)

Seventh Team Meeting

A. Share and expand items from each subgroup

B. Finalize category titles

C. Discussion session on instrument development -
with consultant

D. Task force assigned to work on rough instrument

Eighth Team Meeting

A. Review assessment instrument

B. Establish procedures to pilot test instrument
C. Identify pilot test group

Ninth Team Meeting - final modifications of the as-
sessment instrument based on the results of the
pilot test

149
x. Tenth Team Meeting - review and prioritize recom-

mendations from each functional area (this
meeting took place during the second semester)

SUMMARY

Approximately five hundred forty—five students
living in residence halls at The University of Iowa were
administered the UIRHEAS in order to determine their per-
ceptions of various aspects of the residence hall environ—
ment. These students were also asked to respond to why
they have these perceptions and what they recommend to im-
prove areas they felt strongly about. The response rate
to the survey was approximately seventy percent. Dif-
ferences among demographic categories were also measured.
The validity and reliability of the UIRHEAS instrument was
determined to be sufficient for making environmental
changes, particularly considering the "representative pro-
cess" whereby the instrument was developed for a specific
population and considering it was developed by a panel of
expert judges. The resulting data were statistically
analyzed by examining the perceptual differences by demo-
graphic category to the seven environmental scales, and by
statistically examining the environmental referents to de-
termine why students had certain perceptions and what they

recommended to improve the residence hall environment.

Footnotes

Chapter Three

185.

186.
187.

188.

FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER THREE
E. R. Oetting, "Evaluative Research and Orthodox

Science: Part I," Personnel and Guidance Journal,
56 (September, 1976) p. 11.

 

Ibid., page 12.
Ibid.

Norman Nie, C. Hadlai Hall, Jean G. Jenkins, Karin
Steibrenner and Dale H. Brent, Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw
Hill Book Company, 1975).

 

 

 

150

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

This chapter will present findings about the resi-
dence halls environment along seven environmental sub-
scales. These findings will be described in terms of 1)

overall results from Part I of The University gf Iowa

 

Residence Halls Environmental Assessment Survey, 2) se-

 

lected results as perceived by each demographic category,
3) significant overall environmental referents as re-
ported in Part II of the survey, 4) integration of Part I
and Part II results, and 5) environmental redesign. Spe-
cific attention will be given to similarities of response
to items with high frequency percentage scores in Part I
and selected environmental referents in Part II.

RESULTS OF THE UNIVERSITY 93: m

RESIDENCE HALLS ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT SURVEY, PART I

 

 

 

 

Overall Results

Based on a frequency count of responses and percen-
tage scores from Part I of the Environmental Assessment
Survey, some general observations can be made about the
residence halls environment (see Appendix G - Tabular data

on overall results).

151

Physical Environment. Residents appeared to be gen-
erally satisfied with their physical surroundings in resi-
dence halls. The great majority of students (in excess of
seventy-five percent) agreed that they have sufficient op-
portunity to make their rooms attractive and comfortable,
and that their rooms were adequately furnished to meet
their needs. When asked about the cleanliness of their
building, most (over eighty percent) responded that their
floors were kept clean and neat by the custodians and that
their buildings were generally kept clean and neat. How-
ever, three-fourths of all residents felt there were not
enough laundry facilities in their respective buildings.
Even though this perceived shortage of laundry facilities
was expressed, most were unwilling to pay twenty-five
cents more per wash to increase the number of laundry ma-
chines. The regulation of room temperature was also ex-
pressed as an important concern. Sixty-three percent of
all residents indicated that room temperatures were not
well regulated. The two cubic foot refrigerators that are
rented to students, on the other hand, were considered to
be adequate. Over sixty percent responded that the two
cubic foot refrigerators satisfactorily cared for their
needs. Table 4 reveals the frequency distribution of

selected items from the Overall Analysis of responses.

152

153

TABLE 4

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED
ITEMS FROM THE OVERALL ANALYSIS OF
RESPONSES - PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

 

Category Frequency Percent

 

ITEM #1 - Room Attractive and

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comfortable
Does Not Apply 1 0.3
Strongly Disagree 4 1.0
Disagree 25 6.5
Neutral 34 8.9
Agree 213 55.5
Strongly Agree 191 27.9
Total 3 4 100.0
ITEM #11 - Adequate Outdoor
Recreation
Does Not Apply 5 1.3
Strongly Disagree 23 6.0
Disagree 80 20.8
Neutral 67 17.4
Agree 160 41.7
Strongly Agree _49 12.8
Total 84 100.0
ITEM #18 - Room Not Ade-
quately Furnished
Does Not Apply - --
Strongly Disagree 61 15.9
Disagree 194 50.5
Neutral 56 14.6
Agree 57 14.8
Strongly Agree _16 4.2
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #23 - Floor Lounges
Well Furnished
Does Not Apply 19 4.9
Strongly Disagree 52 13.5
Disagree 86 22.4
Neutral 34 8.9
Agree 156 40.6
Strongly Agree 37 9.6

 

Total 384 100.0

 

154

Table 4 (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Frequency Percent
ITEM #29 - Floor Not Clean and
Neat by Custodians
Does Not Apply 1 0.3
Strongly Disagree 185 48.2
Disagree 159 41.4
Neutral 16 4.2
Agree 14 3.6
Strongly Agree __9 2.3
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #35 - Building Kept Clean
and Neat
Does Not Apply 2 0.5
Strongly Disagree 14 3.6
Disagree 41 10.7
Neutral 56 14.6
Agree 204 53.1
Strongly Agree _gz 17.4
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #41 - Not Enough Laundry
Facilities
Does Not Apply 7 1.8
Strongly Disagree 10 2.6
Disagree 50 13.0
Neutral 29 7.6
Agree 106 27.6
Strongly Agree 18; 47.4
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #48 - Pay 50 Cents for
Wash
Does Not Apply 8 2.1
Strongly Disagree 147 38.3
Disagree 134 34.9
Neutral 41 10.7
Agree 42 10.9
Strongly Agree _12 3.1
Total 38 100.0

 

 

155

Table 4 (cont'd)

 

Category Frequency Percent

 

ITEM #68 - Temperature Not
Well Regulated

 

 

Does Not Apply 2 0.5
Strongly Disagree 21 5.5
Disagree 80 20.8
Neutral 38 9.9
Agree 116 30.2
Strongly Agree 121 33.1
Total 384 100.0

ITEM #74 - Refrigerators

are Adequate
Does Not Apply 47 12.2
Strongly Disagree 25 6.5
Disagree 48 12.5
Neutral 30 7.8
Agree 171 44.5
Strongly Agree _63 16.4

 

Total 38 100.0

 

Regulatory Environment. Residents seemed to be fami-
liar with the Department of Residence Services student

Guidebook that contains rules and regulations regarding

 

student conduct. Over fifty-four percent of all respon-

dents indicated that they were familiar with the Guidebook

 

and the Standards gf Behavior. Most residents also per-

 

ceived their resident assistant as a consistent enforcer
of rules and regulations on their respective floors. When
asked if they knew the alcohol policy, over eighty-six
percent responded affirmatively, and over three-fourths a-
greed that they abide by the alcohol policy. Most re-
spondents (fifty-four percent) also indicated that the
current policy regulating the use of drugs in residence
halls is satisfactory. Although the removal of window
screens are a specific violation of residence hall policy,
students continued to do so at will. When asked if they
were aware that window screens were to remain in place at
all times, over eighty-two percent responded affirmatively.
Another major concern for staff is regulating room par-
ties. Students frequently complained about noise in ad-
jacent rooms. However, when asked if room parties should
be prohibited over sixty-nine percent disagreed. Most
students (over sixty-seven percent) also disagreed that
the atmosphere in their residence hall is one of disorder.

Respondents also felt strongly that bicycles should not

156

157

be prohibited in student rooms. Table 5 shows the fre-
quency distribution of selected items from the Overall

Analysis of responses.

158

TABLE 5

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED
ITEMS FROM THE OVERALL ANALYSIS OF

RESPONSES -

REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Frequency Percent
ITEM #2 - Familiar with
Guidebook

Does Not Apply 2 0.5

Strongly Disagree 21 5.5

Disagree 50 13.0

Neutral 102 26.6

Agree 168 43.8

Strongly Agree _41 10.7
Total 384 100.0

ITEM #12 - Aware of Stan-

dards of Behavior

Does Not Apply 8 2.1

Strongly Disagree 19 4.9

Disagree 69 18.0

Neutral 64 16.7

Agree 181 47.1

Strongly Agree _43 11.2
Total 384 100.0

ITEM #24 - RA Consistent

Enforcer

Does Not Apply 3 0.8

Strongly Disagree 30 7.8

Disagree 61 15.9

Neutral 87 22.7

Agree 153 39.8

Strongly Agree _59 13.0
Total 384 100.0

ITEM #31 - I Know Alco-

hol Policy

Does Not Apply 6 1.6

Strongly Disagree 7 1.8

Disagree 18 4.7

Neutral 20 5.2

Agree 223 58.1

Strongly Agree 119 28.6
Total 3 4 100.0

 

 

159

Table 5 (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Frequency Percent
ITEM #42 - I Abide by
Alcohol Policy
Does Not Apply 16 4.2
Strongly Disagree 7 1.8
Disagree 27 7.0
Neutral 45 11.7
Agree 193 50.3
Strongly Agree _96 25.0
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #49 - Drug Policy
Satisfactory
Does Not Apply 28 7.3
Strongly Disagree 33 8.6 .
Disagree 49 12.8
Neutral 82 21.4
Agree 139 36.2
Strongly Agree _53 13.8
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #63 - Window Screens
in Place
Does Not Apply 7 1.8
Strongly Disagree 7 1.8
Disagree 30 7.8
Neutral 22 5.7
Agree 212 55.2
Strongly Agree 106 27.6
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #80 - Rooms Not Used
for Parties
Does Not Apply 3 0.8
Strongly Disagree 115 29.9
Disagree 152 39.6
Neutral 66 17.2
Agree 31 8.1
Strongly Agree _11 4.4
Total 384 100.0

 

 

160

Table 5 (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

Category Frequency Percent
ITEM #85 - Atmosphere
is Disorder
Does Not Apply 5 1.3
Strongly Disagree 48 12.5
Disagree 211 54 9
Neutral 70 18.2
Agree 41 10.7
Strongly Agree __2 2.3
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #87 - Bicycles Should
be Prohibited
Does Not Apply 39 10.2
Strongly Disagree 115 29.9
Disagree 127 33.1
Neutral 63 16.4
Agree 27 7.0
Strongly Agree _13 3.4
Total 3 4 100.0

 

Programming Environment. Large amounts of money,
time, and effort are provided for social and recreational
programs in residence halls. Only twenty-three percent of
the respondents indicated that they do not participate in
these programs. Over fifty-four percent responded that
they do. Although a significant amount of misconduct in
residence halls is alcohol related, only twelve percent of
the respondents indicated that they would participate in
alcohol education programs. Most students felt, however,
that staff did a good job of helping new students feel at
home through their programming efforts. Only thirteen
percent of the respondents disagreed with this. Table 6
displays the frequency distribution of selected items from

the Overall Analysis of responses.

161

162

TABLE 6

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED
ITEMS FROM THE OVERALL ANALYSIS OF
RESPONSES - PROGRAMMING ENVIRONMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Frequency Percent
ITEM #13 - Pay $2 for
Additional Programs
Does Not Apply 2 0.5
Strongly Disagree 27 7.0
Disagree 70 18.2
Neutral 75 19.5
Agree 126 32.8
Strongly Agree _84 21.9
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #25 - Participate in A1-
cohol Education Program
Does Not Apply 26 6.8
Strongly Disagree 86 22.4
Disagree 116 30.2
Neutral 107 27.9
Agree 41 10.7
Strongly Agree __8 2.1
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #50 - Staff Helps
New Students
Does Not Apply 17' 4.4
Strongly Disagree 13 3.4
Disagree 38 9.9
Neutral 108 28.1
Agree 162 42.2
Strongly Agree _46 12.0
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #70 - No participation
in Soc-Rec Programs
Does Not Apply 4 1.0
Strongly Disagree 49 12.8
Disagree 159 41.4
Neutral 82 21.4
Agree 79 20.6
Strongly Agree _11 2.9
Total 384 100.0

 

 

Security Environment. Students overwhelmingly re—
sponded that they felt safe in residence halls. Over
seventy-eight percent agreed with this item. Respondents
also indicated that if they were robbed in their resi-
dence hall, they would report the incident to their resi-
dent assistant. Ninety-five percent responded affirma-
tively to this item. As a result, most (seventy-four
percent) disagreed with the need for locking the outside
entrances to their buildings at night and most (fifty-nine
percent) disagreed with the need to have their floor
locked at night with only floor residents having keys.
Table 7 reveals the frequency distribution of selected

items from the Overall Analysis of responses.

163

164

TABLE 7

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED
ITEMS FROM THE OVERALL ANALYSIS OF
RESPONSES - SECURITY ENVIRONMENT

 

Category Frequency Percent

 

ITEM #4 - Safe in
Residence Halls
Does Not Apply _ __

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree 7 1.8
Disagree 30 7.8
Neutral 45 11.7
Agree 200 52.1
Strongly Agree 102 26.6
Total 3S? 100.0
ITEM #9 - Report Robbery
to RA
Does Not Apply 2 0.5
Strongly Disagree 4 1.0
Disagree 10 2.6
Neutral 3 0.8
Agree 90 23.4
Strongly Agree 215 71.6
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #38 - Lock Outside En-
trances at Night
Does Not Apply ~ 5 1.3
Strongly Disagree 167 43.5
Disagree 119 31.0
Neutral 35 9.1
Agree 34 8.9
Strongly Agree _24 6.3
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #45 - Lock Floor
at Night
Does Not Apply 10 2.6
Strongly Disagree 127 33.1
Disagree 98 25.5
Neutral 51 13.3
Agree 55 14.3
Strongly Agree 43 11.2

Total 38 100.0

 

Food Environment. The overall impression of the Food
Service was favorable to over forty-five percent of the
respondents, while thirty percent disagreed with this per-
ception. Although opinions were split on this item more
than seventy percent of those responding indicated that
they were 1) satisfied with the serving hours, 2) confi-
dent that the Food Service employees were not discour-
teous, 3) satisfied with the selection of salads at lunch
and dinner, and 4) satisfied with the selection of des-
serts at lunch and dinner. Three-fourths of all respon-
dents disagreed that the dining atmosphere is uncomfor-
table. When asked if they would pay more for larger en-
trees at dinner, most (seventy-four percent) disagreed.
Also, fifty-five percent responded that they would not
like to have more meatless entrees at lunch and dinner.
Table 8 shows the frequency distribution of selected items

from the Overall Analysis of responses.

165

166

TABLE 8

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED
ITEMS FROM THE OVERALL ANALYSIS OF
RESPONSES - FOOD ENVIRONMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Frequency Percent
ITEM #10 - Satisfactory Selec-
tion of Entrees
Does Not Apply - --
Strongly Disagree 41 10.7
Disagree 70 18.2
Neutral 76 19.8
Agree 155 40.4
Strongly Agree _42 10.9
Total 84 100.0
ITEM #16 - Satisfactory
Serving Hours
Does Not Apply 2 0.5
Strongly Disagree 18 4.7
Disagree 42 10.9
Neutral 33 8.6
Agree 205 53.4
Strongly Agree _84 21.9
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #21 - Food Service
Discourteous
Does Not Apply 2 0.5
Strongly Disagree 82 21.4
Disagree 196 51.0
Neutral 58 15.1
Agree 37 9.6
Strongly Agree __9 2.3
Total 84 100.0
ITEM #27 - Adequate Selec-
tion of Salads
Does Not Apply 4 1.0
Strongly Disagree 10 2.6
Disagree 50 13.0
Neutral 34 8.9
Agree 206 53.6
Strongly Agree _80 20.8
Total 384 100.0

 

 

167

Table 8 (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Frequency Percent
ITEM #33 - Dining Atmosphere
Not Comfortable
Does Not Apply 3 0.8
Strongly Disagree 69 18.0
Disagree 214 55.7
Neutral 64 16.7
Agree 27 7.0
Strongly Agree __1 1.8
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #39 - Adequate Selection
of Desserts
Does Not Apply 7 1.8
Strongly Disagree 15 3.9
Disagree 57 14.8
Neutral 54 14.1
Agree 201 52.3
Strongly Agree _52 13.0
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #46 - Pay More for
Larger Entrees
Does Not Apply 5 1.3
Strongly Disagree 136 35.4
Disagree 148 38.5
Neutral 50 13.0
Agree 32 8.3
Strongly Agree _13 3.4
Total 3 4 100.0
ITEM #66 - More Meatless
Entrees
Does Not Apply 8 2.1
Strongly Disagree 94 24.5
Disagree 118 30.7
Neutral 106 27.6
Agree 38 9.9
Strongly Agree _20 5.2
Total 38 100.0

 

 

Intellectual/Academic Environment. Although resi-
dents were split in terms of their perceptions regarding
the existence of an intellectual climate in residence
halls, over sixty-three percent responded that there
should be. However, over seventy-two percent agreed that
as a student in residence halls, they felt as if they
were a member of the academic community. But, respon-
dents were split in terms of having faculty members visit
their place of residence for informal presentations or
social events. Also, there were as many residents who
felt as if they were able to study in their rooms as not.
However, most (fifty-four percent) agreed that there are
adequate facilities in which to study, other than their
rooms. Table 9 displays the frequency distribution of

selected items from the Overall Analysis of responses.

168

169

TABLE 9

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED
ITEMS FROM THE OVERALL ANALYSIS OF
RESPONSES - INTELLECTUAL/ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT

 

Category Frequency Percent

 

ITEM #15 - Should be an Intel-
lectual Climate

 

 

 

 

 

Does Not Apply 5 1.3
Strongly Disagree 8 2.1
Disagree 42 10.9
Neutral 87 22.7
Agree 162 42.2
Strongly Agree _89 20.8
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #37 - Member of Academic
Community
Does Not Apply 20 5.2
Strongly Disagree 4 1.0
Disagree 20 5.2
Neutral 81 21.1
Agree 196 51.0
Strongly Agree _63 16.4
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #51 - Cult and Educ Pro-
grams are Integral
Does Not Apply 55 14.3
Strongly Disagree 62 16.1
Disagree 125 32.6
Neutral 98 25.5
Agree 40 10.4
Strongly Agree __4 1.0
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #58 - Intellectual Curio-
sity Stimulated
Does Not Apply 15 3.9
Strongly Disagree 54 14.1
Disagree 128 33.3
Neutral 113 29.4
Agree 66 17.2
Strongly Agree 8 2.1

 

Total 84 100.0

 

170

Table 9 (cont'd)

 

Category Frequency Percent

 

ITEM #78 - Adequate Study

Facilities
Does Not Apply 4 1.0
Strongly Disagree 42 10.9
Disagree 78 20.3
Neutral 53 13.8
Agree 190 49.5
Strongly Agree 17 4.4

 

Total 384 100.0

 

Interpersonal Relations and Responsibility Environ-
ment. Over ninety—six percent of the respondents agreed
that individuals must compromise when living in a group
situation. Yet, most (over seventy-five percent) dis-
agreed that residents should share equally the cost for
vandalism that occurs on their floor, or that vending ser-
vice should be stopped after midnight in order to decrease
the incidence of vandalism. However, the majority of
those responding (fifty-seven percent) agreed that resi-
dents should be charged a refundable damage deposit in or-
der to keep the cost of the room contract down due to van—
dalism. Although most (fifty—seven percent) disagreed
that the environment in their residence hall encourages
anti-social acts, over seventy-nine percent agreed that
some peOple living in their hall deliberately damage or
deface the building. Noise in the hallway appeared to
be:a greater problem than noise from neighboring rooms,
according to sixty percent of the respondents. However,
most (eighty-two percent) felt as if it was part of their
responsibility as a resident of the building to ask stu-
dents to be quiet if they were bothering them. Also,
over ninety percent responded that when asked to quiet
down, they did. For the most part (over seventy percent)
residents agreed that it was easy to adjust to group

living on their respective floors and that the experience

171

172
was what they had expected. Table 10 reveals the fre-
quency distribution of selected items from the Overall

Analysis of responses.

173

TABLE 10

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED ITEMS FROM
THE OVERALL ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES - INTERPERSONAL
RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY ENVIRONMENT

 

Category Frequency Percent

 

ITEM #17 - Must Compromise
in Group Situation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does Not Apply 1 0.3
Strongly Disagree - --
Disagree 2 0.5
Neutral 10 2.6
Agree 136 35.4
Strongly Agree 235 61.2
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #34 - Report False
Alarms
Does Not Apply 3 0.8
Strongly Disagree 27 7.0
Disagree 56 14.6
Neutral 99 25.8
Agree 98 25.5
Strongly Agree lgl 26.3
Total 84 100.0
ITEM #40 - Deliberate Damage to
Bldg by Residents
Does Not Apply 11 2.9
Strongly Disagree 6 1.6
Disagree 24 6.3
Neutral 37 9.6
Agree 176 45.8
Strongly Agree ‘139 33.9
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #52 - Environment Encourages
Anti-Social Acts
Does Not Apply 16 4.2
Strongly Disagree 62 16.1
Disagree 158 41.1
Neutral 89 23.2
Agree 51 13.3
Strongly Agree .__§ 2.1

 

Total 84 100.0

 

174

Table 10 (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Frequency Percent
ITEM #54 - Share Cost of
Vandalism on Floors
Does Not Apply 4 1.0
Strongly Disagree 218 56.8
Disagree 115 29.9
Neutral 27 7.0
Agree 18 4.7
Strongly Agree __2 0.5
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #60 - Stop Vending
After Midnight
Does Not Apply 7 1.8
Strongly Disagree 157 40.9
Disagree 138 35.9
Neutral 30 7.8
Agree 40 10.4
Strongly Agree _12 3.1
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #61 - Refundable
Damage Deposit
Does Not Apply 6 1.6
Strongly Disagree 27 7.0
Disagrye 53 13.8
Neutral 80 20.8
Agree 170 44.3
Strongly Agree _48 12.5
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #73 - Noise in Hall-
way a Problem
Does Not Apply 3 0.8
Strongly Disagree 18 4.7
Disagree 65 16.9
Neutral 68 17.7
Agree 143 37.2
Strongly Agree _81 22.7
Total 3 4 100.0

 

 

175

Table 10 (cont'd)

 

Category Frequency Percent

 

ITEM #79 - Ask Students
to be Quiet

 

 

Does Not Apply 2 0.5
Strongly Disagree 7 1.8
Disagree 17 4.4
Neutral 41 10.7
Agree 216 56.3
Strongly Agree 191 26.3
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #83 - I Quiet Down
When Asked
Does Not Apply 27 7.0
Strongly Disagree - --
Disagree 2 0.5
Neutral 8 2.1
Agree 171 44.5
Strongly Agree 176 45.8

 

w
(0
.5
H
O
O
O

C

Total

 

Within Group Results

Although it was not the purpose of this study to de—
velop extensive amounts of data, an analysis of highly
selected results by building, class, sex, ethnic group,
and length of stay provides the reader with a more in
depth perspective of the various residence hall environ-
ments. The cross tabulations in this section reveal sig-
nificant differences between groups, within each category
at the chi square level of .01 (differences between groups
is subject to chance one time in one hundred). Based on
a frequency count of responses and percentage scores from
Part I of the survey, some specific observations can be
made about these differences. A summary of the signifi-
cant differences is presented in Appendix H; they are not
directly germane to this thesis. However, information
from this section was instrumental in the decision-making
regarding specific environmental interventions.

OVERALL RESULTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA

RESIDENCE HALLS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
SURVEY, PART II - ER ANALYSIS

 

 

Several items were selected from Part II of the Resi-

dence Halls Environmental Assessment Survey for descriptive

 

analysis. Table 11 shows the ER response rate to all
items in order of frequency with item forty-one - "Ade-
quate laundry facilities" - having the highest response

rate - one hundred eleven; and four items - numbers two,

176

177

twenty-six, fifty-two, and eighty-eight - "Familiar with

Guidebook", "Comfortable pursuing intellectual and cul-

 

tural activities", "Environment encourages anti-social
acts", and "Opportunity to provide input for policy
change" respectively - with no responses. Based on a fre-
quency count of ERS and the need to have a sufficient num-
ber of ER responses within each category for analysis
(twenty or more ERS) approximately one-third (thirty-one)
of the items were chosen for further study. All items

are grouped by environmental scale in Table 12. From
these selected ERS some general observations can be made
about why students had certain opinions about the various
residence hall environments and what they recommended to
improve them. The following sections provide a descrip-
tive analysis of selected items within each environmental

scale.

178

TABLE 11

FREQUENCY RESPONSE OF ERS FROM
PART II OF THE UIRHEAS

 

 

Number
Item of
Number Responses

41 - Not Enough Laundry Facilities . . . . . . 111
38 - Lock Outside Entrances at Night . . . . . . 82
68 - Temperature Not Well Regulated . . . . . . 80
54 - Share Cost of Vandalism on Floors . . . . . 70
45 - Lock Floor at Night . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
80 - Rooms Not Used for Parties . . . . . . . . . 52
60 - Stop Vending After Midnight . . . . . . . . 47
36 - I Do Not Support Alcohol Policy . . . . . . 44
23 - Floor Lounges Well Furnished . . . . . . . . 43
56 - Adequate Levels of Quiet . . . . . . . . . . 42
5 - Food Service Favorable . . . . . . . . . 41
72 - Students Do Not Watch Food . . . . . . . . . 39
46 - Pay More for Larger Entrees . . . . . . . . 36
48 - Pay 50 cents for Wash . . . . . . . . . . . 35
76 - Stricter Quiet Hours . . . . . . . . . . 33
29 - Floor Not Clean & Neat by Custodians . . . . 32
17 - Must Compromise in Group Situation . . . . . 28
40 - Deliberate Damage to Bldg by Residents . . . 28
73 - Noise in Hallway a Problem . . . . . . . . . 27
34 - Report False Alarms . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10 - Satisfactory Selection of Entrees . . . . . 23
66 - More Meatless Entrees . . . . . . . . . . . 23
67 - Dismiss for False Fire Alarms . . . . . . . 23
78 - Adequate Study Facilities . . . . . . . . . 23
6 - Satisfactory Recreational Facilities . . . . 22
13 - Pay $2 for Additional Programs . . . . . . . 22
24 - RA Consistent Enforcer . . . . . . . . . . 22
87 - Bicycles Should be Prohibited . . . . . . . 22
16 - Satisfactory Serving Hours . . . . . . . . . 20
53 - Give Up Unlimited Food Servings . . . . . . 20
59 — Able to be Alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9 - Report Robbery to RA . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
49 - Drug Policy Satisfactory . . . . . . . . . . 19
35 - Building Kept Clean and Neat . . . . . . . . 18
75 - Pay for Larger Refrigerator . . . . . . . . 18
14 - Is an Intellectual Climate . . . . . . . . . 17
21 - Food Service Discourteous . . . . . . . . . 16
89 - Strong Sense of Identity . . . . . . . . . . 16
l - Room Attractive and Comfortable . . . . . . 15
19 - Effective Discipline System . . . . . . . . 15
61 - Refundable Damage Deposit . . . . . . . . . 15
4 - Safe in Residence Halls . . . . . . . . . . 14
22 - No Respect for Others Property . . . . . . . l3

179

Table 11 (cont'd)

 

 

Number
Item of
Number Responses
27 - Adequate Selection of Salads . . . . . . . . 13
43 - Spirit on Floor Encourages Activities . . . 13
50 - Staff Helps New Students . . . . . . . . . . 13
55 - Prompt Room Repairs . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
71 - Choose to Study in Hall . . . . . . . . . . 12
ll - Adequate Outdoor Recreation . . . . . . . . 11
15 - Should be an Intellectual Climate . . . . . ll
65 - Able to Study in My Room . . . . . . . . . . 11
18 - Room Not Adequately Furnished . . . . . . . 10
33 - Dining Atmosphere Not Comfortable . . . . . 10
79 - Ask Students to be Quiet . . . . . . . . . . 10
25 - Participate in Alcohol Education Program . . 9
64 - Social & Recreational Needs Satisfied . . . 9
30 - Students Keep Floor Clean and Neat . . . . . 8
47 - Students Have Not Learned Respect . . . . . 8
69 - Discipline for Removal of Screens . . . . . 8
84 - Difficulty Finding Storage Space . . . . . . 8
28 - Person Not Concerned is Not Welcome . . . . 7
39 - Adequate Selection of Desserts . . . . . . . 7
81 - Need for Alcohol Education . . . . . . . . . 7
83 - I Quiet Down When Asked . . . . . . . . . . 7
91 - Easy to Adjust to Group Living . . . . . . . 7
57 - New Students Not Helped . . . . . . . . . . 6
31 - I Know Alcohol Policy . . . . . . . . . . . 5
42 - I Abide by Alcohol Policy . . . . . . . . . 5
62 - Not Enough Bicycle Racks . . . . . . . . . 5
74 - Refrigerators are Adequate . . . . . . . . . 5
85 - Atmosphere in Disorder . . . . . . . . . . . 5
90 - Work for Development of Policies . . . . . . 5
8 - More Cultural Programs . . . . . . . . . . . 4
51 - Cult and Educ Programs are Integral . . . . 4
58 - Intellectual Curiosity Stimulated . . . . . 4
82 - I Contribute to Noise . . . . . . . . . . . 4
20 - Little Attempt for Social Events . . . . . . 3
32 - Important Discussions Frequent . . . . . . . 3
44 - Faculty Visits Valuable . . . . . . . . . . 3
63 - Window Screens in Place . . . . . . . . . . 3
86 - Sense of Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . 3
92 - Experience Not Expected . . . . . . . . . . 3
37 - Member of Academic Community . . . . . . 2
3 - Allocate Programming Funds Effectively . . . l
7 - Familiar with Policy Handbook . . . . . . . 1
12 - Aware of Standards of Behavior . . . . . . . l
70 - No Participation in Soc-Rec Programs . . . . 1
77 - Help Organize Social Activities . . . . . . l

180

Table 11 (cont'd)

 

 

Number
Item of
Number Responses
2 - Familiar with Guidebook . . . . . . . . . . 0
26 - Pursue Intell and Cultural Activities . . . 0
52 - Environment Encourages Anti-Social Acts . . 0
88 - Input to Modify Policy . . . . . . . . . . . 0

181

TABLE 12

ER RESPONSE RATE
BY ENVIRONMENTAL SUBSCALE

 

 

 

Number
Item of
Number Responses
Physical Environment
1 - Room Attractive and Comfortable . . 15

6 - Satisfactory Recreational Facilities .
ll - Adequate Outdoor Recreation . . . . .
18 - Room Not Adequately Furnished . . . .
23 - Floor Lounges Well Furnished . . . . .
29 - Floor Not Clean & Neat by Custodians .
35 - Building Kept Clean and Neat . . . . .
41 - Not Enough Laundry Facilities .
48 - Pay 50 cents for Wash
55 - Prompt Room Repairs .

O O O O O I O O O O
U)
N

 

59 - Able to be Alone . . . . . . . . . . 20
62 - Enough Bicycle Racks . . . . . . . . . 5
68 - Temperature Not Well Regulated . . . . . . 80
74 - Refrigerators are Adequate . . . . . . . . . 5
75 - Pay for Larger Refrigerator . . . . . . . . 18
84 - Difficulty Finding Storage Space . . . . . . __8
Total - Physical Environment 4 6
RegulatopypEnvironment

2 - Familiar with Guidebook . . . . . . . . . . 0
7 - Familiar with Policy Handbook . . . . . . . 1
12 - Aware of Standards of Behavior . . . . . . . 1
l9 - Effective Discipline System . . . . . . . . 15
24 - RA Consistent Enforcer . . . . . . . . . . . 22
31 - I Know Alcohol Policy . . . . . . . . . . 5
36 - I Do Not Support Alcohol Policy . . . . . . 44
42 - I Abide by Alcohol Policy . . . . . . . . 5
49 - Drug Policy Satisfactory . . . . . . . . . . 19
56 - Adequate Levels of Quiet . . . . . . . . . . 42
63 - Window Screens in Place . . . . . . . . . . 3
69 - Discipline for Removal of Screens . . . . . 8
76 - Stricter Quiet Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
80 - Rooms Not Used for Parties . . . . . . . . . 52
85 - Atmosphere is Disorder . . . . . . . . . . 5
87 - Bicycles Should be Prohibited . . . . . . . 22
88 - Input to Modify Policy . . . . . . . . . . 0
90 — Work for Development of Policies . . . . . . __§

Total - Regulatory Environment 282

182

Table 12 (cont'd)

 

Number
Item of
Number Responses

 

Programming Environment

 

3 - Allocate Programming Funds Effectively . . . l
8 - More Cultural Programs . . . . . . . . . . . 4
13 - Pay $2 for Additional Programs . . . . . . . 22
20 - Little Attempt for Social Events . . . . . . 3
25 - Participate in Alcohol Education Program . . 9
43 - Spirit on Floor Encourages Activities . . . 13
50 - Staff Helps New Students . . . . . . . . . . 13
57 - New Students Not Helped . . . . . . . . . . 6
64 - Social and Recreational Needs Satisfied . . 9
70 - No Participation in Soc-Rec Programs . . . . 1
77 - Help Organize Social Activities . . . . . . l
81 - Need for Alcohol Education . . . . . . . . . __1
Total - Programming Environment 89

Securitnynvironment

 

4 - Safe in Residence Halls . . . . . . . . . . 14

9 - Report Robbery to RA . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

38 - Lock Outside Entrances at Night . . . . . . 82
45 - Lock Floor at Night . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Total - Security Environment 72

Food Environment

 

5 - Food Service Favorable . . . . . . . . . . . 41
10 - Satisfactory Selection of Entrees . . . . . 23
16 - Satisfactory Serving Hours . . . . . . . . . 20
21 — Food Service Discourteous . . . . . . . . . 16

27 - Adequate Selection of Salads . . . . . . . . 13
33 - Dining Atmosphere Not Comfortable . . . . . 10
39 - Adequate Selection of Desserts . . . . . . . 7
46 - Pay More for Larger Entrees . .
53 - Give Up Unlimited Food Servings . . . . . . 20
66 - More Meatless Entrees . . . . . . . . . . . 23
72 - Students Do Not Watch Food . . . . . . . . . 39

Total - Food Environment 2 8

I
w
0‘

183

Table 12 (cont'd)

 

 

 

Number
Item of
Number Responses
Intellectual/Academic Environment
14 - Is an Intellectual Climate . . . . . . . 17
15 - Should be an Intellectual Climate . . . . ll

26 - Pursue Intell and Cultural Activities .
32 - Important Discussions Frequent . . . . .
37 - Member of Academic Community . . . . . .
44 - Faculty Visits Valuable . . . . . . . .
51 - Cult and Educ Programs are Integral . .
58 - Intellectual Curiosity Stimulated . . .
65 - Able to Study in my Room . . . . . . . . .
71 - Choose to Study in Hall . . . . . . . . .
78 - Adequate Study Facilities . . . . .
Total - Intellectual/Academic Env.

O O
\DNHH
oth-‘prwtowo

Interpersonal Relations and
Responsibility Environment

 

 

l7 - Must Compromise in Group Situation . . . . . 28
22 - No ReSpect for Others Property . . . . . . . 13
28 - Person Not Concerned is Not Welcome . . . . 7
30 - Students Keep Floor Clean and Neat . . . . . 8
34 - Report False Alarms . . . . . . . . . . . 24

40 - Deliberate Damage to Bldg by Residents . . . 28
47 - Students Have Not Learned Respect . . . . . 8
52 - Environment Encourages Anti-Social Acts . . 0
54 — Share Cost of Vandalism on Floors . . . . . 70
60 - Stop Vending After Midnight . . . . . . . . 47
61 - Refundable Damage Deposit . . . . . . . . . 15
67 - Dismiss for False Fire Alarms . . . . . . . 23
73 - Noise in Hallway a Problem . . . . . . . . . 27
79 — Ask Students to be Quiet . . . . . . . . . . 10
82 - I Contribute to Noise . . . . . . . . . . . 4
83 - I Quiet Down When Asked . . . . . . . . . . 7
86 - Sense of Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . 3
89 - Strong Sense of Identity . . . . . . . . . . 16
91 - Easy to Adjust to Group Living . . . . . . . 7
92 - Experience Not Expected . . . . . . . . . . __1_

Total - Interper. Rel. & Resp. Env. 348

Physical Environment

Forty-four percent of the items on the Physical En-
vironment Scale had an ER count of twenty or more. Table
13 shows an analysis of these environmental referents.
Item twenty-three - "Floor lounges in my building are fur-
nished well enough to meet my needs" - shows that most
residents who responded disagreed with this item. When
asked why they disagreed, eighteen indicated a need for
better lighting, eighteen indicated that the lounges were
unattractive and not well furnished, eight responded that
their floors did not have lounges, six indicated a need
for more desks and tables, and four said it was too cold
in the lounges. When asked how to improve this situation,
eighteen suggested improved lighting, eight asked for more
desks and tables, seven saw a need for better furniture,
five suggested a need for more lounge space, and four in-
dicated a need to regulate the temperature in the lounge
better.

Three residents agreed that the lounges were fur-
nished well enough. One indicated that the lounge space
is adequate, one indicated that the ovens and couches in
the lounges are nice, and one indicated that there were
many places to sit and study. No suggestions were made
regarding how to improve the situation.

Most residents agreed with item forty-one - "Not e-

nough laundry facilities". Eighty-six responded that

184

185

there were not enough washers and dryers and subsequently
they had to wait too long, twenty—one indicated that there
were not enough dryers, and twenty-two suggested a need to
repair laundry machines. When asked how to improve this
situation, seventy-six suggested that the Housing Depart-
ment provide more laundry facilities, twenty-five indi-
cated a need for more dryers, twenty-two responded that
the machines should be fixed, and five suggested a higher
charge to do laundry.

Three respondents indicated that laundry facilities
were sufficient. However, one suggested that peak hours
should be announced, and one suggested that dryers should
be fixed.

Almost all residents who responded to item sixty-
eight agreed that "Temperature control is not well regu—
lated in their rooms". Forty-five indicated that the tem-
perature is too hot, eighteen responded that the tempera-
ture is either too hot or too cold, and ten residents said
they could not regulate the room temperature. When asked
how to improve the situation, eighteen suggested turning
down the heat, thirty recommended individual room tem-
perature control, and twenty-six said fix the heating sys-
tem.

Only one person disagreed with item sixty-eight, in-
dicating that his/her room is regulated well. No sugges-

tions were made on how to improve the situation.

186

The majority of residents disagreed with item twenty-
nine - "The floor I live on is not generally kept clean
and neat by custodians". All twenty-seven respondents who
disagreed indicated that the custodians did a good job.

In order to improve the situation, eight residents said
keep it up, three suggested providing more rewards for
custodians, and one indicated a need for more custodial
training. A few residents, however, agreed with this
item. Four responded that the floors were usually dirty,
especially the showers, and one said that floors were
dirty on weekends. Two residents suggested cleaning the
showers better in order to improve this situation, two
suggested hiring more staff, and two indicated a need for
better custodial supervision.

Item six - "There are satisfactory recreational faci-
lities within my residence hall" - revealed that most re-
spondents disagreed. Ten indicated that there were not
enough recreational facilities, and nine said there were
no facilities at all. Ten residents suggested adding more
equipment to improve the situation, eight preferred to add
more game rooms, while five suggested building more re-
creation rooms.

Only one resident said that there were satisfactory
recreational facilities, however, this person recommended
Opening the gameroom at 12:00 noon. One person was neu-

tral on this item.

l.

187

TABLE 13

ER ANALYSIS OF THE
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT SUBSCALE

Item #6 - There are satisfactory recreational facil—
ities within my residence hall.

Agree
Why Category 1

What Category 1

Disagree
Why Category 1

What Category

LUMP N

Item #23 - Floor

Agree

Why Category 1
2
3

What Category

Disagree

 

Why Category

What Category

UlnwaH U19 DJ l\)|'--I

# responses

 

Satisfactory recreational 1
facilities

Open game room at 12:00 noon 1

Not enough recreational 10
facilities

No facilities 9

Add more equipment 10

Add game room 8

Build more rec rooms 5

lounges in my building are furnished
well enough to meet my needs.

Lounge space adequate
Ovens and couches nice
Many places to sit & study

No responses

Need better lighting
Lounge unattractive and
not enough furniture
My floor doesn't have a

lounge
Need more desks/tables
Too cold

Improve lighting

More desks/tables for study
Get better furniture
Develop more lounge space
Regulate temperature better

# responses

 

1
l
1

18
18

oo

nmqoooo ubm

188

Table 13 (cont'd)

3. Item #29 - The floor I live on is not generally kept
clean and neat by the custodians.

# responses

 

Agree

Why Category 1 Floor usually dirty - 4
showers dirty

Custodians are lazy

Floor dirty on weekends

Clean showers better

More staff

Better supervision of
custodians

What Category

“NH LON
NNN l—‘H

Disagree
Why Category

\1

Does good job 2

Keep it up

Provide more rewards
Provide more training
Students are responsible
Clean showers more

More weekend help

What Category

O\Uhhtuhah‘ld
Hrahuaham

4. Item #41 - There are not enough laundry facilities to
meet my needs in my residence hall.

# responses

 

Agree
Why Category 1 Not enough washers & 86
dryers - have to wait
too long
2 Not enough dryers 22
3 Machines need repairs 22
What Category 1 Provide more facilities 76
2 Provide more dryers 25
3 Fix machines 22
4 Charge more 5

Disagree

Why Category Facilities are sufficient

Fix dryers

1

What Category 1 Announce peak hours

2
3 Be flexible

hawrd w

189

Table 13 (cont'd)

5. Item #48 - I would be willing to pay 50 cents per wash
to increase the number of washing machines
in my building.

# responses

 

Agree

Why Category 1 Provide more machines 1

What Category No responses

Disagree

Why Category 1 More machines/same cost 12
2 Rather wait than pay 11
3 Need dryers 7
4 Temperature adjustment 1

on machines

What Category 1 More dryers & more efficient 10
2 Repair machines 5
3 Increase to 30 or 40 cents 2

6. Item #59 - I am able to find space in my building to be
alone when I want to be.

# responses

 

Agree

Why Category 1 Able to find space 1

What Category No responses

Disagree

Why Category 1 No place to be alone 14
2 No lounge space 2
3 No place to study alone 2
4 No place to greet visi- l

tors alone

What Category 1 More small private rooms 6
2 More lounges 4
3 Private rooms - key checkout

190

Table 13 (cont'd)

7. Item #68 - Temperature control is not well regulated in

 

my room.
# responses
Agree
Why Category 1 Temperature too hot 45
2 Temperature either too 18
hot or too cold
3 Can't regulate temperature 10
4 Temperature too cold 2
What Category 1 Individual room temperature 30
control
2 Fix heating system 26
3 Turn down heat 18
Disagree
Why Category 1 Room temperature is regu- l
lated well

What Category No responses

Regulatory Environment

One-third of the items on the Regulatory Environment
Scale had an ER count of twenty or more. Table 14 shows
an analysis of these environmental referents.

Most residents who responded to item seventy-six - "I
would support a more strict enforcement of quiet hours" -
agreed. When asked why they agreed, six indicated that
they have been kept up by noise, five said that quiet
hours were not enforced, three indicated that it was hard
to study in their rooms, and three suggested that there
were no quiet hours. Eleven respondents suggested en-
forcing quiet hours in order to improve the situation, and
six indicated a desire for more severe penalties for noise
offenders. A few residents disagreed with this item. Two
indicated that it was just a matter of being considerate
and two suggested that students should study in the li-
brary and that rooms should be a more social place. Three
residents indicated that the situation could improve if
people were understanding.

Most residents who responded to item twenty-four — "My
RA consistently enforces rules and regulations on my
floor" - disagreed. Twelve responded that the RA did not
enforce quiet hours, three said that the RA played favor-
ites, anxi three indicated that the RA was not around very

much. Eight residents suggested making the RA enforce

191

192

quiet hours as a means of improving this situation. Four
residents said get new RAS and two indicated that staff
should be more strict in the selection of RAS.

Nine residents, however, agreed that their RA was a
consistent enforcer of rules and regulations. Three in-
dicated that the RA was too strict. In order to improve
this situation, three residents suggested that the RAS
loosen up, and two felt that the RAS should work more
closely with students.

The majority of those responding to item eighty -
"Rooms should not be used for parties because of their
potential for disruption" - disagreed. When asked why
they disagreed, thirty-two responded that your room was
your home, ten said it was ok to have parties if they were
not disruptive, and nine said there was no place else to
go. Several suggestions were made to improve this situa-
tion. Eighteen said leave it as it is, ten suggested
punishing offenders, six indicated a need for less re-
strictions, and five felt that there should be more of an
emphasis on respect for others. Five persons, however, a-
greed that the rooms should not be used for parties be-
cause they were loud and disruptive. Three suggested
that parties should only be held in the party rooms, and
two felt a need for more strict enforcement as a means of
improving this situation.

Most residents agreed with item thirty-six - "I do not

support the alcohol policy". When asked why, twenty-four

193

indicated that the reason was because kegs were prohibited
in student rooms, ten said the designated areas were too
restrictive, four suggested that the policy was too
paternalistic, and one said that it prevented minors from
participating in social events where alcohol was served.
Most (twenty-five) felt this situation could be improved
if kegs were allowed. Eleven suggested opening up more
party areas and one suggested that staff should allow
under-age participation at social events where alcohol is
served.

Five residents disagreed with item thirty-six, indi-
cating that alcohol consumption was an imposition on
others. Two of these respondents suggested keeping al-
cohol in the recreation rooms and two felt a need to keep
enforcing the current policy.

Item fifty-six - "Appropriate levels of quiet are main-
tained on my floor" - revealed that most residents disa-
greed. Twelve residents indicated that there was too much
hallway noise, nine said that it was generally too noisy,
nine suggested a need for better staff enforcement, and
six felt that stereos were too loud. When asked what to
do to improve the situation, thirty indicated a need for
better staff enforcement and four suggested providing more
quiet hours.

Three residents agreed with item fifty-six because

they felt that their floor was quiet. One of these

194

residents recommended the elimination of stereos, and one
recommended better enforcement as ways of improving this
situation.

Most students disagreed with item eighty-seven - "Bi-
cycles should be prohibited in student rooms". Thirteen
respondents said that it was necessary to keep their
bikes in their rooms in order to keep them safe and dry,
four said that there was nothing wrong because it was
his/her room, and three indicated that it was ok if your
roommate agreed. Seven residents suggested that this
situation should be left alone, however, four felt that
more storage space should be provided.

Two residents said that bicycles should be prohibited
in student rooms because they clutter the room. They both

felt that safe storage would improve this situation.

195

TABLE 14

ER ANALYSIS OF
THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT SUBSCALE

1. Item #24 - My resident assistant (RA) consistently en-
forces rules and regulations on my floor.

Agree
Why Category 1 RA enforces well
2 RA too strict
What Category 1 Have RAS loosen up
2 Have RAs work more closely
with residents
3 Give RAS a raise
Disagree
Why Category 1 RA does not enforce quiet
hours
2 RA plays favorites
3 RA not around very much
What Category 1 Make RAS enforce quiet
hours
2 Get new RA
3 More strict in selec-

tion of RAS
4 Change quiet hours

# responses

 

NU) max

I"

12

(IOU)

Mob

1

Item #36 - I do not support the alcohol policy in resi-

dence halls.

Agree
Why Category 1 Kegs are prohibited
in rooms
2 Designated areas too
restrictive
3 Policy is paternalistic
4 Precludes minors from

social participation

What Category 1 Allow kegs
2 Open up more areas

3 Better enforcement
4 Allow underage partici-

pation

# responses

 

24
10

4
2

25
ll

196

Table 14 (cont'd)

2. Item #36 (cont'd)
# responses

 

Disagree
Why Category 1 Imposition on others
What Category 1 Keep in rec rooms

2 Keep enforcing it
3 Lock hallways

l—‘NN U1

3. Item #56 - As a rule, appropriate levels of quiet are
maintained on my floor such that I can study
and/or sleep without interruption.

# responses

 

Agree

Why Category 1 Floor is quiet 3

What Category 1 Eliminate stereos l
2 Better enforcement l

Disagree

Why Category 1 Too much hallway noise 12
2 Generally too noisy 9
3 Better staff enforcement 9
4 Stereos too loud 6
5 Neighbors too loud 3

What Category 1 Better staff enforcement 30
2 Provide quiet hours 4
4 Educate 1

4. Item #76 - I would support a more strict enforcement of
quiet hours on my floor.

# responses

 

Agree

Why Category 1 I've been kept up by noise 6
2 Quiet hours not enforced 5
3 Hard to study in room 3
4 There are no quiet hours 3
5 We are here for educa- 3

tion - not to party

What Category 1 Enforce quiet hours 11

2 Make penalty harsher for 6

noise offenders
3 Stricter enforcement by RAS 4

4.

197

Table 14 (cont'd)

 

 

Item #76 (cont'd)
# responses
Disagree
Why Category 1 Study in library - room 2
should be a more social
place as long as it doesn't
get out of hand
2 It's just a matter of being 2
considerate
3 People need "loud times" 1
4 We're old enough to be re- 1
sponsible
What Category 1 People should be under- 3
standing
2 Leave as is 1
Item #80 - Student rooms should pg; be used for parties
because of their potential for disruption.
# responses
Agree

Why Category 1 Parties loud and disruptive

 

What Category 1 Party rooms only 3
2 More strict enforcement 2

Disagree

Why Category 1 Room is your home 32
2 Ok if not disruptive 10
3 No place else to go 9

What Category 1 Leave as is 18
2 Punish offenders 10
3 Less restrictions 6
4 Emphasize respect for others 5

Item #87 - Bicycles should be prohibited in student

rooms.
# responses

Agree

Why Category 1 Clutters room

What Category 1 Provide safe storage 2

Disagree

Why Category 1 Keep them safe and dry 13
2 Nothing wrong - it's my room 4
3 Ok if roommate agrees 3

What Category 1 Leave rule alone 7
2 Provide secure storage space 4

Programming Environment

Only one percent of the items on the Programming En-
vironment Scale had an ER count of twenty or more. Table
15 shows an analysis of this environmental referent. Most
respondents agreed with item thirteen - "I would be
willing to pay two dollars per semester for additional
programs in my residence hall". When asked why, seven
students responded it would make residence hall living
more enjoyable, five said that it would keep students from
having to depend on downtown and the bars, three suggested
that there was not enough programming, and three indi-
cated that it was too expensive downtown. Fourteen resi-
dents suggested having more programs to improve this situ-
ation, four specifically recommended more field trips, and
two felt there should be a group that sponsors programs.

A few students, however, disagreed with paying more
for programs. Four indicated that they pay enough al-
ready, and two suggested that there are currently enough
programs. These respondents felt that if some students

wanted more programs, they should pay for them.

198

1.

TABLE 15

ER ANALYSIS OF

THE PROGRAMMING ENVIRONMENT SUBSCALE

Item #13 - I would be willing to pay an additional
$2.00 per semester for additional programs
in my building, such as movies, field trips,
entertainment, etc.

Agree
Why Category

What Category

Disagree
Why Category

What Category

D)

ADJNH uh

bowl-J

#

res

ponses

 

It would make residence hall
living more enjoyable

It would keep students from
having to depend on down-
town and the bars

There is not enough pro-
gramming

Too expensive downtown

Provide more programs

Provide more field trips

Do better publicity

Survey more students for
their support

I pay enough already

There are enough programs
Improve building associa-
tion first

Let those who want more pay

Don't add on more costs

Provide incentive programs
for associations first

:5 Hl-‘bnb w

taraw

Security Environment

Fifty percent of the items on the Security Environ—
ment Scale had an ER count of twenty or more. Table 16
shows an analysis of these environmental referents.
Twenty-eight residents disagreed with item thirty—eight -
"I would be willing to support locking the outside en-
trances to my building at night". These students indi-
cated that it would be an inconvenience - too much of a
hassle. Thirteen respondents said that things were fine
and that they felt safe now, eleven suggested that friends
would not visit if the doors were locked, and seven felt
that it would be too much of a restriction on their free-
dom. When asked how to improve the situation, forty-one
persons said leave things as they were, five indicated a
need to unlock more doors under the present system, four
suggested a need for more security personnel at the doors,
and three suggested leaving the front doors unlocked and
encouraging people to lock doors to their rooms.

Seven residents who agreed with this item felt that
anyone could walk in at present, two said that it would
cut down on vandalism, and two indicated that the current
system creates fear. Five of those who agreed with this
item suggested locking the doors at night, two felt that
only the hallway doors should be locked, two residents
said that a night watch system should be implemented, and

two recommended issuing residents keys to the front door.

200

201

The response to item forty-five - "I would support
having my floor locked at night" - was more evenly divided
compared to other items. Of those who disagreed, thir-
teen said it was inconvenient, eight indicated that there
was no need to lock the floor, and seven suggested that it
would restrict visiting among friends. In order to improve
this situation, twenty-six of these residents suggested
not looking the doors and leaving things the way they
were.

Although fewer residents agreed with item forty-five,
eight felt it would provide more security, eight indi-
cated that it would help regulate traffic, three sug-
gested that it would cut down on vandalism, and two said
it would cut down on noise. When asked how to improve
this situation, eleven recommended locking the doors at
night and eight recommended locking the doors day and

night.

202

TABLE 16

ER ANALYSIS OF
THE SECURITY ENVIRONMENT SUBSCALE

1. Item #38 - I would support locking the outside en-
trances to my building at night, even if it
necessitates meeting my visitors at the
front door.

# responses

 

Agree
Why Category 1 "Anyone" can walk in at 7
present
2 Cut down on vandalism 2
3 Creates fear (safety) 2
What Category 1 Lock the doors at night 5
2 Lock hallway doors 2
3 Night watch 2
4 Issue residents keys to 2
front door
Disagree
Why Category 1 Inconvenient - hassle 28
2 Fine as is - I feel safe now 13
3 Friends wouldn't visit 11
4 Restricts freedom 7
What Category 1 Leave them as is 41
2 Unlock more doors with 5
present system
3 Have more security - night 4
watch or RAS at door
4 Leave front doors unlocked - 3

encourage people to lock
room doors

2. Item #45 - I would support having my floor locked at
night with only floor residents having keys.

# responses

 

Agree

Why Category 1 Provide more security 8
2 Regulate traffic from out- 8

siders on floor
3 Cut down on vandalism

4 Cut down on noise

Nu

203

Table 16 (cont'd)

2. Item #45 (cont'd)
# responses

 

Agree (cont'd)

What Category 1 Lock doors at night 11
2 Lock doors day and night 8
3 Lock building 1
4 Lock showers l
Disagree
Why Category 1 It's inconvenient 13
2 No need to lock floor 8
3 Restricts visiting among 7
friends
4 Against our rights
What Category 1 Don't lock doors - leave 26
as is
2 Let people come and go freely l
3 Use this method on re- 1

stricted floor only

Food Environment

Sixty—four percent of the items on the Food Environ-
ment Scale had an ER count of twenty or more. Table 17
shows an analysis of these environmental referents. Item
five - "My overall impression of the Food Service is fa-
vorable" - showed that most respondents disagreed. Nine-
teen felt that the food tasted bad, eight indicated that
there was not enough variety, and seven said that the food
was too cold. In order to improve this problem, nine
recommended better food selection, seven suggested better
food preparation, four indicated a need for better quality
food, and two said maintain prOper food temperature.

Some students agreed that they had a favorable im-
pression of Food Service. Five of these students indi-
cated food variety as their reason, others indicated that
they enjoyed the salad bar or that they could eat all they
wanted. These respondents also recommended keeping the
food at proper temperatures as a way of improving the Food
Service.

Most residents disagreed with item forty-six - "I
would be willing to pay more for larger entree portions at
dinner". Fourteen indicated that portions were large e-
nough already, ten suggested that they paid enough already,
two said it would contribute to food waste, and two re-
sponded why pay more for bad food. When asked what could

be done to improve the situation, eight said leave it as

204

205
it was, two suggested surveying student opinion, three
recommended serving larger portions and cutting back on
desserts, and two felt there was a need for better quality
food.

Five of those residents who agreed with item forty-
six indicated that they needed more food and two sug-
gested a need for more protein. All of these respondents
recommended more meat at dinner as a way of improving this
problem.

More residents disagreed with item ten - "There is a
satisfactory selection of entrees at each meal" - than a-
greed. Eight respondents indicated that there was not
enough variety in the menu, two felt that sometimes they
had two bad entrees or two good entrees, and two sug-
gested that there were not enough vegetarian meals. In
order to improve this situation, seven recommended greater
variety in the menu, two said have one popular and one
less popular entree at each meal, and two felt a need for
more vegetarian entrees.

All six residents who agreed with this item indicated
that there was plenty to choose from. Two felt that
things were fine the way they were, and one recommended
cutting down on salads. Three respondents were neutral
on this item.

Student opinion is divided on item seventy-two - "Food

waste occurs because students don't watch how much food

206

they take". Most disagreed with eighteen suggesting that
bad tasing food was the reason, six said the reason was
poor preparation, and one indicated that portion sizes
were too large. Thirteen residents suggested better food
preparation as a way to improve this situation, four in-
dicated a need for better quality food, three suggested
greater variety, and two recommended smaller portions.

Respondents were equally divided on item sixty-six -
"I would like to have more meatless entrees at lunch and
dinner". A11 ten residents who agreed with this item in-
dicated that they did not eat meat. Most recommended
serving more vegetarian entrees to improve this situation.

Those who disagreed with item sixty-six strongly sug-
gested that there was not enough meat at lunch and din-
ner. Four recommended serving more meat, two indicated
that things should remain the same, and one felt a need
for more diversified entrees.

Sixteen residents agreed with item fifty-three - "In
order to keep board rates to a minimum, I would be willing
to give up unlimited servings of some food items". Five
of these respondents agreed because there was too much
food waste, five said it was too expensive, and four in-
dicated a need to limit desserts. In order to improve
this situation, five recommended limiting desserts, three
suggested limiting servings, and three wanted portion

sizes limited.

207

Three of those respondents who disagreed with item
fifty-three suggested that unlimited desserts were a
strong point and one respondent indicated that he/she
liked to eat. Four of these residents recommended keeping
things the same.

Most residents disagreed with item sixteen - "The
present serving hours for meals are satisfactory." When
asked why, nine indicated that breakfast hours ended too
early, two said they missed dinner, and two felt the lines
were too long. Nine suggested extending the meal hours to
improve this situation, and five specifically recommended
extending breakfast hours.

All four residents who agreed with this item indi-
cated that serving hours are satisfactory. Most recom-

mended keeping the hours the same.

208
TABLE 17
ER ANALYSIS OF

THE FOOD ENVIRONMENT SUBSCALE

1. Item #5 - My overall impression of the Food Service is

 

favorable.
# responses
Agree
Why Category 1 They provide good variety 5
2 I really enjoy the salad bar 1
3 Food is good and nutritious 1
4 I get all I want 1
What Category 1 Less starchy food 1
2 Maintain Proper temperature 1
of food
3 Use larger glasses 1
Disagree
Why Category 1 Food tastes bad 19
2 Not enough variety 8
3 Food too cold 7
4 Food not sanitary - hair 2
What Category 1 Provide better selection 9
2 Prepare food better 7
3 Get better quality food 4
4 Maintain proper temperature 2

of food

2. Item #10 - There is satisfactory selection of entrees
at each meal.

# responses

 

Agree
Why Category 1 There is plenty to choose 6
from
What Category 1 It's fine the way it is 2
2 Cut down on salads l
Disagree
Why Category 1 Not enough variety - all the 8
same
2 Sometimes we have 2 bad en- 3

trees & 2 good entrees
3 Not enough vegetarian meals 2

209

Table 17 (cont'd)

2. Item #10 (cont'd)
# responses

 

Disagree (cont'd)

What Category 1 Provide greater variety 7
2 Have 1 popular and 1 less 2
popular entree at each meal

 

3 Provide more vegetarian en- 2
trees
3. Item #16 - The present serving hours for meals are
satisfactory.
# responses
Agree
Why Category 1 Serving hours are satis— 4
factory
What Category 1 Keep hours the same 3
2 Serve breakfast earlier 1
Disagree

Breakfast hours end too early
Miss dinner
Lines too long

Why Category 1
2
3
4 Classes don't coincide
1
2
3

Extend meal hours
Extend breakfast hours
Extend hours on weekends

What Category

NU‘IkO l—‘NNKD

4. Item #46 - I would be willing to pay more for larger
entree portions at dinner.

# responses

 

Agree

Why Category 1 Need more food 5
2 Need more protein 2

What Category 1 More meat at dinner

Disagree

Why Category 1 Portions are large enough 14
2 We pay enough already 10
3 Would contribute to food 2

waste

b

Why pay more for bad food 2

210

Table 17 (cont'd)

4. Item #46 (cont'd)
# responses

 

Disagree (cont'd)

What Category 1 Leave as is 8
2 Provide larger portions - 3
cut back on desserts
3 Survey student opinion 2
4 Better quality - hire real 2

cooks

5. Item #53 - In order to keep board rate increases at a
minimum I would be willing to give up un-
limited servings of some food items (i.e.,
lunch entrees and desserts).

# responses

 

Agree

Why Category 1 Too much waste 5
2 Too expensive 5
3 Limit desserts 4

What Category 1 Limit desserts 5
2 Limit servings 3
3 Limit portion sizes 3

Disagree

Why Category 1 Unlimited desserts strong 3

point

2 I like to eat 2
3 All don't eat same amount 1

What Category 1 Keep it the same 4
2 Extend policy to include 1

dinner

6. Item #66 - I would like to have more meatless entrees
offered at lunch and dinner.

# responses

 

Agree ,
Why Category 1 I don't eat meat 10
What Category 1 More vegetarian entrees 6

2 Offer one vegetarian entree 1
each meal
3 Improve vegetarian entrees 1

6.

Item #66 (cont'd)

Disagree
Why Category

What Category

211

Table 17 (cont'd)

1
2
1
2
3

Not enough meat
Dislike meatless entrees

More meat
Don't change
More diversified entrees

# responses

 

1

remap FJH

Item #72 - Food waste occurs in the dining rooms be-
cause students do not watch how much food
they take.

Agree
Why Category

What Category

Disagree
Why Category

What Category

hLaJNl-J WNH

Too much waste
Food waste is expensive
Bad food

Educate - signs, posters,
etc.

Stricter policy on serving
numbers

Smaller portions

Food tastes bad
Poor food preparation
Portions too large

Better food preparation
Better quality food
Greater variety

Smaller portions

# responses

 

\l NCDkO

H
MOO-ho.) Hmoo

Intellectual/Academic Environment

One percent of the items on the Intellectual/Academic
Environment Scale had an ER count of twenty or more.
Table 18 shows an analysis of this environmental referent.
Almost all respondents disagreed with item seventy-eight -
"In my residence hall there are adequate facilities in
which to study other than my room“. Fifteen indicated
that there were not enough places to study, three said
that the lounges were too noisy, and three indicated that
the lounges were locked after midnight. In order to im-
prove this situation, seven recommended providing more
study rooms, three expressedEIneed for better lighting in
the lounges, and three felt there was a need to enforce
quiet.

Only two respondents agreed with item seventy-eight.
One of these persons indicated that the tenth floor of
Stanley was an excellent place to study and one resident
said there were numerous study facilities in Daum. One
person recommended providing better lighting in the

lounges to improve this situation.

212

213

TABLE 18

ER ANALYSIS OF
THE INTELLECTUAL/ACADEMIC
ENVIRONMENT SUBSCALE

1. Item #78 - In my residence hall there are adequate
facilities in which to study, other than

 

my room.
# responses
Agree
Why Category 1 Tenth floor is an excel- 1
lent place to study (Stanley)
2 Numerous study facilities 1
in Daum
What Category 1 Provide better lighting 1
Disagree
Why Category 1 Not enough places to study 15
2 Lounges are too noisy 3
3 Don't lock lounges after 3
midnight
4 Poor lighting in lounges 2
What Category 1 Provide more study rooms 7
2 Provide better lighting 3
3 Enforce quiet 3
4 Leave lounges open 2

Interpersonal Relations and Responsibility Environment

Thirty-five percent of the items on the Interpersonal
Relations and Responsibility Environment Scale had an ER
count of twenty or more. Table 19 shows an analysis of
these environmental referents. The great majority of
residents disagreed with item fifty-four - "Residents
should share equally the cost of vandalism that occurs on
their floor". When asked why, fifty-one indicated that
they would not pay for damage done by others, nine said
that the vandals were not from their floor, and five sug-
gested that it was just unfair. In order to improve this
Situation, twenty-one recommended making the vandals pay,
fourteen suggested tighter security, six felt that staff
should encourage students to report vandalism done by
others, five indicated a need for more strict punishment
for vandals, and two recommended refundable damage de-
posits.

Only two residents agreed with item fifty-four, one
because vandals make costs go up, and one to repair dam-
ages. One of these respondents recommended refundable
damage deposits to improve the situation and the other
suggested making the vandals pay or do the repair.

Most residents disagreed with item sixty - "In order
to decrease vandalism to vending machines, we should stop
vending service at 12:00 midnight". Twenty-eight indi-

cated that vending service was needed after midnight, four

214

215
suggested that vandalism may have taken place before mid-
night, three felt that stopping vending service after mid-
night would cause more vandalism, and three said fix the
machines. When asked how to improve the situation, eleven
recommended maintaining the machines better, eleven said
leave things as they were, nine wanted the vending ma-
chines monitored, and five recommended moving the vending
machines to more visible locations.

Only three residents agreed with this item. One in-
dicated that the vending machines were broken in the
morning, one said people should keep food in their rooms,
and one suggested that eating after midnight was weird.
These respondents recommended either getting machines that
work or keep food in rooms to improve this situation.

All but one resident who responded to item seventeen
- "Individuals must compromise when living in a group situ-
ation" - agreed. Nine indicated that compromise was the
only way, six said that when people did not compromise,
conflict between roommates existed, and four felt that
without compromise residence halls would be crazy. When
asked how to improve the situation, four said it was up to
the individual to change, and four recommended that the
RAs should emphasize compromise.

Only one resident disagreed with item seventeen.

This person suggested that one should not always have to

compromise. No recommendations for improvement were made.

216

All of those who responded to item forty - "Some peo-
ple living here deliberately damage or deface this build-
ing" - agreed. Nineteen indicated that they had seen the
vandalism and six said it was because of no respect. When
asked how to improve the situation, ten recommended more
severe punishment, seven said make them pay, three felt a
need for tighter security, and two recommended charging
damage deposits.

Most residents who responded to item seventy-three -
"I feel that noise in the hallway is more of a problem
than noise from neighboring rooms" - agreed. Nineteen in-
dicated that corridor talk was disturbing. Eight resi-
dents suggested more strict enforcement of quiet hours,
three felt a need to educate students about noise, two
suggested keeping room doors shut, and two recommended no
loitering as ways of improving the problem of corridor
noise.

Four residents disagreed with item seventy-three.
Three of these residents indicated that noise from rooms
was more of a problem, and one felt that noise from other
floors was more of a problem. In order to improve this
situation, one recommended enforcing the quiet hour
policy, and one recommended separating the restricted and
unrestricted floors.

All but one of the respondents agreed with item
thirty-four - "If I saw someone pulling a false fire

alarm I would be willing to report him/her to the

217

residence hall staff". When asked why, fifteen responded
that false alarms disturbed them, and seven indicated that
false alarms were a serious offense. Thirteen of these
residents recommended increased punishment for offenders,
and three suggested it was the staff's obligation to edu—
cate students about the seriousness of false alarms.

One resident disagreed with item thirty-four, indi-
cating that it was not his job to turn in students. This
person recommended making the alarms less visible.

Most residents agreed with item sixty-seven - "Resi-
dents who are found guilty of pulling false fire alarms
should be dismissed from residence halls". Ten indicated
their reason for agreement was because false alarms were
annoying, four responded that there were too many false
alarms, three said kick them out, and two indicated that
it was against the law. When asked what to do to improve
this situation, eleven recommended kicking them out, six
suggested more strict punishment, two recommended offering
rewards for reporting offenders, and two suggested publi-
cizing those who were kicked out.

Two residents disagreed with item sixty—seven. One
indicated that students should not be dismissed for the
first offense, and one suggested that kicking a person out
may violate their personal freedom. In order to improve
this situation, one of these students recommended a warning
on the first offense, and the other resident cautioned a—

about creating a police state.

218

TABLE 19

ER ANALYSIS OF
THE INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS
AND RESPONSIBILITY ENVIRONMENT

1. Item #17 - Individuals must compromise when living in a
group situation.

Agree
Why Category

What Category

Disagree
Why Category

What Category

# responses

 

Compromise is the only way
When peOple don't conflict
between roommates exists

Without compromise, resi-
dence halls would be crazy

Not everyone is willing to
compromise

It's up to the individual
to change

Compromise should be empha-
sized by RAS

Students can live with whom
they want

Explain the rules and en-
force them

One should not always have
to compromise

No responses

9
6

4

Item #34 - If I saw someone pulling a false fire alarm
I would be willing to report him/her to the
residence hall staff.

Agree
Why Category

What Category

tth

False alarms disturb me
False alarms are serious
offenses

It's my obligation

False alarms cost money

Increase punishment for
offenders

Try to educate - obligation

Not a big problem

Use smoke detectors - not
pull stations

# responses

 

15
7

2
2
13
3

2
1

219

Table 19 (cont'd)

2. Item #34 (cont'd)
# responses

 

Disagree
Why Category 1 Not my job 1
What Category 1 Alarms less visible 1

3. Item #40 - Some people living here deliberately damage
or deface the building.

# responses

 

Agree

Why Category 1 Because I have seen the 19
vandalism
2 No respect
3 Some think it's cool
4 Some people are drunk or
high

wracx

What Category 1 More severe punishment 1
2 Make them pay

3 Tighter security

4

Damage deposits

NWQO

Disagree No responses

4. Item #54 - Residents should share equally the cost for
vandalism that occurs on their floor.

# responses

 

Agree
Why Category 1 Vandals make costs go up 1
2 To repair damage 1
What Category 1 Refundable damage deposit 1
2 Make vandals pay or do repair 1
Disagree
Why Category 1 Won't pay for damage done by 51
others
2 Vandals are not from their 9
floor
3 It's unfair 5
What Category 1 Make vandals pay 21
2 Tighter security 14
3 Encourage students to report 6
vandalism
4 More strict punishment for 5
vandals
5 Provide for refundable dam- 2

age deposits

220

Table 19 (cont'd)

5. Item #60 - In order to decrease the incidence of van-
dalism to vending machines we should stop
vending service after midnight.

# responses

 

Agree
Why Category 1 In the morning, the ma- 1
chines are broken
2 PeOple should keep food in 1
their rooms
3 After midnight eating is 1
weird
What Category 1 Keep food in rooms 1
2 Get machines that work 2
Disagree
Why Category 1 Needed after midnight 28
2 Very convenient 4
3 Vandalism may take place 4
before midnight
4 Fix machines 3
5 Would cause more vandalism 3
What Category 1 Maintain machines better 11
(repair)
2 Leave as is 11
3 Monitor (security checks) 9
4 Move the machines - more 5
visible

6. Item #67 - Residents who are found guilty of pulling
false fire alarms should be dismissed from
residence halls.

# responses

 

Agree
Why Category 1 False alarms are annoying 10
2 There are too many false 4
alarms
3 Kick them out 3
4 Because it's against the law 2
What Category 1 Kick them out 11
2 More strict punishment 6
3 Publicize those who are 2
kicked out
4 Offer reward for reporting 2

offenders

221

Table 19 (cont'd)

6. Item #67 (cont'd)
# responses

 

Disagree
Why Category 1 Don't dismiss for first of- 1
fense .
2 May violate personal freedom 1
What Category 1 Warning first offense - l
dismissal second offense
2 Don't create a police state 1

7. Item #73 - I feel that noise in the hallway is more of
a problem than noise from neighboring rooms.

# responses

 

Agree
Why Category 1 Corridor talk is disturbing 19
2 Noise carries from other rooms 1
3 Loud walking 1
What Category 1 More strict enforcement of 8
quiet hours
2 Educate them about noise 3
3 Make residents keep their 2
doors shut
4 No loitering 2
Disagree
Why Category 1 Noise from rooms more of 3
problem

2 Noise from other floors

Enforce policy
Separate restricted and
unrestricted floors

What Category

wra
HF‘ H

INTEGRATION OF PART I
AND PART II DATA ANALYSIS

Given that almost half the items in the Residence

 

Halls Environmental Assessment Survey showed a clear ten-

 

dency for residents to either agree or disagree in Part I,
and given that respondents showed a tendency to select
items as significant that they felt negatively about in
Part II of the survey, there were some focal items that
provide direction for subsequent environmental changes.
Sixty-eight percent of all items that had an ER response
rate of twenty or more in Part II of the survey were also
items that most residents either agreed with or disagreed
with in Part I. Therefore, by combining these two cri-
teria (i.e., ER response rate of twenty or more in Part II
and a fifty percent or better response rate to items in
Part I) one is able to focus on specific areas for en-
vironmental change that appear to be most significant to
residents - a "match".

Forty-three percent of the items on the Physical En-
vironment Scale showed a "match". These items included
1) "There are not enough laundry facilities to meet my
needs", 2) "I would be willing to pay 50 cents per wash
to increase the number of washing machines in my building",
and 3) "The floor I live on is generally kept clean and

neat by the custodians".

222

223

Fifty percent of the items on the Regulatory Environ-
ment Scale revealed a "match" that included 1) "My RA is a
consistent enforcer of rules and regulations on my floor",
2) "Student rooms should not be used for parties because
of their potential for disruption", and 3) "Bicycles should
be prohibited in student rooms".

The only item on the Programming Environment Scale
that showed a "match" was where residents indicated a
willingness to pay an additional two dollars per semester
for additional programs in their respective buildings.

Both of the items on the Security Environment Scale
showed a "match". These two items included 1) "I would
support locking the outside entrances at night", and 2) "I
would support having my floor locked at night".

Fifty-seven percent of the items on the Food Environ-
ment Scale indicated a "match". The items in this cate-
gory included 1) "I would be willing to pay more for
larger entree portions at dinner", 2) "There is a satis-
factory selection of entrees at each meal", 3) "I would
like to have more meatless entrees offered at lunch and
dinner", and 4) "The present serving hours for meals are
satisfactory".

Only one item on the Intellectual/Academic Environ-
ment Scale showed a "match". Here, residents indicated
that there were adequate places in their residence hall to

study, other than rooms.

224

On the Interpersonal Relations and Responsibility En-
vironment Scale one hundred percent of the items revealed
a "match". These items included 1) "Residents should
share equally the cost for vandalism that occurs on their
floor", 2) "In order to decrease the incidence of vandal~
ism to vending machines we should stop service after mid-
night", 3) "Individuals must compromise when living in a
group situation", 4) "Some people living here deliberately
damage or deface the building", 5) "I feel that noise in
the hallway is more of a problem than noise from neigh-
boring rooms", 6) "If I saw someone pulling a false fire
alarm, I would be willing to report them", and 7) "Resi-
dents who are found guilty of pulling false fire alarms
should be removed from residence halls".

Several items did not reveal a "match", however,
residents indicated strong feelings about them by either
recording a response rate in excess of fifty percent in
Part I or by recording a response rate of twenty or
greater in Part II, but not a combination of the two.

Even though, according to the above criteria for a "match"
these items are not as focal as others, they still de-
serve serious consideration in terms of developing recom-

mendations for environmental change.

ENVIRONMENTAL REDESIGN

One of the major objectives of ecosystem methodology
is to make intentional environmental improvements within a
reasonably short time period (usually one academic year).
As such, some of the redesign activity must begin imme-
diately. However, some recommended environmental changes
require more time and/or money, and therefore must be sche—
duled into medium or long range planning.

After the Part I data was scored and analyzed at the
beginning of the second semester, some very clear prob-
lems emerged. Two of these problem areas included the
lack of adequate laundry facilities and the noise level in
residence halls. Because the Part II data analysis re-
quired almost two months to complete (i.e., having to
train raters before data could be scored and analyzed) the
chairperson of the planning team, with the concurrence of
the team, immediately implemented changes in these two
areas. A thank you letter was sent to all residents who
received the survey, thanking them for their participa-
tion, and informing them that two redeSign projects were
being immediately implemented (see Appendix I). These
changes included the purchase and installation of more,
and better, laundry facilities in each living area, and
the development of "Quiet Lifestyle" floors as a housing
option for residents who experienced problems with noise.

This immediate response kept the momentum of the

225

226
environmental assessment moving while the Part II data was
being analyzed by two teams of raters. Also, some of the
preliminary results were shared with the media, who by
this time had a high interest in the project. The re-
maining environmental redesign projects were determined
through a procedure that is discussed below.

The redesign function was initiated by distributing
the analysis of data from both Parts I and II of the sur-
vey to the planning team. Instructions were given to each
subgroup leader that they were to analyze only those items
within the environmental scales that were assigned to them
during the first semester (see Appendix J). The subgroup
leaders were also instructed to share the results with
their respective staffs and to develop a list of recom-
mended environmental improvements in order of priority.
The combination of subgroup and staff input provided a
broad base of decision-making for these recommendations.

The planning team was reconvened after the recommen-
dations were formulated by each subgroup for the purpose
of sharing results and establishing a master list in order
of priority. Information was shared with the planning
team by the director of Housing to help guide their
decision-making efforts that included 1) goal and objec-
tive statements, 2) financial data, 3) current program im-
provement documents, and 4) documents regarding signifi-

cant accomplishments and problem areas in residence halls.

227

Through a process of consensual decision-making, the fol-

lowing recommendations were developed in order of priority

within each environmental subscale:

Physical Environment

 

Item #41 - There are not enough laundry facilities to meet

Item #23 -

Item #48 -

Item #68 -

Item # 6 -

my needs in my residence hall.

Recommendation 1 - Phase in new laundry facil—
ities that do not require
coins for operation.

 

Floor lounges in my building are furnished well
enough to meet my needs.

Recommendation 2 - Provide better lighting in
all of the floor lounges.

 

3 - Evaluate the type of fur-
niture needed for floor
lounges and phase in ac-
cordingly.

I would be willing to pay 50 cents per wash to
increase the number of washing machines in my
building.

Recommendation 4 - Charge 50 cents per wash
with the new laundry ma—
chines and provide free
drying.

 

Temperature control is not well regulated in my
room.

Recommendation 5 — Rework temperature zone
controls in order to pre-
vent overheating.

 

There are satisfactory recreational facilities
within my residence hall.

Recommendation 6 - Expand game room hours
(selected times of day and
night)

7 - Provide more recreation
equipment.

 

8 - Develop an exercise room
in the Clinton Street
residence halls.

228

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item #59 - I am able to find space in my building to be
alone when I want to be.

Recommendation 9 - Develop small private
rooms with key check-out
from the main desk or
stores.

Item #29 - The floor I live on is not generally kept clean
and neat by the custodians.

Recommendation None

Regulatory Environment

Item #56 - As a rule, appropriate levels of quiet are
maintained on my floor such that I can study
and/or sleep without interruption.
Recommendation 10 - Develop quiet lifestyle

housing option as a con-
tract provision.

Item #76 - I would support more strict enforcement of
quiet hours on my floor.

Recommendation 11 - Provide more strict and
consistent enforcement of
quiet hours.

Item #80 - Student rooms should not be used for parties
because of their potential for disruption.
Recommendation 12 - Do not change current

policy - allow parties.

13 - Emphasize responsibility
for guests.

14 - Develop more recreation
space for smaller size
groups.

15 - Provide better advertise-
ment of available recrea-
tion space.

Item #36 - I do not support the alcohol policy in resi-

dence halls.

Recommendation 16 - Clarify the language in
the existing alcohol
policy.

 

l7 - Open up more designated
areas where alcohol can be
consumed.

229

Item #24 - My resident assistant (RA) consistently en—
forces rules and regulations on my floor.

Recommendation 18 - Place greater emphasis on
enforcement of rules and
regulations during RA
training.

 

Item #87 - Bicycles should be prohibited in student rooms.

Recommendation 19 - Leave as is.

 

Programming Environment

 

Item #13 - I would be willing to pay an additional $2.00
per semester for additional programs in my
building, such as movies, field trips, enter-
tainment, etc.

Recommendation 20 - Charge an additional man-
datory fee of $2.00 per
semester to go to the
building associations for
floor and building pro-
gramming.

 

SecuritysEnvironment

 

Item #38 - I would support locking the outside entrances
to my building at night, even if it necessi-
tates meeting my visitors at the front door.

Recommendation 21 - Set up a night watch sta-
tion at a designated en-
trance to limit admission
to building residents and
their guests.

 

(or)

Recore the front doors to
each building such that
student room keys must be
used for entrance at
night.

Item #45 - I would support having my floor locked at night
with only floor residents having keys.

Recommendation 22 - Develop a contract housing
option where selected cor-
ridors are locked at night
and floor residents are
issued keys.

 

230

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Environment
Item #72 Food waste occurs in the dining rooms because
students do not watch how much food they take.

Recommendation 23 - Develop a food waste pro-
gram that will demon-
strate cost saving to stu-
dents as well as empha-
sizing good eating habits.

Item #53 In order to keep board rate increases at a
minimum, I would be willing to give up un-

limited servings of some food items (i.e.,

lunch entrees and desserts).

Recommendation 24 - Limit some dessert items
rather than entrees.

Item #50 My overall impression of Food Service is favor-
able.

Recommendation 25 - Have the manager from each
food service complex de-
velop newsletters to in—
crease communications with
residents.

Item #10 There is a satisfactory selection of entrees at
each meal.

Recommendation 26 - Inform residents about
menu rotation, new pro-
ducts, standards, poli-
cies and evaluation of
satisfaction levels.

Item #16 The present serving hours for meals are satis-
factory.

Recommendation 27 - Conduct a review of cur-
rent serving hours with
implications for modifi-
cation, especially break-
fast hours.

Item #66 I would like to have more meatless entrees of-

fered at lunch and dinner.

Recommendation 28 - Leave as is. Provide more

 

information through the
food service newsletters
about salad bars, meatless
entrees, and menu rotation.

Item #46 -

231

I would be willing to pay more for larger en-
tree portions at dinner.

Recommendation 29 - Leave as is.

 

Intellectual/Academic Environment

 

Item #78 -

In my residence hall there are adequate facil-
ities in which to study other than my room.

Recommendation 30 - Provide better lighting in

 

the floor lounges.

31 - Install study carrels in
the floor lounges.

32 - DevelOp a brochure on the
educational aspects of
residence halls including
information about study
areas in each of the
buildings.

Interpersonal Relations and Responsibility Environment

 

Item #40 -

Item #54 -

Item #67 -

 

Some people living here deliberately damage or
deface the building.

Recommendation 33 - Include a $50.00 refund-

 

able damage deposit as a
part of the residence hall
contract.

Residents should share equally the cost for
vandalism that occurs on their floor.

Recommendation 34 - Include a $50.00 refund-
able damage deposit as a
part of the residence hall
contract.

 

Residents who are found guilty of pulling false
fire alarms Should be dismissed from the resi-
dence halls.

Recommendation 35 - Suspend offenders.

 

36 - DevelOp an educational
program emphasizing the
seriousness of false
alarms.

232

Item #60 - In order to decrease the incidence of vandalism

to vending machines we should stOp vending ser-
vice after midnight.

Recommendation 37 - Do not stop vending ser-
vice after midnight. How-
ever, vending machines
that take constant abuse
should be considered for
removal.

 

38 - Post information about how
and where to get refunds
on each vending machine.
Also, state that the reve-
nue from the vending ma-
chines go to offset the
costs for students who
live in residence halls.

Item #73 - I feel that noise in the hallway is more of a

problem than noise from neighboring rooms.

Recommendation 39 - Set up a night watch sta-
tion at a designated en-
trance to limit admission
to building residents and
their guests.

(or)

 

Recore the front doors to
each building such that
student room keys must be
used for entrance at night.

Item #17 - Individuals must compromise when living in a

Item #34 -

group situation.

Recommendation 40 - Develop educational pro-
grams, and staff training
programs on the implica-
tions of group living.

 

If I saw someone pulling a false fire alarm, I
would be willing to report him/her to the resi-
dence hall staff.

Recommendation 41 - Develop a system of noti-
fication regarding what
happens to offenders,
coupled with more strict
enforcement.

 

233

From the above list, recommendation numbers one, two,
three, four, ten, sixteen, twenty-five, twenty-seven and
thirty-one were implemented immediately. The remaining
recommendations were incorporated into the departmental
Management by Objective Program for staged implementation
beginning summer session 1980. The results of this study
were also shared with the media in order to maximize the
visibility of the process and the results for those who
participated in the study, as well as for those who may
be impacted by resultant environmental changes.

The next chapter will provide a summary of findings,
discussion of results, recommendations for future re-
search, and a critique of this study, utilizing the eco-

system model.

CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

SUMMARY

The Need

There are environmental conditions in residence halls
which cause stress for students. A Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education publication entitled
"Quality of Educational Life, Priorities for Today" (WICHE,
1973) warns: "There are numerable mismatches between campus
environments and structural organization and needs and

189 In order to enhance the

desires of campus members".
quality of life in residence halls, the environment must
be designed in such a way that unproductive stress is
minimized. By matching student needs and desires with en-
vironments, matches would replace mismatches. Thus, the
residence hall environment would become more congruent
with its inhabitants, and subsequently, casualties would
decrease.

Traditionally, residence halls administrators have
responded to students who were not adjusting to their

residence hall environment by easing them out through dis—

ciplinary channels or by referring them to advisors who

234

235
would aid them in making an adjustment. Relatively lit-
tle attention has been given to the systematic adjustment
of residence halls environments to the needs of residents.
In short, students were adjusted, but rarely were their
environments.

The ecosystem method was developed in response to the
need to provide a mechanism for the reciprocal accommoda-
tion between the individual and his/her environment. The
emphasis of this methodology is on shaping properties of
the environment. Dysfunctional features are eliminated
and features that facilitate student growth and develop-
ment are enhanced.

For better or for worse, residence halls adminis-
trators are stuck with many existing environments because
of diminishing financial support, decreasing occupancies,
and limited new construction. The problem then is to de-
velOp environmental assessment mechanisms that are sensi-
tive to the needs of a changing student population.

This study assessed student perceptions of the resi-
dence halls environment, determined why residents said
they had these perceptions, determined what recommenda-
tions residents had for improving their living environment,
utilized student input making environmental improvements
and determined the effectiveness of the ecosystem model

for planned interventions in residence halls.

The Study

The target population for the study was students (ap-
proximately 5,500) who lived in residence halls at The
University of Iowa during the 1979-80 academic year. A
ten percent random sample of residents was drawn by com-
puter from the ten different residence halls on campus.

A planning team composed of residence halls students
and staff, faculty and student services representatives

developed The University 91 Iowa Residence Halls Environ-

 

 

mental Assessment Survsy (UIRHEAS) to operationalize the

 

study. The UIRHEAS is a two-part instrument. Part I con-
tains ninety-two items arranged on a five-point Likert
Scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly dis-
agree". Each item belongs within one of seven environmen-
tal subscales that included Physical, Regulatory, Pro-
gramming, Security, Food, Intellectual/Academic and Inter-
personal Relations and Responsibility.

In Part II of the survey residents were asked to
identify five items from Part I that were significant from
their experiences. Respondents were also asked to explain
why they had certain perceptions and what they recommended
to improve the situation. Part II responses are called en-
vironmental referents (ERS) because they refer either
quantitatively or qualitatively to items in Part I.

The surveys were personally delivered to each stu-

dent by their respective RAs. A self-addressed envelope

236

237
was enclosed so that each survey could be placed in the
campus mail upon completion. Seventy percent of the sam-
ple population responded to the survey.
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
was utilized to compute frequency distributions for Part
I data. ERS from Part II of the survey were analyzed by a

team of raters.

Background and Related Work

The review of literature showed little research in
terms of fitting environments to student needs and in-
terests. Much of the research focused on the individual
in an attempt to adjust him/her to the environment. As a
result, the causes of student dysfunction were perceived
to come from within.

There is now growing interest within postsecondary
education in the ecosystem approach that identifies ad-
justments institutions can make to facilitate student
growth and develOpment.190 A few colleges and universi-
ties have conducted macro-level studies where attempts
were made to improve the fit between students and the cam-
pus environment.

Schuh has been notably successful with four micro-
1evel studies that he conducted in residence halls, two at
Arizona State University (1976 and 1977) and two at Indiana

University (1978 and 1979).

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Effectiveness of the Model

In order to determine the effectiveness of the model,
one must ask the question, how well were the purposes of
the study achieved, and did the end-products (data gener-
ated from the study) significantly contribute to the de-
velopment of recommendations by the planning team? A re-
view of the seven stages of the model reveals that most
desired outcomes were achieved and that the research ques-
tions posed in the first chapter were answered.

Beginning at Stage I, obtaining sanction for this
study was accomplished both in terms of support from
within the department of Residence Services as well as from
the highest authority within the Student Services divi-
sion - the vice president for Student Services. These two
factors greatly facilitated the commitment time and re-
sources (monetary as well as people) that were essential
to the success of the study. Most significant, however,
was the fact that the chairperson of the planning team was
also the director of Residence Services.

Selecting a planning team in Stage II was complicated
by the large amount of interest that was expressed by
various individuals within the residence hall community.
The chairperson of the planning team selected members from
each functional area of the system, however many felt left

out. This problem had the potential for jeopardizing the

238

239

integrity of this study had it not been for the time that
was given to resolve these concerns. Future applications
of the model should give careful attention to this problem.
Individuals who are excluded from participation could re-
present a substantial barrier to the success of a study.
Nevertheless, this hurdle was successfully overcome with-
out diminishing the broad base of support for the study.
Stage III proved to be one of the most exciting parts
of the study. Team members enjoyed the brainstorming ses—
sions both in the subgroups and with the team as a whole.
Since individuals were not challenged on their ideas, a
large list of concern areas were identified. The various
representatives on the planning team frequently polled
their constituencies which contributed both to the size
and the quality of the problem area pool. Many of the
perennial problems such as quality of food service and
noise were frequently identified; however, some areas,
such as not being able to find a place to be alone or the
sense of pride and identification with their floors, were
significant discoveries. After the problem areas were
grouped into categories (environmental subscales) and ar-
ranged in order of priority, seven areas with the highest
priority were selected for study. The most difficult part
of selecting what to assess was determining which areas

to cut out.

In Stage IV the efforts of the planning team to de-

velop the identified problem areas into a research

240

instrument required more direction from the chairperson
and the research consultant from the Examination and
Evaluation Services. Particularly painstaking were the
efforts to group individual items within environmental
subscales, as well as the actual language used for writing
the items. However, team members quickly learned how to
write items that were clear, concise and not leading. The
format used for the instrument was deve10ped after several
examples of survey instruments were reviewed by the team.
It was decided that a five-point Likert Scale would be
more acceptable to residents than other rating scales,
especially considering the length of the UIRHEAS. Final
modification of the instrument was made after it was pilot
tested by the RAS. The length of time that it took to
validate the survey during the fall semester necessitated
distributing it to residents the week before final exams.

The distribution and collection of the instrument in
Stage V was greatly facilitated by the level of support
and attention given to this area. The instrument could
not have been administered at a worse time, other than
during finals week. Recognizing this problem, an elabo-
rate mechanism of letter writing, staff hand-delivery of
the instrument, media coverage of the study and follow-up
efforts all combined to facilitate a seventy percent re-
sponse rate to the survey. This distribution and collec-
tion mechanism speaks well for its effectiveness con-

sidering the length of the survey and the fact that it was

241

administered the week before final exams. Although it
would be difficult to predict, it is this researcher's
opinion that a higher response could have been obtained if
the instrument had been distributed a week earlier. It is
also important to note that the response rate may have
been further restricted because of the length of the sur-
vey; additionally, students were asked to go back and
choose five items that were significant to their experi-
ences, and to indicate why and what they recommended to
improve the situation. It is also this researcher's opin-
ion that the relevance of the instrument contributed sig-
nificantly to the response rate.

In Stage VI the data in Part I were scored and ana-
lyzed by computer, utilizing the Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences. Questions about how residents per-
ceive the residence halls environments were answered by an
analysis of frequency counts and percentage scores to
items within each environmental subscale. Part I data pro-
vided a "quantitative" analysis of how residents perceived
the environment, however Part II of the survey provided a
"qualitative" descriptive analysis of why residents said
they had their perceptions and what they recommended to
improve the situation through the use of environmental
referents. It is through the blend of these quantitative
and qualitative measures that one does not lose sight of
the whole problem. This frequently occurs in research

where dependent and independent variables are refined to a

242

point that, once causal relationships are established, it
is difficult to generalize the results to broader problem
situations. As such, the data is often useless. Gibbs
(1979) asserts that "empirical researchers have become so
enamored of laboratory precision that they have lost their
sense of the human problem, that generalizations to the
authentic significance of the person in the real environ-
ment has been sacrificed to the quest for certainty in our
knowledge".191 The data derived from both parts of the
survey answered the first three questions posed in Chapter
One and they also provided the foundation upon which de-
cisions were made regarding the fourth research question.

Stage VII is incomplete in that all environmental re-
design efforts supported by this study required six to
twelve months to implement. However, some recommendations
from the planning team were implemented immediately.
Those recommendations that required more time to implement
were incorporated into the departmental Management by Ob-
jective (MBO) program. This action assured that, even
though there were delays in the redeSign process, the
recommendations were assigned to specific individuals to
be accomplished within a given time frame. An evalua-
tion of the environmental redesign efforts is scheduled
for the next year (1980-81) when the study is replicated.
This year's results will serve as the basis for compara-

tive analysis.

 

243

The final research question posed in this study
(i.e., is the ecosystem methodology an effective means of
making environmental improvements in residence halls) can-
not be completely answered until the results have been
evaluated next year. However, the outcomes from the seven
stages of the model discussed above clearly demonstrate
that the purposes of the study were accomplished. Also,
the following observations provided by members of the
planning team, in response to a critique of the model,
help to answer the above question:

Strengths 9; the Study

 

 

l. diversity of the planning team

2. team decision-making process

3. explored a broad range of issues

4. the study provided an accurate assessment of what the
majority of residents feel about the residence halls

5. ERS allow students to answer more directly in their

own language

the model produces very good usable data

inexpensive

action oriented process

. the results had integrity - could stand on their own
. the model is a good tool for future planning

1

meflm

Weaknesses 95 the Stugy

 

 

1. length of time to develop the instrument
2. length of survey

3. number of meetings

4. selection process for team members

5. assistance required for data analysis

Overall Assessment

 

1. excellent - I am proud to be a part of this study
2. the results were encouraging

3. exciting and productive

4. pleased that changes can be made so quickly

5. the study did what it set out to do

6. terrific the way the whole thing worked out

7. wonderful experience

8. repeat the study in the future

244
From the above observations one can conclude that the
ecosystem model, as modified for this study, is an effec-
tive means of assessing student perceptions of the resi-
dence hall environment, and that these perceptions could
be used to develop recommendations for specific environ-

mental changes.

IMPLICATIONS

Implications of the study

The ecological perspective is based on the belief
that a transactional relationship exists between the per—
son and his/her environment. A basic tenant of this
belief is that the environment has an effect on people
and their behavior and that peOple also have an effect
on their environment. This perspective also presumes
that people respond differently in different types of
environments, and that an optimum fit between people
and their environment can be intentionally planned.

The technology utilized in the study is but a
beginning to "map" student environments in residence
halls which can lead to their intentional growth and de-
velopment. The profound impact of residence halls on
students was discussed thoroughly in Chapter One. Given
that the residence experience does have a significant im-

pact the implications of this study take on even greater

245

meaning in terms of developing technology that facili—
tates the assessment of student living environments and
the transactional relationship that exists between them.
The study also has broad implications for the pro-
fession of student affairs. The application of the eco-
system model had its beginning on the college campus. The
model was developed out of a need to mitigate incon-
gruencies between students and their college environment.
It is presumed that minimizing these differences will
greatly facilitate the adjustment of the student to his/
her campus by reducing stress and strain due to lack of
congruence. Student affairs administrators must manage
their existing campus environments. Current trends in
higher education and in the economy strongly suggest that
the immediate future requires the reshaping of these en-
vironments to meet the needs of a changing study body.
Hurst and Ragel (1980) have declared the ecosystem ap-
proach to be the "new frontier" of the student affairs

profession.192

However, the conceptualization of ecosys-
tem methodology far exceeds the technology and meaningful
research in this area.

Apart from other ecosystem studies, this study em-
phasized 1) person x environment theory, 2) different as-
sessment approaches to the residence halls environments,
3) a review of ecosystem studies from the past five years,

and 4) the integration of the quantitative analysis of

data from Part I of the survey and the qualitative-

246
descriptive analysis of environmental referents from Part
II. The latter emphasis was developed by the use of dual
criteria for ER analysis - fifty percent or more response
rate from Part I coupled with an ER response rate of
twenty or more. Although these criteria are somewhat ar-
bitrary, they do represent one of the few attempts to
integrate the analysis of data from both parts of the sur-

vey.

Implications for future research

While it may be presumed that behavior is a function
of the person and his/her environment, and that positive
behaviors are encouraged when incongruencies between the
individual and his/her environment are diminished, one can-
not generalize that these assumptions are always valid.
However, Moos and Insel (1974) assert that future research
in this area must be guided by the assumption that:

Human behavior cannot be understood apart from

the environment in which it finds its expres-

sion. The implications of this frequently

stated assumption have rarely been rigorously

pursued. Accurate predictions about behavior

simply cannot be made only from information

about the individual; information about the

environment is essential . . . Physical and

social environments must be studied together

since neither can be fully understood without

the other.193
Some individuals actually prosper in environments that are
presumed to be incongruent. As such, further research in-
to the nature of the individual, the environment and their

transactional relationships are needed before fully de-

veloped, data-based theories are possible. Until such

247

time, most assessment-intervention efforts such as this
study will seldom follow any one theoretical model. But,
they will probably build on an eclectic approach - bor-
rowing parts of theories, models, common sense, method-
ologies, known assessment instruments and politics. Re-
search is also needed to discover whether environmental
design really does prevent human dysfunction from oc-
curring.

Compared to research into the nature of the indivi—
dual, little research has been conducted regarding the
nature of the environment and its shaping properties on
individual behavior. What little is known about the in-
fluence of the environment on behavior is so general in
nature that it cannot be meaningfully translated into
specific strategies for a specific problem. Too many as-
sumptions must be made about the influence of the en-
vironment on behavior for researchers to make any claim
to valid preventive interventions. Research utilizing
the ecosystem methodology should contribute significantly
to the development of theories and technologies for re-
designing campus environments. However, Blocher (1974)
warns us that "we can no longer afford our academic
tribalism, with its almost mystical commitment to theo-
ries that claim much and prove little".194

Most environmental assessment instruments provide
data that describe certain environments, but they do not

provide data that is sufficient to redesign them. There

248

is a need for research into the development of new instru-
ments that go beyond individual perceptions. As in this
study, more efforts are needed to integrate data regarding
why individuals have certain perceptions about different
environments, and what they recommend to improve them.
Until the technology is developed to validate the connec-
tion between individual perceptions and redesign efforts,
environmental redesign cannot be made with certainty.

Future research of this kind must be streamlined so
that studies can be completed within a limited time frame
(preferably four to six months). Efforts in this direc-
tion will require 1) reducing the number of meetings of
the planning team, 2) increasing the expertise of the
planning team, 3) the development of model assessment in-
struments that are easily adaptable to different situa-
tions, 4) more effective statistical measures, especially
for ER analysis, 5) more efficient methods for validating
survey items and environmental subscales, and 6) broader
participation from the planning team in terms of data
analysis.

From a student development perspective, future re—
search in this area should emphasize the development of
methodologies that will enable students themselves to as-
sess subenvironments. Students will then be better
equipped to reduce dysfunctional conflict caused by in-

congruencies between them and their environments.

Limitations of the Model

Many strengths have been identified regarding the use
of the ecosystem model for environmental design. However,
there are some significant limitations that have not been
resolved, that should not go unnoticed.

There are no complete theories of person x environ-
ment interaction used to provide direction for the re—
search, implementation and intervention efforts. Most
ecosystem studies that purport a theoretical foundation
actually refer to a number of partial theories and common
sense methodologies for direction.

Another limitation of the model is the amount of time
required to carry out a valid evaluation of a program. A
significant amount of time is required to develOp a survey
instrument and its subsequent implementation. In addi-
tion, the instrument generates an enormity of data that is
both complex and time-consuming to analyze. This is par-
ticularly true for the analysis of environmental referents.
Another problem arises because of the time it takes to
analyze the data and feed it back to those responsible
for developing recommendations and subsequent interven—
tions. Also, conditions in the environment could change
during the course of the study, therefore it is im-

perative that the time frame for future applications is

249

250
significantly reduced. Schuh (1980) at Indiana Univer—
sity, for example, has conducted two successful studies
that required only four months to complete.195

The ecosystem model identifies different stages for
the conduct of a study but it does not specify method-
ological guidelines. There is a great need at every
stage of the model for further elaboration. Specifically,
no guidance is provided for the selection of planning team
members, how to assess the environment (real or perceived),
and the distribution and collection of survey instruments.
Most importantly, however, is the need to develop more
sophisticated methodologies for validation. This is par-
ticularly important at the stage where an attempt is made
to integrate the different types of data, as well as
when one attempts to develop recommendations for environ-
mental redesign based on the data.

Generalizations to other settings are limited be-
cause of the "tailoring to specifics" within a given en-
vironment. Must information can be derived about a
given setting, but generalizations should not be made be-
yond the subject population.

Another limitation of the model that requires serious
attention is that there are some conflicting studies that

question whether changing environments actually prevent

human dysfunction.

251
Finally, the model is limited because it does not
make provisions for how environmental changes should be
implemented, nor does it provide specific measures for

reassessment.

CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Like the Nations of medieval universities, citizen-
ship is still the key to effective living in residence
halls. Feedback from a responsible citizenry through eco-
system methodology can aid not only in securing the occu-
pancy of residence hall programs into the future, it can
also facilitate student growth and development through the
living-learning experience. The Nations lost their power
to the university because of their inability to provide
continuity and security. It is now the responsibility of
the housing professional to provide sensitive environ-
mental assessment mechanisms that share decision-making
power and, jointly with students, provide for their de-
velopment by maximizing the educational potential of their
living environments. As one student responded in this
study, "Residence hall living is far more educational than
any class, or many classes put together - especially for
freshmen. The fusing of diverse ideas and experiences is
unparalleled, possibly more than in any other situa-
tion".196 The above statement, recorded from the results

of this study, serves to motivate future research uti-

lizing the ecosystem method.

Footnotes

Chapter Five

189.
190.

191.

192.
193.

194.

195.

196.

FOOTNOTES
CHAPTER FIVE
Corazzini and Wilson, pp. 68-72.
Aulepp and Delworth, p. vii.
John Gibbs, "The Meaning of Ecologically Oriented

Inquiry in Contemporary Psychology," American
Psychologist, 34 (1979), p. 127.

 

Paul and Morrill, in press.

Insel and Moos, Issues 13 Social Ecology, p. ix.

 

D. H. Blocher, Developmental Counseling, 2nd ed.
(New York: Ronald Press, 1974)?

 

Schuh, in press.

This quote was recorded from a student who responded
to an environmental referent from Part II of the
UIRHEAS.

Appendix A

The University of Iowa
Residence Halls Environmental

Assessment Survey

3' 33".] [l{(l.‘4"l[ N l Ml.

Usuurtmcnt of Fesldonre 30!

l‘Pdse complete tne following items ty Cirr
1. In which residence null do you livc?
' \
{1) Birge (5,
i?) Daum ill
(5) Lurrier (l)
(4} Stanley
2. What is your current (lass standing?
{1) Frpsw an (3)
{2) Sophomore (4)
3. What is your any?
(i) Malt {2} lnunlo

-1. Cf mutt (rtlirdt group would you «t-llsli‘r‘l‘

flx'l sxtfl NT

hihlll

vic s, driversity of IUWE, 19:9

ling thc atgrcpridto numbfiv:

..

lHiicrcwli (Vi Quadranolv
Pirnow ((4) #1051141")

Blatew‘ (30) Soutli Qutnlrdvrilu
Junior (K; Graduate

Senior (h) otnpr

)

)"(‘IJI"\‘_‘},f 4‘, Il'l'lLI! " -

{ll li1UkciSldll ('3) tliSLxuiir Pursuirrninu l"§ “Y'M'F
(c’l Lil‘iwAizufrlt-‘ll l1) it‘ll“? K'kfl , in
S. 43w many sancat~~s ldub you lixcd in a rv'iJeniu rill, ircludi q ful‘, 107%?
{1) One ill Ehree (a) llVD
(2) I... (a, rm (w: m or mre
Part I:
Iiistrwlttiiirsf
For each of the itmn. liat d bsluw. (irclc thc nunlvr
which mnst LlOSUiy rearnscnta hcu you l”ll. hasnu «n 5
your experiences livnng in rCSIuence hulls. P, 3. I
a) f“ r:
_ . . L v" .1
Fleesu read ea.h item (draiull” and arc: P if uu C‘ Y: E
j (I L 1,
strainin/ «gree ( n), mJi'C (4). lNJJtldl {7). dis- \‘ F, ~~ .)
dgy-ey; {13), (yr str urn 7y di‘aaiireei ( 1). if ln(* 7: j; 3' ;}| :3
does not apoly to war 0)p8YI€HL8, Cerlc the g g 5 2' 5 J}
U ’L. '5 3 L" L :2.)
' u U» m -~ u o
m «I 43’. (7.) CO ('3
1. I feel that l have sufficient opportunity to make my room
attractive and comfortah'e . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 3 2 1

am familiar with the contents of the

2. l
the University of Iowa Pesidence Halls

3. My Building Association allocates its p
effectively . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. I feel safe in my rtqlanLQ hall

5. My overall impression of the Food Servi

6. lhere are Satisfactory recreational fac
dance hall . . . . . . .

‘4

l am famiiiar with the contents of the
for the University of lowa Residence Ha

8. I would like to sue more cultural proqr
as concerts, plays, tulcnt shows. and s

9. If I were robbel in my residence hall.
Resident Assistant (RA) .

There is a satisfactory selection of En

student Gujdchook to
. . . . . . . . . . 5 4 3 2 1

rogrdmming funds

(31
g
L»)
Y‘V
_—

(J?
a
w
M
.—

C9 is favorable

U"
h
b.)
N
.4

ilities within my r931-

s:udent Policy Harnbook
lls . . . . .

g"!
4:.
r;
O...

ems in my buiilinq. such

0 lorth . . . . . . . . 5 4 3 2 1
I would report it to my
. . . . . . . 5 4 3 2 1

trees at each real . . . S 4 3 2 1

253

32.

33.
34.

254

There are adenuzte outdoor recreational facilities in my
living area . . . . . . . . . . .

I am aware of the published Standards 0f Behavior that are
exnvc so or all resilrnce hall studen’s

I would he willirq to pty an aditional $3.00 per sure tvr inr
(niiitional lirngranr; in nq tulildirri. siu.h as nNiV‘ef . field
trips. entertainnr't, etc.

”esidvnce hall lizarn; is an important nu N‘S oi introducing me
to ar: into: lectirii cl rnate

HPIimJni‘!‘ i' “"1 “VPI 1“""lid Itt‘ an ll",1'iv“’.’lht Ruhr: if intro.
UllCl'g lilo; tO all" llalv lilgalz'nfll

in: ornsert SPernf t-urs for ovalsa’a satiifactory
Individuals mus! rulorom1s9 when l‘ving in a urouo situation

My rOum is not adwwna‘ely fu'wished by Residence Survirnu tn
{neet,lny Yluu .ing -u tux

The di5cipline systen in reSidehce halls has hcvn an effective
means of handling Studrlt misrhnduct ‘
There is little attem't made in m” residence hall to arran e

l I 9
soc1al events 5y my BJlidlng RsscCIatiun . . . . . . . . .

The load Serv1le emulcyees are not courtueus When I go through
the llrl‘.‘

Students llvlng in this residence hall dc not respect the
property of others

Floor lounges in my building are furnished well ennuqh to
meet my needs . . . . . - . . .
My Resident Assistant (RA) consistently enforces rules and
regulations on my floor . . . . . . . . . . . .
I would participate in an alcohol education program in my
residence hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I feel comfortable aursuing the intellectual and cultural
activities available in my resvdence hall

There is an adequate selection of salads at lunch and dinner

A person who is not concerned about other students will not
be welcomed on my Floor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The floor I live on is not generally kept clean and heat by

the custodians .

lhe SiudE‘tS on my floor generally help to keep it clean and
neat

I know what the alcohol policy is in residence halls

Discussions about important topics are a frequent ogturrence
on my floor . . . . . . .

The atmosphere in the dining rooms is not comfortatle

If I saw someone pulling a false fire alarn I would he willing
to report him/her to the residence hall staff

Agree

iy

Q

Strong

L,"

g,“ (_“I

LJ‘I

A‘ree

C3

‘0

heutr

Lu)

(a)

Disagree

IN)

(‘0

Strongly Disagree

Does Not Apply

0

0

255

 

35.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

46.

47.

48.

50.

SI.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

“ _.._—— _-.-_._..__-_ -_--.,.._._._.-c ..._.~ —_ -- ._-. _, ,_ M»;-r

The building I iiie in is generally kept clean and neat (in-
clude all areas of the building - lounges, shower rooms. rec~
reation space, etc.) . . . . . . . . .

I do got support the alcohol policy in residence halls

As a studei:t in resid e.ice halls, I am a member of the academic
ceizmunlty .

I wOuld support locking the outside entrances to my building
at night. even if it necessitates meeting my visitors at the
front door . .

There is an adcguace selection of desserts at lunch and din
ner . . . . . . . . .

Some penple living here deliberately damage or deface the
building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

There are not enough laundry facilities to meet my needs in my
residence hall

I abide by the current alcohol policy .

Tie spirit on my floor enc0urages me to become involved with
building and canius a tivitie:s

Having faculty mun ers visit my residence hall for informal
presentations or soc? al events is valuable to me

Y
residents having keys

I would be willing to pay mire fir larger entree portions at
dinni_r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Students living in my residence hall act as if they h.ave not
learned about respec ctim; other peeple' 5 property

I would be willing to pay 50 cents per wash to increase the
number of washing machines in my building .

I feel that the current policy regulating the use of drugs

in residence halls is satisfactory . . .

The residence halls staff does a good job of helping r:ew stu-
dents feel at hone . . .

Cultural and educational programs offered in residence halls
are an integral part of my residence hall experience

The environment in my residence hall encourages students to
cannit anti—social acts . . . . . . . . . . . .

In order to keep board rate increases at a minimum 1 would be
willing to give up unlimited servings of some food items (i.e.
lunch entrees and desserts) . . .

Residents should share equally the cost for vandalism that oc~
Curs on their floor . . .

I have received a prompt response to my requestls ) for roan
repairs . . . . . . .

As a rule, appropriate levels of quiet are maintained on my
floor Such that I can study and/or sleep without interruption

 

A would Scpport having my floor locked at night with only flarr

Q)
Q!
L
r):

<[

3: —. 8
O" H: L
s: Q) L 0‘
O Q) 64 to
s. L 2:! m
+9 O" (D 'P

m <1 Z O

S 4 3 2
S 4 3 2
5 4 3 2
5 4 3 2
5 4 3 2
5 4 3 2
5 4 3 2
5 4 3 2
5 4 3 2
5 4 3 2
S 4 3 2
S 4 3 2
5 4 3 2
5 4 3 2
5 4 3 2
5 4 3 2
5 4 3 2
5 4 3 2
5 4 3 2
5 4 3 2
5 4 3 2
5 4 3 2

“i
t, c
m .-

m C..
m- CL
Q d
2: s
0. Z

c:

8 X}
a.» O
m C)

1 O
1 O
1 0
I 0
1 0
I 0
l 0
1 O
1 O
1 0
l o
1 u
l o
1 0
1 O
I O
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 o

5].

bd.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

66.

b7.

68.

72.

73.

74.

78.

79.

256

New students are not helped to become aware of the services
and programs available to them through the residence halls

Living in residence halls stimulates my intellectual curi-
osity

I am able to find spare in my building to be alone when I want
to be

In order to decrease the incidence of vandalism to vending
machines we should stop vending service after midnight

Residents should be charged a refundable damage deposit in
Order to keep the cost of the room contract down

There are enough bitycle parking racks near my building

I am aware that all window screens are to remain in plate at
all times

My social/recreational needs are satisfied by programs and
activities in the residence halls

I am able to study satisiictorily in my room

I wauld like to have more meatless entrees offered at lunuh
and dinner

keSIdents who are found ou1lty of pulling false fire alarms
should be dismissed iron the Residence Halls

Temperature control is nut well regulated in my rnmn

Residents who rmnoie screens iron their room windows should
not be subject in disciplinary action

I do not particioate in social/recreational programs and ac-

tivities in residence halls

If I had to decide between studyirg in the library and studying
in my residence hall. I would cncose the residence hall

Food waste occurs in the dining rooms because students do not
watch how much food they tare

I feel that noise in the hallway is more of a problem than
noise from neighboring rooms

The two cubic-foot refrigerators that are rented to students
by Residence Services are adequate for my needs

I would be willing to pay a higher rental rate to get a four
to five cubic-foot refrigerator

I wOuld support a more strict enforcement of quiet hnurs on
Sly f 2o‘)" O I 0 I I O I O D I I U I O O O O O

I would be willing to provide one or two hours of my time per
week to help organize social programs and activities in my
building . . . . . . . .

In my residence hall there are adequate facilities in which to
study, other than my room

I feel that it is dart of my responsigi itv as a resident of
the building to ask students to be qH et if they are bothering
me . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Strongly Agree

(1'.

L71

L”

(_f‘

L,“

U1

(,5

J 98

Asr

b

4.5

Neutral

9.1

Disagree

"J

Strongly Disagree

W

(.1
(I

oJ

[J

:oes NO

I"
L

80.

81.

8b.

e7.

88.

90.

91.

\f.
N

257

Student rouns should nct be used For parties bPCdHSC of their
potential for disruption

I feel that there is a need for alcohol education yrograms in
residence halls . . . . . . .

I feel that I contribute my fair share to the noise that exists
in ny residence hull

If asked to quiet den, I do

I have had difficulty finding storage space for my personal
belongings outside of my room

The atmosphere in my residehce hall is one of disorder

I feel a sense of responsibility for what goes on in my resi-
dence hall . . . . .

87c cles should be irohioited iv: student rooms
Y

I feel that l have the opportunity t0 Provide input to modify
policy in Residence Halls

I feel a strong sense of identity with the residents on my
floor . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I wenld be willing to spend one or two hours a week working to
assist in develouhent of Residence Hall policies

For the most part. I have found it easy to adjust to group
living on my floor . . . . . .

My experience of living with a large group of pefipie was not
what I expected . . . . . . "”

Strongly Agree

L,“

U‘

L)"

L,“

Agree

eutral

‘3

Lu

Disagree

[‘0

Strongly Disagree

l

p—nl

Does Not Apply

l

0

C)

0

Instructions; 258

In Part I you were asked to respond to items concerning your exoerience living in
residence halls. In this section more detailed informationis needed about certain
items. Please respond to the following instructions:

1. Go back and review the items you answered in part I and {VENTIFY FIVE (5) ITEMS_
you feel very strongly about, in eitlei a positive or negative sense.

 

Write the numbers of those items in Ste p 1.

f‘.)

U.)

Rrite your r ting of the items in Step 2 (i.e. 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1).

4. Next to each item, write in the appropriate'; pace why you ieel strongly about
the item in Sttsp 3, and what. you wc;uld recommend to imtrove or strengthen the
situation in Step 4. rLEA SE BE AS SPEClrlC AS POSSIBLE.

353‘}.P_l.§---l-§?"-13

25. There are enough bicycle racks near my building.

Step Step Step Step

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 2 Ll A

{1 t'ém You r l " " ggrgj'o‘o'you l‘éZJi"W -_ _. ' " l" ’ ""wlia t ii o 30 @7112; uniféiid to” ' '"

i # 1 Re _iing . strongly about this item? improve or strendtr n it?

F"””” -_ V,__---tm”__n;--u-------w-wmm-H-.”-_---- -_---M_- “WWW----M

t -- I can‘t find a place . . .

' (D l Prov do more blC cle racks

1 to bar: my b ;\cle ' ' ,y ’

1". f1: JE;_.Z-T_’T-ZTL.TZ ‘1t’1":‘T-‘.- ‘ "f: J.” ‘ T. “"j "I ‘2“: -'_LT‘__:T‘.‘. JILL-T.” Til-7:." “.7 fill: -: .3. - .‘II- " "'1:LIISi:::f:”1'.‘j_‘:-ZLZ If T:I:.T;:;':Lf:i‘

i

,--_.____1,__.. _-_-_.__-1-1-_-..... -._....- H_. ._H - -._._ -. .S..- -.- - “flunm- ...--- --__ - -1--- .,--_ ._- -. - ...----+.--s.-._.-_.m -.-- .t---...-- _.-..--.... -.--....___l

r... _.._1._._.- --._-- .--._.-.-.----...._-.._.___...-_.,--.-. --- "M,- - .. an. _ , __ _ ...-_ -....,
...... _ ,. “J

l

-.. -.--- S_-m--------,-,-““_-n-"S,---

 

 

 

 

-7- —.—4.--.-..__7_.#._—.-H.r-._ _--._.vfi”L-..-.~_-_H _..

gart-III:
Instructions: 259
Part A: Rlease identify not more than three (3) items or areas concerning residence hall

a ‘.

life that are of great importance to you which are not_covered in this survey. In the
space next to these items please give your recommendations on how to improve the..

 

 

 

 

.- ._ —-.__ -. _ __ - . . ”g- _..___.4- - --._.— »-~~ ..--.. —-.. -_. —~ . ~- _.-, — .V- .---_..- _ .. r. ._-.».-..._.- -—.~ _- - —.-. -- .~v. ~- .‘ _g.---~~.——-——'— -.-'. w~~n~--<1

3‘ _ r v '3 ».-.. -,,1-\v.'l.-
! Itan or area 1_ lour Letumnenoation
‘- _“~_ -..__. -m.- “on..- - - .._- -._... .._. - i -fi---, 4-- fi~--H_ .. I-_-. _-- _-.... ,-_ A. ___..._.___,-_.. ____..-..._ - _-‘_.__,._- __-.- -...._-._._ -_.__- _-.,-_.___._._._. ._..-...-1
y l
i
l
I
i
.‘
I
S
o _._._ ..* .. ‘--_fk.w_.-_ _. f __ u- .. .—_ y— 77--Ev- --. ~7k- 4.....-“ .-.-.._. ..--- -o»..- Ah -._ ...- . .,,.,--~ .. —...—-». 47-.“.-*j._.-_.....-.--_-_...-.._.._,‘.-.___... +u---_.....
i
f z
i i
i
i
!__'__ -_ .-.._-#—r-—e¢-- _...... “Fr-M“ -~-~~--— -— ---_--._-_,_1,_..___-_.-.___._ --..-‘ -r-»~I_7-..~>—.-.H«~u~ H- -— -— _-. - ... .... --., -F‘... .- ..._.._...._-...__......__‘_.____.__
i
l
l
l
l
l
;
'1

__-_.__ w....-_. - ._---#. _--...--. ..-. £_........ _...... -_--.‘._,....--..-. .- .._-..._----._... -__... M... .-._ -...-..._ ”um.-.“ . -._ .H- --_____.-.-_...--._. _,_-.. _.._..,-....__._..__.__4.

 

 

 

I
l

Part B: If you plan to return to the University of Iowa next year please answer by
placing an X next to the appropriate item.
. I plan to live in residence ialls.
I plan to live in a fraternity or sorority.
___I plan to live off campus.

-m—v.

Part C: If yiu plan to continue living in residence halls at the University of Iowa next
r ' 3 ' t your reasons uny.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,
A _._.___.... -‘__- -..-__.. _~ _~ ..... w‘_-- - _._-- _._... ~ __
’)

C.

V -—"¢‘ 7*”, - ~"_~ ..-~—.-—o—— -—---- w--,‘_W---_.- a-- “,7. _j—. ”5*". “-A- - A. v., 5". v.-. — u 7' v m - _ . -

A

«5'

t l'~ ff «mm ., new w ~ iv-m l' t r ~ 1* '~-~..

I: ybU Did“ O 1/9 0 CUMFUS ox» jfial, p tage lS JUU. FBdbdnb 0r LJl) dLClSlLH.

~i , -__-.- _ __J‘_ - .

l‘

i. 7*? . .

'l

4.

 

 

cNfl OF SURVEY —- THANK YOU

Appendix B

Thirty-six Problem

Areas - Original List

10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.

260

THIRTY-SIX PROBLEM AREAS
ORIGINAL LIST

Noise

Detripling

Discipline

Security

Laundry facilities

Housekeeping

Temperature control

Availability of student newspaper (0.1.)
Response rate - repairs

Stores - longer hours

Staff image - reception areas

Alcohol policy

Window policy

Decor modification policy

Furnishings - public and private areas
Shortage of space

Recreation facilities

Live-in staff/student ratio
Assignment mix

Vandalism

Building funds - programming

Lack of information

Food service - quality

Special interest housing/housing options
Contract and assignment procedures
Mutual respect
Educational/cultural/academic activities
Responsible student behavior

Greek relations

Energy

Waste

Drugs

False alarms

Student government

Privacy

Role of Resident Assistant

Appendix C

Forty-seven Problem

Areas - Expanded List

l.
2.
3.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.
10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.

261

FORTY-SEVEN PROBLEM AREAS
EXPANDED LIST

Noise/hall/room/quiet hours

Detripling

Discipline

Security

Laundry facilities

Housekeeping

Temperature control

Availability of student newspaper (D.I.)
Response rate - repairs

Stores - longer hours

Staff image - overall

Alcohol policy

Window policy

Decor modification policy

Furnishings - public and private areas
Shortage of space

Recreation facilities

Live-in staff/student ratio

Assignment mix

Vandalism

Building funds - programming

Lack of information/information sources
Food service - quality

Special interest housing/housing options
Contract and assignment procedures
Mutual respect
Educational/cultural/academic programs/integration
Responsible student behavior

Greek relations

Energy

Waste

Drugs

False alarms

Student government

Privacy

Role of Resident Assistant

Input into decision making

Personnel

Bureaucracy/structure/red tape

Bus stops

Parking

Bicycle parking

Signage

Adequate study facilities

Restrict access to private areas
Costs/programs and services
Orientation new students

Appendix D

Request for RA
Participation in the Study

The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa 52242 2 6 2

Office of Residence Services

Burge Hall

(319) 353-5210

 

 

November 28, 1979

Dear Resident Assistant:

The enclosed survey has been developed by the Residence
Hall Environmental Assessment Planning Team (composed of
students, staff and faculty) to gather information about
how students perceive the residence hall environment
(i.e., facilities, services, programs, lifestyles, etc.).
This survey has been specifically designed for our use to
accomplish the following objectives.

1. Assess student perceptions of their living environ-
ment.

2. Solicit recommendations for improving that environ-
ment.

3. Redesign the environment to meet student needs be-
ginning next semester, where possible.

Before we administer the survey to residents we would like
for you to fill out the complete survey and provide us
with a critique on the back page. Please feel free to
make any comments and/or changes regarding any of the
items on the instrument. Based on your feedback we will
make final modifications of the survey.

In order to keep this study within manageable limits, some
important items are not included on the survey. Also,
questions are not asked about things we cannot change at
this time (i.e., detripling, building another residence
hall, etc.).

When the instrument is completed we will select a ten per-
cent random sample of students from each floor to respond
to the survey. These students will receive a letter in
advance indicating that their RA will personally deliver
the survey to them in a few days. Students will also be
instructed to mail the survey back to the department of
Residence Services in order to keep their responses con-
fidential.

263

Resident
Assistant 11-28-79

The support you provide by taking the pilot test, criti-
quing it, and distributing the final instrument to your
residents will greatly assist the improvement of the resi-
dence hall environment.

Sincerely,

Mitchel D. Livingston
Director of Residence Services

The University of Iowa
Iowa City. Iowa 52242 2 64

Office of Residence Services

Burge Hall

(31 9) 353-521 0

 

 

1847

December 28, 1979

MEMORANDUM

To: Resident Assistants

From: Mitchel D. Livingston

Re: Residence Halls Environmental Assessment Survey

Thank you very much for your enthusiastic support of the
Residence Halls Environmental Assessment Project. Your
efforts helped the planning team accomplish an unbeliev-
able goal. Over seventy (70) percent of all surveys have
been filled out and returned to this office. What makes
this feat remarkable is that the response rate to most
surveys is somewhere between thirty-five (35) and forty—
five (45) percent.

It was unfortunate that the survey was not complete until
we were on the threshold of finals week. Please accept
my apologies for poor timing.

Nevertheless, I feel confident that I can count on you for
important matters such as improving the residence hall en-
vironment.

You were wonderful. Thanks again and have a happy holiday
and a joyous new year.

kst

Appendix E

Request for Student
Participation in the Study

The University of Iowa
Iowa City. Iowa 52242 2 6 5

Office of Residence Services
Burge Hall

 

 

1847

(319) 353-5210

Dear Resident:

You have been selected to receive a survey regarding your
perceptions of the residence hall living environment.

This survey will be distributed by random selection to ten
percent of all students currently living in a residence
hall. Please take this opportunity to provide direct in—
put into the decision-making process for improving the
various aspects of residence halls (i.e., facilities, ser-
vices, programs, lifestyles, etc.).

This survey has been designed by the Residence Hall En-
vironmental Assessment Planning Team (composed of stu-
dents, staff and faculty) to accomplish the following
objectives:

1. Assess student perceptions of their living en-
vironment.

2. Solicit recommendations for improving that en-
vironment.

3. Redesign the environment to meet student needs
beginning next semester, where possible.

If we are to accomplish the above objectives it is im-
perative that we have your personal opinions, as ex—
pressed through the survey. Since you are a part of a
selective group of all residence hall students, it is
even more important that you complete the survey and re-
turn it in the enclosed envelope that will be provided.

266

Your Resident Assistant (RA) will personally deliver the
survey to you in a few days.

Thank you for your cooperation in helping to improve your
residence hall living environment.

Sincerely,

Mitchel D. Livingston, Chairperson
Environmental Assessment Planning Team
Residence Halls

MDL/kst

The University of Iowa
Iowa City. Iowa 52242 2 6 7

Office of Residence Services
Burge Hall

 

 

1847

(319) 353-5210

Dear Resident:

You have been selected to receive a survey regarding your
perceptions of the residence hall living environment.

This survey will be distributed by random selection of
Special Support students currently living in a residence
hall. Please take this opportunity to provide direct in-
put into the decision making process for improving the
various aspects of residence halls (i.e., facilities, ser-
vices, programs, lifestyles, etc.).

This survey has been designed by the Residence Hall En-
vironmental Assessment Planning Team (composed of stu-
dents, staff and faculty) to accomplish the following
objectives:

1. Assess student perceptions of their living en-
vironment.

2. Solicit recommendations for improving that en-
vironment.

3. Redesign the environment to meet student needs
beginning next semester, where possible.

If we are to accomplish the above objectives it is im-
perative that we have your personal Opinions, as expressed
through the survey. Since you are a part of a select
group of all residence hall students, it is even more im-
portant that you complete the survey and return it in the
enclosed envelope to Leo Fields, Associate Director of
Special Support Services.

268

If you have any questions, please seek help from your Resi-
dent Assistant (RA) or Head Resident. They have been
asked to help where problems may occur.

The survey must be returned by Friday, December 21, 1979,
in order to make desired changes second semester.

Thank you for your COOperation in helping to improve your
residence hall living environment.

Sincerely,

Mitchel D. Livingston Leo Fields

Chairperson, Environmental Associate Director
Assessment Planning Team, Special Support Services

Residence Halls

kst

The University of Iowa
Iowa City. Iowa 52242 2 6 9

Office of Residence Services
Burge Hall

 

 

(31 9) 353-5210

Dear Student:

Once again I would like to thank you for your willingness
to fill out the enclosed survey. Your personal responses
will greatly facilitate our ability to improve the resi-
dence hall environment from your perspective.

Please carefully read the instructions on the survey be-
fore responding to each item. When you complete the sur-
vey, please return it through campus mail in the enclosed
envelope to the Housing Assignment Office (as indicated
below*).

If you have any questions, please seek help from your
Resident Assistant or Head Resident. They have been asked
to help where problems may occur with the survey.

The survey must be returned by Friday, December 14, 1979,
in order to begin making changes as early as next semes-
ter.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Mitchel D. Livingston, Chairperson
Environmental Assessment Planning Team
Residence Halls

MDL/kst

enclosure

continued

270

Residents who live in Westlawn should return their com-
pleted surveys to the Hillcrest store.

Residents who live in Burge, Currier, Hillcrest, and
Quadrangle should return their completed surveys to
their building store.

 

 

 

Residents who live in Stanley, Rienow, and Slater
should return their completed surveys to the front desk
of their respective buildings.

 

Residents who live in South Quad should return their
completed surveys to the Slater front desk.

 

Residents who live in Daum should return their com-
pleted surveys in the campus mail slot next to the
mailboxes in Daum.

 

The University of Iowa
Iowa City. Iowa 52242 2 7 1

Office of Residence Services
Burge Hall

 

 

1847

(319) 353-5210

Dear Student:

A significant number of residents have already responded
to the Residence Hall Environmental Assessment Survey.
However, since we only surveyed a ten percent random sam-
ple of all residents, we must increase the number of re-
sponses in order to have a valid data base for making
changes next semester.

If you have not responded to the survey, please take this
opportunity to do so. Your perceptions are the key to im-
proving the quality of life in residence halls.

 

Your Resident Assistant (RA) should be contacted if you
need another COpy of the survey.

Thank you for your cooperation; it is greatly appreciated,
especially considering the current demands on your time.

Sincerely,

Mitchel D. Livingston, Chairperson
Environmental Assessment Planning Team
Residence Halls

MDL/kst

Appendix F

Guidelines

for ER Analysis

272

GUIDELINES FOR PART II ANALYSIS

After all of the items in Part II have been cut apart and
placed in their respective groups, they are then ready
for analysis. The following guidelines apply:

1. The first step for those who analyze ER responses is
to sort each item's ER forms according to the "agree",
"disagree", and "neutral" responses. This is done by
looking at the student's numerical rating (i.e., l &

2 are disagree, 3 is neutral and 4 & 5 are agree) of
each item.

2. Next, take all the "agree" responses and read the re-
spondents' "why" comments several times until it is
possible to group similar "why" comments into a few
categories. In some instances, a single response may
have to constitute a category, but the fewer the
categories, the better.

3. Then, develop a heading or name for each of the cate-
gories and briefly describe it if necessary.

4. Tally the number of "why" comments in each category.

5. Finally, record information on "agree/why" on the En-
vironmental Referent Content Analysis Sheet.

6. Once the "agree/why" comments have been categorized,
tallied, and recorded, the "what" comments for all
items are read, categorized, tallied, and recorded on
the Environmental Referent Content Analysis Sheet (it
it not necessary to categorize "what" responses for
each "why" response).

7. When it is impossible to group a comment, it should be
listed as a category.

8. The same process of reading, grouping, categorizing,
tallying, and recording comments is applied to the
"disagree" and "neutral" responses on the item.

9. Having read some items, it may be clear that they have
been rated imprOperly. Therefore, if you come across
an "agree" response that is clearly a "disagree", this
item should be placed in the "disagree" category.

10. If you experience difficulty categorizing a "why"
item, you should read the "what" response to gain more
information for your decision. The same applies for
"what" responses.

273

11. Write down the "gems" that seem to say it all.

12. Items should be counted separately that have more than
one "why" or one "what" response.

Appendix G

Tabular Data

on Overall Results

274

TABLE 20

TABULAR DATA
ON OVERALL RESULTS

Physical Environment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Frequency Percent
ITEM #1 - Room Attractive
and Comfortable
Does Not Apply 1 0.3
Strongly Disagree 4 1.0
Disagree 25 6.5
Neutral 34 8.9
Agree 213 55.5
Strongly Agree 191 27.9
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #6 - Satisfactory Re-
creational Facilities
Does Not Apply 11 2.9
Strongly Disagree 68 17.7
Disagree 111 28 9
Neutral 74 19 3
Agree 95 24.7
Strongly Agree _25 6.5
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #11 - Adequate Outdoor
Recreation
Does Not Apply 5 1.3
Strongly Disagree 23 6.0
Disagree 80 20.8
Neutral 67 17.4
Agree 160 41.7
Strongly Agree _42 12.8
Total 84 100.0
ITEM #18 - Room Not Ade-
quately Furnished
Does Not Apply - --
Strongly Disagree 61 15.9
Disagree 194 50.5
Neutral 56 14.6
Agree 57 14.8
Strongly Agree 16 4.2

Total

 

275

Table 20 (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Frequency Percent
ITEM #23 - Floor Lounges
Well Furnished
Does Not Apply 19 4.9
Strongly Disagree 52 13.5
Disagree 86 22.4
Neutral 34 8.9
Agree 156 40.6
Strongly Agree _31 9.6
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #29 - Floor Not Clean and
Neat by Custodians
Does Not Apply 1 0.3
Strongly Disagree 185 48.2
Disagree 159 41.4
Neutral 16 4.2
Agree 14 3.6
Strongly Agree __g 2.3
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #35 - Building Kept
Clean and Neat
Does Not Apply 2 0.5
Strongly Disagree 14 3.6
Disagree 41 10.7
Neutral 56 14.6
Agree 204 53.1
Strongly Agree _61 17.4
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #41 - Not Enough Laundry
Facilities
Does Not Apply 7 1.8
Strongly Disagree 10 2.6
Disagree 50 13.0
Neutral 29 7.6
Agree 106 27.6
Strongly Agree 18; 47.4
Total 384 100.0

 

 

276

Table 20 (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Frequency Percent
ITEM #48 - Pay 50 cents
for Wash
Does Not Apply 8 2.1
Strongly Disagree 147 38.3
Disagree 134 34.9
Neutral 41 10.7
Agree 42 10.9
Strongly Agree _12 3.1
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #55 - Prompt Room
Repairs
Does Not Apply 86 22.4
Strongly Disagree 35 9.1
Disagree 46 12.0
Neutral 42 10.9
Agree 131 34.1
Strongly Agree _44 11.5
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #59 - Able to be
Alone
Does Not Apply 4 1.0
Strongly Disagree 80 20.8
Disagree 109 28.4
Neutral 41 10.7
Agree 137 35.7
Strongly Agree _13 3.4
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #62 - Enough Bicycle
Racks
Does Not Apply 134 34.9
Strongly Disagree 20 5.2
Disagree 48 12.5
Neutral 45 11.7
Agree 117 30.5
Strongly Agree _2g 5.2
Total 384 100.0

 

 

277

Table 20 (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Frequency Percent
ITEM #68 - Temperature Not
Well Regulated
Does Not Apply 2 0.5
Strongly Disagree 21 5.5
Disagree 80 20.8
Neutral 38 9.9
Agree 116 30.2
Strongly Agree 121 33.1
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #74 — Refrigerators
are Adequate
Does Not Apply 47 12.2
Strongly Disagree 25 6.5
Disagree 48 12.5
Neutral 30 7.8
Agree 171 44.5
Strongly Agree _63 16.4
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #75 - Pay for Larger
Refrigerator
Does Not Apply 47 12.2
Strongly Disagree 79 20.6
Disagree 102 26.6
Neutral 55 14.3
Agree 75 19.5
Strongly Agree _gg 6.8
Total 3 4 100.0
ITEM #84 - Difficulty Finding
Storage Space
Does Not Apply 163 42.4
Strongly Disagree 13 3.4
Disagree 68 17.7
Neutral 89 23.2
Agree 37 9.6
Strongly Agree _14 3.6
Total 384 100.0

 

 

278
Table 20 (cont'd)

Regulatory Environment

 

Category Frequency Percent

 

ITEM #2 - Familiar with

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guidebook
Does Not Apply 2 0.5
Strongly Disagree 21 5.5
Disagree 50 13.0
Neutral 102 26.6
Agree 168 43.8
Strongly Agree _41 10.7
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #7 - Familiar with
Policy Handbook
Does Not Apply 2 0.5
Strongly Disagree 26 6.8
Disagree 70 18.2
Neutral 111 28.9
Agree 143 37.2
Strongly Agree _32 8.3
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #12 - Aware of Standards
of Behavior
Does not Apply 8 2.1
Strongly Disagree 19 4.9
Disagree 69 18.0
Neutral 64 16.7
Agree 181 47.1
Strongly Agree _43 11.2
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #19 - Effective Discipline
System
Does Not Apply 20 5.2
Strongly Disagree 48 12.5
Disagree 82 21.4
Neutral 119 31.0
Agree 99 25.8
Strongly Agree _16 4.2
Total 84 100.0

 

279

Table 20 (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Frequency Percent
ITEM #24 - RA Consistent
Enforcer
Does Not Apply 3 0.8
Strongly Disagree 30 7.8
Disagree 61 15.9
Neutral 87 22.7
Agree 153 39.8
Strongly Agree _52 13.0
Total 3 4 100.0
ITEM #31 - I Know Alcohol
Policy
Does Not Apply 6 1.6
Strongly Disagree 7 1.8
Disagree 18 4.7
Neutral 20 5.2
Agree 223 58.1
Strongly Agree 119 28.6
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #36 - I Do Not Support
Alcohol Policy
Does Not Apply 18 4.7
Strongly Disagree 46 12.0
Disagree 118 30.7
Neutral 97 25.3
Agree 56 14.6
Strongly Agree _42 12.8
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #42 - I Abide by
Alcohol Policy
Does Not Apply 16 4.2
Strongly Disagree 7 1.8
Disagree 27 7.0
Neutral 45 11.7
Agree 193 50.3
Strongly Agree _96 25.0
Total 3 4 100.0

 

 

280

Table 20 (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Frequency Percent
ITEM #49 - Drug Policy
Satisfactory
Does Not Apply 28 7.3
Strongly Disagree 33 8.6
Disagree 49 12.8
Neutral 82 21.4
Agree 139 36.2
Strongly Agree _53 13.8
Total 84 100.0
ITEM #56 - Adequate Levels
of Quiet
Does Not Apply 2 0.5
Strongly Disagree 86 22.4
Disagree 88 22.9
Neutral 43 11.2
Agree 140 36.5
Strongly Agree _25 6.5
Total 3 4 100.0
ITEM #63 - Window Screens
in Place
Does Not Apply 7 1.8
Strongly Disagree 7 1.8
Disagree 30 7.8
Neutral 22 5.7
Agree 212 55.2
Strongly Agree 196 27.6
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #69 - Discipline for
Removal of Screens
Does Not Apply 11 2.9
Strongly Disagree 23 6.0
Disagree 83 21.6
Neutral 137 35.7
Agree 99 25.8
Strongly Agree _31 8.1
Total 384 100.0

 

 

281

Table 20 (cont'd)

 

Category Frequency Percent

 

ITEM #76 - Stricter
Quiet Hours

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does Not Apply 7 1.8
Strongly Disagree 33 8.6
Disagree 81 21.1
Neutral 77 20.1
Agree 105 27.3
Strongly Agree _81 21.1
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #80 - Rooms Not
Used for Parties
Does Not Apply 3 0.8
Strongly Disagree 115 29.9
Disagree 152 39.6
Neutral 66 17.2
Agree 31 8.1
Strongly Agree _11 4.4
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #85 - Atmosphere is
Disorder
Does Not Apply 5 1.3
Strongly Disagree 48 12.5
Disagree 211 54.9
Neutral 70 18.2
Agree 41 10.7
Strongly Agree __2. 2.3
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #87 - Bicycles Should
be Prohibited
Does Not Apply 39 10.2
Strongly Disagree 115 29.9
Disagree 127 33.1
Neutral 63 16.4
Agree 27 7.0
Strongly Agree _13 3.4

 

Total 384 100.0

 

282

Table 20 (cont'd)

 

Category Frequency Percent

 

ITEM #88 - Input to
Modify Policy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does Not Apply 13 3.4
Strongly Disagree 23 6.0
Disagree 100 26.0
Neutral 109 28.4
Agree 116 30.2
Strongly Agree _23 6.0
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #90 - Work for Develop-
ment of Policies
Does Not Apply 5 1.3
Strongly Disagree 32 8.3
Disagree 135 35.2
Neutral 134 34.9
Agree 63 16.4
Strongly Agree _15 3.9
Total 384 100.0
Programming Environment
ITEM #3 - Allocate Programming
Funds Effectively
Does Not Apply 72 18.8
Strongly Disagree 10 2.6
Disagree 27 7.0
Neutral 203 52.9
Agree 64 16.7
Strongly Agree .__8 2.1
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #8 - More Cultural
Programs
Does Not Apply 10 2.6
Strongly Disagree 14 3.6
Disagree 48 12.5
Neutral 147 38.3
Agree 108 28.1
Strongly Agree 57 14.8

Total 384 100.0

 

283

Table 20 (cont'd)

 

Category Frequency Percent

 

ITEM #13 - Pay $2 for
Additional Programs

 

 

 

 

 

Does Not Apply 2 0.5
Strongly Disagree 27 7.0
Disagree 70 18.2
Neutral 75 19.5
Agree 126 32.8
Strongly Agree _84 21.9
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #20 - Little Attempt for
Social Events
Does Not Apply 34 8.9
Strongly Disagree 34 8.9
Disagree 139 36.2
Neutral 125 32.6
Agree 43 11.2
Strongly Agree __2 2.3
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #25 - Participate in Alcohol
Education Program
Does Not Apply 26 6.8
Strongly Disagree 86 22.4
Disagree 116 30.2
Neutral 107 27.9
Agree 41 10.7
Strongly Agree __8 2.1
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #43 - Spirit on Floor
Encourages Activities
Does Not Apply 4 1.0
Strongly Disagree 54 14.1
Disagree 89 23.2
Neutral 107 27.9
Agree 105 27.3
Strongly Agree 25 6.5

 

Total 384 100.0

 

284

Table 20 (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Frequency Percent
ITEM #50 - Staff Helps
New Students
Does Not Apply 17 4.4
Strongly Disagree 13 3.4
Disagree 38 9.9
Neutral 108 28.1
Agree 162 42.2
Strongly Agree _46 12.0
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #57 - New Students
Not Helped
Does Not Apply 25 6.5
Strongly Disagree 24 6.3
Disagree 139 36.2
Neutral 114 29.7
Agree 71 18.5
Strongly Agree _11 2.9
Total 3 4 100.0
ITEM #64 - Social and Recrea-
tional Needs Satisfied
Does Not Apply 10 2.6
Strongly Disagree 36 9.4
Disagree 121 31.5
Neutral 119 31.0
Agree 89 23.2
Strongly Agree __2 2.3
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #70 - No Participation in
Soc-Rec Programs
Does Not Apply 4 1.0
Strongly Disagree 49 12.8
Disagree 159 41.4
Neutral 82 21.4
Agree 79 20.6
Strongly Agree _11 2.9
Total 384 100.0

 

 

285

Table 20 (cont'd)

 

Category Frequency Percent

 

ITEM #77 - Help Organize
Social Activities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does Not Apply 4 1.0
Strongly Disagree 36 9.4
Disagree 129 33.6
Neutral 119 31.0
Agree 81 21.1
Strongly Agree _15 3.9
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #81 - Need for Alcohol
Education
Does Not Apply 19 4.9
Strongly Disagree 41 10.7
Disagree 106 27.6
Neutral 154 40.1
Agree 50 13.0
Strongly Agree _14 3.6
Total 84 100.0
Security Environment
ITEM #4 - Safe in
Residence Halls
Does Not Rpply - --
Strongly Disagree 7 1.8
Disagree 30 7.8
Neutral 45 11.7
Agree 200 52.1
Strongly Agree 102 26.6
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #9 - Report Robbery
to RA
Does Not Apply 2 0.5
Strongly Disagree 4 1.0
Disagree 10 2.6
Neutral 3 0.8
Agree 90 23.4
Strongly Agree 31; 71.6

 

Total 384 100.0

 

286

Table 20 (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Frequency Percent
ITEM #38 - Look Outside
Entrances at Night
Does Not Apply 5 1.3
Strongly Disagree 167 43.5
Disagree 119 31.0
Neutral 35 9.1
Agree 34 8.9
Strongly Agree _24 6.3
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #45 - Lock Floor
at Night
Does Not Apply 10 2.6
Strongly Disagree 127 33.1
Disagree 98 25.5
Neutral 51 13.3
Agree 55 14.3
Strongly Agree _43 11.2
Total 38 100.0
Food Environment
ITEM #5 - Food Service
Favorable
Does Not Apply 2 0.5
Strongly Disagree 53 13.8
Disagree 73 19.0
Neutral 84 21.9
Agree 146 38.0
Strongly Agree _26 6.8
Total 84 100.0
ITEM #10 - Satisfactory Selec-
tion of Entrees
Does Not Apply - --
Strongly Disagree 41 10.7
Disagree 70 18.2
Neutral 76 19.8
Agree 155 40.4
Strongly Agree _42 10.9
Total 384 100.0

 

 

287

Table 20 (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Frequency Percent
ITEM #16 - Satisfactory
Serving Hours
Does Not Apply 2 0.5
Strongly Disagree 18 4.7
Disagree 42 10.9
Neutral 33 8.6
Agree 205 53.4
Strongly Agree _84 21.9
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #21 - Food Service
Discourteous
Does Not Apply 2 0.5
Strongly Disagree 82 21.4
Disagree 196 51.0
Neutral 58 15.1
Agree 37 9.6
Strongly Agree __2 2.3
Total 84 100.0
ITEM #27 - Adequate Selec-
tion of Salads
Does Not Apply 4 1.0
Strongly Disagree 10 2.6
Disagree 50 13.0
Neutral 34 8.9
Agree 206 53.6
Strongly Agree _89 20.8
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #33 - Dining Atmosphere
Not Comfortable
Does Not Apply 3 0.8
Strongly Disagree 69 18.0
Disagree 214 55.7
Neutral 64 16.7
Agree 27 7.0
Strongly Agree __1 1.8
Total 3 4 100.0

 

 

288

Table 20 (cont'd)

 

Category Frequency Percent

 

ITEM #39 - Adequate Selec-
tion of Desserts

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does Not Apply 7 1.8
Strongly Disagree 15 3.9
Disagree 57 14.8
Neutral 54 14.1
Agree 201 52.3
Strongly Agree _59 _l§;Q
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #46 - Pay More for
Larger Entrees
Does Not Apply 5 1.3
Strongly Disagree 136 35.4
Disagree 148 38.5
Neutral 50 13.0
Agree 32 8.3
Strongly Agree _13 3.4
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #53 - Give Up Unlimited
Food Servings
Does Not Apply 4 1.0
Strongly Disagree 54 14.1
Disagree 105 27.3
Neutral 57 14.8
Agree 119 31.0
Strongly Agree _45 11.4
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #66 - More Meatless
Entrees
Does Not Apply 8 2.1
Strongly Disagree 94 24.5
Disagree 118 30.7
Neutral 106 27.6
Agree 38 9.9
Strongly Agree _20 5.2
Total 3 4 100.0

 

289

Table 20 (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Frequency Percent
ITEM #72 - Students Do
Not Watch Food
Does Not Apply 5 1.3
Strongly Disagree 48 12.5
Disagree 95 24.7
Neutral 49 12.8
Agree 126 32.8
Strongly Agree _61 15.9
Total 84 100.0
Intellectual/Academic Environment
ITEM #14 - Is an Intellectual
Climate
Does Not Apply 1 0.3
Strongly Disagree 53 13.8
Disagree 100 26.0
Neutral 86 22.4
Agree 110 28.6
Strongly Agree _34 8.9
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #15 - Should be an Intel-
lectual Climate
Does Not Apply 5 1.3
Strongly Disagree 8 2.1
Disagree 42 10.9
Neutral 87 22.7
Agree 162 42.2
Strongly Agree _80 20.8
Total 3 4 100.0
ITEM #26 - Pursue Intell and
Cultural Activities
Does Not Apply 36 9.4
Strongly Disagree 19 4.9
Disagree 51 13.3
Neutral 148 38.5
Agree 118 30.7
Strongly Agree _12 3.1
Total 384 100.0

 

 

290

Table 20 (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Frequency Percent
ITEM #32 - Important Dis-
cussions Frequent
Does Not Apply 12 3.1
Strongly Disagree 49 12.8
Disagree 86 22.4
Neutral 119 31.0
Agree 93 24.2
Strongly Agree _25. 6.5
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #37 - Member of
Academic Community
Does Not Apply 20 5.2
Strongly Disagree 4 1.0
Disagree 20 5.2
Neutral 81 21.1
Agree 196 51.0
Strongly Agree _63 16.4
Total 84 100.0
ITEM #44 - Faculty Visits
Valuable
Does Not Apply 82 21.4
Strongly Disagree 25 6.5
Disagree 73 19.0
Neutral 135 35.2
Agree 53 13.8
Strongly Agree _;L§ 4.2
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #51 - Cult and Educ
Programs are Integral
Does Not Apply 55 14.3
Strongly Disagree 62 16.1
Disagree 125 32.6
Neutral 98 25.5
Agree 40 10.4
Strongly Agree __4 1.0
Total 384 100.0

 

 

291

Table 20 (cont'd)

 

Category Frequency Percent

 

ITEM #58 - Intellectual
Curiosity Stimulated

 

Does Not Apply 15 3.9
Strongly Disagree 54 14.1
Disagree 128 33.3
Neutral 113 29.4
Agree 66 17.2
Strongly Agree __8 2.1

Total 38 100.0

 

ITEM #65 - Able to Study
in My Room

 

 

Does Not Apply 4 1.0
Strongly Disagree 57 14.8
Disagree 95 24.7
Neutral 63 16.4
Agree 148 38.5
Strongly Agree _11 4.4
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #71 - Choose to Study
in Hall
Does Not Apply 2 0.5
Strongly Disagree 96 25.0
Disagree 78 20.3
Neutral 55 14.3
Agree 107 27.9
Strongly Agree _46 12.0

 

Total 84 100.0

 

ITEM #78 - Adequate
Study Facilities

Does Not Apply 4 1.0
Strongly Disagree 42 10.9
Disagree 78 20.3
Neutral 53 13.8
Agree 190 49.5
Strongly Agree 17 4.4

 

Total 384 100.0

 

292
Table 20 (cont'd)

Interpersonal Relations
and Responsibility Environment

 

Category Frequency Percent

 

ITEM #17 - Must Compromise
in Group Situation

 

Does Not Apply 1 0.3
Strongly Disagree - __
Disagree 2 0.5
Neutral 10 2.5
A9ree 136 35.4
Strongly Agree 232 51.2
Total 384 100.0

 

ITEM #22 - No ReSpect for
Others PrOperty

 

 

 

 

Does Not Apply 3 0.8
Strongly Disagree 31 8.1
Disagree 117 30.5
Neutral 108 28.1
Agree 95 24.7
Strongly Agree ._30 7.8
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #28 - Person Not Con-
cerned is Not Welcome
Does Not Apply 26 6.8
Strongly Disagree 20 5.2
Disagree 77 20.1
Neutral 115 29.9
Agree 105 27.3
Strongly Agree _41 10.7
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #30 - Students Keep
Floor Clean and Neat
Does Not Apply 3 0.8
Strongly Disagree 47 12.2
Disagree 91 ' 23.7
Neutral 66 17.2
Agree 152 39.6
Strongly Agree 25 6.5

 

Total 38 100.0

 

293

Table 20 (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Frequency Percent
ITEM #34 - Report False
Alarms
Does Not Apply 3 0.8
Strongly Disagree 27' 7.0
Disagree 56 14.6
Neutral 99 25.8
Agree 98 25.5
Strongly Agree 191 26.3
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #40 - Deliberate Damage
to Building by Residents
Does Not Apply 11 2.9
Strongly Disagree 6 1.6
Disagree 24 6.3
Neutral 37 9.6
Agree 176 45.8
Strongly Agree 130 33.9
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #47 - Students Have
Not Learned Respect
Does Not Apply 6 1.6
Strongly Disagree 21 5.5
Disagree 117 30.5
Neutral 101 26.3
Agree 94 24.5
Strongly Agree _45 11.7
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #52 - Environment Encourages
Anti-Social Acts
Does Not Apply 16 4.2
Strongly Disagree 62 16.1
Disagree 158 41.1
Neutral 89 23.2
Agree 51 13.3
Strongly Agree __8 2.1
Total 3 4 100.0

 

 

294

Table 20 (cont'd)

 

Category p Frequency Percent

 

ITEM #54 - Share Cost of
Vandalism on Floors

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does Not Apply 4 1.0
Strongly Disagree 218 56.8
Disagree 115 29.9
Neutral 27 7.0
Agree 18 4.7
Strongly Agree __2 0.5
Total 84 100.0
ITEM #60 - Stop Vending
After Midnight
Does Not Apply 7 1.8
Strongly Disagree 157 40.9
Disagree 138 35.9
Neutral 30 7.8
Agree 40 10.4
Strongly Agree _12 3.1
Total 38 100.0
ITEM #61 - Refundable Damage
Deposit
Does Not Apply 6 1.6
Strongly Disagree 27 7.0
Disagree 53 13.8
Neutral 80 20.8
Agree 170 44.3
Strongly Agree _48 12.5
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #67 - Dismiss for
False Fire Alarms
Does Not Apply 8 2.1
Strongly Disagree 16 4.2
Disagree 100 26.0
Neutral 72 18.8
Agree 102 26.6
Strongly Agree _86 22.4

 

Total 84 100.0

 

295

Table 20 (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Frequency Percent
ITEM #73 - Noise in
Hallway a Problem
Does Not Apply 3 0.8
Strongly Disagree 18 4.7
Disagree 65 16.9
Neutral 68 17.7
Agree 143 37.2
Strongly Agree _81 22.7
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #79 - Ask Students
to be Quiet
Does Not Apply 2 0.5
Strongly Disagree 7 1.8
Disagree 17 4.4
Neutral 41 10.7
Agree 216 56.3
Strongly Agree .101 26.3
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #82 - I Contribute
to Noise
Does Not Apply 3 0.8
Strongly Disagree 62 16.1
Disagree 123 32.0
Neutral 62 16.1
Agree 117 30.5
Strongly Agree _11 4.4
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #83 - I Quiet Down
When Asked
Does Not Apply 27 7.0
Strongly Disagree - --
Disagree 2 0.5
Neutral 8 2.1
Agree 171 44.5
Strongly Agree 116 45.8
Total 384 100.0

 

 

296

Table 20 (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category Frequency Percent
ITEM #86 - Sense of
Responsibility
Does Not Apply 5 1.3
Strongly Disagree 12 3.1
Disagree 77 20.1
Neutral 127 33.1
Agree 141 36.7
Strongly Agree _22 5.7
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #89 - Strong Sense
of Identity
Does Not Apply 3 0.8
Strongly Disagree 41 10.7
Disagree 72 18.8
Neutral 86 22.4
Agree 133 34.6
Strongly Agree ._42 12.8
Total 3 4 100.0
ITEM #91 - Easy to Adjust
to Group Living
Does Not Apply 5 1.3
Strongly Disagree 11 2.9
Disagree 31 8.1
Neutral 43 11.2
Agree 224 58.3
Strongly Agree _19 18.2
Total 384 100.0
ITEM #92 - Experience
Not Expected
Does Not Apply 11 2.9
Strongly Disagree 31 8.1
Disagree 183 47.7
Neutral 88 22.9
Agree 61 15.9
Strongly Agree _19 2.6
Total 84 100.0

 

 

Appendix H

Analysis of Results
by Demographic Category

RE SULTS BY BUILDING

Seventeen items showed significant differences be-

tween buildings in the residence hall system.

Physical Environment

Respondents from Burge and Hillcrest agreed that
there are satisfactory recreational facilities in their
buildings (fifty-four and sixty-six percent respectively)
while no respondents from Westlawn and South Quadrangle
agreed with this item. Over sixty percent of those re-
sponding from South Quadrangle, Slater, Stanley, and Daum
perceived their floor lounges as being furnished well e—
nough to meet their needs, compared to Currier and Quad-
rangle residents who disagreed with this item (sixty-three
and fifty-four percent respectively). One hundred percent
of the respondents from Westlawn and South Quadrangle dis-
agreed that their floors are not kept clean and neat by
custodians, while seventeen percent of the respondents
from Quadrangle and nine percent of the residents from
Currier agreed with this item. When asked if their build-
ings are kept clean and neat by custodians, forty-three
percent of the respondents from Quadrangle and twenty-
eight percent from Burge disagreed. Few respondents from

the other buildings disagreed with this item.

297

Regulatory Environment
Significant differences existed between buildings in

terms of those who were familiar with the Policy Handbook.

 

Seventy-five percent of those responding from South Quad-
rangle agreed with this item while only thirty-four per-
cent of the respondents from Slater agreed. Over fifty-
four percent of the respondents from South Quadrangle and
Daum agreed that they did not support the alcohol policy,
compared to seven percent of the Stanley respondents who

had a similar opinion.

Programming Environment

Sixty percent or more of the respondents from Hill-
crest, Slater, and Westlawn believed the residence hall
staff did a good job of helping new students feel at home.
However, only thirty-three percent of the Rienow respon-
dents and twenty-five percent of the South Quadrangle re-
spondents agreed with this item. Also, three-fourths of
the respondents from South Quadrangle disagreed that their
social and recreational needs were satisfied by programs
and activities in the residence halls. None of the re-

spondents from Westlawn disagreed with this item.

Food Environment
One hundred percent of those responding from Westlawn
agreed that there was an adequate selection of salads at

lunch and dinner, compared to fifty-seven percent from

298

299
Daum. Quadrangle recorded the largest percent of re-
sponses that disagreed with this item - thirty-five per-
cent. Differences also existed regarding the atmosphere
in the dining room. One hundred percent of the Westlawn
residents disagreed that the dining atmosphere was not
comfortable. However, thirty percent of the respondents

from Quadrangle agreed.

Intellectual/Academic Environment

Eighty percent of the respondents from Westlawn
agreed that cultural and educational programs offered in
residence halls were an integral part of their residence
hall experience. However, none of the respondents from
South Quadrangle agreed with this item. When asked about
the adequacy of study facilities in their respective
buildings, over sixty-seven percent of the respondents
from Daum and Slater agreed. Only twenty-five percent of

the South Quadrangle respondents agreed.

Interpersonal Relations and Responsibility Environment
Eighty percent of the respondents from Westlawn dis-

agreed that residents in their building had no respect for

the property of others, compared to fifty-four percent of

the respondents from Burge who agreed with this item.

Most of those responding from each of the buildings agreed

that some people living in their hall deliberately dam-

aged or defaced the building. Over ninety-one percent

300

from Burge, Rienow and Quadrangle agreed with this item,
while only forty percent of those responding from Westlawn
agreed. Sixty percent of the respondents from Rienow
agreed that the students on their respective floors
generally helped to keep it clean and neat, where only
twenty-two percent from Quadrangle agreed. South Quad—
rangle had the highest percent of responses indicating
that the environment in their hall encouraged students to
commit anti-social acts. The lowest building response
(two percent) rate to this item was Currier Hall. Eighty
percent of the respondents from Westlawn agreed that they
had a strong sense of identity with the residents on their
floor, while only nineteen percent of those responding

from Currier agreed with this item.

RESULTS BY CLASS STANDING

Over fifty percent of those who responded to the
survey were freshmen. For comparative purposes, all
other responses (sophomore, junior, senior, graduate, and
other) were combined because of the diminishing number
of respondents in each class. Nevertheless, response
rates to thirteen items on the survey revealed signifi-

cant differences between freshmen and all others.

Physical Environment

Only one item on this environmental scale showed sig-
nificant differences between freshmen and others. Twice
as many freshmen responded that there were satisfactory
recreational facilities within their residence hall (forty-

two percent compared to twenty-two percent).

Regulatory Environment

Over sixty-two percent of the freshmen responded that
their RA consistently enforced rules and regulations on
their floors, compared to forty—four percent of all other
respondents. Only twenty-three percent of the freshmen
responded that they did not support the alcohol policy,

while thirty-five percent of all others agreed.

Programming Environment

Most freshmen (sixty-eight percent) agreed that the
residence hall staff did a good job of helping new stu-
dents feel at home, while forty-four percent of all others

agreed.

Food Environment

More freshmen responded that there was an adequate
selection of entrees and desserts at lunch and dinner than
all others. Although all classes disagreed that the at-
mosphere in the dining rooms was not comfortable, twice as
many others, compared to freshmen, agreed with this item

(twelve percent, compared to six percent).

301

Intellectual/Academic Environment

Thirty-one percent of the freshmen disagreed that
residence hall living was an important means of introducing
them to an intellectual climate. Forty-eight percent of
all others disagreed that their intellectual curiosity was
stimulated by residence hall living compared to fifty-
seven percent of all others who disagreed. However, sixty-
seven percent of freshmen responded that there were ade-
quate facilities (other than their room) in their residence
hall in which to study. Forty-one percent of all others

agreed with this item.

Interpersonal Relations and Responsibility Environment
Over sixty-three percent of all other respondents in-
dicated that if they saw someone pulling a false alarm,
they would be willing to report him/her to the residence
hall staff. Only forty-two percent of the freshmen agreed
with this item. Most freshmen (fifty-five percent) agreed
that they felt a sense of identity with the residents on
their floor while forty percent of all others agreed.
Freshmen also responded that, for the most part, it had
been easy to adjust to group living on their floor (eighty-
two percent). Seventy-two percent of all others agreed

with this item.

302

RESULTS BY SEX

Men (forty-one percent) and women (fifty-eight
percent) in this study perceived certain aspects of the
residence hall environment differently. Eighteen such

items in this section are presented for analysis.

Physical Environment

Eighty-six percent of the women agreed that there
were not enough laundry facilities in their buildings
where sixty-three percent of the men agreed. More women
(seventy-seven percent) than men (fifty-nine percent)
agreed that the two cubic foot refrigerators that were
rented to students were adequate for their needs. More
men (thirty-seven percent) than women (twenty-six percent)
agreed that they were willing to pay a higher rental rate ‘

to get a four or five cubic foot refrigerator.

Regulatory Environment

Thirty-eight percent of the men agreed that they did
not support the alcohol policy in residence halls.
Twenty-two percent of the women agreed with this item.
Forty-five percent of the men agreed that residents should
be disciplined for removing screens from their windows

while twenty-seven percent of the women agreed.

303

Programming Environment

Slightly more women than men indicated that they did
not participate in social and recreational programs in
residence halls. However, over one-half of the women ex-
pressed a desire for more cultural programs in the halls

while only one-third of the men expressed the same desire.

Security Environment

Most men (ninety percent) and women (seventy-one
percent) agreed that they felt safe in residence halls.
As a result, only six percent of the men and twenty-two
percent of the women agreed that the entrances to their
buildings should be locked at night. Also, only fifteen
percent of the men agreed with locking the floor at night.
However, more women (thirty-four percent) agreed with

locking the floors.

Food Environment

When asked if they would pay more for larger entrees,
seventeen percent of the men agreed while only eight per-
cent of the women agreed. Over one-half of the women
agreed that they would be willing to give up unlimited
food servings to keep board rate increases to a minimum.
However, less than one-third of the men agreed with this
item. Also, fewer men (nine percent) than women (twenty

percent) indicated a desire for more meatless entrees.

304

Intellectual/Academic Environment

One-half of the women disagreed that cultural and
educational programs were an integral part of their resi-
dence hall experience, while sixty-six percent of the men

disagreed.

Interpersonal Relations and Responsibility Environment

Both men and women agreed that they must compromise
in a group living situation, however, more women (seventy
percent) than men (fifty percent) felt strongly about this
item. Over one-half of the women agreed that the students
on their floor generally kept it clean and neat, while
one-third of the men agreed. More men (sixty percent) than
women (forty-three percent) agreed that students found
guilty of pulling false fire alarms should be dismissed
from residence halls. When asked if they contributed to
the noise in their hall, approximately one-third of the
men and women agreed. However, sixty-seven percent of the
men disagreed with this item and fifty percent of the

women disagreed.

RESULTS BY ETHNIC GROUP

The only ethnic group large enough for comparison
with Caucasians was the Afro-Americans. However, the size

of this group was so small, when compared to the Caucasian

305

306

group, the statistical significance betWeen them was lost.
Nevertheless, with this caution, nine items were found to

show significant differences.

Programming Environment

Thirty-six percent of the Caucasians agreed that the
spirit on their floors encouraged them to become involved
in building and campus activities, while twenty-seven per-
cent of the Afro-Americans agreed. However, well over
one-half (fifty—four percent) of the Afro-Americans
strongly disagreed with this item compared to twelve per-
cent of Caucasians. Although most Caucasians and Afro-
Americans agreed that the residence hall staff did a good
job of helping new students feel at home, twenty-two per—
cent of the Afro-Americans strongly disagreed, compared

to three percent of the Caucasians.

Food Environment

Almost one—half of the Caucasians felt that their
overall impression of the Food Service was favorable,
while only eighteen percent of the Afro-Americans agreed.
Also, over one-half of the Afro-Americans strongly dis-
agreed with this item compared to thirteen percent for
Caucasians. Seventy-seven percent of the Caucasians
agreed that there were an adequate selection of salads at
lunch and dinner. Only forty-six percent of the Afro-
Americans agreed with this item. Although both groups

agreed that there were an adequate selection of desserts

307

at lunch and dinner thirty percent of the Afro-Americans
strongly disagreed compared to three percent for Cauca-
sians. Fifty-one percent of the Caucasians agreed that
food waste occurred because students did not watch how
much food they take, while only eleven percent of the
Afro-Americans agreed. Over one-half of the Afro-
Americans strongly disagreed with this item compared to

eleven percent of the Caucasians.

Interpersonal Relations and Responsibility Environment
More Afro-Americans (forty percent) than Caucasians
(sixteen percent) believed that the environment in their
residence hall encouraged students to commit anti-social
acts. Although both groups agreed that for the most part,
they found it easy to adjust to group living on their
floors, one-third of the Afro-Americans strongly disagreed.
Only two percent of the Caucasians disagreed with this
item. Eighteen percent of the Caucasians agreed that
their experience of living with a large group of peOple
was not what they expected. Almost one-half of the Afro-

Americans agreed with this item.

RESULTS BY NUMBER OF LIVE-IN SEMESTERS

The category on the number of semesters lived in resi-
dence halls has been consolidated into three groups for
analysis. The consolidation was done because 1) indivi-

dual semesters were not likely to yield much difference

308
and 2) each semester category did not have enough indivi-
dual responses for comparative analysis. Therefore, one
semester students were put in group one, two and three
semester students were put in group two, and four or more

semester students were put in group three.

Physical Environment

Approximately one-third of all three groups agreed
that there were adequate recreational facilities within
their residence hall. However, sixty-three percent of
group two disagreed with this item, while twenty-nine and
forty percent of groups one and three disagreed. One-half
of group one agreed that there were enough bicycle racks
near their building, while fifty-seven and sixty-six per-

cent respectively of groups two and three agreed.

Programming Environment

Sixty-six percent of group one agreed that the resi-
dence hall staff did a good job of helping new students
feel at home, while forty-nine percent of group two and

forty percent of group three agreed.

Food Environment

Only five percent of group one perceived the atmos-
phere in the dining rooms as uncomfortable, while twelve
percent of group two and fifteen percent of group three

agreed with this item.

Intellectual/Academic Environment

Forty-four percent of group one agreed that residence
halls was an important means of introducing them to an
intellectual climate, while thirty-three percent of group
two and twenty-three percent of group three agreed. Al-
though few (approximately twenty percent) of all three
groups agreed that their intellectual curiosity was stimu-
lated by living in residence halls, forty percent of group
one, fifty-four percent of group two and sixty-seven per-
cent of group three disagreed. Forty-six percent of group
one indicated that they were able to study satisfactorily
in their room while one-third of group two and fifty-nine
percent of group three agreed. Also, sixty-six percent of
group one agreed that there were adequate facilities in
their residence hall other than their room to study.
Forty-four percent of group two and thirty-five percent of

group three agreed.

Interpersonal Relations and Responsibility Environment

Over seventy-six percent of group three agreed that
if they saw someone pulling a false fire alarm they would
be willing to report him/her to the residence hall staff.
Fifty-seven percent of group two and forty-three percent
of group one agreed with this item. Only forty-five per-
cent of group one agreed that those found guilty of

pulling false fire alarms should be dismissed from

309

310
residence halls, while one-half of group two and sixty-
four percent of group three agreed that they should be
dismissed. Finally, most (fifty-five percent) in group
one agreed that they had a strong sense of identity with
residents on their floor. Only forty percent of group two
and thirty-eight percent of group three agreed with this

item.

Appendix I

Thank you letter to Students
for Participating in the Study

The University of Iowa
Iowa City. Iowa 52242 31].

Office of Residence Services

Burge Hall

(319) 353-521 0

 

 

March 6, 1980

Dear Student:

Thank you very much for your participation in the Resi-
dence Hall Environmental Assessment Study. We had a fan-
tastic response rate to the survey that was in excess of
seventy percent. It is understandable, considering the
time constraints, that some residents who wanted to respond
were unable to.

All of the data from the surveys has been scored and are
currently in the hands of residence hall staff who now
have the responsibility to develop a set of recommenda-
tions based on an analysis of the data. These recommen-
dations will be collected in the next few weeks and ar-
ranged in order of priority. We will begin the implemen-
tation of these recommendations after Spring break. It
is important for you to understand that these recommen-
dations are based on what you said is important in your
residence hall living environment.

The item with the highest frequency response in Part II
of the survey was item number 41 - not enough laundry
facilities. As a result, we are currently committed to
improving and expanding laundry facilities, particularly
in the areas of highest need. Also, item number 76 -
stricter quiet hours - received a high level of response.
We are offering quiet lifestyle floors next year in re-
sponse to this need.

The complete results of the survey, as well as the speci-
fic actions to be taken, will appear in a number of pub—
lications that include time Synergist, Daily Iowan, Uni—
versity of Iowa Spectator, and others. Please look for
these results after Spring break.

 

 

 

312
March 6, 1980
If you have any questions or concerns about the survey or
resultant environmental changes, I would be happy to talk

with you about them.

Thank you again for helping to improve the quality of life
in our residence halls.

Sincerely,

Mitchel D. Livingston
Director, Residence Services
Chairperson, Environmental Assessment Planning Team

MDL/kst

Appendix J

Instructions to Subgroup

Leaders Regarding Data Analysis

The University of Iowa
Iowa City. Iowa 52242 3 l 3

Office of Residence Services

Burge Hall

(31 9) 353-5210

 

 

March 14, 1980

MEMORANDUM

To: Environmental Assessment Planning Team

From: Mitchel D. Livingston

Re: Environmental Assessment Survey Analysis - Part II

Enclosed is your copy of the Environmental Assessment Sur-
vey Analysis - Part II. Please review this information
carefully before your subgroup meets. Your subgroup leader
will call a meeting after spring break at which time each
subgroup will be required to develop a set of recommenda-
tions in order of priority based on an analysis of both
Part I (which you already have) and Part II data. You are
only required to make recommendations for the environmen-
tal scales that were assigned to your subgroup. They are
as follows:

Carol - Subgroup A

1. Programming Environment

2. Academic/Intellectual EnvirOnment
3. Security Environment

Fred - Subgroup B

1. Physical Environment
2. Regulatory Environment

Steve - Subgroup C

1. Food Environment
2. Interpersonal Relations & Responsibility Environment

The planning team will regroup for a dinner meeting in
Burge on Thursday, April 3, 1980. At this time we will

314

Planning
Team March 14, 1980

share recommendations and arrange them in order of prior-
ity. From this point we will be ready to begin the sche-
duling and implementation of selective recommendations.

I have also asked Fred, Steve, and Carol to review all of
the data with their respective staffs in order to get

their input prior to the meeting of their subgroups. Staff
will receive copies of the data analysis at the same time
you receive yours.

kst

cc: G. Droll, Associate Director
J. Davis, Coordinator of Information

Appendix K

Communications with

Central Administration

The University of Iowa
Iowa City. Iowa 52242 315

Office of Residence Services

Burge Hall

(319) 353-5210

 

 

October 19, 1979
MEMORANDUM

To: Philip Hubbard, Vice President Student Services
Phillip Jones, Associate Dean Student Services

From: Mitchel D. Livingston, Director

Re: Residence Hall Environmental
Assessment Project, 1979-80

I have mentioned on a couple of occasions that we are in
the process of developing an assessment and change mech-
anism to compliment our existing procedures for improving
the residence hall environment. We are using a planning
team approach to identify, assess and redesign problem
areas in residence halls. The team is composed of resi-
dence hall staff and students, ARH representatives,
faculty and members from the Student Services staff.

Attached is a COpy of the Planning Team Workbook that pro-
vides information about the technique we are using. I am
pleased to say that after our first two meetings that the
level of interest and commitment by team members is very
high. We should complete the assessment phase of the pro—
cess by Christmas break and begin the redesign process
second semester.

Colleen Jones will be working with us to insure that our
assessment technique is sensitive to the needs of minority
students who live in residence halls.

I look forward to any comments and/or suggestions you
might have.

kst

The University of Iowa
Iowa City. Iowa 52242 31 6

Office of Residence Services

Burge Hall

(31 9) 353-5210

1847

 

 

November 30, 1979
MEMORANDUM

To: Philip Hubbard, Vice President Student Services
May Brodbeck, Vice President Academic Affairs
Phillip Jones, Associate Dean Student Services
luqrMuston,Associate Dean Academic Affairs

From: Mitchel D. Livingston, Director

Re: Residence Hall Environmental Assessment Project

The environmental assessment planning team (see attached)
composed of faculty, staff and students, has been working
the past seven weeks to develop a methodology, and an in-
strument for improving residence hall living. We have re-
cently completed our Environmental Assessment Survey (see
attached) and plan to administer it before semester break.
The survey is a three-part instrument that 1) tests stu-
dents' perceptions of various residence halls environ-
ments; 2) asks why residents have these perceptions and
what they would recommend to improve things; and 3) what
their housing plans are for next year.

 

There are seven environmental scales on the instrument that
include the following:

1. Physical Environment

2. Regulatory Environment

3. Programming Environment

4. Security Environment

5. Food Environment

6. Intellectual/Academic Environment

7. Interpersonal Relations & Responsibility Environment

Many environmental categories are not included in order to
keep the study within manageable limits. However, the a-
bove represents the concerns most frequently mentioned as
problem areas by staff and students.

317

Hubbard

Brodbeck

Jones

Muston 11-30-79

Environmental changes will be made beginning second semes-
ter, based on the analysis of survey results.

If you have any questions, concerns, or recommendations re-
garding the instrument and/or the planning team process,
please notify me at your earliest convenience.

We are currently pilot testing the survey and plan to make
final modifications by Friday, December 7, 1979.

kst

enclosures

The University of Iowa

Iowa City. Iowa 52242 3 l 8

Office of Residence Services

Burge Hall

(31 9) 353-5210

 

 

February 4, 1980

MEMORANDUM

To: Philip Hubbard, Vice President Student Services
May Brodbeck, Vice President Academic Affairs
Phillip Jones, Associate Dean Student Services
Ray Muston, Associate Dean Academic Affairs

From: Mitchel D. Livingston, Director

Re: Part I Results from the Residence Hall
Environmental Assessment Survey

 

 

Enclosed for your review and comment are the Part I re-
sults from the Residence Hall Environmental Assessment
Survey. Each one of the functional area heads in resi-
dence halls have received a copy of these results, and
have been asked to share them with their respective
staffs. The results from Part II and III will be dis-
siminated in a similar fashion within the next two or
three weeks.

 

Each area head will also be asked to thoroughly analyze
the data from all three parts of the survey, and to submit
specific recommendations in order of priority, back to the
Environmental Assessment Planning Team. A master list of
recommendations will then be compiled for action to be
taken beginning this semester.

Many thanks are to go to the students, faculty, and staff
who have given so unselfishly to make this project a suc-
cess.

kst

enclosures

The University of Iowa
Iowa City. Iowa 52242 3 l 9

Office of Residence Services

Burge Hall

(319) 353-5210

 

 

March 27, 1980
MEMORANDUM

To: Philip Hubbard, Vice President Student Services
May Brodbeck, Vice President Academic Affairs
Phillip Jones, Associate Dean Student Services
Ray Muston, Associate Dean Academic Affairs

From: Mitchel D. Livingston, Director

Re: Residence Halls Environmental Assessment Survey

Enclosed for your review and comment are the Part II re-
sults from the Residence Halls Environmental Assessment
Survey. These results, along with Part I are currently
being analyzed by staff, students, and the Environmental
Assessment Planning Team. A list of recommended program
changes will be developed, utilizing the input from these
groups, and they should be complete in a couple of weeks.
I will share the recommendations with you before we begin
the process implementation.

Those who responded to the survey were asked in Part II to
go back to Part I and identify five items (from the list
of ninety-two) that they felt strongly about, based on
their experience, and 1) state why they felt strongly a-
bout the item and 2) what they recommend to improve the
situation. These are referred to as environmental
referents (ERs) because they refer back either qualita-
tively or quantitatively to items in Part I of the survey.
There was a tendency for respondents to choose significant
items in Part II of the survey that they felt negatively
about.

kst

enclosure

The University of Iowa

Iowa City. Iowa 52242 3 2 0

Office of Residence Services

Burge Hall

(31 9) 353-5210

 

 

1847

May 14, 1980

MEMORANDUM

To: Philip Hubbard, Vice President Student Services
May Brodbeck, Vice President Academic Affairs
Phillip Jones, Associate Dean Student Services
Ray Muston, Associate Dean Academic Affairs

From: Mitchel D. Livingston
Re: Recommendations from the Environmental Assessment
Study

Enclosed for your review is a list of recommendations that
were developed from the data generated through the Univer-
sity of Iowa Residence Hall Environmental Assessment Surf
KEY (UIRHEAS). Nine of these recommendations are being im-
plemented immediately. The remaining recommendations re-
quire staged implementation, therefore they have been in-
corporated into the departmental MBO program and have been
assigned to specific individuals for completion at a later
date.

 

Once again the faculty, staff, and students expressed a
great deal of support for this method of environmental
improvement and they strongly recommend that it continue
in the future.

Two of us from the planning team will present the model at
an international conference in Canada this summer. One of
the team members will present the model at a regional con-
ference in the fall. Also the student government represen-
tatives on the team will present the model at the National
Association of College and University Residence Halls
(NACURH) in North Carolina this year.

I welcome any comments you might have about the process
and/or the results of our ecosystem study of residence
halls.

kst

Appendix L

ER Content
Analysis Sheet

321

ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENT CONTENT ANALYSIS SHEET
Analysis Item Number

State Item Text

 

 

Analysis is for (circle one):

agree, neutral, or disagree responses

Please record your analysis information on this item in
the proper space below. If you have more categories than
provided for on the sheet, please follow this format in
presenting the information on additional sheets. Staple
all additional sheets on an item to the proper ER Content
Analysis Sheet.

"Why" Category
Description # of responses

 

 

 

 

 

"What" Category
Description # of responses

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix M

Guidelines for

Writing ER Recommendations

322

GUIDELINES FOR WRITING RECOMMENDATIONS

The subgroup leaders and I met to discuss questions and
concerns regarding the writing of recommendations. The
following should prove helpful in terms of your delibera-
tions:

1.

Each subgroup leader should utilize the following re-
sources in the development of recommendations:

A. Part I analysis of data

B. Part II analysis of data

C. Staff input from each subgroup leader's respec-
tive areas

D. Subgroup from the planning team

E. Current planning documents (Five Year Plan,
MBO, etc.)

Do not totally restrict your thinking because of fi-
nancial constraints or other limitations at this time.
As you identify problem areas write down a recommen-
dation that might improve it. We will drop or defer
those recommendations that cannot be implemented at a
later date.

Be creative with the development of your recommenda-
tions. Sometimes a program change is not necessary
when better communications will suffice. In this
particular case, write a communication recommendation.

Make recommendations in the areas that were assigned
to your subgroup. But also be prepared to assist
others in the development of their recommendations
when the whole planning team gets together. Don't
worry about suggesting recommendations in someone
else's area; that's a part of the rules - it's ok.
This process should encourage support by limiting
artificial boundaries such as positions, organiza-
tional relationships, etc.

If you need more statistical information about speci-
fic items, the computer printout sheets are available
in the Housing Office.

Appendix N

Critique

Form

323

CRITIQUE OF ECOSYSTEM STUDY

Please critique the environmental assessment study that we
recently completed by providing your impression of the fol-
lowing:

1. Size and composition of the planning team

2. Use of subgroups

3. Frequency and length of meetings

4. Training and support during each stage of the pro-
ject (i.e., I knew what was going on and why)

5. Method of instrument development and assessment

6. Part I data results (analysis of numerical ratings)

10.

11.

12.

324

Part II data results (analysis of ERs)

Process used for team decision-making including
recommendations for change

Length of time to complete study and implement re-
sults

Strenghts

Weaknesses

Overall assessment

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adelman, Howard. The Beds of Academe. Toronto: Praxis
Books, 1969.

Argyris, Chris. "The Incompleteness of Social-Psychologi-
cal Theory: Examples from Small Group, Cognitive Con-
sistency, and Attribution Research." American Ps -
chologist, 24 (1969), 893-908.

 

Astin, Alexander W. Four Critical Years. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1977.

 

Astin, Alexander W. Manual for the Inventory of College
Activities. Minneapolis: National Computer Systems,
1971.

 

Astin, Alexander W. "Observations on Higher Education:
An Interview with Alexander Astin." NASPA Field Re-
por , 3 (Fall, 1978), 1-4.

 

Astin, Alexander W., and John L. Holland. "The Environ-
mental Assessment Technique: A Way to Measure College
Environments." Journal of Educational Psychology, 52
(1961): 308-316.

Astin, Alexander W. "The Impact of Dormitory Living on
Students." Educational Record, 54 (Summer, 1973),
204—210.

 

Aulepp: LuAnne, and Ursula Delworth. Training Manual for
an Ecosystem Model. Boulder, Colorado: Western In-
terstate Commission for Higher Education, 1976.

 

Banning, James H., and Leland Kaiser. "An Ecological Per-
spective and Model for Campus Design." Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 52 (1974), 372-374.

 

Barker, Roger G. Ecological Psychology: Concepts and
Methods for Studying the Environment of Human Be-
havior. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1968.

 

 

325

326

Barker, Roger G. "Ecology and Motivation." Nebraska Sym-
posium on Motivation. Ed. M. R. Jones. Lincoln,
Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1960, 1-49.

 

 

Barker, Roger G. "The Ecological Environment." Issues in
Social Ecology: Human Milieus. Ed. R. Moos and P.
Insel. Palo Alto, California: National Press Books,
1974, 255-266.

 

 

Blocher, Donald H. Developmental Counseling. 2nd ed.
New York: Ronald Press, 1974.

 

Blocher, Donald H. "Toward an Ecology of Student Develop-
ment." Personnel and Guidance Journal, 52 (1974),
360-365.

 

Brown, Robert D. "Manipulation of the Environmental Press
in a College Residence Hall." Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 46 (1968), 555-560.

Brown, Robert D. "Student Development and Residence Educa-
tion: Should it be Social Engineering?." Student
Development and Education in College Residence Halls.
Ed. David A. DeCoster and Phyllis Mable. Washington,
D.C.: American College Personnel Association, 1974,
41-54.

 

Brown, Robert D. Student Development in Tomorrow's Higher
Education: A Return to the Academy. Washington, D.C.:
American College Personnel Association, 1972.

 

 

 

Centra, John A. "Student Perceptions of Residence Hall
Environment: Living Learning vs. Conventional Units."
Journal of College Student Personnel, 9 (1968),
266-272.

 

Centra, John A. "The College Environment Revisited: Cur-
rent Descriptions and a Comparison of Three Methods
of Assessment." College Entrance Examination Board
Research and Development Reports, RDR-70-7l, no. 1.
Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1970.

 

Chein, I. "The Environment as a Determinant of Behavior."
Journal of Social Psychology: 39 (1954), 115-127.

 

Chickering, Arthur W. Commuting Versus Resident Students.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.

Chickering, Arthur W. Education and Identity. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969.

327

Clark, R. B., and M. Trow. "Determinants of College Stu-
dent Subcultures." Berkeley, California: Center for
the Study of Higher Education, 1960.

Committee on the Student in Higher Education. The Student
in Higher Education. New Haven: Hazen Foundation,

 

 

I568.
Conyne, Robert. "An Analysis of Student-Environment Mis-
matches." Journal of College Student Personnel, 19

 

(1978), 461-465.

Conyne, Robert. "Environmental Assessment: Mapping for
Counselor Action." Personnel and Guidance Journal,
54 (1975), 150-155.

 

 

Corazzini, John, and Susan Wilson. "Students, the En-
vironment and Their Interaction: Assessing Student
Needs and Planning for Change." Journal of the
National Association for Women Deans, Administrators,
and Counselors, 40 (1977), 68-72.

 

 

 

Corazzini, John, Susan Wilson, and Lois Huebner. EBE.EET
vironmental Satisfaction Questionnaire. Fort Collins,
Colorado: Rocky Mountain Behavioral Science Insti-
tute, 1976.

 

Cowley, W. H. "Reflections of a Troublesome But Hopeful
Rip Van Winkle." Journal of College Student Per-

 

Daher, D. M., John Corazzini, and Richard C. McKinnon.
"An Environmental Redesign Program for Residence
Halls." Journal of College Student Personnel, 18
(1977), ll-15.

 

DeCoster, David A., and Phyllis Mable. Student Develop-
ment and Education in College Residence Halls.
Washington, D.C.: American Personnel and Guidance
Association, 1974.

 

 

 

 

Delworth, Ursula. "Designing Campus Ecosystems." NASPA
Journal, 13-14 (1975), 40-44.

DeYoung, Alan, Rudolph Moos, Bernice Van Dort, and M. M.
Penny Smail. "Expectations, Perceptions and Change
in University Residence Climates: Two Case Studies."
Journal of College and University Student Housing, 2

(1972),14:11.

 

 

328

Dressel, Paul L., and I. J. Lehmann. "The Impact of
Higher Education on Student Values and Critical
Thinking Abilities." Educational Record, 46 (1965),
248-257.

 

Duvall, W. H. "Student-Staff Evaluations of Residence Hall
Environment." Journal pf College Student Personnel,
10 (1969), 52-58.

Elliott, Odus V. "Assessing Student Needs." Programming
and Activities is College and Universitngesidence
Halls. Ed. John Schuh. Princeton, N.J.: Association
of College and University Housing Officers, 1977,
12-16.

 

 

 

Faris, R., and H. Dunham. Mental Disorders 13 Urban
Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939.

 

Feldman, Kenneth A., and Theodore M. Newcomb. The Impact
9: College pg Students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1969.

 

Ford, Michael. The Social Ecology pf Northern Colorado
Residence Halls. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Northern Colorado, 1975.

 

 

 

 

Funkenstein, D. H. "Failure to Graduate from Medical
School." Journal pf Medical Education, 37 (1962),
585-603.

Gibbs, John. "The Meaning of Ecologically Oriented In-
quiry in Contemporary Psychology." American Psygho-
logist, 34 (1979), 127-140.

Griffitt, W., and R. Veitch. "Hot and Crowded: Influences
of Population Density and Temperature on Interpersonal
Behavior." Journal pf Personality and Social Psycho-
logy, 17 (1971), 92-98.

 

Harris, R., K. Hodgson, and R. Riley. Ecosystem Report A:
Student Opinion Survey. Communtiy College of Denver,
Red Rock Campus, July, 1976.

 

 

Heider, F. "On Perception, Event Structure and the Psy-
chological Environment, Selected Papers." Psycholo-
gical Issues, 1 (1959).

 

Heist, P., and G. Yonge. Manual for the Omnibus Per—
sonality Inventory. New York: The Psychological
Corporation, 1968.

 

 

 

329

Holland, John L. Manual for the Vocational Preference l3“
ventory. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psycholo-
gists Press, 1965.

 

Holland, John L. The Psychologygnyocational Choice: A
Theory of Personaliterypes and Model Environments.

Waltham, Massachusetts: Blaisdell, 1966.

 

 

 

 

Huebner, Lois. "Emergent Issues of Theory and Practice."
Applying the Ecosystem Model. Ed. Lois Huebner.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, in press.

 

 

Hyne, Sue. Institutional Assessment in Outreach Coun-
seling: A Comparison pf Two TechHIquesT UnpubliShed
Masters Thesis, Colorado State University, 1973.

 

 

 

 

Insel, Paul M., and Rudolph Moos. "Psychological Environ-
ments - Expanding the Sc0pe of Human Ecology." Ameri-
can Psychologist, 29 (1974), 179-188.

 

Kaiser, Leland R. "Designing Campus Environments." NASPA
Journal, 13 (1975), 33-39.

Kaiser, Leland R. The Ecological Perspective: Mapping and
Designing the Student Educational Community. Unpub-
lished Manuscript, Boulder, Colorado, 1972.

 

 

 

 

Knefelkamp, Lee, Carole Widick, and Clyde A. Parker.
Applying New Developmental Findings. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1978.

 

Lewin, Kurt. Field Theory and Social Science. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1951.

 

Lewin, Kurt. Principles pf Topological Psychology. New
York: McGraw Hill, 1936.

 

 

Linton, R. The Cultural Background pf Personality. New
York: Century, 1945.

 

 

Maslow, Abraham H. "A Theory of Human Motivation."
Readings ip the Psychologyg£_Adjustment. Eds. L.
Gorlow and W. Walkowsky. New York: McGraw Hill,
1959.

 

 

McFee, A. "The Relation of Students' Needs to Their Per—
ception of a College Environment." Journal pf Educa-
tional Psychology: 52 (1961), 25-29.

 

Menne, John W. "Techniques for Evaluating the College En-
vironment." Journal g£_Educational Measurement, 4
(1967), 219-222.

 

330

Miller, William G., and James Moore. Measuring Student
Perceptions pf 2 Residence Hall Environment. Southern
Illinois University, July, 1973.

 

 

 

Moos, Rudolph. Evaluatinngducational Environments. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979.

 

Moos, Rudolph, and Paul M. Insel. Issues 12 Social Ecol-
ogy: Human Milieus. Palo Alto, California: National
Press Books, 1974.

 

 

Moos, Rudolph. "Sources of Variance in Responses to Ques-
tionnaires and in Behavior." Journal gthbnormal
Psychology, 74 (1969), 405-412.

 

Munroe, R. L., and R. H. Munroe. "Population Density and
Affective Relationships in Three East African Socie-
ties." Journal pf Social Psychology, 88 (1972), 15-
18.

 

Murray, H. A. Explorations ip Personality. New York:
Oxford Press, 1938.

 

 

Newcomb, Theodore M. "Student Peer-Group Influence and In-
tellectual Outcomes of College Experience." Person-
ality Factors pp the College Campus. Eds. Robert
Southerland, Wayne Holtzman, Earl Koile and Bert
Smith. Austin, Texas: Hogg Foundation, 1962, 69-92.

 

 

Nie, Norman, C. Hadlai Hall, Jean C. Jenkins, Karin
Steibrenner, and Dale H. Brent. Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw
Hill, 1975.

 

 

Oetting, E. R. "Evaluative Research and Orthodox Science:
Part I." Personnel and Guidance Journal, 56 (Septem-
ber, 1976), ll-15.

 

Pace, C. Robert. CUES: College and University Environment
Scales. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service,
1963.

 

 

Park, R. E., and E. W. Burgess. The City. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, 1925.

Paul, Stephen, and Weston Morrill. "Applying the Ecosys—
tems Perspective to the Ecosystems Perspective."
Applying the Ecosystem Model. Ed. Lois Huebner.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, in press.

 

Pervin, Lawrence A. "Performance and Satisfaction as a
Function of Individual-Environmental Fit." Psycholo-
gical Bulletin, 69 (1968), 56-68.

 

331

Pervin, Lawrence A., and D. B. Rubin. "Student Dissatis-
faction with College and the College Dropout: A
Transactional Approach." Journal pf Social Psychol-
pgy, 72 (1967), 285-295.

 

Peterson, Richard E. Technical Manual: Collegs Student
Questionnaire. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing
Service, Institutional Research Program for Higher
Education, 1965.

 

 

 

Piaget, Jean. "Cognitive Development in Children: Piaget
Papers." Piaget Rediscovered: A Report of the Con-
ference on Cognitive Studies and Curriculum Develop-
ment. Eds. R. E. Ripple and D. W. Rockcastle.
Ithaca, New York: Cornell University, 1964, 7-20.

 

 

 

 

Powell, John R., Samuel A. Plyler, Barbara A. Dickson, and
Stephen D. McClellan. The Personnel Assistant 12
College Residence Halls. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1969.

 

 

Riker, Harold C. College Housing as Learnipg Centers.
Washington, D. C.: American Personnel and Guidance
Association, 1965.

 

 

Schuh, John. "Assessment and Redesign in Residence Halls."
Applying the Ecosystem Model. Ed. Lois Huebner. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, in press.

 

Schuh, John, and Melissa Allan. "Implementing the Eco-
system Model." Journal of College Student Personnel,
19 (March, 1979), 119-122.

 

Schuh, John. "Implementing the Ecosystem Model: Phase
II." Journal of Collegs and University Student
Housing, 8 (1978— 79), 6-8.

 

Sherif, M., and C. Sherif. Reference Groups. New York:
Harper and Row, 1964.

 

Sherif, M., and H. Cantril. The Psychology pf Ego £2"
volvement. New York: Wiley, 1947.

 

 

Stern, George G. "Character of the Intellectual Climate
in College Environments." Harvard Educational As-
view, 33 (1963), 5-41:

 

Stern, George G. "Congruence and Dissonance in the
Ecology of College Students." Student Medicine, 8
(1960): 304-339.

 

332

Stern, George G. "Environments for Learning." The Ameri-
can College: A Psychological and Social Interpretation
pf the Higher Learning. Ed. R. N. Sanford. New York:
Wiley, 1962, 690-730.

 

 

 

 

Stern, George G. PeOple ip Context. New York: Wiley, 1970.

Stern, George G. "Student Values and Their Relationship
to the College Environment." Research pp College Stu-
dents. Ed. H. T. Sprague. Boulder, Colorado:
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education,
1960, 67-104.

 

Svob, R. "Designing Campus Ecosystems." NASPA Journal,
13-14 (1975/1977), 40-45.

Van der Ryn, Sim, and Murray Silverstein. Dorms at
Berkeley. Berkeley, California: The Center—for
Planning and DevelOpment Research, 1967.

Walsh, W. Bruce. Theories pf Person-Environment Inter-
action: Implications for the College Student. The
American College Testing Program, Number 10. Iowa
City, Iowa: ACT Press, 1973.

 

 

Wrenn, C. G. "PhilOSOphical and Psychological Bases of
Personnel Services in Education." Personnel Ser-
vices ip Education. Ed. N. B. Henry. Chicago:
University of ChIEago Press, 1959.

 

 

Zlitnick, S., and I. Altman. "Crowding and Human Be-
havior." Environment and the Social Sciences: Esp-
spectives and Applications. Eds. J. F. Wohlwill
and D. H. Carson. Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Association, 1972.

 

 

 

Zuckerman, Miron, Marie Schmitz, and Andrew Yosha. "Ef-
fects of Crowding in a Student Environment." Journal
pf Applied Psychology, 7 (1977), 67-72.