RESIDENCE HALLS GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS AND STAFF Thesis for II'Ie Degree of pl’l. D. MICHIGAN STATE ‘ UNIVERSITY J 0 Anne J5‘hhson 1965' , ‘ THESIS LIBRARY' Michigan Stan University This is to certify that the thesis entitled Residence Hall Goals and Objectives: Perceptions of §tfidents and Staff presented by 'Jo-Anne Johnson has been aecepted towards fulfillment ' of the requirements for ___B_‘;_D_ degree in M9“ Date June 30, 1965 0-169 ; III!III'IIMIILILIIILHI!!!IIIIHHIIII t. 3919 ABSTRACT RESIDENCE HALLS GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS AND STAFF by Jo Anne Johnson The effectiveness of residence hall programs in eight colleges was assessed in this study. Effectiveness is defined here as the agreement between student and staff per- ceptions concerning the accomplished residence hall ob— jectives in that institution. A Residence Hall Experience Questionnaire was de- veloped using the categories of Instructional Support, De- velOpment of the Individual, Experience in Group Living, Provision of Atmosphere, Satisfaction of Physical Needs, Supervision of Conduct, and Support for the College. Sources of item content were personal experience and literature in the field, and discussion with students and student personnel workers. Students and staff members responded to the items describing the residence hall experience in terms of whether this particular situation had occurred in the residence hall experiences on that campus. The questionnaire consisted of fifty-four items. A response scale of Strongly agree, Agree, Disagree, and Strongly disagree was used. AAF’ bylh‘v :4 mt. .C .. a .; n. . S .l .l Jo Anne Johnson The sample was drawn from five small, private colleges and three large state-supported universities in central Michigan. Administrative staff who worked directly with residence hall programming as well as full—time resi- dence hall staff members were used in the staff sample. The student sample was randomly selected from men and women living in the halls. Data were collected by administering the question- naire in group settings to students and staff. Comparison of responses using the chi square analysis corrected for continuity was made to determine the degree of similarity or difference in perception of staff and students. The .05 level of significance was used. Student or staff responses were termed consistent if 80 per cent or more of one group responded the same way and were termed inconsistent if re- sponses were about evenly divided. . Over all eight colleges, there were seventy—eight significant differences among thirty-two of the fifty-four items. Three items had five or more significant differences indicated and four more items had four significant differ- ences indicated. Students in four or more colleges responded con- sistently to sixteen items and inconsistently to five items. Staff members in at least four colleges responded consistently to forty items and inconsistently to six items. ."‘"" a C ,a. nu 'l i IEIE Jo Anne Johnson Conclusions 1. There were significant differences in student and staff perceptions of the students' residence hall experience in all eight colleges. The range in number of significant items in each college was two through eighteen. 2. There is more unanimity of opinion among staff members about the students' hall experiences than there is among the students on the same subject. 3. At all eight colleges sampled, the largest number of significant differences in student and staff perceptions, both in total numbers and in relation to the number of items in the category, was in the Instructional Support category. 4. The largest number of highly significant differences was found in the Instructional Support category. 5. The smallest number of significant differences in staff and student perceptions both in total number and in relations to the number of items in the category'was in the Experience in Group Living category. 6. There appear to be more significant differences in student and staff perceptions in larger residence hall systems than in smaller ones. Differences in larger hall systems tend to be more highly significant. 7. Among the three large colleges represented in the sample, the college with the fewest significant differences in student-staff perceptions was the college with the highest Jo Anne Johnson proportion of professionally trained staff members in the halls. The same phenomenon is true of the five small colleges in the sample. 8. Students in each of the eight colleges responded consistently on slightly less than one-third of the items although not all groups responded consistently to the same items. 9. This type of questionnaire is useful in describing the perceptions of students and staff of accomplished resi- dence hall activities on a given campus. RESIDENCE HALLS GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS AND STAFF BY Jo Anne Johnson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1965 Copyright by JO ANNE JOHNSON 1965 O! (f) if ’ ('7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge the cooperation and assistance of the students and student personnel staff members of the eight colleges participating in this study, Albion College, Alma College, Hope College, Kalamazoo College, Adrian College, Eastern Michigan University, Central Michigan University and Western Michigan University. Without this willing and wholehearted assistance this study would not have been possible. Throughout the preparation of the dissertation, the assistance and encouragement of the writer's major advisor, Dr. Walter F. Johnson was most helpful. Dr. Laurine E. Fitzgerald offered interest and support that was deeply ap- preciated. In addition, the members of the writer's Guidance Committee, Dr. Edward B. Blackman, Dr. John C. Howell, and Dr. Willa Norris were always available for help and consultation. ii Chapter II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS THE PROBLEM Need . Statement of the Problem Theory . . . . . Overview REVIEW OF LITERATURE Literature Relating to the Problem Literature Relating to the De- velopment of the Instrument Application of Previous Research Summary SAMPLE AND METHODOLOGY Sample . Instrumentation Collection of the Data Analysis of the Data Summary . . ANALYSIS OF THE DATA College One College Two College Three College Four College Five . . . . . . . . . College Six . . . . . . . . . . College Seven . . . . . . . . . . . College Eight . . . . . . . . Interviews The Instrument Summary iii Page CDU'Ith I-‘ O 12 18 20 21 21 22 26 3O 33 34 34 47 6O 74 87 100 113 127 141 145 160 Chapter Page V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Problem and Methodology . . . . . . . 168 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 173 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 The Instrument . . . . . . . . 179 Implications for Future Research . . . 181 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 iv LIST OF TABLES Student and staff sample size in each college College One--Chi square values and frequency of agreement of response of students and staff for each item on the Residence Hall Experience Questionnaire College Two--Chi square values and frequency of agreement of response of students and staff for each item on the Residence Hall Experience Questionnaire College Three—-Chi square values and frequency of agreement of response of students and staff for each item on the Residence Hall Experience Questionnaire College Four-~Chi square values and frequency of agreement of response of students and staff for each item on the Residence Hall Experience Questionnaire College Five--Chi square values and' frequency of agreement of response of students and staff for each item on the Residence Hall Experience Questionnaire College Six--Chi square values and frequency of agreement of response of students and staff for each item on the Residence Hall Experience Questionnaire College Seven--Chi square values and frequency of agreement of response of students and staff for each item on the Residence Hall Experience Questionnaire Page 28 37 50 63 9O 90 103 117 Table 10. 11. 12. Page College Eight-—Chi square values and frequency of agreement of response of students and staff for each item on the Residence Hall Experience Questionnaire . . 131 Consistency of student responses to Resi— dence Hall Experience Questionnaire . . . . 147 Consistency of staff responses to Residence Hall Experience Questionnaire . . . . . . . 151 Incidence of significant differences be- tween student and staff perceptions of individual items summarized for all colleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 vi LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Letter to Students B Residence Hall Experience Questionnaire and 1230 Scoring Sheet C Percentage of Men and Women Students in Each College Agreeing on Each Item vii Page 186 188 196 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Need Almost all four-year colleges and universities pro— vide residence facilities of some kind for their students. Public and private, large and small, residential and even urban institutions of higher learning are increasing both the number and proportion of students housed in college- owned, group-living accomodations. Figures compiled by the U.S. Office of Education in 1960 indicate that public insti— tutions house 33.3% of their students and private institutions housed.42.3%. In these institutions, 31.9% of the men and 46.6% of the women were housed by the colleges. In all institutions, 66% had housing for men and 71.4% had housing for women (10). The reasons for providing housing on the campus and the rationale for requiring students to live there rarely have been clearly stated. More often, generalized, amorphous statements are made in catalogues and residence hall hand- books to the effect that the residence hall experience con- tributes to the total educational experience of the student. In the early days of higher education in this country. residence halls served two purposes. Since there often was no housing available in the small rural communities where colleges were located, the halls were a convenience and service for the students. The influence of the traditional English residential college was particularly evident in the early colonial colleges. Also, the halls served as a means for the administration to control student behavior and to inculcate social and moral values (11:96-101). Since WOrld War II, however, the hall system on many campuses has burgeoned into a vast complex of buildings, staff, and programs designed to serve many purposes and to provide students a multitude of opportunities toenrich their college experience. Partly because of cultural lag and hold-over from the early days of control orientation, and partly because of the importance assigned to the values of the residence hall experience, students are required on most campuses to live at least one year, if not their entire undergraduate career, in the residence halls (2). Such requirements imply that a residence hall experi- ence will enrich and enhance the students' total educational experience. If such assumptions are to be justified, the residence hall experience would have to be evaluated in terms of what happens to the student who is a part of that experience. However, a problem arises in determining whether the student perceives and experiences the residence hall pro- gram in the way that the student personnel administrator and residence hall staff members plan that he perceive it, and in determining whether students learn what staff members in- tend and hope they would learn as a result of thehall experience. A search of the literature indicates that few at- tempts have been made to ascertain the effectiveness of the residence hall programs or to evaluate the student's hall experience in terms of what the staff believe should be happening to him. A method for determining the congruity of perception of accomplished residence hall objectives would be useful in assessing the effectiveness of a given residence hall program. Such assessment necessarily would be done in relation to individual program objectives and purposes rather than in relation to common purposes for residence halls in general. There are a number of ways to evaluate a residence hall program. For instance, one way is to measure the pro— gram and its effects against a generally agreed upon, out- side standard. This method assumes such a standard is readily available and such is not always the case. In ad- dition, using one general set of standards as criteria for judging the effectiveness of a hall program presupposes every program has similar objectives. A second method would be a self-evaluation technique in which the students and staff evaluate their perceptions .nm of the program as it exists in terms of their prior expec- tations of what was to happen in their hall experience. This approach cannot be used in this study because there is no way to determine the expectations of the students. How— ever, such an approach could be used in a longitudinal study. A third method would be to compare what the student says actually happens to him in his hall experience with what the hall staff and student personnel administrators be- lieve happens to most students in their hall experience. This type of evaluation was chosen as the method to be used in the present study for two reasons. First, the present perceptions of students and of staff members of the residence hall experience could be measured and statistically compared with each other. Second, if such a measure were valid it would be an operational indication to staff members of whether the program is succeeding as they perceive it to be. It is not expected that any results achieved from such an evaluation will be generalizable to all schools even of similar structure and orientation. But it may be expected that some generalizations may be made about procedures that can be undertaken to determine the effectiveness of a given hall program. Statement of the Problem The problem to be explored in the present study, then, is to assess the effectiveness of a residence hall program by measuring the extent of agreement in the percep- tions of students and of hall staff members concerning the accomplished residence hall objectives in that institution. The assessment will be carried out in eight colleges and uni- versities with the students and residence hall staff members of each college. The significant differences in the students' and staff members' perceptions of the fulfillment of certain hall objectives may indicate areas where the hall program (1) is least effective in terms of the staff members' per- ceived objectives for the program or (2) is accomplishing something for the student of which the staff is generally unaware. At the same time, an overall picture of what the students and staff perceive to be happening in the hall will be evident from a summary of the perceptions of the students and of the staff in all the areas examined. It should be emphasized that the outcomes of this study will not determine whether a given residence hall pro— gram is good or bad; but will examine the hall experience as the student perceives it in contrast to how the hall staff member believes the student experiences it. Theory If a residence hall program is effectively accomplish— ing what it has been structured to do, then the students who participate in the program will perceive these activities or events as being achieved in their own particular residence hall experience. But this is not always the case. Riker (8) states that, " . . . on the basis of observations and available evidence there is little doubt that many of today's residence halls fall far short of their assigned purposes." He goes on to outline why the hall purposes so often fail to be ac— complished: (l) the purposes are so general that they have only vague meaning and are either forgotten or misinterpreted, (2) the hall purposes are not always incorporated into de— tailed plans for new construction, (3) often no practical provisions are made for implementing the purposes, (4) the purposes are established with no or little understanding of the students who will be affected by them. In this same area, Mueller (7:177-78), in discussing the pros and cons of various approaches to residence hall programming, states that some authorities feel, " . . . the stated goals of residence hall programs are extremely nebulous and general, not to say elusive." She goes on to comment that the student's goals in group living are vastly different from the hOpes of his counselors and parents. Unfortunately, she does not elaborate on this idea. These statements indicate that the vagueness and even non-existence of defined residence hall objectives may be detrimental to the fulfillment of what student personnel i . JII . . C. r K .c f 3. YA ‘It. “:4 HI” «a 9L IAN “V. mm he. .5. .1 I S t... a £4 a ' e ‘r- VA. 1 “A . C CL E n: 7.. F. O a c 1 C C. L» “Ce QC workers believe they are accomplishing through a residence hall program. In some instances the catalogue and residence hall publications contain printed objectives and expectations. In other instances, these objectives are part of staff manuals and handbooks and it is the responsibility of the staff member to convey these expectations to the student. More often, the objectives and values of the hall experience appear to be merely "understood" among the administration and hall staff members. The student is expected to absorb the advantages and values of the hall living experience merely by being exposed to the hall program itself. Therefore, if the hall program objectives have been effectively communicated to students and subsequently imple- mented in the hall activities, students and staff members, on the whole, should perceive these resulting experiences in a similar manner. If there are differences in the perception of residence hall experiences, then the hall program may not be as effective as staff members believe it to be. The present study is an attempt to determine if there are per- ceptual differences about the residence hall program between students and hall staff members. Assuming that the results of this survey of percep- tions of students about their residence hall experience are valid, this study can serve as a reference point against which a program may be evaluated in the future as well as at the present time. Overview In the following chapters the procedures used in collecting and analyzing the data are presented. The results of the administration of the questionnaire are detailed and the analysis of the data is discussed. The literature pertinent to the area being studied and to the development of the instrument is reviewed in Chapter II. Chapter III con- tains a detailed description of the sample and procedures used in the study. A discussion and description of the de— velopment of the instrument used are also in Chapter III° The presentation and interpretation of the results of the ad— ministration of the questionnaire are found in Chapter IV° Each of the eight schools in the sample is analyzed separate- ly. Discussion and implications of the results are found in Chapter V. problem the dew residEr Etude T11 EXPEIie dOes‘ the pr. of the Studie Of res CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE This review covers the literature pertinent to the problem being studied as well as the literature examined in the development of the instrument used to gather the data. Literature Relating to the Problem Recent research conducted on fulfillment of specific residence hall objectives indicates little evidence that the student perceives given functions of the residence hall experience in the same "ideal" manner that the administration does. Five studies which pertain to one or more phases of the problem of congruity of perception of students and staff of the residence hall experience were examined and these studies are discussed below. Chick (3) found that student perceptions of functions of residence hall student government were generally not the same as those of residence hall staff members. His study concentrated on the perceptions of students and of staff of the prevailing function and values of the hall student government. Chick examined the perceptions of residents and staff members of the functions of student government in the halls, 9 10 and found significant differences in the following areas: Direction Level of Area of Response Significance Staff Residents Include faculty in the social program of dinners and dances yes no .01 Inform residents of university and student senate policies and interpret any changes no yes .05 Organize and operate supple— mentary libraries which include reference works yes no .05 Assist in selection of resi- dence hall staff yes no .05 Allow residents to develop leadership through com— mittee work yes no .05 Determine the amount of residence hall fee no yes .05 Ruthenberg (11) in a study contrasting administrator and student hall officer perceptions of rules, regulations, policies, and procedures, concluded that there are signifi— cant differences between the administrator's desired and actual implementation of these factors. He also found differences in the perceptions of residence hall staff and of student officers in the effect of the implementation of the regulations and policies. Parrott (8) compared perceptions of administrators, faculty, and students about available student personnel services at small liberal arts, church—related colleges. He “firm, 1 CE 1‘; LI: (D 11 used a checklist developed around the Mooney Problem Check- list and asked each respondent to specify where he would go for help, or send a student for help, when a problem was pre— sented that was related to the areas used on the checklist. Parrott found significant differences between faculty and student perceptions at the .05 level in the following areas: Areas of Difference of Perceptions of School Faculty and Students 1 Finances, Living Conditions, and Employment Social-Recreational Activities 2 Curriculum, Teaching Practices 3 Social-Psychological Relations 4 Adjustment to College Work 5 & 6 NONE Harry (5) examined the problems of students as per- ceived by the students and as faculty members perceived them. He also examined the perceptions of these two groups concern- ing the means by which the student received assistance in re- solving these problems. He used one school as his sample. Significant differences were found between faculty and engineering science seniors about where students may ob- tain help with problems of finances, living conditions, and employment. There were significant differences between faculty and mineral industries students in their perceptions of sources of help with problems concerning social- recreational activities. Differences between student 12 perceptions of their problems and faculty perceptions of the students' problems were not statistically significant. Wagenschein (18), in a study of two private, non- sectarian, coed, residential, western institutions-—one small and regional, the other large and prestigious--investigated as one hypothesis of her study that the provision of insti- tutional housing for students is a primary factor in the choice of a college. Fewer than one-fifth of the respondents rated any statement relating to residence halls as "highly important," less than one—third rated these statements "only fairly important." The items concerning residence halls ranked l6, 17, 22, 23 in an array of thirty and received no first choices, two second choices, and five third choices. Wagenschein concluded that her hypothesis of the importance of institutional housing in selecting a college was not supported. The Wagenschein study is not entirely analogous to the present study but does indicate that the students sampled evidently do not perceive the residence hall experience to have much importance in relation to other college experiences. Literature relating to the de— velopment of the instrument The literature reviewed here pertains primarily to studies which used a similar method and which examined resi- dence hall objectives and purposes. Since the instrument used in the present study consists of a series of statements hall tribu livin value are c: of the These Of Vie Educat Servic UOt 0: but Sh liVing Cation hOuSlm tar? a. "StU< 13 of possible objectives and purposes of the hall program, this review is pertinent. In 1947 Schleman (12) administered an informal questionnaire to 600 women in a Big Ten university residence hall to see what they expected the hall experience to con- tribute to their education and what possible gains from hall living they thought were possible. In both areas, most value was placed on learning to get along with other people and on opportunity to meet new and different people. When these expectations of a residence hall experience are contrasted with the following statements of the purpose of the residence hall experience, the differences are obvious. These statements are typical of the student personnel point of view as explicated in three of the American Council on Education series VI publications (1,4,15). The American Council on Education 1949 Statement of Services stated, " . . . (housing and food services) shall not only provide for the physical comforts of the students but shall also contribute positively to education in group living and social graces." Strozier (15), in a later publi- cation of this same group said, "Student housing . . . should be recognized as an Opportunity for educational achievement." Williamson (19) identified possible uses for student housing including control of student behavior, better sani- tary and living standards, financial return on an investment, a "student union," and a place to learn social graces. His 14 contention is, however, that the intellectual, academic aspects of residence hall programs are primary and necessary. Wise (20), at this same symposium, discussed his be- lief that the emphasis of the staff member determined the purpose and orientation of the hall program. Wise describes the first of these emphases as the managerial attitude. He suggests this attitude emphasizes cooperation, is a good control measure, reduces conduct problems, and gives the staff member opportunity to exercise leadership skills. He cautions, however, that the managerial attitude is separate from the general educational objectives of the university, has little direct impact on student values and perspective, and divorces the hall staff from the instructional staff. The second attitude Wise suggests is that of pro- viding psychological services for those students who need it. This may serve to give the counselor more status in the aca- demic community. The third attitude--social education——helps the student gain poise and maturity through social experience, provides experience in leadership and the development of democratic attitudes, and helps the student find personal fulfillment and develop a satisfactory self-concept. Wise points out that this last attitude can be termed non— intellectual and be considered unrelated to the purposes of the institution. Riker's (9:34-60) discussion of residence hall purposes more comprehensively discusses the wide range of 15 possibilities in residence hall programming than do the studies discussed above. He undergirds his discussion with four assumptions regarding residence halls and colleges which he believes are required for a delineation of purpose: (1) the hall is a part of the college plant, (2) this plant is especially designed for processing of exceedingly valuable material, the student, (3) the process is learning which is change through living and growing in an environment, (4) the preferred product of a college plant is the individual who has changed in a desirable way. Assuming that the purposes established for the resi- dence hall program will bring about a desired change in the student, Riker develops seven categories of residence hall purposes which were drawn from an extensive review of pamphlets and brochures descriptive of student housing and from questionnaires and personal interviews initiated by Riker. 1. Instructional Support - broaden intellectual interests and aesthetic appreciation, provide social training, develop better recreational habits, improve standards of living, pro— mote citizenship education, provide educational counseling, assist in improvement of study habits, implement college orientation, coordinate class and extra-class activities, make possible a total, Optimum, rich broad educational experience. gIOWtI cultui social self-1 LA) tect GYM} 16 2. Development of the Individual - foster personal growth of the student physically, socially, spiritually, and culturally, provide opportunities to learn poise, maturity, social competence, personal confidence in social situations, self—reliance, independent judgment, tolerance, sharing, co— operation, self-discipline and respect for others, create opportunities for the enrichment of personality and for the sharing of ideas by which men grow and reach new understanding. 3. Experience in Group Living - develop a sense of personal responsibility for and obligation to the community welfare, provide training in leadership group discussion and decision-making, provide opportunities for practice of skills in human relationships, provide group living in a democratic setting. 4. Provision of Atmosphere — maintain an intimate, personalized atmosphere, cultivate a climate of good taste, good social manners, and "gracious living," promote an orderly environment conducive to academic pursuits. 5. Satisfaction of Physical Needs - provide at a low cost, a place to eat, sleep, study, to spend leisure time, a place which is comfortable, convenient, healthful, and safe. 6. Supervision of Conduct — provide security, pro- tection, and administrative control over residential life 93 encourage self-discipline and planned activities which give direction and support to student life. 17 7. Support for the College - attract new and more stu— dents, develop a more cohesive college community, create col- lege spirit and unity, integrate the student body. These seven functions or categories appear to cover most aspects of residence hall living. The items developed for this investigator's questionnaire were classified accord- ing to these seven categories although the classification did not always strictly follow the sub-headings. The method used in constructing the questionnaire for the present study is similar to one that has been em- ployed in four dissertations [Chick and Ruthenberg (previ- ously cited), Sillers (l4), Tamte (16)] completed at the University of Denver under the initial direction Of Daniel D. Feder. This method is outlined in detail by Chick and Ruthenberg. Brain-storming sessions with students, student officers and staff members were the source of the items for Chick's and Tamte's statements of functions for their questionnaires, for the checklist used by Ruthenberg and for the content and structure of the disciplinary situations used by Sillers. The definition Feder and Chick develOped for the "perceptionnaire" in the study cited above was that " it was a measurement device designed to allow respondents to reflect a specific reaction to a complex Operation which was seen in a personal frame Of reference and which was 18 personally defined by the subject."1 The reason for adopt- ing the term was that existing techniques would not provide sufficient distinction between perceptions Of relationships and attitudes toward the items selected to be studied. Basic to these studies of perception was the need to separate fact and attitude toward the fact. In other words, whether or not a given function happens is not as important as whether or not the respondent perceives that function as happending. Personal correspondence with Feder indicated that data on the validation procedures and other statistical evi- dence were still in raw form and were not yet available.2 The procedures used in the studies discussed here are believed applicable in developing a questionnaire (or perceptionnaire) about the purposes Of the residence hall program because (1) it is desired to know how the students and staff members perceive the actual students' residence hall experiences and (2) each respondent is to define his experience in his own frame of reference. Application Of Previous Research Of the studies cited above, those by Chick and Ruthenberg indicate differences in perception between students lPersonal correspondence with Robert W. Chick, July 6, 1964. 2Personal correspondence with Daniel D. Feder, October 8, 1964. l9 and staff members about specific areas of the residence hall program. Studies by Harry and Parrott discussed above indi- cate differences in perception of faculty and students about the sources of help available for students with certain kinds of problems. Wagenschein's study noted previously indicated that the students in her sample do not perceive the residence hall program as being very important in de— ciding which college to attend. It is reasOned that if differences appear between staff and student perceptions about rules and regulations as Ruthenberg found; if perceptual differences are found be— tween staff and students concerning the function of student government as Chick indicated; then there may well be differ- ences in perceptions of staff and students of the accomplished goals Of the residence hall program in general. The present study examines the perceptions of students and staff in eight colleges and universities to see if there are perceptual differences between these two groups in the accomplished goals Of the residence hall programs. None of these studies included any cause and effect relationships but merely pointed up existing phenomena. Be- cause it was believed necessary first to determine accurately what presently exists in a given residence hall program, no attempt has been made to investigate cause and effect re— lationships statistically in the present study. 20 Summary The major findings of the review of literature indi- cate that studies which do compare the perceptions Of students and staff members about various aspects of the residence hall program have found significant differences between the stu— dent and staff perceptions. These studies have examined specific aspects Of the hall program such as rules and regu- lations and student government rather than the residence hall program as a whole. Literature relating to the development Of the questionnaire used in this study indicated that there are a wide range of Objectives for residence hall programs. Riker's seven functions for a residence hall were chosen as a basis around which the items for the questionnaire were developed. The method used in developing the "perception- naire" in four studies at the University of Denver was the basis for constructing the items and administering the Residence Hall Experience Questionnaire used in the present study. CHAPTER III SAMPLE AND METHODOLOGY This chapter is concerned with the composition of the sample, the development of the instrument, the method used for collecting the data, and the procedures for analysis of the data. Sample The subjects were drawn from student personnel ad— ministrators, residence hall staff members, and residence hall students in five small, private, residential colleges Adrian College, Albion College, HOpe College, Alma College, Kalamazoo College—-and three large, public, residential uni— versities—-Central Michigan University, Eastern Michigan uni- versity, Western Michigan University——in central Michigan. These institutions are referred to in the remainder of the study only by the college code number. The staff and students of the eight colleges partici- pating in the study were selected for three reasons. 1. Each of these colleges and universities requires undergraduate, single students to live in residence halls for at least one year if they do not live at home or in 21 22 other approved housing. The student, therefore, has partici— pated in a required residence experience. 2. These institutions are representative of the medium- sized public university and of the small-sized private, church—related college in size and general composition of the student body. 3. The eight institutions were located in a contiguous area which facilitated contact with them. The student sample was drawn separately for each college. Using a table of random numbers, this sample, stratified on the basis Of sex, was drawn from lists of students living in the residence halls. A ten per cent sample was taken from the small college and a five per cent sample from the larger universities. The sample of staff members from each college con- sisted of the full-time, professional, residence hall staff members (housemothers, head advisors, house directors, head counselors) and the student personnel administrative staff who plan and implement the residence hall program. Instrumentation Riker's seven categories or functions Of the resi— dence hall program were used as points Of departure in de- veloping the questionnaire items. These categories were dis— cussed in detail in Chapter II. 'Ideas for the individual items were gathered from four sources: discussions with 23 students and residence hall staff members, written statements Of residence hall purposes found in a number Of selected uni— versity publications, personal experience in working with residence hall programs on large and small campuses, and literature in the field of residence hall programming such as Riker (9), ACE Series VI publications (1,4,15), and other sources cited in Chapter II. The items were arranged randomly in the question— naire so that items concerning one function would be scattered throughout the questionnaire. Pretest. The items on the first test (the pretest) were written as an incomplete statement which completed the common stem, "The residence hall experience:" The answer scale attempted to derive a response of the degree to which a particular experience may or may not have happened in the halls. The response column Of the test was headed by a stem which stated for students, "For me, this is experienced:" and for staff members, "For most students this is experi- enced:" Thus, a typical item on the pretest looked as follows: THE RESIDENCE HALL EXPERIENCE FOR ME, THIS IS EXPERIENCED: Provides in the hall staff a person or persons with whom the student can discuss Frequently Seldom Rarely Never personal problems students a similar t: The same ; students : grant inS' versities who took structure Change 5 If. item was also all: Structin; common 5 1L Stated or SPOHSQ O DEVEI) a 24 This preliminary instrument was pre-tested on twenty students and seven staff members at a small, private college similar to the small, private colleges in the present sample. The same preliminary instrument was administered to forty students and twelve staff members at a large, western, land— grant institution which is similar to the large, public uni- versities in the present sample. From comments made by the students and staff members who took the pretest, major changes were made in the structure of the items and in the response scale. Some changes were made in item content. The structure of the items was revised so that each item was understandable as a complete sentence. This change also allowed more flexibility in the use of words in con— structing the item since the structure was not bound to a‘ common stem. The response scale underwent a major revision. As stated above, the pretest scale attempted to derive a re- sponse of the degree to which (frequently, seldom, rarely, never) a particular experience may or may not have happened to a student in the halls. This was confusing and such judg— ments did not always logically follow from the statement of the item. The scale finally used was one merely of agree— ment or disagreement--Strongly agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly disagree. A "don't know" or "?" or "sometimes" category was not used because a forced choice was desired. 25 The heading of the incomplete sentence at the beginning Of the response column was no longer necessary with this type Of scale. The content of some of the items was changed as a result of the respondents' comments on the pretest. It was found that items stated negatively tended to be ambiguous and difficult to understand. Fifteen of the twenty-four negatively worded items were changed to positive wording. Three items were found to describe more than one concept and these were divided into separate items. Certain items of an Obvious nature, e.g., "The hall provides a place to sleep," were very unlikely to indicate any differences in response. These items were either re— moved or changed to be more discriminating, e.g., "The stu- dent's room provides adequate space in which to keep his personal belongings." After these changes were made, the fifty-four items were evaluated by five individuals who have worked with residence halls in a variety Of institutions. A few wording changes were made as a result of this evaluation. The final instrument is a questionnaire of fifty— four items, each concerned with some facet of residence hall experience that may or may not be a part of the hall program of any given institution. An example Of an item on the final instrument is as follows: 26 "It is easy to discuss personal problems with the hall staff." The student responds on a scale of l. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly disagree The directions given on the questionnaire instructs the student to indicate the extent of his agreement or dis— agreement with the statement as it applies to his own resi- dence hall experiences. The staff respondent indicates the extent Of his agreement or disagreement with the statement as it applies to what he views as the experience of most students in the residence halls. All respondents were instructed to answer the state— ments in terms Of their own definition and perception of the meaning of the statement. A cover sheet for students and a cover sheet for staff members was developed. This cover sheet contains the general instructions for completing the questionnaire and a series of personal data questions. All the demographic data are not used in the present study but may be useful in future analysis of these data. A copy Of the questionnaire and Of the two cover sheets appear in Appendix B. Collection of the Data The procedure for gathering the data at each partici- pating college followed the same general pattern. 27 An initial contact was made with the chief student personnel officer to see whether his institution would be interested in participating in the study. If the college ex- pressed interest in the study, a visit was made to the campus to explain the project in detail to the chief student personnel officer and/or his associates who are in charge of the residence hall program. At this time, arrangements were made to secure the housing lists from which the sample would be drawn and a method was devised to notify the students who were selected to participate in the study. Also, ar- rangements were made for a return visit to the campus to ad- minister the questionnaire. Tentative arrangements were made for a third visit if interviews were necessary. Letters3 were sent by campus mail to each student selected for the sample inviting him to participate in the study. The staff members at each college were requested to participate by the principal student personnel officer Of that school. The questionnaires were administered in a group setting to the students in seven of the eight colleges. In the eighth college, the questionnaire was mailed to the stu- dent and collected by the Dean of Students Office. In five of the eight colleges the staff completed the questionnaire in a group setting. In the other three colleges the question— naire was completed individually as a matter of convenience to the staff member. 3See Appendix A. 28 Efforts were made to contact those students who did not appear at the initial testing session to request their cooperation. In four of the eight colleges, the residence hall staff members assisted in contacting the students who had not completed the questionnaire to ask them to partici- pate. Nevertheless, it was still not possible to secure a complete return. Table 1 shows the number Of students and staff members in each college who completed the questionnaire. Table 1. Student and staff sample size in each college. College Staff Students Men Women Total Students #* %** # % # % # % One 7 100 35 95 42 100 77 97 Two 9 100 36 87 35 47 71 61 Three 14 88 46 44 76 68 122 56 Four 8 100 20 49 39 93 83 71 Five 12 100 34 55 111 63 145 61 Six 6 86 21 62 26 76 47 69 Seven 31 97 34 23 63 36 97 30 Eight ll 73 41 66 45 68 86 67 *# = Number Of subjects participating. o\° II Percentage of the total sample participating. 29 To facilitate scoring and analyzing the data the IBM 1230 scoring process was used. Each respondent recorded his answers with a special pencil on the 1230 answer sheet.4 From these answer sheets the responses were transformed into punched cards. As a validation procedure, after the questionnaire responses were tabulated, three colleges were selected for the purpose of confirming the written responses. Interviews were held with a randomly selected number Of students and staff in the three colleges. If the responses in the inter- view had been widely divergent from the written responses, students at the remaining five colleges would have been interviewed. Eleven students and three staff members were interviewed in College One, thirteen students and three staff members in College Three, and thirteen students and six staff members in College Five. The interviews were focused on each individual's perceptions concerning the student's experiences in the residence hall. The interview content covered the seven functional categories of the questionnaire but did not re— peat the specific questions word for word. Responses in the interviews were almost identical to responses on the questionnaire. 4See Appendix B. 30 Analysis of the Data The responses to the questionnaire were tabulated for each of the eight colleges and transfered to punched cards for use in the Control Data 3600 Computer. A simple item response analysis which included the number and percentage of responses for each item in each Of the four response categories was Obtained for (l) the staff members, (2) the total student sample, (3) the men students _and (4) the women students. The chi square statistic, using a 2 x 2 contingency table, was calculated on the 3600 CD Computer for each item for each college. To facilitate analysis, the "Strongly agree" and "Agree" responses for each item were pooled into one AGREE ”category. The same procedure was used for the "Disagree" and "Strongly disagree" responses. This was done to secure larger N's in the cells of the contingency table. Obser— vation Of the data did not indicate any great difference be- tween the pooled items in either the Strongly agree-Agree or the Disagree—Strongly disagree categories. The chi square values Obtained in the first compu- tations were examined to determine whether any of the ex- pected frequencies were less than ten. In those instances where an expected frequency Of ten or less was Observed, the chi square value was recomputed using the Yates Correction 31 for Continuity. The Fisher Exact Test was computed for two of the five comparisons in which there was an Observed frequency Of "0" in one cell (6). The level at which the responses of staff members and of students to any given item will be said to be signifi- cantly different because Of factors other than factors of chance is the .05 level. This level was chosen because the total number in each school is small and to make generali- zations concerning the significant differences in items for probabilities above this level would not be justified. A test of consistency of responses was applied to the student and staff categories. For this test the arbi- trary level of 80% or more responses of either agree or dis- agree by either students or staff members was chosen to indi- cate general agreement Of either of the groups on a given item. The group of respondents was considered to be incon— sistent when the agree and disagree responses were divided about evenly. This is also an arbitrarily set level. This test Of consistency of response indicates the amount of general agreement among staff and among students on each item. Responses of students and staff for each category Of items were examined and summarized in order to Obtain a composite view of the residence hall experience as perceived by students and staff members in each college. Significant comments from the interviews were summarized and are pre— sented in Chapter IV. 32 Summary Eight colleges in central Michigan were selected to participate in this study. A sample of residence hall students and Of staff was taken from each school. Question- naires were administered to all subjects to determine the kinds Of experiences which they as students experience in the residence halls, or which they as staff members perceived students experienced in the halls. The items used in the questionnaire were developed around Riker's seven categories of the purposes Of a resi- dence hall program. After pretesting and revising, the questionnaire consisted of fifty-four items. A response scale of Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree was used. Comparison of responses by chi square analysis cor- rected for continuity was made to determine the degree of similarity or difference in perception. Agreement between staff and students on an item would indicate that the ob- jective as seen by the staff is being met. Disagreement would indicate a discrepancy in perception that this ob- jective is accomplished in the halls. The level at which the responses of staff members and of students to any given item will be said to be different because Of factors other than factors of chance is the .05 level. A test of consistency of responses for staff and for students for each item was applied. The arbitrarily set 33 levels of 80% or more agreeing or disagreeing with an item (consistent responses) and an evenly divided response (incon- sistent responses) was used. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA A summary Of the responses to the Residence Hall Experience Questionnaire are presented in this chapter. The data are analyzed separately for each college. A brief description of the college, its residence hall system, the nature of the hall staff structure, and a summary of the printed college literature related to the residence halls in each college precedes the presentation Of the data. A summary and general description of student and staff member responses to all items on the questionnaire are given for each college. The items are grouped by functional category in a single table for each college to facilitate the discussion. Significant differences in the perceptions of staff members and students are included in the discussion. The final section of this chapter deals with the questionnaire used in this study. College One College One is a small, coeducational, church- related, four-year college. All single women students who do not live at home and all single men students who do not live in fraternity houses are required to live in college 34 35 residence halls. Approximately 330 men live in two large halls and three smaller houses. Approximately 400 women live in two residence halls and one small house. The hall program at College One is supervised and directed by the Assistant Dean of Students for Men and the Assistant Dean Of Students for Women. The men's halls are staffed by men head advisors who are professionally trained in student personnel. The women's halls are staffed either by Older, mature women or professionally trained women, de— pending on the availability of personnel. The small house for women is supervised by a faculty dbuple. Undergraduate student residence assistants work with the full—time staff in both men's and women's halls. The residence hall handbooks and manuals used in the training of residence hall staff at College One stress the educational purposes of the halls, emphasize the importance Of students assuming responsibility, and outline the expec- tations the Students should have of the hall staff and Of his hall experience. Results of the Questionnaire. The questionnaire was administered to the sample of students in a group session. Only about half the sample responded at that time. The re— mainder of the sample was contacted in the halls by the hall staff members. The final number Of students completing the questionnaire was seventy-seven or 100 per cent of the total 36 sample. The seven staff members completed the questionnaire individually. In the student sample there were thirty-five men and forty—two women. Of the seventy—seven students, twenty— seven were freshmen, seventeen were sophomores, sixteen were juniors, and seventeen were seniors. Twenty were presently or had been residence hall Officers and thirteen were pres- ently or had been residence hall assistants. The staff sample consisted of three women and four men. Only one staff member had not attended college. Of the other six, one has a bachelor's degree, three have master's degrees and two have doctorates. This is the first year as a staff member at College One for two Of these people. Three have held their positions for one to three years and two have worked there for eight to fifteen years. The responses Of students and staff at College One to the Residence Hall Experience Questionnaire are summarized in Table 2. Instructional Support. As indicated in Table 2, the only items on which significant differences occur are in the Instructional Support category. Only 17% of the students be— lieved the hall program complemented the academic and in- structional programs but 83% Of the staff members said the hall program accomplished this (item 26). While all but one staff member felt there were Opportunities for student and 37 nmo.m OOH o mm mm oocoomonn mmflnmosmflum .mo mma. OO v we mm muoccme pom wuuooqflpo co mflmmnmEo Oz .om saw. mm o mo we Ham: CH woman oxmu mOHuH>Huom Hmfloom .me OOO. as m Os Rm Ommon>mO suflusums Hmfluom .se Hmm.~ as m mm mm xmm mnemoooo may «0 mnemumm new: .mm was. mm 0 mo we monocw m>Humwuo one mmoofl mmoumxm .mm ooo. mm 0 mm om H0fl>m£on :30 How muflaflnflmcomwou.m85mmm .mm omo. 00H m om mo mocooumxomn OOOHOMMAO mo OHQOOQ uomz .HN mma. an m mm mv mEmHQoum HmCOmuom mmoomflo Op mmmm .om HOH. Rm O ms Om Omeon>mO nos mmsam> msoflmflamm .mH OHF.H OOH s mm mm newemesfl ucmecmmmece .coaoumueetmamm .NH Hmoofl>flocH map mo ucoemmao>on msa.m OO O me mm sesum on m>HOOOcoo mnweomosum .Om Nmo.H oom m mm ha muommmm3oc pom woodmmmms hufiamov ucouuoo .ow mes. me m an OH soasomm noes mumccflo poo mmfluacsunooeo .mv mem.m OOH s OO Os useEumsflOm cosmemom mnmfimmm mmmnm .me *vmo.m mm 0 mm mm Ham: CH mucooopm nuHB uomnoucfl muaoomm .mm msm.a OOH s Os em Omoon>mO muses: meanm eooo .Hm stemo.oa mm m OH ma Emumoum Hmcofluoouumcfi mucwanmEoo .om mOv. OOH s mm OO Ommmusoocm we mflemumaonm eooo .RH Duommsm HmcofluoouumcH o x. z x z NX EmuH mmmum mucmOOum .ouflmccoflumooo mocwfluomxm Hamm oocmoflwom on» so Eoufl some now mmmum pom mucmooum wo noncommwu mo pomEmmumm mo hocoovoum.ocm mmoam> wumoom Anolloco omoaaoo .m OHQMB 38 mom. mm m OH HH mmocmum3m Hmuouaoo mommnooocm .Om OOO. OO O Om Om OHOOO OOHH mHnmuHmmO mo mHmamxm wumemmoEHO .Om OmH. OO O Hm mm HHmn OOH; OOHHOOOH mncmOsum .Om OOm m OOH O OO OO mucmOsum OH umwumucH HOOOOHOO Oo OOHHOOO .Om OOO. OO O Om ON Hououono HmHoom Hasnom Oo OOHHOOO .sm mHO. HO O OO OO mon>wO spHemcocm Oo OOOHHOOO oz .Om OsO. Hm O OO Om OOH>HH msoHumnO .mummu OooO mo mumeHHO .OH OOO. OOH O mO HR =OOHH mumHOwHHoo= mo wumnmm02u< .OH OOO. OH H O s OOHOconn Ho OcHHmmO m oon>mO on Oumm .mH THOSQWOEHAE m O COH m H>0Hm OOO. OOH s HO RO mummo on OOOEHOOOOO mmumuHHHomm .OO OOH.N OO O OO mm mwwooum OHHMHOOEOO mo mafiwcmumHOOCD .Om OmO. mO m HO Om wmoono swap mm O>HH mumepo OOH .Om mum.H O O Om mm oocwfiuomxo QHanmOMOH mooum oz .Om OOO. mm O Os Om OOOHmmmm HHOn Ocm mconmOumHO .Om mHm. OOH O OO mo muowfloum so Honpmmou xuoz szOHU .mm OOm.m OOH O OO On mnweoo OOH; season: OH m>HH .mnmcm .Om ONO. OO O OO Om mmuscmoono w>HumnuchHeem OOOHUHOOO .OH UOH>HA moonw Cm oocwflummxm o s z s z NX EODH Oomum muchOum OOOOHOOOO .m mHnme 39 mocmOHchon mo HO>OH HO.*e mocmOHchmHm mo HO>OH mo.* HOO. mm O mO Om Omoon>mO OOOHHou OHOBOO mpHmmoH OOOOOOO .mO mmm.m OOH O NO OO OOOHHOO On“ mo mmwnooum .wocmno wONHmmrmExm .OO OHm. OOH O OO mO mcoHumuumoxw OOH .mOwHHoo on OOHOOHHO .OO HOH. OO O OO Om mOmHHou Ono spHs OOHOOOOH HOOOOHO mmHmm .Om . OOOHHOU Onu Mom Hgommdm mOm. Om O mm mm mHou Hancmumo m mmeOmmm mmmpm °OO mOm H OO O mm HO mOancmum HoH>mnmn HmHUOO :mHHnmumm .mm OOO. OOH m Om HO HHH OH ucmOOum Owns msocx Ommpm .mm OHH. Om O Om mO mcoHumHsOmu usotcOHm m>HuumOOm .Om OOO. mm O OO Om mucmOsum OOHmsoHO now HHOO .Hm mOO. OOH m mO OO mcoHOmHsOmn Ocm meoHHom psonm sHoOOH .Om HOH. OO O Om Om OOOOcou ocmwsum mo Houucoo .Om 0H0. OOH \t .vm mm. mCOHumHDOOH USN mmHUHHOnm m0 UCOEOUHOMCM .mH DOOOOOU mo OOHmH>Hmmom OOO. Hm m OO OO anmHHm>m coHumwnomu Ocm mmHoumxm .OO OOO. Hm m OO OO mxmmp =OHoemmsonz H0O mmHuHHHomm .HO mmm. OO O OO OO mmcHoconQ HMOOmHOm Mom Oommm Oumooowm .OO mom. HO O OO OO COHDHHOQEOO muuomm OONHcmmuo Mom Ommm .mv OHO.H OOH m on mm w>HH on mumHo HmuHeocoom HHmm .HO OOO. OO O mm Om mHmme OoOO mmOH>oHO HHmn OOMOHO .Om mUsz HMOHm>£m mo coHuommmHumm o O z s z NX EmuH : Ommum mucmOsum OmscHucoo .m mHnme faculty said the Gory are than stu 1n thlS student scholars to deve. 64% bel the dew the sta atmosph dUCt1v€ 69% 0:- gr“ C dlr€c# 40 faculty interaction in the hall, only 32% Of the students said they had experienced this (item 5). The differences on the remaining items in this catew gory are not significant, but in all cases more staff members than students agreed with the item. All staff members agreed on three Of the four items in this category which are related to scholarship. The student responses indicated that 83% agreed that good scholarship is encouraged (item 17), 70% found their efforts to develOp good study habits are encouraged (item 31), and 64% believed the hall staff assisted them in adjusting to the demands of academic life (item 42). All except one of the staff (86%), but only 43% of the students found the atmosphere in the hall conducive to study and creative, pro- ductive thought (item 58). Half the staff and 22% of the students find there are current magazines and newspapers in the hall for the student's use (item 46). Only 43% of the staff and less than onewfourth of the students perceive that the hall program Offers Opportuniw ties for dinners and discussions with faculty members (item 45). Development Of the Individual. All the staff and 69% of the students at College One agreed that the hall pro” gram contributes to the develOpment of the student's self— direction and independent judgment (item 12), and 73% of the 41 students and all except one of the staff (86%) agreed that the students are encouraged to assume responsibility for their own behavior (item 22). More students (73%) than staff (57%) found no at— tempt tO develop religious values through the hall program (item 15). All except one of the staff (86%) and 62% of the students agreed that there are opportunities for students to express ideas and use creative energy in the hall (item 23). Slightly more than half the students (55%) and less than three—fourths Of the staff (71%) said it was easy for students to discuss personal problems with the hall staff (item 20). Four items in this category relate to individual. development in social situations. Approximately the same prOportion of students (74%) and staff (71%) agreed that social maturity is developed through experience in a variety Of social situations in the hall (item 47), and 63% of the students and 86% of the staff agreed that these various situ~ ations take place in the hall (item 49). Only one-third of the students (35%) but 71% of the staff said the student has the opportunity to become acquainted with persons of the Opposite sex through the hall program (item 38). Half the students (5I%) and one—third of the staff (33%) felt that learning etiquette and good manners was emphasized in the hall program (item 50). 42 There was almost complete agreement between staff and students on the two items in this category concerned with students' Opportunity to know a variety of people. All the staff and 90% Of the students agreed that there are Opportunities for students to meet peOple of backgrounds and interests different from their own (item 21) and all the staff and 99% of the students find there are Opportunities for students to broaden friendships (item 65). Experience in Group Living. As Table 2 indicates there is almost complete agreement between staff and students on two of the three items in this category related to learn- ing how to live with others. All the staff and 99% of the students agreed that the students learn to share and to live in harmony with other people in the hall (item 32), and all the staff and 91% Of the students agreed that the hall pro— gram also facilitates adjustment tO peers (item 64). Fewer than half (47%) the students found in their experience that the hall program encouraged them to let other students live in whatever manner they chose. About the same proportion Of the staff (43%) perceived this as happening in the student's hall experience (item 57). There appears to be a wide range of Opinion Of both students and staff in College One on the four items related to student experiences in group interaction. All the staff and 84% of the students agreed there are Opportunities for student groups to work together on projects (item 33). And 43 all the staff and 70% of the students agreed there were Opportunities for students to gain experience in group leadership (item 56). But only half the students (49%) per_ ceived that an understanding of the democratic process was achieved in their experience even though 86% Of the staff agreed that this did happen (item 59). More students (74%) than staff members (57%) believed there is an atmosphere in the hall which encourages discussions and bull sessions among students (item 34). All but one of the staff members and two-thirds of the students agreed that the hall operation provides for the student an example of efficient, effective administrative procedure (item 14). Provision Of Atmosphere. Four items in this cate— gory are concerned with the feeling of identification which the student finds in the hall. All but one Of the staff (86%) and 71% of the students agreed that the hall is a unit with which the student closely identifies (item 36). But only slightly more than half the students (57%) find the hall atmosphere reflects a feeling Of personal interest in the student. On the other hand, all the staff members be— lieve the students experience this feeling of personal interest (item 29). All but one of the staff members and 91% Of the students do not feel it is hard to develOp a feeling of be- longing when living in the hall (item 13), and two-thirds of 44 the students and 71% of the staff indicated that hall experi_ ences do not allow a feeling of anonymity to develop (item 25). All the staff and almost all the students (93%) agreed that an atmosphere of "collegiate life" prevails in the halls at College One (item 16). There appears to be more disagreement on the other two items in this category which relate to the general atmosphere found in the halls. Slightly more than half the staff (57%) and about one-third of the students (36%) Perceive the hall atmosphere and furnishings as an example of the style of life toward which the student should aspire (item 37). Only 14% of the stu» dents and 29% of the staff indicate that the student finds an atmosphere in the hall which encourages cultural awareness Of good art, literature, music, and architecture (item 54). Students (64%) and staff members (71%) appear to be in agreement that life in the hall does not have a feeling Of formal social protocal and set standards of social be- havior (item 27). However, fewer than half the students (47%) but almost three-fourths of the staff (71%) perceived a climate of good taste and gracious living in the hall (item 19). Satisfaction of Physical Needs. Three items in this category relate to the kind of facilities and services which are available in the halls at College One. All but one Of the staff members and three—fourths Of the students agreed 45 that the dining hall provides nourishing, well-prepared meals (item 30). About the same percentage of staff (86%) and students (87%) agreed that there is adequate space in the student's room for his personal belongings (item 48). Some— what different proportions of students (64%) and staff (71%) found there were adequate facilities for the student to perm form personal and "household" tasks (item 61). All the staff and 70% of the students found the hall an economical place for the student to live (item 41). The responses to the two items concerned with recre- ational facilities were approximately the same. Seventy-one per cent of the staff and 86% of the students agreed that the hall is a base for organized sports competition. The same percentage of staff (71%) but 64% Of the students agreed there were facilities available for recreation and physical exercise (item 62). Supervision of Conduct. Three items in this cate- gory deal with the hall program as a means of communicating and enforcing regulations. Table 2 indicates all the staff and 83% Of the students agreed that the hall program is used by the college to inform students of regulations and policies (item 39). Even more students (94%) and all the staff per- ceived enforcement Of these regulations and policies as part of the hall program (item 18). Seventy per cent Of the stu- dents and all but one staff member agreed that the hall pro- gram serves as a means to control student conduct (item 28). 46 Four items relate to the supervisory function Of the halls. Slightly over one-third of the students (35%) and 57% of the staff felt the hall staff assumes a parental role in dealing with students (item 60). About the same proportion of staff (57%) and students (56%) believed the sign-out regu— lations were effective (item 52). But all the staff and 79% of the students believed the hall staff knows when a student is ill (item 53). About half the students (53%) and all but one of the staff members indicated the hall program attempts to establish values and standards Of social behavior patterns (item 55). Slightly more than half the staff (57%) and less than half the students (44%) agreed that the hall is a convenient and expedient unit for group students for campus administra- tive and activity purposes (item 51). Support for the College. All but one of the staff members and 70% Of the students agreed that the hall program facilitates the student's identification with the college (item 14). But only half the staff (57%) and less than half the students (45%) believed the hall program develops student loyalty toward the college (item 63). All the staff and 62% of the students believed the hall program emphasizes the change and progress of the college (item 44), and all the staff and 84% of the students agreed that the hall program is a means through which College One orients the student to the college and its expectations Of him (item 40). 47 College Two College Two is a private, coeducational, church- related, liberal arts college. All women students are re- quired to live in college housing unless they are living at home, living with near relatives, married, or working for room and board. Freshmen, sophomore, and new transfer men are required to live in college housing unless they are living with near relatives. Many upperclass men live in fraternity houses. There are 670 women living in four halls and several small honor houses and 340 men living in two halls and a cooperative. The Dean of Men, the Dean of Women, and their as- sistants are responsible for the direction Of the hall prO- gram at College Two. The women's halls are staffed by Older, mature women and one younger, professionally trained woman. The men's halls are staffed by one trained, professional student personnel worker and one untrained, younger man. Both men's and women's head residents are assisted by under— graduate student assistants. In the section titled "Residential System" in the College Two Catalogue, the following statement is made about the purposes of the residential system. Believing that college residence halls are im— portant laboratories where students may develop and practice mature ways of living, [College Two] gives careful attention to all phases Of its dormitory system. Furnishings, interior decoration, maintenence, as well as staff personnel, customs and traditions, 48 combine to give each student a college home con- ducive to personal growth. The Women's Handbook, 1964-1965, and other material from the Dean of Women's Office indicate a deep concern that the women student understand her responsibilities in becoming aware of reasons for rules and for upholding standards. These publications also outline in detail the expectations which the hall organization has of the student as well as what the student may expect from the residence hall experience. The student handbooks and staff manuals for the men outline the broad educational purposes of residence halls and point out how these relate to the social, cultural, and disciplinary aspects Of hall life. The men's handbook also describes what a student may expect in his experience in the halls at College Two. Results of the Questionnaire. The questionnaire was administered tO the student sample at College Two in a group session. There was a follow-up in the halls with the men students. Seventy-one students or 61% of the total sample for College Two completed the questionnaire. Nine staff members completed it individually. There were thirty-six men and thirty-five women in the College Two student sample. Of these, there were thirty— six freshmen, fourteen sophomores, thirteen juniors, and six seniors. Two students did not mark this item correctly. 49 Fifteen of the seventy-one students were presently or had been residence hall Officers, and six were presently or had been residence hall assistants. In the staff sample, three were men and six were women staff members. Two of these staff members have been at College Two less than one year, four have been there from one to three years and three have been there from four to seven years. One of the staff members has never attended college and two attended but do not have a degree. Of the six staff members who have college degrees, one holds a bachelor's degree and five hold master's degrees. Responses of students and staff to the Residence Hall Experience Questionnaire at College Two are summarized in Table 3. Instructional Support. On the items related to the encouragement of scholarship in the hall, 100% of the staff members at College Two agreed with three items. On these same items, 87% of the students agreed that good scholarship is encouraged (item 17), 83% agreed that the student's ef— forts to develOp good study habits is encouraged (item 31), but only 58% found that the hall staff assists the student in adjusting to the demands Of academic life (item 42). Student-staff responses on Item 42 were different at the .05 level Of significance. Seventy per cent Of the students and 78% of the staff members believed that the atmosphere in the 50 HmO. OOH m OOH OO OOOOOOOHQ OmHnmocwHum .mO HOO. mm m mO Nm muwccmE Ocm Owuwoompw co mHmmnme Oz .Om «HH0.0 OOH m Hm Om HHmn OH oomHm Oxmu mOHuH>Huom HmHoom .OO mOO. Om m HO mO OOOOHO>OO mpHusume HmHoom .OO OOOm.O OO O mO mm xmm OOHmono Ono mo meomnwm ummz .Om OOm.N mm m Om Ow hmuwcm O>Humwuo Ocm mOOOH mmwumxm .mN OOO.H OO O NO OO uoH>mgmn O30 now OOHHHnHmcooOmu mesmmm .mm mOO. OO O mm mm mOcoouoxomQ HOOHOHMHO mo OHQOOQ pmmz .HN OHO. OO O Om mm OEOHOOHQ Hmcowuwm mmsommo on mmmm .ON NmO. OOH O NO Om OOO0HO>OO you mmsHms mOoHOHHOO .mH OOO. mm O OO Om Homemoofl HOOOOOQOOOH .COHHOOHHOIOHOO .NH HOOOH>HOOH map mo ucwEQOHo>OQ mOO. OO O OO Om OOOHO on O>HUOOcou OHOOOOOEHO .Om HOO.H OO O OO Om mummmmmzmc Ocm OCHNmmmE zuHHmso HOOHHOU .OO OHm. OO O mm NO OuHsomm OHHB mumccmo How mOHuHcouHommo .mO «mHO.O OOH O Om HO OOOEHOOHOO OstOOum mumHmmm OOOHO .OO OOO. OO O mN OH HHOE CH mucwospm EHHB DOOHOOCH muHoomm .mm OOO° OOH O mO Om Omeon>mO OHHOOO mOsum Ooow .Hm ..HmO.O OO O Om ON smuOoun HmcoHuusnumcH mungmHoeoo .Om ONm. OOH m mm NO Ommmuooocm mH QHOOHOHOSOO oooo .OH HHOQQOO HOOOHHOOHHOCH o X z X Z NX EmuH mmmum mucmosum .wummccoHumOoo mocmmumoxm HHmm mocmonOm map so EOOH comm How mmmpm Ocm mucmo noun mo mmmcommwu mo ucmEmmumm mo Oocwovmum Ocm mOon> mumovm HQUIIOBB OOOHHOO .m OHQMB 51 Hmv.N Om m ON OH mmmcwHMBM HMHOUHOU mwmmusoocm .vm OOO. Om m mm mN OHOOO OOHH OHOOOHOOO Ho mHonxm OOOOOOOEOO .Om mOO. OO O NO Hm HHOO OOHz OOHOOOOH OOOOOOOO .Om OmOm.O OOH O OO mm OOOOOOOO OH OOOOOOOH HOOOOOOO Oo OOHHOOO .ON mOO. Om m HO mO HoOOOoOn HmHoom HOeOoO Ho OOHHOOO .ON OOO. OO O HO mO mmon>mO OOHEOOOOO Oo OOOHHOOO oz .mN mOO. OO O Om Om OOH>HH OOoHomOO .OOOOO OOOO Ho OOOEHHO .OH OHN. OO O OO mm =OOHH OOOHOOHHoo= Oo OOOOOOOOOO .OH OOO. O O OH O OOHOOonO Oo OOHHOOO m noHO>OO 0O OOOO .mH . mhwflnmmOEnO/N MO COHmH>OtHnH HOH.H OOH O OO mm OOOOO 0O OOOEOOOOOO OOOOOHHHOOO .OO Omm. mm O OO Om mmmooum UHHMHUOEOO mo OCHOCMOOHOOCD .mm OOm.N HH H OO Hm Omoono OOOO mm O>HH OOOOOO OOH .Om Hmo. mm m mN OH OOOOHHOme mHanOOmOH msoum oz .Om OOO.H OO O NO OO mOoHOOmO HHOO OOO mOonmOomHo .Om OOO. OO O NO Hm wuowfloum co monummou xH03 mmoouw .mm NOO. OOH O OO OO OOOOOO OOH; OOonmO OH O>HH .OOOOO .Nm OOm. OO O Om HO mmOOOmooOm O>HOOOOOHOHOOO OOOHUHOHO .OH UCH>HH moouw CH wocwHummxm o O O O z Nx EOHH OOOOO OOOOOOOO OOOCHHCOU .m OHQMB 52 OocmonHcmHm mo HO>OH HO.OO OOOMOHHHCOHO mo HO>OH mO.« HmO. Om O OO Om OOOOHO>OO OOOHHou OOO30O OOHOOoH OOOOOOO .mO HOO. Om m OO Nm mmmHHoo may mo mwmumoum .wmcmno mwNHmmnmEm .OO OOm. OOH O mO OO OOoHOOOOOoxO OOH .OOOHHoo oO OOOOOHOO .OO OOO. OOH O mO Om OOOHHoU OOO OOHs OOHOOOOH OOOOOOm.OmHOm .ON mmOHHOO map How OHOQQOO OmH.N OO O mm mN OHOO HOOOOOOO O OOEOOOO OOOOO .OO NHO. OO O OO Nm OOOOOOOOO OoH>OOOn HOHooO OOHHOOOOO .mm OOO. OO O HO mO HHH OH OOOOOOO OOH; OzoOx OOOOO .mm OOO. OO O Om Om OOOHOOHOOOO OOotOOHO O>HOOOOOO .Nm mmO. OO O HO ON muchsum mchsoum How HHOD .Hm OOO. OOH O mO OO OOOHOOHOOOO OOO OOHOHHOO OOOOO eOoOOH .Om mOO. OO O OO HO OOOOOoo OOOOOOO Oo HOOOOoO .ON OOO. OOH O OO OO OOOHOOHOOOO OOO OOHOHHoo Ho OOOeOuOoOOO .OH HUOOCOO m0 conH>Hmmdm HOO. Om m Om OO OHOOHHO>O OOHOOOOOOO OOO OOHOOOxm .NO NHm N OOH O OO OO OHOOO =OH0OOOOoO= OoO OOHOHHHUOO .HO ONm.H mm m mO mO mmcHocoHOQ HOCOOHOQ How Oommm mumsvam .mO mOO.H Om m OO mm OOHOHOOQEOU muuomm OONHCOOHO How mem .mO HOO° Om m Om OO O>HH oO OOOHO HOoHeoOooO HHOO .HO OHH m OOH O mO OO OHOOe OOOO OOOH>OOO HHOO OOHOHO .Om mmez HOOHw>£m mo OOHOommeumm o O 2 O z NX EOOH OHOOO OOOOOOOO OOOOHOOoo .m OHOOH 53 hall is conducive to study and creative productive thought (item 58). Differences Of student-staff perception on item 26 were highly significant.‘ Only one-third (34%) of the students but 89% of the staff perceived the hall program as a comple- ment to the instructional and academic program of the college. Half the students and 78% of the staff found current, quality newspapers and magazines available for student use (item 46). There are two questions in this category dealing with student-faculty interaction in the hall. Slightly less than one—fourth (23%) of the students and 44% of the staff perceived the faculty interacting with students on an in— formal basis in the hall (item 35). Almost three-fifths (59%) of the students and 78% of the staff, however, be— lieved the hall program encourages and provides Opportunities for dinners and discussions with faculty (item 45). Development of the Individual. The two items of per- ceptual difference in the Development of the Individual cate- gory both pertain to social activities. Differences on item 38 while significant are not large. The responses to this item indicate that 89% of the staff members perceived Oppor- tunities for students to meet members of the Opposite sex but only 45% of the students found this Opportunity in their experience. As might be expected, however, 58% of the men believed such Opportunities are found through the hall program but only 32% of the women students perceived this to be so. 54 Item 49 responses indicate that all the staff members believed a variety Of social functions take place in the hall but only half the students perceived this as occurring. When student responses are examined by sex, it is found that two-thirds of the women and slightly over one-third Of the men agree with this item. The two remaining items in this category relating to individual development through social situations do not evi- dence significant differences. Only slightly more than half the staff (56%) and 61% Of the students believed that the student's social maturity is developed through experience in a variety of social situations (item 47). Slightly more than half the students (54%) and 62% of the staff believed that learning manners and etiquette is emphasized (item 50). Development of the Individual. Eighty-nine per cent Of the staff and 79% of the students agreed that the hall program in College Two contributes to the development Of self—direction and independent judgment (item 12). But only 62% of the students and 88% Of the staff found that the stun dent was encouraged to assume responsibility for his own behavior (item 22). All the staff and 82% Of the students believed that the hall program does not attempt to develOp religious values (item 15). Slightly over half (56%) of the students and 89% of the staff agreed that Opportunity exists for students to express ideas and use creative energy (item 23). 55 Only about half (56%) Of the students found that it was easy to discuss personal problems with the hall staff but 78% of the staff agreed that it was easy for the students to do so (item 20). Staff and students were unanimously agreed that there is Opportunity for students to broaden friendships in the hall (item 65). Eighty-three per cent of the students and 78% of the staff said there are Opportunities for stun dents to meet people Of backgrounds and interests quite different from their own (item 21). Experience in Group Living. Three items in this category relate to learning how to live with others. As Table 3 indicates there appears to be close agreement between students (96%) and staff (100%) that the students learn to share and to live in harmony with other people (item 32). However, only 79% of the students felt that the hall program facilitates adjustment to peers while all the staff agreed with this item (item 64). Less than half the students (44%) and only 11% of the staff felt the hall program encouraged students to let other students live in whatever manner they chose (item 57). There appears to be general agreement in College Two on the four items related to student experiences in group interaction. About the same proportion of students (72%) and staff (78%) agreed that students have the opportunity to work together on group projects (item 33). Seventy per cent bul (1b tne oft Staf 56 of the students and 89% Of the staff agreed that understand- ing of the democratic process is achieved in the hall (item 59). Seventy-seven per cent of the students and 67% of the staff indicated that group leadership experience is avail— able for students (item 56). Over three-fifths of the stu- dents (62%) but 89% of the staff agreed that discussions and bull sessions among students are encouraged in the hall (item 34). About three—fifths of the students (59%) and 78% of the staff found the residence hall Operation to be an example of efficient, effective administrative procedure (item 14). Provision of Atmosphere. Four items in this category are concerned with the feeling of identification which the student finds in the hall. There are significant differences in perception only on item 29. Staff responses to item 29 were all in agreement that a personal interest in the student is reflected in the hall atmosphere. Only half the students agreed with this item. However, while two-thirds of the women students agreed with item 29, only one-third of the men agreed. All but three of the staff (67%) and 72% of the stu— dents in College Two perceived the hall as a unit with which the student closely identifies (item 36). But while all the staff agreed that the hall atmosphere reflected a feeling of personal interest in the student, only 49%;of the students perceived this to be so (item 29). On the other hand, only 57 10%.of the students and none of the staff felt it was hard for the student to develop a feeling of belonging when living in the hall (item 13). The student perceptions were evenly divided concern- ing whether the hall experience allows a feeling of anonymity to develop, but 85% of the staff felt that such a feeling did not develop (item 25). Three items were related to the kind of atmosphere found in the hall. Two-thirds Of the staff and four-fifths of the students believed a "collegiate life" atmosphere pre- vailed in the halls (item 16) at College Two. Slightly over half (56%) of the staff but only 35% of the students found the hall atmosphere and furnishings an example of a style of life to which the student should aspire (item 37). Barely one—fourth (24%) Of the students but 56% of the staff felt cultural awareness Of good music, art, literature, and architecture was encouraged in the hall (item 54). The last two items in this category relate to the kind Of living standards encouraged in the hall. Sixty-one per cent Of the students and 56% of the staff perceived a feeling of formal social protocol and set standards of social behavior in the hall (item 27) and 78% of the staff and 54% of the students perceived a climate of good taste and gracious living as well (item 19). 58 Satisfaction of Physical Needs. Three items in this category are related to the kind of facilities and services which are available in the hall. All the staff members and 65%.of the students in College Two agreed that the dining hall provides well—prepared, nourishing meals (item 30). Two—thirds of the students and 89% of the staff agreed that there is adequate space in the student's room for him to keep his personal belongings (item 48). All the staff and about three—fifths (69%) Of the students find adequate facilities available in the hall to facilitate personal and "household" tasks (item 61). The same proportion of staff (56%) and students (57%) perceived the hall as an economical place for the student to live (item 41). At College Two, about half the staff members (56%) agreed that the hall serves as a base for organized sports competition (item 43) and that Opportunities for physical exercise and recreation are available (item 62). But while 77% Of the students perceived the hall as a base for organized sports competition, only 57% of them find there are Oppor- tunities for physical exercise and recreation. Supervision of Conduct. The staff and students in College Two appear to be in general agreement on the three items concerned with the hall program as a means of communi- cating regulations. All the staff and 93% Of the students saw the hall program as a means used by the college to inform 59 students of the policies and regulations (item 39). All the staff and 94% of the students perceived enforcement of the regulations as part of the hall program (item 18). Eighty- six per cent of the students and 89% Of the staff saw the hall program also serving as a means to control student con- duct (item 28). Table 3 notes that two-thirds Of the staff and only slightly over one-third of the students perceived the hall staff as assuming a parental role (item 60). Two-thirds Of the staff and 57% Of the students find sign—out regulations effective ways to accurately know where students are (item 52). Seventy-eight per cent of the staff and 61% of the students agreed that the hall staff knows when a student is ill (item 53). There appears to be general agreement between students (73%) and staff (78%) that the hall program does at- tempt tO establish values and standards of social behavior (item 55). Forty—four per cent of the staff and 41% Of the stu— dents agreed that the hall was used as a convenient unit to group students for campus administrative and activity purposes (item 51). Support for the College. At College Two all the . staff and 83% of the students agreed that the hall program helps the student to identify with the college (item 24). But only 56% of the staff and 47% Of the students believed the hall program develops loyalty toward the college (item 63 the hall oriented Slightly half (46 the char forcing support to live h0u51ng availab APPTOX1 appr0xl fOr Bu Staffe ThESe Undero to the emphas relatI 60 (item 63). All the staff and 85% of the students perceived the hall program as a means through which the student is oriented to the college and its expectations of him (item 40). Slightly over half (56%) the staff and slightly less than half (46%) the students believed the hall program emphasizes the change and progress of the college rather than rein— forcing the traditions and customs of the past (item 44). College Three College Three is a public, coeducational, state- supported university. Undergraduate students are required to live in university housing or in approved Off—campus housing. Since there is very little off-campus housing available, most students live in university residence halls. Approximately 2000 women are housed in ten women's halls and approximately 1900 men live in five men's halls. The hall pngram is directed and supervised by the Director of Housing who is responsible to the Vice-president for Business and Finance. Both men's and women's halls are staffed by mature OOmen with the title of Housemother. These women are responsible to the Director of Housing. Undergraduate student assistants in each hall are responsible to the housemother. The Residence Hall Student Handbook for College Three emphasizes that the residence hall is a laboratory of human relations and group dynamics and attempts to develop 61 understanding and emotional maturity in the student. The hall staff is described to the student as social educators and as advisors. The handbook for Residence Hall Housemothers, however, emphasizes procedural and managerial responsibilities. For instance, the annual report made by each Housemother to the Director is to include the following: staff changes, revenue, physical improvements in the building, future requirements in the building and in equipment, major activities sponsored by the hall, and "areas particularly worthwhile or trouble- some to management in the Operation of the residence hall." In a recent series of discussions with residence hall students, the Director Of Housing attempted to determine prO- gram areas in which students believed the residence hall should be involved. Results Of the Questionnaire. The questionnaire was administered to both the students and staff members Of College Three in a group setting. Residence hall housemothers as— sisted in a telephone follow—up reminder to those students in the sample who had not yet appeared near the end of the time set aside for completing the questionnaire. A total of 122 students or 51% of those sampled and fourteen staff members completed the questionnaire. There were forty-six men and seventy-six women in the student sample. Of these, fifty-five were freshmen, twenty-six were SOphomores, twenty-seven were juniors, and 62 fourteen were seniors. Seventeen of the total student sample Of 122 had been or presently were student hall officers. Eight of the total student sample had been or were presently hall assistants in some capacity. All the staff members completing the questionnaire are women. The Director of Housing, who is a male, did not wish to complete the questionnaire. Of the fourteen women serving as housemothers, three have been at College Three less than one year, three have served from one to three years, six have worked there from four to seven years, one has been there from eight to fifteen years and one has worked as a housemother for over fifteen years. Half these women attended college but did not receive a degree, five have a bachelor's degree and two hold a master's degree. Student and staff member responses to the Residence Hall Experience Questionnaire are summarized in Table 4. Instructional Support. As shown in Table 4 responses of students and staff members indicate significant differences on five of the eight items in the Instructional Support area. Four of these differences are significant at at least the .001 level which indicates a very strong difference in the perceptions Of the students and staff on those items. Responses to item 31 indicate that all the staff mem- bers agree that good study habits are encouraged but only 43% of the students feel this happens to them. 63 ONO. OOH OH mO OHH OOOOOOOOO OOHOOOOOHOO .mO OOH. Om O OO Om mumccmE 0cm OHHOOUHUO co mHmanEO Oz .Om OOO. OOH OH OO OOH HHOO OH OOOHO OHOO OOHOH>HOOO HOHoom .OO OOO. mO mH OO mOH OOmonsmO OOHOOOOO HOHuoO .OO OHN. OO NH OO mO xOO OOHOooeo OOO Ho OOoOOOo OOOs .Om O.OOOm mm mH Om OO OOHOOO O>Hummuo Ocm OOOOH mmmumxm .mN OOmN.m OOH OH OO HO OoH>OOOH O30 OoO OOHHHHHOOooOOO OOOOO< .NN mOH.N OO NH OO OHH OOOOOOOHOOO OOOOOOOHO Oo OHOOOO OOoz .HN «OOOm.OH mO mH OO mm OEOHOOOO HOOoOOOo OOOOOHO oO OOOO .ON OHO. OO HH OO OOH OOOOHO>OO OoO OOOHO> OOoHOHHOm .mH NON N OOH OH OO OO OOOEOOOH OOOOOOOOOOH .OOHOOOOHOIOHOO .NH HOOOH>HOCH mnp mo HOOEQOHO>OQ OOOON.mH OOH OH HO Om OOOOO oO O>HOOOOou OOOOoOonO .Om OOO.N Om O Hm Om muwmwmmzmc Ocm mOcHNmOmE OOHHMOU OCOHHOO .OO «OOOO.HN OO NH mN ON OOHOOOO OOH; OOOOOHO OoO OOHOHOOOOoonO .mO OOOmO.OH OOH OH Om OO OOOEOOOHOO OHOOOOOO OOOHOOO OOOOO .NO OHO m Om O mN ON HHOO OH OOOOOOOO OOHz OOOOOOOH OOHOOOO .mm OOmmO.OH OOH OH mO Nm OmmoHO>OO OOHOOO OOOOO OOOO .HO OON. mN m mH OH EOHOOHQ HOOOHHOOHOOCH wucOEOHQEOU .ON OOmN.m OOH OH OO HO OOOOOOOOOO OH OHOOOOHoOOO Ooou .OH unommsm HMOOHHUOHHOCH UNx O. z X z EwuH OOOOO OOOOOOOO .OHHOCCOHHOOOO wocmHmexm HHmm OUCOOHmwm map so EOHH £00m Mom mwmum Ocm mucmw Isum mo OmcommOH mo OCOEOOHOM mo Oucmskuw Ocm wwsHm> mumsvm HSOIIOOHSH OOOHHOU .O OHQOB 64 O.ONO.O mO O OH ON mmmcmHOBM HmusuHso mmmmusoocm .Om «OOON.HH OO NH mm mO OHOOO OOHH OHOOOHOOO Oo OHmerO OOOOOOonO .Om OHO. mO mH OO OO HHOO OOH; OOHOOOOH OOOOOOOO .Om «OOON.mH OOH OH HO Om OOOOOOOO OH OOOOOOOH HOOoOOOO Oo OOHHOOO .ON OON. OO O mm OO HoooOOOO HOHOoO HOEOOO Oo OOHHOOO .ON OmNN.O mO HH Om OO OooHOsOO OOHOOOOOO Oo OOOHHOOO oz .mN HO0.0 OO NH mm OO OOH>HH OOOHOOOO .OOOOO OOOO Oo OOOOHHO .OH OOO H OOH OH mO HOH .OOHH OOOHOOHHOO= Oo OOOOOOOOOO .OH OHO. mN m ON ON OOHOOoHOO Oo OOHHOOH O ooHO>OO 0O OOOm °mH OHOQQOOEOm m0 conH>OHm OON H OOH OH mO OOH OOOOO oO OOOEOOOHOO OOOOOHHHOOO .OO «OmNN.O OOH OH Om OO OOOOOOO OHOOOOOOOO Oo OOHOOOOOOOOOO .Om OOO.H OH N Om OO OOOOOO OOOO Om O>HH OOOOOo OOH .Om OONO.O O O Om OO OOOOHHOQxO mHanwOmmH Qsoum Oz .Om OmO. OO O OO OO OOoHOOOO HHOO OOO OOoHOOOOOHO .Om OOO.H mO mH mO OO OOOOOOOO Oo OOOOOOOO xOos OOOOOO .mm OOO. OOH OH OO mHH OOOOOo OOH; OOonOO OH O>HH .OOOOO .Nm mOO m NO NH mO OO OOOOOOOOOO O>HOOOOOHOHOOO OOOHOHOOO .OH mcH>HH Odouo CH Oucmmuumxm ONx O 2 .O z sOOH OOOOO OOOOOOOO OOOOHOOoo .O OHOOH J0" .,. 65 mocmonHCOHw mo HO>OH HO.OO OocmonHcOHm mo Hm>mH mO.O OHO.N OO NH Om HO OOQOHO>OO OOOHHOO Oumsou OOHMOOH OCOOOOO .mO OOO.H OO HH HO OO OOOHHOO may mo mmOHOOHQ .OOcmnu mmNHmmszm .OO mOO.m OOH OH NO OO mcoHumuommxm mOH .OOOHHOO 0» OOOOOHHO .OO ONO H OOH OH NO OOH OOOHHOO OOO OOHs OOHOOOOH OOOOOOO OOHOO .ON OOOHHOU map How uuommdm HOH. ON O Om OO OHOO HOOOOOOO O OOOOOOO OOOOO .OO OOmNO.HH mO mH HO OO OOHOOOOOO HOH>O£OQ HOHUOO OOHHHmumm .mm OOOOm.OH mO mH Om OO HHH OH OCOOOHO OOSB OBOOM mmmum .mm OmO. Om O Om OO OOOHOOHOOOO OOOIOOHO O>HOOOOOO .Nm ONO. OO HH OO OO OOOOOOOO OOHOOOOO OoO OHOO .Hm OON.H OOH OH mO OOH OOOHOHOHHOOO.H Ocm OHOHOHHOHH OOOQm EHomcH .Om OHO. OO HH HO OO OOOOOOO OCOOOOO mo HOHOOOO .ON mmH. OOH OH OO OHH OOoHOOHOOOO OOO OOHOHHoo Oo OOOOOOOOOOO .OH HUOOCOU m0 COHmH>HmQ5m mom.m OO NH Om OO OHQmHHm>m OOHOOOHOOH Ocm OmHouwxm .NO NmO.N OOH OH OO mO Oxmmu OOHonwmson: How OOHOHHHomm .HO OON.H OO NH OO NO mOcHOcoHOQ HOOOOHOQ How Oommm mumsOOO< .OO OOO. Om O OO OO OOHOHOOQEOO wuuomm OONHCOOHO How Ommm .mO OOOOO.NH OO NH mm OO O>HH 0O OOOHO HOOHOOOOOO HHOO .HO OOOOm.O OOH OH Om NO OHOOE OOOO OOOH>OOO HHOO OOHOHO .Om mOOOz HOOHmmnm mo coHuommmHumm ONO O 2 O z sOOH Ommum OOOOOOOO OOOOHOOoo .O OHOOH 66 Item 42 is related to item 31 and here also all the staff members agreed that in the experience Of most students, the staff assists the student in his academic adjustment. But only 36% of the students found this true in their experience. The most significant difference in the perception of staff and students at College Three was on item 45. Eightyn six per cent Of the staff members believed the students had opportunities in the hall for dinners and discussions with faculty. Only 23% Of the students found this facet of the hall prOgram a part of their experience. It might be noted, however, that 30% of the women but only 11% of the men agreed with this item. Responses to item 58 also evidenced a highly sig— nificant difference between students and staff. All the staff members perceived a hall atmosphere conducive to study but only 41% of the students found this to be so. Item 17 responses showed a lower level of significance than the items noted above. All the staff members and about two—thirds Of students agreed that good scholarship is encouraged. As indicated in Table 4, there are no significant differences in the three remaining items in this category. Less than one-fourth of the staff perceived the hall program as complementing the instructional program and only 13% of the students have experienced this (item 26). Over 67 half (57%) of the staff and 31% of the students found quality magazines and newspapers in the hall (item 46). In the area of faculty—student interaction in the hall, 50% of the staff but only 23% of the students agreed that faculty members interacted with students on an informal basis in the hall (item 35). Development of the Individual. Responses on item 20 evidenced the highest level of significance of the items in the Development Of the Individual category. Ninety-three per cent of the staff members believed the students found it easy to discuss personal problems with the staff but only 43% of the students agreed with this item. Responses to item 23 indicated that 93% of the staff members agreed that it is easy for students to express ideas and use creative energy in the hall. The student responses were about evenly divided with 57% agreeing. All the staff and four-fifths of the students agreed that the hall program contributes to the development of self— direction and independent judgment (item 12). However, only two-thirds of the students found that they were encouraged to assume responsibility for their OWn behavior. All.the staff members agreed that this happened in the experience of most students (item 22). This difference was significant at the .01 level. Students and staff were in fairly close agreement that the hall program does not attempt to develop religious 68 values with 89% of the students and 79% of the staff agreeing with item 15. Four items in this category relate to individual dew velopment through social situations. All the staff and 89% of the students agreed that a variety of social activities take place in the hall (item 49) and 93% of the staff and 86% of the students agreed that social maturity is develOped through experiences in these situations (item 47). However, only 43% of the staff and 57% Of the students felt learning etiquette and good manners was emphasized (item 50). There appeared to be agreement between students and staff that there is opportunity to become acquainted with persons of the Opposite sex with 76% and 86% respectively agreeing (item 38). Staff and students were almost unanimously agreed that there is Opportunity for students to broaden friend- ships in the hall (95% Of the students and 100% of the staff agree, item 65) and that students can meet people in the hall from backgrounds and interests different from their own (item 21, 98% of the students and 86% of the staff agree). Experience in Group Living. Three items in this category relate to learning how to live with others. In College Three, there appears to be fairly close agreement be— tween students and staff on these items. All the staff and 94% of the students agreed that the student learns to share and live in harmony with other people (item 32). All the 69 staff and 85% Of the students felt that the hall program facilitates adjustment to peers (item 64). Only 14% Of the staff but 36% of the students agreed that the hall program encouraged students to let others in the hall live in what- ever manner they chose (item 57). Both items manifesting significant differences in the Experience in Group Living category relate to group process. Responses to item 56 indicate that all the staff members be- lieved that students g9 find group leadership experience in the hall. Three-fifths of the students said they found this kind of experience in the hall. Staff responses to item 59 indicate all of them be- lieved that an understanding of the democratic process is achieved through the hall program. Student responses as a whole indicate that 57% agreed. However, the men and women students' responses are almost opposite. Seventy per cent of the men and only 35% of the women agreed with this item. There appeared tO be more agreement between staff and students in College Three on the other two items related to student experiences in group interaction. Ninety-three per cent Of the staff and 73% Of the students agreed there were Opportunities for student groups to work together on projects (item 33). About three-fifths (64%) of the staff and 70% of the students felt there was stimulation for bull sessions and discussions (item 34). 70 All but one Of the staff and 64% of the students saw the hall Operation as an example Of efficient, effective ad- ministrative procedure (item 14). Provision Of Atmosphere. In this category, two of the items of significant difference relate to the personal feel- ings of the student. Responses to item 25 as shown in Table 4 indicate that 85% of the staff in College Three residence halls agreed that anonymity does not develop in the hall. Half the stu_ dents agreed. Differences on item 29 are highly significant. All the staff members perceived an atmosphere in the hall in which the students senses a feeling of personal interest be— ing expressed in him. Only 41% Of the students perceived such an atmosphere in their experience, however. At the same time, 79% Of the students and all but one Of the staff (93%) perceived the hall as a unit with which the student closely identifies (item 36), and about the same proportion of staff (23%) and students (20%) said it was hard to develop a feel— ing Of belonging when living in the hall (item 13). Two of the three items which relate to the kind Of atmosphere found in the hall and its furnishings evidenced significant differences. Differences on item 37 are highly significant. All but two staff members agreed that the hall atmosphere and furnishings are an example of the style of 71 life toward which the student should aspire but only 35% of the students agreed. Responses to item 54—-an atmosphere which encourages cultural awareness Of good art, literature, music and architecture exists in the hall-~evidenced differences which indicate only 43% of the staff agreed with the statement but an even smaller percentage Of students (16%) agreed. All the staff members and 83% Of the students said an atmosphere of "collegiate life" prevails in the hall (item 16). The same proportions of students (55%) agreed with both items re- lated to the kind Of living standards encouraged in the hall. But while a little more than half the students felt life in the hall has a feeling Of formal social protocol and set standards of social behavior, a little less than half (43%) of the staff agreed with this (item 27). However, 86% Of the staff perceived a climate Of good taste and gracious living in the hall (item 19). Satisfaction Of Physical Needs. Three items in this category relate to the kind of facilities and services which are available in the halls at College Three. The differences found on item 30 concerning the quality of the meals served in the dining hall, while sig- nificant, were not great. All the staff members agreed with the item and 60% of the students agreed. Three-fifths of the students were also in agreement that there is adequate space in the students room for personal belongings and all 72 but two of the staff (86%) also agreed that this is so (item 48). All the staff and 76% of the students said there are ‘adequate facilities for students to carry out personal and "household" tasks (item 61). The differences on item 41, however, were highly Sig- nificant. All but two staff members at College Three be- 1ieved that the students found the halls an economical place to live. Only one—third of the students believed this to be so. Two items are related to recreational facilities. Half the students (49%) and a little over half (57%) the staff agreed that the hall was a base for organized sports competition (item 43). But 86% of the staff and only 57% of the students agreed that Opportunities for exercises and recreation were available for students in the hall (item 62). Supervision Of Conduct Item 53 evidenced highly significant differences in student and staff perceptions at College Three. All but one staff member agreed that most student illnesses were known to the staff but only about onew third of the students perceived the staff to know when the students were 111. It might be noted that while only 22% of the men students agreed with this item, 45% of the women students agreed. 0 Item 55 responses also indicate a high level Of sig- nificant difference between staff and student perceptions. All but one staff member perceived values and standards for 73 social behaviOr patterns to be established by the hall pro» gram but only 40% of the students perceived this to happen. There is a large Observed difference in the way in which the men students and women students answered this item. While only 17% of the men agreed that the hall program attempts to establish such values, 54% of the women perceived that it did. On the three items in this category dealing with the hall program as a means of communicating regulations, the students and staff appear to be in general agreement. All the staff and.98% Of the students perceived enforcement of university policies and regulations as part of the hall pro— gram (item 18). Eighty-one per cent of the students and 79% Of the staff agreed that the hall program is a means to con- trol student conduct (item 28). All the staff and 85% of the students agreed that the college uses the hall program to inform students Of its policies and regulations (item 39). Four items concern the supervisory function of the residence hall. Only 29% of the staff and 39% of the stu- dents felt the hall staff assumed a parental role in dealing with students (item 60). Half the staff and slightly over half (56%) the students agreed that the sign-out regulations enabled the staff to accurately know where students were (item 52). About two—thirds (63%) of the students and 79% Of the staff at College Three agreed that the hall is used as 74 an expedient and convenient unit to group students for campus administrative and activity purposes (item 51). Support for the College. All the staff and 82% of the students perceived the hall program as helping the stu- dent tO identify with the college (item 24). But only 59% Of the students and 86% of the staff felt the program develops student loyalty toward the college (item 63). All the staff and 72% of the students believed the hall program helps orient the student to the college and its expectations of him (item 40). Three—fifths of the students (61%) and four— fifths of the staff (71%) perceived the hall program as emphasizing the change and progress Of the college rather than reinforcing the traditions and customs of the past (item 44). College Four College Four is a private, coeducational, church— related school. All students not living at home are housed in college dormitories when space is available. Most upper- class men live in fraternity houses. About 390 women live in three women's halls and 350 men are housed in four men's halls. The hall program at College Four is under the super- vision Of the Dean of Men and the Dean Of WOmen. Both men's and women's halls are staffed by mature women who are as- sisted by student counselors. 75 The catalogue of College Four states general Ob- jectives for the residence halls in the following manner: This institution has a further basic purpose which relates to the successful living of all its students, regardless Of the diversity of the life calling for which they may be preparing. It desires the develop- ment Of well—balanced and intelligently Christian personalities who . . . will loyally, heartily, and effectively participate in the life of the family, the community, the nation, and the world. Students should develop self—understanding, sustaining morale, capacity to be congenial co—laborers, develop intel— lectual integrity, religious faith, and stalwart Christian character. . . . (from Moral Ideals) 1. To recognize and respectfully Observe at all times such customs and traditions as tend to promote a whole- some college life. 4. To consider it the duty of every student to foster the spirit Of democracy and to discourage as far as possible favoritism in any form. The student handbooks at College Four appear to be primarily rule books which detail regulations and penalties incurred for infractions Of these regulations. The staff handbook for residence directors in the men's halls states in the forward that the purpose of the residence hall is to "develop an Optimum atmosphere for the learning process." The handbook goes on to describe the resident director's job in terms Of managerial responsibility, personnel relations and responsibilities in staffing, group work to enhance academic discipline, personal counseling, and staff training. Results Of the_Questionnaire. The questionnaire was administered to the sample of students at College Four in a group session. Fifty-nine students or 71% Of those sampled completed the questionnaire. The eight staff members working 76 with the hall program also completed the questionnaire in a group meeting. In the student sample there were twenty men and thirty-eight women. There were thirty-one freshmen, thirteen sophomores, nine juniors, and five seniors. Eleven of the students sampled are or had been residence hall officers and eight are or had been residence hall assistants. In the staff sample, six were full-time resident directors in the halls and two were the administrators of the hall program. All of the resident directors and one of the administrator's are women. One administrator is a man. Two staff members have less than one year's experience at College Four. Two of the house directors did not attend college and four attended but have no degree. The two ad- ministrators have college degrees. Responses of students and staff to the Residence Hall Experience Questionnaire at College Four are summarized in Table 5. Instructional Support. As indicated in Table 5, a significant difference was noted on item 26. On this item, 91% of the students said they did_pg§ perceive the hall pro- gram complementing the academic and instructional program. The staff members, on the other hand, are equally divided between agreeing and disagreeing in their perceptions of whether this happens in the halls. 77 mmO. OOH O OOH Om OOOOOO0HO OOHOOOOOHOO .mO OmO. Om O mm Hm mumccmE Ocm OHOOOOHOO co mHmmszO oz .Om OOH. OH H O N HHOO OOO OH OOOHo OxOO OOHOH>HOOO HOH00O .OO ONO. HO m OO Om OOO0HO>OO OOHOOOOE HOH00O .OO OOmOO.mH OO O OH HH xOO OOHOoono OOO H0 OOoOuOn OOOz .Om NOm.H mO O OO ON OOHOOO O>Humwno Ocm mOOOH mmmumxm .mN OOO. OO O OO mO O0H>OOOO O30 O0O OOHHHOHOOonOOO OEOOOO .NN HOO. OOH O mO mm OOOsoOOHOOO OOOOOHHHO H0 OHooOm OOOz .HN HNO.m OO O OO ON mEmHQOHQ HMCOOHOQ mmsomHO OH Ommm .ON OOO.H Om m OO OO OOQOHO>OO no: mOOHm> mOOHOHHmm .mH OHN.H OOH O OO OO OCOEOOOO OOOOOOQOOOH .OOHOOOHHOIHHOO .NH HMOOH>HOCH OH» NO “COEQOHO>OQ OOOO.O OO O NO mN OOOHO 0O O>HOOOCOO OHmnmmOEud .Om HOO. O O m m mHOQOQOBOC Ocm OOOHNmOmE OOHHOOO HCOHHOU .OO NON. mN N NH O OOHOOOH OOH3 OHOOOHO OoO OOHOHOOOuomno .mO OOH m OOH O HO Om OOOOOOOHOO OHOOOOOO OOOHOOO HHOOO .NO mOO. mN N OH HH HHOO OH OOOOOOOO OOH3 OOOOOOOH OOHOOOO .mm OOm.m OOH O Om Om OOO0HO>OO OOHOOO OOOOO O00O .Hm OOOO.O Om O O m SOHOOHQ HOCOHHOOHHOOH mucwEmHQEoo .ON mOO.N OOH O OO Om OOOOHOOOCO mH mHanmHonom Ooow .OH OHOQQSO HOOOHOOOHOOOH oNx O. z O. z EOHH MOOOO OOCOOOOO .OHHMOOOHOOOOO OOOOHHOme HHmm OOOOOHmOm may no EOHH comm How mmmuw Ocm mucmo Isum m0 mmcommmn mo UCOEOOHOM mo mocwsvmum Ocm mwsHm> mumsvm Havilusom OOOHHOU .m OHQOB 78 O.OOHOIO Om O mH O mwmcwumzm HMHOHHOU mmmmusoocm .Om OONOO.O OO O Nm OH OHOOO OHHH OHOOOHOOO H0 OHonxO OOOOmOonO .OO OHO. OO O OO Om HHOO OOH3 OHHOOOOH OOOOOOOO .Om OOO m OOH O Om Om OOOOOOOO OH OOOOOOOH HOOoOOOO H0 OOHHOOO .ON mOO. Om m HO ON H000O0OO HOH00O HOOOoH O0 OOHHOOO .ON OOO. mO m mO Om OmoHO>OO OOHOOOoOO O0 OOOHHOOO oz .mN OmOO.O OO O OO mN OOH>HH OsoHOOOO .OOOOO O00O O0 OOOeHHo .OH NOO. OO O OO OO .OOHH OOOHOOHHoo= O0 OOOOmOonO .OH OOO.H Om m OH O OOHOO0HOO O0 OOHHOOO O moHO>OO 0O OOOm .mH OHOSQOOEOO mo COHmH>OHm Nmm H OO m OO OO OOOOO 0O OOOsOOOHOO OOOOOHHHOOO .OO OOH m OOH O Om Om OOO00OO 0HOOO002OO H0 OOHOOOOOOOOOO .Om mOO.N O O Om HN OO00O0 OOOO OO O>HH OOOOOo OOH .Om mOO. mN N Hm Om wocmHummxm QHSOHOOOOH QSOHO oz .Om NOm.H OOH O mO OO mOOHmmmm HHOQ Ocm mconmsomHn .Om mOO.N OOH O OO Om OOOOHoOn O0 OOOOOOoO xO03 OmsoOO .mm HOH. OOH O OO Nm OOOOOo OOH3 OOonOO OH O>HH .OOOOO .Nm mOO m OOH O Om mm OOOOOOuoOO O>HmOOOOHOHOOO OOOHOHHOO .OH OCH>HH QSOHU CH OOGOHHOQMH uNx O 2 O z EOOH HOOOO OOOOOOOO OOOOHOcoo .m OHOOH OUCMOHMHCOHO MO HO>OH HO.*O OOCOOHMHCOHm mo Hw>mH mo.OF 79 OmO m mO O Om HN OOmoHO>OO OOOHHoo OOO30O OOHOO0H OOOOOOO .mO OHH. Om O OO ON OOOHHOU m3» m0 mmOHOOHQ .Omcmno mONHmmnmEm .OO NOO. OO O OO OO OO0HOOO0OoxO OOH .OOOHHoo 0O OOOOOHHO .OO NOm.H OOH O mO OO OOOHH00 OOO OOH3 OHHOOOOH OOOOOOO OOHOO .ON OUOHHOU msu How uHOQmsm HOO. mO m Om NN OH0O HOOOOOOO O OOeOOOO OOOOO .OO HHO.m OOH O Om mm OOHOOOOOO O0H>OOOH HOH00O OOHHHOOOO .mm Omm.H OO O Om mm HHH OH OOOOOOO OOO3 O30Ox HHOOO .mm OON. OO O mO Om OO0HOOHOOOO OO0IOOHO O>HO0OHHO .Nm OmO. mN N Om HN OOOOOOOO OOHmsouO O0O OHOO .Hm NOO. OOH O OO mm OOoHOOHOOOO OOO OOHOHHom Osonm eOowOH .Om OHO N OOH O OO Om OOOOOou OOOOOOO O0 H0OOO00 .ON Omm. OOH O mO OO OCOHOOHOOOH Ocm OOHOHHOQ mo OOOEOOHOHOH .OH HUOOCOO mo conH>HOm§m mmH. mO m Om Om OHOOHHO>O OoHOOOOOOO OOO OOHOOOxm .NO OOO. OO O OO Om OxOOO =OH0OOO50O= OoO OOHOHHHOOO .HO OOH.m OOH O HO Om OOCHOOOHOH HOOOOHOQ HOH Oommm mumsvwwm .OO NOO. OO O OO OO OOHOHOOQEOO muuomm OONHGOOHO How Ommm .mO HOO. OO O OO Om O>HH 0O OOOHAH HOOHeoOouO HHOO .HO OOH.m OOH O HO Om OHOOO OooO OOOH>0OO HOMO OOHOHO .Om mOOmZ HMOHm>£m mo COHHommmHumm UNx X Z O z EOOH HHOOO OOOOOOOO UOSCHHCOU m OHQMB 80 Differences on item 58 are not highly significant but indicate that all but one staff member agreed that the hall atmosphere is conducive to study but that the students are about evenly divided in their opinion with 42% agreeing° In the area of scholarship, all the staff members and 64% of the students believed good scholarship is en- couraged (item 17) and all the staff and 59% of the students feel the students efforts to develop good study habits are encouraged (item 31). All the staff members and 6l% of the students believed the hall staff assists the student in ad- justing to the demands of academic life (item 42). None of the staff and only 5% of the students per— ceived that quality magazines and newspapers are found in the hall (item 46). In the area of faculty-student interaction in the hall, 19% of the students and 25% of the staff perceived faculty interacting with students in the hall (item 35) and 25% of the staff and 12% of the students believed the hall provides opportunities for dinners and discussion with faculty (item 45). Development of the Individual. The most significant difference found in the staff and student perceptions in College Four was in item 38. Only one—fifth of the students agreed that there are opportunities through the hall program to meet persons of the opposite sex. All but one staff member agreed with this item. Of the men students only one 81 respondent agreed while 20% of the women students agreed with the item. All the staff and three-fourths of the students per- ceived the hall program contributing to the development of the student's self-direction and independent judgment (item 12). Eighty-eight per cent of the staff and 76% of the stu- dents believed the student is encouraged to assume responsi- bility for his own behavior (item 22). Three—fourths of the staff members and 46% of the students agreed it is easy for the students to express ideas and use creative energy (item 23). In the area of development of religious values, almost two-thirds of the staff (62%) but only one-third of the students (32%) felt the hall program attempted to develop religious values (item 15). Only 44% of the students found it was easy to dis— cuss personal problems with the hall staff but 88% of the staff members felt it was easy for the students to do so (item 2O)° It is shown on Table 5 that staff (100%) and students (93%) appear to be in agreement that there were opportunities to meet people of different backgrounds and interests (item 21) and were in complete agreement that there are opportuni— ties to broaden friendships by living in the hall (item 65). In the area of social develOpment, staff and students appear to be in general agreement with each other in the area noted above (item 38)f In the areas in which staff and 82 students agree, 66% of the students and 71%»of the staff per- ceived social maturity developing through experiences in a variety Of social situations in the hall (item 47). Half the students and half the staff members perceived little emphasis on learning etiquette and good manners (item 50). Four per cent of the students and 14% of the staff believed a variety of social functions took place in the hall (item 49). Experience in Group Living. Three of the items in this category related to learning how to live with others. In College Four, there appears to be fairly good agreement between staff and students on these items. Eighty-eight per cent of the students and all the staff members perceived that the students learn to share and to live in harmony with other people in the hall (item 32). Only about two—thirds of the staff members but 86% of the students agreed that the hall program facilitated adjustment to peers (item 64). None of the staff members and only one-third of the students agreed that the hall program encouraged students to let other students in the hall live in whatever manner they chose (item 57). Four of the items in this category related to experi— ences in structured group interaction. All the staff members and 64% of the students said there was Opportunity for stu- dent groups to work together on projects (item 33). About the same percentages (all the étaff and 58% of the students) 83 agreed that understanding of the democratic process was achieved in the hall (item 59). Half the students and three— fourths of the staff perceived that leadership experience was available for the student in the hall (item 56). All the staff members and three-fourths of the students found a stimulating atmosphere in the hall which encouraged discus— sions and bull sessions among students (item 34). Approximately three-fifths of the students and all the staff perceived the residence hall operation as providing an example of efficient, effective administrative procedure (item 14). Provision of Atmosphere. The remaining three sig- nificant differences of perception in College Four were in the category of Provision of Atmosphere. All three of these items relate to the cultural atmosphere and the tastefulness of the surroundings. Item 19 responses indicate that only two—fifths of the students agreed that there was a climate of good taste and gracious living in the halls while all but one of the staff members perceived this to be the case. The differences on item 37 are more highly signifi- cant in that 32% of the students saw the hall furnishings and atmosphere as a style of life to which they would aspire while 88% of the staff members agreed with this statement. The responses to item 54 indicate that only 15% of the students perceived any encouragement of cultural aware- ness of art, literature, and music in their hall experience. 84 The staff members were evenly divided in their opinions on this item. Four items in this category relate to the feeling of identification which the student finds in the hall. Two- thirds of the students and all but one of the staff members perceived the hall as a unit with which the student closely identifies (item 36). But all the staff members and approxi— mately three-fifths of the students agreed that the atmos- phere in the hall reflects a feeling of personal interest in the student (item 29). About two-thirds of both staff and students agreed that the hall experience does not allow a feeling of anonymity to develop (item 25). However, 38% of the staff members and only 14% of the students said it is hard to develOp a feeling of belonging when living in the hall (item 13). Three of the items in this category relate to the kind of atmosphere found in the hall. Four-fifths of the students and all but one of the staff members said that an atmosphere of "collegiate life" prevails in the hall (item 16). About the same proportion of staff (38%) and students (41%) agreed that life in the hall has a feeling of formal social protocol and specifies set standards of social behavior (item 27). Satisfaction of Physical Needs. Three items in this category relate to the kind of facilities and services which are available in the hall. Student responses to these three 85 items indicate that about three—fifths of the students agree that the dining hall provides well—prepared, nourishing meals (item 30), that the student's room provides adequate space to keep his personal belongings (item 48), and that adequate facilities are available to facilitate personal and "household" tasks (item 61). All the staff members agreed with the first two of these items and all but one agreed with the item concerned with personal and "household" tasks. All but one of the staff members agreed that the hall is an economical place to live and 64% of the students agreed with this (item 41). Two items related to recreational facilities. Four- fifths of the students and all but one of the staff agreed that the hall serves as a base for organized sports compe- tition (item 43). However, only 43% of the staff and 59% of the students said that Opportunities for physical exercise and recreation were available (item 62). Supervision of Conduct. Three items in this cate- gory deal with hall program as a means of communicating regulations. As noted in Table 5, all the staff members agreed with all three of these items. In the student group, 90% agreed that the college uses the hall program to inform students of its policies and regulations (item 39), and 83% believed that enforcement of university policies and regu— lations is part of the hall program (item 18). However, 86 only 66% said the hall program served as a means to control student conduct (item 28). Four items concern the supervisory function of the residence hall. About two-thirds (63%) of the staff be- lieved the hall staff assumes a parental role but only a little over one-third (39%) of the students said this was so (item 60). The same proportion of staff (86%) and students (85%) agreed that the sign—out regulations enabled the staff to accurately know where students were (item 52). Three-fifths (59%) of the students and all but one of the staff agreed that the staff knows when a student is ill (item 53). One hundred per cent of the staff but only slightly over half (56%) of the students perceived the ball as attempting to establish values and standards of social behavior (item 55). Slightly over one-third (35%) of the students and only one-fourth of the staff agreed that the hall is used as an expedient and convenient unit to group students for campus administrative and activity purposes (item 51). Support for the College. Approximately the same pro— portion, three-fourths of the students and all of the staff at College Four agreed that the hall program helps the stu— dent to identify with the college (item 24) and 76% of the students and all but one of the staff agreed that the hall program serves as a means through which the student is oriented to the college and its expectations of him (item 40). 87 However, only slightly over one-third (36%) of the students and three-fourths (75%) of the staff perceived the hall pro- gram as developing student loyalty toward the college (item 63). About half (49%) of the students and half (50%) the staff perceived the hall program as emphasizing the change and progress of the college rather than reinforcing the tra- ditions and customs of the past (item 44). College Five College Five is a coeducational, state—supported uni- versity. To the extent that facilities are available, all single undergraduate students are required to live in a uni- versity residence hall unless they commute from the home of their parents. There are seven women's halls housing about 1775 women and two men's halls housing about 650 men. The remainder of the men who do not commute live off—campus. The residence hall program at College Five is under the direction of the Manager of Housing Program who is re= sponsible to the Director of Housing and the Student Union. The men's halls are staffed by men head residents who are professionally trained in student personnel. The women's halls are staffed either by mature, older women or by younger women who are professiOnally trained in student personnel. Head residents in both men's and women's halls are assisted by undergraduate student assistants. 88 The catalogue of College Five contains the following statement concerning the purpose of the group living experi— ence on the campus. The University considers the group living experi- ence a vital part of the total education of each stu- dent. While emphasis in residence halls is placed on academic achievement, residents are encouraged to take advantage of the social, cultural, recreational and governmental activities made available through residence hall living. The residence hall handbooks for men and for women, 1964-65 support this catalogue statement by asserting that the resi- dence hall is a vital part of the student's educational ex- perience. Through this experience the student is able to develop self-reliance, self—discipline, and a sense of re- sponsible citizenship. The hall is described as a place where student-faculty interaction takes place, where lasting friendships are developed, and where the student develops a level of competence in human relations. Detailed statements of the purposes of the various facets of the residence hall program are used as part of the staff training program. These purposes encompass the edu— cational, counseling, social-recreational, and cultural- academic programs. Results of theguestionnaire. At College Five, the questionnaire was administered to twelve staff members and 145 students. This represents 60% of the number of students sampled. All the staff members completed the questionnaire \ 89 in a group meeting and the students completed it in a group setting that was spread over a five-hour period. In the student sample there were thirty-four men and 111 women. Distribution by class indicated there were seventy freshmen, forty-two sophomores, twenty-two juniors, and eleven seniors. Twenty-three of the students indicated they were presently or had been residence hall officers and five said they were presently or had been hall assistants. In the group of twelve staff members, there were five men and seven women. Three of the men were adminis- trators andaare not classified as head residents. Three of the staff members have been at College Five for less than one year, three have worked there from one to three years, four from four to seven years, one from eight to fifteen years, and one woman has been a head resident for over fifteen years. Two of the staff members have not attended college. Four hold bachelor's degrees and six of the staff hold master's degrees. Responses of College Five students and staff to the Residence Hall Experience Questionnaire are summarized in Tflfle6. Instructional Support. As is noted in Table 6, sig— nificance in perceptions between staff members and students occur on three items in the Instructional Support category. Two of these items relate to academic adjustment. Differ- ences on item 31 indicate that all the staff members believed 9O OMO. OOH NH OO OOH Owcmwmoun mmHnmUcwHHm .mO mHN. NO m mm OO mOOccmE cam OOOOOOHOO co mHmmszw oz .Om HON.N NO HH OO OO HHmn CH OOOHQ OHMO mmHOH>HOom HmHoom .OO mOO. mO OH NO OHH OOOOHO>OO OOHOOOOE HOH00O .OO OHOO.m NO HH Om OO xmm OOHmommo OOO O0 OcomOOm Ommz .Om NOO. Om O OO OO OOHOCO O>HOOOHO cam OMOUH mmmumxm .mN OOO. mO OH HO OHH O0H>OOOO O30 O0O OOHHHOHmcomwOO Ossmma .NN OOH. OOH NH mO mmH mOcsoOOxomO OOOOOOOHO O0 OHmomm Ommz .HN *ONOO.OH OOH NH OO OO OEOHnoOO HmcomOOO OOOOOHO 0O Ommm .ON HOO.H OO O OO OmH OOQOHO>OO O0: mmsHm> msoHOHHOm .mH HHH. HO OH NO OHH OcOEOOsO OCOUCOQOOCH .COHOOOHHOIOHOO .NH Hm5©H>HOCH mnu mo OCOEQOHO>OQ mmO.H Om O mm Hm OOOOO 0O O>HOOOO00 OOmnmmosOm .Om OOm. Om O mO OO muwmmmm3wc UGO mOcHNmOmE mOHHmsv OCOHOSU .OO OOOH.m OOH NH mO HO OOHOOOO OOHz OOOOOHO O0O OOHOHOOOO0OO0 .mO *ONOO.O mO OH OO Om OOOEOOOHOO OHEOOOOO OOOHOOO OOOOO .NO OOO.N Om O Hm OO HHOO OH OOOOOOOO OOH3 OOOOOOOH OOHOOOO .mm «OOOO.O OOH NH Om OO OmmoHO>OO OOHOOO OOOOO O00O .Hm NHO. OO O OO OOH SOHOOHQ HOCOHOODOOmcH mOCOEOHmEOU .ON OOO. NO HH mO OOH UmOmOsoocm OH mHngmHonOm @000 .OH Ouommdm HOCOHOOOOOOCH ONx .O z .x. z EOOH MMOOO mOCOUdOO .OOHOCCOHOOOOO OOCOHOOme HHmm OOCOUwam OAO co EOOH 30mm MOO mmmum 0cm mucwn IDOm mo Omcommmu mo OCOEOOOOO mo OOCOSOOOM Ocm mwsHm> Oumswm H£OIIO>HO OOOHHOU .O OHQOB 9l OOOO.O Om O OH ON mmwcmum3m HMODOHSO mOOmHSOOcm .Om ONO. Om O NO HO OHOOO OOHH OHOOOHOOO O0 OHOOOxO OOOOmmonO .Om OOO. NO HH mO mNH HHOO OOHz OOHOOOOH OOOOOOOO .Om NOO H mO O Om mO OOOOOOOOOO OH OOOOOOOH HmOomOmm O0 OOHHOOO .ON OOm.H OO O OO OO H000O0OO HOH00m HOOOoO O0 OOHHOOO .ON ONH. OO O Om OO OOOHO>OO OOHOOOoOO O0 OOOHHOOO oz .mN OON.m mO O OO mO OOH>HH mO0H0OOO .OOOOO O00O O0 OOOOHHo .OH mNO. NO HH OO ONH .OOHH OOOHOOHHou. O0 OOOOOmonO .OH mmO.N mm O mH OH OOHOOoHOO O0 OOHHOOO O OoHO>OO 0O OOOO .mH OHOSQOOEO< MO COHwH>OHm ONH. NO HH mO OHH OOOOO 0O OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOHHHOOO .OO NOO.H mm OH H0 mm mmOUOHQ UHHMHUOEQU m0 UCHUCMHmHmUr—D .mm OOO. mN m NO OO OmooOo OOOO Om O>HH OOOOOo OOH .Om NOH.H O O OH MN OOCOHOOme mHanOOmmH ODOHO OZ .Om OmH. OO O OO OHH OOonOOm HHOO OOO mOonmOOOHO .Om HOO. NO HH OO mNH mOOOOOHm CO OOSOOOOO xH03,mm50OO .mm OmH. NO HH OO NOH OOOOOo OOH; OOonmO OH O>HH .OOOOO .Nm NOO. OO O OO OO OOOOOwooOO O>HOOOOOHOHEOO OOOHOHOOO .OH OCH>HH meHO CH OOCOHHOQXW 0Nx O. 2 O. z OOOH OOOOO OOOOOOOO OOOOHOOoo .O OHOOO 92 OOCMOHOHCOHO mo HO>OH HO.¥* OOCOOHOHGOHO O0 HO>OH mO.O OOOO.O NO HH Om OO OmmoHO>OO OOOHHOO OOmzoO OOHmmoH OOOOOOO .mO NOH. mO O OO mO OOOHHOO Onu mo mmOHOOHm .Omcmno mwNHmmnmEm .OO OHO. mO OH OO ONH mOoHOOOOOOxO mOH .OOOHHoo 0O OOOOOHOO .OO HNH. mO OH mO ONH OOOHHoo OOO OOH: OOHOOOOH OOOOOOO OOHOO .ON OUOHHOU may now OHOQQSO OHO. mm O Hm OO OHoO HOOOOOOO m OOOOOOO OOOOO .OO OHOH.O mO OH NO OO OOOOOOOOO O0H>OOOO HOH00m OOHHOOOOO .mm OOOmN.HH NO HH Om Om HHH mH OOOOOOO OOO3 OzoOx OOOOO .mm mOO. OO O Om mO mOoHOOHOOOO OO01OOHO O>HO0OOOO .Nm mOO. OO O mO OOH OOOOOOOO OOHOO0OO O0O OHOO .Hm NOO. mO OH OO OmH mOoHOOHOOOO OOO OOHOHHom OOOOO OO0OOH .Om OOO. OO O NO OO O0OOO00 OOOOOOO O0 HoOOOoo .ON OmH. OOH NH OO OOH mOoHOOHOOOO OOO OOHOHHom O0 OOOOOOOoOOO .OH Oosocoo mo COHmH>HOQdm mOO. mO OH OO OO OHOOHHO>O O0HOOOO0OO OOO OOHOOOxO .NO mOO. mO O OO OOH OOOOO =OH0OOOO0O= O0O OOHOHHHOOO .HO OHN. OO O mm OO mOcHOCOHOQ HMCOOOOQ MOO Oummm OOmsva< .OO mHO N OOH NH OO OOH O0HOHOOOO00 OOOomm OOOHOOOOo OoO OOOO .OO *OmO.O mO OH OO Om m0>HH 0O OOOHO HOOHeoOo0O HHOm .HO *OmON.NH OOH NH mO HO OHOOO O00O OOOH>0OO HHOO OOHOHO .Om mOOOz HmuHm>nm mo COHuommeumm ONx O z X z EOOH OOOOO mOOOOOOO OOOOHOOOO .O OHOOO 93 the student's efforts to develOp good study habits are en- couraged but only about half the students (54%) perceived this as happening to them. Difference in perception on item 42 indicates that 83% of the staff members perceived that the students were assisted by the hall staff in their academic adjustment, but only 40% of the students believed this to be so. However, all except one of the staff and three—fourths-of the stu- dents said that good scholarship is encouraged in the hall (item 17). Only slightly over one-third of the students and almost three-fifths of the staff felt the hall atmosphere was conducive to study and creative, productive thought (item 58). Three—fourths of the staff and 69% of the students perceived the hall program as a complement to the acacemic and instructional program of College Five (item 26). Slightly fewer than half the students (45%) and 58% of the staff found current magazines and newspapers in the hall for the student's use (item 46). Two of the items in this category relate to faculty— student interaction in the hall. Less than one-third of the students (31%) and 58% of the staff said that faculty members interact informally with students in the hall (item 24). But all the staff members believed the hall encourages and pro- vides opportunities for dinners and discussions with faculty while less than two-thirds of the students said this was 94 true in their experience (item 45). This was a difference significant at the .05 level. Development of the Individual. The significance of the differences in perception between staff members and stu- dents on item 20 was high. All staff members agreed it is easy for students to discuss personal problems with staff members but only 47% of the students agreed with this. While differences on item 38 are not great, the re~ sponses indicate that 92% of the staff members perceived that the students have opportunities to meet persons of the opposite sex but only about half the students (54%) agreed with this item. Ninety per cent of the staff and 82% of the students perceived that the hall program contributes to the students' develOpment of self-direction and independent judgment (item 12). There was even closer agreement on item 22 with 83% of the staff and 81% of the students agreeing that the students were encouraged to assume responsibility for their own behavior. More students (90%) than staff members (73%) at College Five felt that the hall does not attempt to develop religious values (item 15). More students (67%) than staff members (58%) found opportunities for students to express ideas and use creative energy in the hall (item 23). Four items in this category concern the development of social competence. As seen in Table 6, almost the same 95 proportion of staff members (83%) and students (82%) agreed that the students social maturity is developed through ex- perience in a variety of social situations in the hall (item 47). But 92% of the staff and two-thirds of the students perceived that various kinds of social functions took place in the hall (item 49). Slightly more than half the staff (58%) and slightly fewer than half the students (47%) felt that learning etiquette and good manners is emphasized (item 50). There was almost unanimous agreement of staff and students on the two items related to increasing friendships. All the staff members and 99% of the students agreed that there is opportunity to broaden friendships in the hall (item 65). All the staff and 93% of the students felt the students meet people of backgrounds and interests different from their own (item 21). Experience in Group Living. Three items in this category relate to learning to live with others. Ninety-two per cent of the staff and 98% of the students felt that one learns to share and live in harmony with other people in the hall (item 32) and 92% of the staff and 83% of the students said the hall program facilitates adjustment to peers (item 64). However, while only one-fourth of the staff perceived that the hall program encourages students to let other stu- dents live in whatever manner they choose, 42% of the students felt that that this happened (item 57)° 96 Most of the students and staff members indicated agreement on the items in this category concerned with group interaction. All the staff and 84% of the students felt there was leadership experience available for the student in the hall (item 56) and 92% of the staff and 87% of the stu— dents found opportunities for students to work together in groups (item 33). A little less than two-thirds of the stu- dents (6l%) and 83% of the staff believed that understanding of the democratic process is achieved in the hall (item 59). More students (76%) than staff (76%) perceived a stimulating atmosphere which encourages discussions among students (item 34). The same proportion of students and staff-—67%O- perceived the hall operation as an example of efficient, effective administrative procedure (item 14). Provision of Atmosphere. The only item in this category evidencing a significant difference in student—staff perception was item 54. Responses shown in Table 6 indicate that only half the staff members agreed that the hall program encourages students' cultural awareness but that even fewer of the stu« dents (19%) agreed. Four items in this category relate to the feelings of identity the student develops. .All except one staff member and 85% of the students perceived the hall as a unit with which the student identi- fies (item 36). And only 13% of the students and one-third 97 of the staff felt it was hard to develop a feeling of belong- ing when living in the hall (item 13). But while three- fourths of the staff members said the atmosphere in the hall reflects a personal interest in the student only 50% of the students found this to be so in their experience (item 29). Two—thirds of the staff and 57% of the students agreed that feelings of anonymity do not develop in the hall (item 25). All but one staff member and 86% of the students agreed that an atmosphere of "collegiate life" prevails in the halls at College Five (item 16). There were 58% of the staff members and 42% of the students who agreed that the hall atmosphere and furnishings are an example of the style of life toward which the student should aspire (item 37). Only 19% of the students found encouragement of cultural awareness in the hall, but half the staff members perceived such awareness (item 54). Two-thirds of the staff and 44% of the students agreed there is a feeling of formal social protocol and set standards of social behavior in the hall. About the same proportion of students (43%) but three-fourths of the staff perceived a climate of good taste and gracious living in the hall (item 19). Satisfaction of Physical Needs. Differences on item 30 are very evident. All the staff agreed that good meals are served in the dining hall but only 43% of the students agreed. 98 Differences on item 41 were not as highly significant but indicate that 83% of the staff members perceived the hall as an economical place for the student to live while only about two—fifths of the students agreed that this is so. The two remaining items which are concerned with the kind of facilities and services provided in the halls at College Five did not evidence significant differences in re- sponses. Two-thirds of the staff and 55% of the students found there was adequate space in the student's room for his personal belongings (item 48). About equal proportion of students (74%) and staff (75%) found adequate facilities available for personal and "household" tasks (item 61). All the staff and three-fourths of the students agreed that the hall serves as a base for organized sports competition (item 43) and 83% of the staff and 67% of the students found Opportunities for physical exercise and recre- ation in the hall program (item 62). Supervision of Conduct. Perceptual differences be- tween staff and students are highly significant on item 53. All except one staff member (93%) believed staff members know when students are ill but only slightly over one—third of the students (38%) agreed with this. There is a differ— ence, however, between the perceptions of men students and women students. Only 18% of the men agreed with the state- ment, but 43% of the women agreed with this item. 99 Differences on item 55 are not as apparent but are significant. Responses indicate 83% of the staff members be— lieved attempts are made to establish values and standards of social behavior but only 42% of the students believed this is so. As is indicated in Table 6, there are no sig- nificant differences on the remaining items in this category at College Five. More students (93%) than staff members (83%) found that the college uses the hall program to inform students of its policies and regulations (item 39). About equal proportions of students (97%) and staff (100%) agreed that enforcement of these university policies and regulations is part of the hall program (item 18). And about two-thirds of both students and students and staff agreed that the hall program at College Five serves as a means to control student conduct (item 28). One-third of the staff and slightly less than one— third of the students believed the hall staff assumes a parental role in dealing with the student (item 60). Two-thirds of the staff and 59% of the students be- lieved that sign-out regulations enable the staff to know where students are (item 52). A higher proportion of students (75%) than staff (67%) believed the hall is used as a unit to group students for administrative and activity purposes (item 51). 100 Support for the College. Responses of students and staff to item 63 were significantly different. Table 6 indi- cates that 92% of the staff members agreed with this item but only about half the students (54%) agreed that the hall program develops student loyalty toward the college. How- ever, there is a marked difference in the responses of men and women students in that while only about one—third of the men (37%) agreed, almost two-thirds of the women (62%) did. The same proportion of students and staff members—- 83%O-felt the hall program helps the student to identify with the college (item 24). Almost the same proportion of students (89%) and staff (83%) agreed that the college uses the hall program to help orient the student to the college's expectations of him (item 40). And three-fourths of the staff and two—thirds of the students perceived through the hall program an emphasis on the change and progress of the college rather than on the traditions and customs of the past (item 44). College Six College Six is a small, coeducational, church- related, four-year college. All students not living with their parents or legal guardians must live in college halls and board in the college dining room. There are about 340 men each quarter who live in one large men's residence hall and in six small houses. About 345 women each quarter live in two women's halls. 101 The residence hall program is directed and supervised by the Dean of Men and the Dean of WOmen who are responsible to the Dean of Students. The men's hall is staffed by a full-time, male head resident. The women's halls are staffed by an older, mature woman and by a younger, semi-trained woman. Student assistants are used in both men's and women's halls. Publications of College Six say little about the purpose of their residence hall program. Student handbooks appear to be primarily lists of rules with little explanation or rationale. There is one instance where opportunities for participation in student government in the living groups is mentioned. Otherwise, no details about the purposes of the program are detailed. Results of the Questionnaire. The questionnaire was administered to the students sampled in a group meeting. It was completed individually by the staff members. There are forty-seven students in the sample or 69% of the total sampled. In the sample of students there were twenty-one men and twenty-six women. Of these, twenty-five were freshmen, fourteen were SOphomores, one was a junior and six were seniors. (Because of the unique academic program in College Six, juniors and seniors spend much of their time away from the campus.) Four of the students in the sample had been or 102 were presently residence hall officers and four had been or were presently student assistants in the residence hall. Of the six staff members who completed the question— naire, three were men and three were women. Of these six, four were head residents. Two of the staff have been at College Six less than one year, two have worked there from one to three years and one person has been there from eight to fifteen years. One staff member did not answer this question. One of the staff did not attend college, one at- tended but does not hold a degree, and one holds a bachelor's degree. Three of the staff hold master's degrees. Responses of students and staff at College Six to the Residence Hall Experience Questionnaire are summarized in Table 7. Instructional Support. Two items in the category at College Six were significantly different at the .05 level. Responses to item 42 indicate that while all the staff mem— bers in College Six agree that the student receives assistance from the hall staff in adjusting to the demands of academic life, less than half (47%) the students perceive this as happening. Differences on item 58 in Table 7 are about the same as in item 42. All the staff members agreed that the hall atmosphere is conducive to study but fewer than half (47%) the students agreed. 103 OOO. OOH O OOH OO OOCOOOOOO mmHancmHOm .mO mNO. Om m NO Om muwccmE 0cm OOOOOOHOO co mHmmnmaw Oz .Om OOOO.m mO m Nm mH HHmc CH momHm Ome mOHOH>HOom HmHOOO .OO NHO. OO O OO ON OmmoHO>OO OOHOOOOO HmHoom .OO OHOO.m mO m ON mH xmm OOHmommo OOO O0 mOomOOm Ommz .Om NOO.H OOH O NO ON OOHOCO O>HOMOHO Ucm OMOOH mmmumxm .mN ONN.N OOH O OO ON OOH>m£OQ :30 H0O NANOTHHOOHMOOOOHOOH OBSOOO .NN OOm. OOH O OO mO OOOO0OOx0OO OOOOOOOHO O0 OHOOOO Ommz .HN NOO.N OOH O HO ON mEOHQOOm HOCOmHOm mmsomHO OO mmmm .ON OHm.H OOH O OO OO OOQOHO>OO Ooc mOHH?“ mOOHOHHOm .mH HOO. OOH O OO mm OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOH .OoHOOOOHOIOHOO .NH HMS©H>HOCH OQO mo OCOEQOHO>OQ OOHO.O OOH O mO ON OOOOO OO O>HOSOCOO OOOmeoEO< .Om Omm. OO O mO HN muwmeOBOc 0cm mOcHNmOmE mOHHmsw chuuso .OO mOH. mm N OH O OOHOOOO OOH; mOOOOHO OoO OOHOHOOOOommo .mO «mO0.0 OOH O OO NN OOOOOOOOOO OHOOOOOO mOmHmmm OOOOO .NO OOO.H Om m OH O HHOO OH mOOOOOOO OOH; OOOOOOOH OOHOOOO .mm NOO.H OOH O NO ON OOOOHO>OO OOHOOO OOOOO Ooow .Hm OOm. mm N mH O EOOOOHQ HMCOHOOSHOOCH mOCOEOHQEOU .ON OmO. OOH O NO Om OOOOOOOOCO wH mHanmHonum OOOO .OH OOOQQSO HmcoHOOSHOmcH O O O .z EOOH N mOcmOsOO mmmum ifll ¢|||» .OHHMCCOHOOOOO OOCOHOOme HHmm OOCOOHmOm Onu CO EOOH Lomm MOO Ommum Ucm mucwo Isum OO Omcommmu OO OCOEOOOOO mo OOCOSOOHO Ucm mOSHm> Oumswm HSUIINHO OOOHHOU .O OHOOH 104 OOm.H Om m OH O mmOCOOmzm HMHCOHCO mOOMHCOOCm .Om ONO.N Om m mH O OHOOO OOHH OHOOOHOOO O0 OHOOOxO OOOOOmonO .Om NmO° mO m Om mN HHOO OOH; OOHOOOOH OOOOOOOO .Om OmmO.m OOH O Om OH OOOOOOOO OH OOOOOOOH HOOomOOO O0 OOHHOOO .ON mOO.H O O ON mH HOOOOOOQ HmHOOm HmEOOO OO OCHHOOm .ON OOm.m OOH O Hm ON OO0HO>OO OOHOOO0OO O0 OOOHHOOO oz .mN NHN. OO m Om OH OOH>HH mO0H0OOO .OOOOO O00O O0 OOOOHHO .OH OmH.H OOH O OO mm .OOHH OOOHOOHH00= O0 OOOOOmonO .OH HOO. OH H O m OOHOOoHOO O0 OOHHOOO m O0HO>OO 0O OOOO .mH OOmnmwOEO€ mo COHmH>OHm HON. OOH O OO Om OOOOO 0O OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOHHHOOO .OO HmO.N mO m Om OH mmmooum OHOMHOOEOO mo OCHOCMOOHOOCD .Om mOO. Om m HO ON Omoono OOOO mm O>HH OOOOOo OOO .OO HOO.N O O mO ON OOCOHOOme QHSOOOOMOH QCOOO Oz .Om OmH.H OOH O OO mm OOonmOm HHOO OOO mOonOOOOHO .Om mmm.H OOH O OO Hm OOOOO0OO O0 OOOOOOoO xOos mmsoOO .mm HOO. OOH O OO OO OOOOOo OOHs OOonOO OH O>HH .OOOOO .Nm mOO. OO O mO ON OOOOOOOOOO O>HOOOOOHOHOOO OOOHOHOOO .OH OCH>HH QUOOO CH OOCOHOOme ONx X X z EOOH OOOOO OOOOOOOO \I‘ iH' |lv 4 ll! OOOOHOOoo .O OHOOO 105 OOCMOHOHCOHO OO HO>OH HO.OO OOCOOHOHCOHO OO HO>OH mO.« OmmO.m OOH O Om OH OOO0HO>OO OOOHHou OOO30O OOHOOoH OOOOOOO .OO «OOO.O mO m mN HH OOOHHOO OCO OO mmOMOOMm .OOCmno mONHmmnmEm .OO HOO. OOH O OO mm OO0HOOO0OOxO OOH .OOOHHoo 0O OOOOOHOO .OO OOO. OOH O OO OO OOOHHou OOO OOH3 OOHOOOOH OOOOOOO OOHOm .ON OOOHHOO OLO MOO OHOdem OOO. mm N Om OH OHOO HOOOOOOO O OOOOOOO OOOOO .OO OOO.N OOH O mm ON OOOOOOOOO O0H>OOOO HOHuoO OOHHOOOOO .mm ONO m OOH O OO mN HHH OH OOOOOOO Omzz O30Ox OOOOO .mm OmO. Om m mO HN OOoHOOHOOOO OO0-OOHO O>HO0OOOO .Nm OOO. OH H HN OH mOCOOSOm OCHQCOMO MOO OHCD .Hm OOO. OOH O NO mO OO0HOOHOOOO OOO OOHOHHom Osonm eOoOOH .Om OOm. mO m NO ON O0OOO00 OOOOOOO O0 H0OOO00 .ON HON. OOH O mO Om OO0HOOHOOOO OOO OOHOHH0O O0 OOOOOOOoOOO °OH OOCOCOO OO COHmH>OOm5O mom. mm m Om ON OHQNHHM>N COHHMOHUOH Ucm mmHUHwXW .Nm NNO.H mO m mO HN OOOOO =OH0OOOOOO= OOO OOHOHHHOOO .HO mOO. mO m Om ON OOCHOCOHOQ HMCOOMOQ MOO Oommm OOmsUOOm .OO wmo. mm m OO. mm COHHHUOQEOU muHOQw GONHCMOHO .HOM Ommm .mO OOO. OO O mO ON O>HH 0O OOOHO HOOHOOO00O HHOO .HO HOO. OOH O OO OO OHOOO O00O OOOH>0OO HHOO OOHOHO .Om mOOOZ HMOHm>£m OO COHOOOOOHOMO 0Nx O 2 O z EOOH OOOOO OOOOOOOO OOOOHOOoo .O OHOOO 106 All the staff members at College Six agreed with the four items in this category which relate to the fostering of good scholarship. Student opinion, however, was divided. Seventy-two per cent of the students agreed that good scholarship is encouraged (item 17) and slightly fewer than two-thirds found their efforts to develop good study habits encouraged (item 31). Only one-third of the staff members and 15% of the students agreed that the hall program complements the in- structional and academic program of College Six (item 26). Two-thirds of the staff and 45% of the students found current magazines and newspapers in the hall for the students' use (item 46). The same proportion of students—-l7%—-agreed with the two items relating to student-faculty interaction in the hall, but staff members' perceptions differed. Half the staff believed faculty members interact informally with stu- dents in the hall (item 35) and one—third of the staff thought the hall program encourages and provides opportuni- ties for dinners and discussions with staff members (item 45). Development of the Individual. The two items on which significant differences are evident in this category are both concerned with development of social competence. Staff responses to item 38 show that all but one staff member (83%) agreed there are opportunities for students to meet persons of the opposite sex. But only 28% 107 of the students agreed that this happened in their experience. Item 49 responses indicate that 83% of the staff members and only 32% of the students agreed that a variety of social functions take place. However, there is a differ- ence in the responses of men and women students. Only 19% of the men students agreed while almost half the women stu- dents (42%) agreed. No significantly different responses are noted in Table 7 for the other two items related to the development of social competence. Two-thirds of the staff and three- fifths of the students believed social maturity is developed through experience in a variety of social situations in the hall (item 47). Half the staff members and 28% of the students felt that learning etiquette and good manners was emphasized in the hall (item 50). All the staff members and three-fourths of the stu- dents agreed that the hall program helps the student develop self-direction and independent judgment (item 12). But, while all the staff members agreed that the student is also encouraged to assume responsibility for his own behavior, only 60% of the students perceived this to happen to them (item 22). Students and staff almost unanimously agreed that the hall program does not attempt to build religious values (item 15). All the staff and 62% of the students found that 108 students have opportunities to express ideas and use cre- ative energy in the hall (item 23). All the staff members and 61% of the students agreed it was easy to discuss personal problems with the hall staff (item 20). Students and staff members were in almost complete agreement in their responses to the two items in this cate- gory relating to increasing friendships. All the staff and all the students agreed there are opportunities in the hall to broaden friendships (item 65) and all the staff and 96% of the students said there are also opportunities to meet people of backgrounds and interests different from the student's own (item 21). Experience in Group_Living. There is almost unani- mous agreement of students and staff members in College Six to the two items in this category concerned with learning to live with others. All the staff and 94% of the students agreed that students learn to live in harmony with other people in the hall (item 32) and all the staff and 83% of the students said that the hall program facilitates adjust- ment to peers (item 64). Half the staff members and 61% of the students found the hall program encourages students to let other students live in whatever manner they choose (item 57). Four items in this category relate to group inter- action situations. All the staff and two—thirds of the 109 students agreed that students find opportunities to work to- gether in group situations in the hall (item 33). But, while 83% of the staff perceived that an understanding of the democratic process is achieved in the hall, only 38% of the students said they had experienced this (item 59). In addition, all the staff believed leadership experience is available for the students in the hall but only 57% of the students perceived this in their experience (item 56). Seventy per cent of the students found a stimulating atmosphere in the hall which encourages discussions and bull sessions and all the staff members said they believed this is experienced by most students (item 34). Two thirds of the staff members and 43% Of the stu- dents believed the hall operation is an example of efficient, effective administrative procedure (item 14). Provision of Atmosphere. The differences indicated by responses to item 29 are more significant than the other. differences at College Six discussed to this point. All the staff agreed that the hall atmosphere reflects a feeling of personal interest in the student, but only slightly more than one-third of the students (39%) agreed. The other items in this category relate to the feel- ings of identity the student develops as a result of his residence hall experience. All but one of the staff members and 54% of the students agreed that the hall is a unit with which the student closely identifies (item 36). 110 All the staff members in the halls at College Six and 51% of the students believed that feelings of anonymity do not develop in the hall (item 25) and only one staff mem- ber and.7% of the students thought it was hard for students to develop a feeling of belonging when living in the hall (item 13). All the staff members and 70% of the students per- ceived an atmosphere of "collegiate life" in the hall (item 16). Four items in this category involve the kinds of surroundings and the general atmosphere of social inter- action in the hall. Half the staff and only 13% of the stu- dents perceived the hall atmosphere and furnishings as an example of the style of life to which students would aspire (item 37). Also, only half the staff and 19% of the students found an atmosphere in the hall which encourages cultural awareness (item 54). None of the staff and 28% of the stu- dents believed life in the hall has a feeling of formal social protocol and set standards of social behavior (item 27). However, 60% of the staff and 38% of the students per— ceived a climate for good taste and gracious living in the hall (item 19). Satisfaction of Physical Needs. Three items in this category relate to the facilities and services provided in the hall at College Six. All the staff and 94% of the stu- dents agreed that the dining hall provides well—prepared, :Os 111 nourishing meals (item 30). All but one staff member and 57% of the students found adequate space in the student rooms for keeping personal belongings (item 48). All but one staff member and less than half the students (45%) found adequate facilities in the hall for the student to perform personal and "household" tasks (item 61). Two—thirds of the staff and 43% of the students be- lieved the hall an economical place for the student to live (item 41). Responses of Table 7 indicate that all but one staff member agreed with the two items concerned with recreational facilities and Opportunities. Seventy per cent of the stu- dents agreed that the hall serves as a base for organized sports competition and 57% of the students found opportunities for physical exercise and recreation available through the hall program (item 62). Supervision of Conduct. All the staff members and 91% of the students at College Six agreed that the college uses the hall program to inform students of its policies and regulations (item 39). Almost the same proportions, all the staff and 93% of the students, agreed that enforcement of these policies and regulations is also part of the hall pro- gram (item 18). All but one staff member and 62% of the stu- dents perceived the hall program as a means to control stu- dent conduct (item 28). 112 About the same proportion of staff (33%) and students (38%) found the hall staff assumes a parental role in dealing with students (item 60). Only 50% of the staff and 45% of the students believed the sign-out regulations were effective (item 52). And while all the staff said the staff knew when students are ill, only 49% of the students agreed with this (item 53). All the staff members felt the hall attempts to establish values and standards of social behavior patterns but only 55% of the students said they found this in their experience in the hall (item 55). Twenty-one per cent of the students and 17% Of the staff believed the hall is used as a unit to group students for administrative and activity purposes (item 51). Support for the College. Student-staff perceptions on two of the four items in this category are significantly different at the .05 level. All the staff members agreed that the hall program develops student loyalty toward the college but only 39% of the students agreed (item 63). Responses to item 44 show that all but one of the staff members (83%) perceived the hall program to emphasize the change and progress of the college but only 23% of the students perceived this to be happening. Responses to the two items where there were no sig- nificant differences indicate all the staff members at 113 College Six and 87% Of the students believed the hall pro— gram helps the student to identify with the college (item 24). Three-fourths of the students and all the staff agreed that the student is oriented to the college and its expectations of him through the hall program (item 40). College Seven College Seven is a large, state-supported, coedu- cational university. All single freshmen men not living at home are required to live in university residence halls inso- far as facilities are available. All undergraduate women under twenty-five years of age are required to live in uni— versity residence halls insofar as space is available, un- less living in their own homes, or with close relatives, or unless other arrangements are approved for them. The residence hall program at College Seven is directed by the Dean of Men and Dean of WOmen under the general supervision of the Dean of Students. The Director of Housing also works closely with the hall directors. Ap- ‘proximately 3500 women are housed in thirteen halls and 2900 xnen are housed in ten halls. The hall directors in the vumnen's halls are older, mature women. The men's hall directors are faculty couples with the wife often taking Inuch of the hall responsibility. Students are employed as resident assistants. The general Student Handbook of College Seven states that the student at College Seven should become an intelligent, 114 self-directed, responsibly independent, cooperative, cre- ative, and productive member of the community. It also states that the residence hall experience can make a posi- tive contribution to the total educational process and supple- ment the formal experience in the classroom. The WOmen's Handbook and other AWS publications picture the hall experience as "an enjoyable and valuable" one. Otherwise the content is devoted primarily to specify- ing policies, regulations and traditions practiced in the College Seven halls. The Men's Handbook does little other than detail the regulations of the hall and states that the residence hall is the student's "home away from home." A self—study of student services was completed at College Seven in 1963-64. Several parts of that pertaining to housing are pertinent to this discussion. In a survey of parents, faculty and students, the following was noted: Parents are satisfied with the supervision in the halls. They felt women should have more supervision than Inen.and generally approved the present rules and regulations. About one-third of the faculty seldom visit the halls eand one-half have never eaten in the hall dining facilities. ZFaculty believed comments they heard from students about the ihalls were equally divided between positive and negative ones. 'Ehe negative comments centered on the quality and quantity (pf food, noise, and the amount of supervision. 115 Students were dissatisfied mainly in the areas of food and food service, recreation facilities, health facili— ties, study facilities, crowding, inadequate storage space, noisiness in the halls, and use of late minutes as a disci- plinary measure. Results of the_gpestionnaire. The questionnaire was administered to College Seven staff members in a group meet- ing. Seven staff members who did not attend that meeting completed the questionnaire individually. Students completed the questionnaire in a group setting with the time period spread over an eight hour span. Head directors were asked to contact students in the sample to urge them to complete the questionnaire. Ninety-seven students of 30% of those sampled completed the questionnaire. There is only 1.5% of the total number of students living in College Seven resi- dence halls. Therefore, the results discussed below should be read with the awareness that the sample is not large and possibly not representative. The student sample of ninety-seven consisted of thirty—three men and sixty-four women. In this group there were forty-two freshmen, sixteen sophomores, twenty—five juniors, and thirteen seniors. One student mis-marked this item. Eighteen of these students had been or presently were residence hall officers, and four had been or presently were residence hall assistants. 116 There were thirty—one staff members in the staff sample. Of these seven were men and twenty—four were women. Three of the women and five of the men were administrators. The remainder were hall directors. Eleven of the staff mem- bers have worked with the residence hall program at College Seven less than one year. Nine have worked there from one to three years and five from four to seven years. Four of the staff members have been there from eight to fifteen years and two have worked at College Seven over fifteen years. Three of the staff never attended college and ten attended but did not receive a degree. Seven staff members hold bachelor's degrees, nine hold master's degrees and two have doctorates. Responses of students and staff at College Seven to the Residence Hall Experience Questionnaire are shown in Table 8. Instructional Support. Of the four items which show a significant difference in responses in the Instructional Support category, three relate to academic adjustment of the student. Responses to item 17 indicate that 87% of the staff members agreed that good scholarship is encouraged while only 57% of the students agreed that they experienced this in the hall. Differences on item 31 are much more significant and show that while 90% of the staff members agreed that efforts 117 mNm. OOH Hm OO mO OOCOOOOMQ OQHCOOCOHMO .mO OOO. mm OH Om Om OMOCCOE OCm OOOOSOHOO Co OHmmnmEm Oz .Om «mOO.m OO ON OO mO HHmC CH OOOHQ mxmu OOHOH>HOOm HOHOOO .OO mOO. OO ON mO mO OOO0HO>OO OOHOOOOO HOH00O .OO ONO H OO mN HO Om xOO OOHO0OO0 OOO O0 OOoOOOm OOOz .Om OHO.m HO mN NO OO OOMOCO O>HOMOMO OCm mmOOH mmOmem .mN OOmmm.mH OO Om mO OO O0H>OOOO O30 OoO OOHHHOHOOomOOO OOOOOO .NN OOO. OOH Hm OO mO OOCOOMOMOMQ OCOOOOOHO Oo OHOHOOXH Ommz .HN OOOmO.mH OO ON Om Om OEOHOOMQ HOCOOMOQ OOOOOHO OO Ommm .ON HOO.m OOH Om OO NO OOQOHO>OO OOC OOHOHH..>. OSOHOHme .mH OOmm.O OO ON OO OO OOOOOOOH OOOOOOOOOOH .O0HO0OOHOuOHOO .NH .HOSUH>H©CH Onu OO OCOEQOHO>OQ OOO.N Om OH HO OO OOOOO 0O O>H0OOO00 OOOOOOOOOO .OO OOm. OO mH Om Om mMmmmmmsz OCm OOCHNMOME OOHHMSU OCOHOCO ..OO OOmOO.OH OO HN ON mN OOHSOOO SOH3 OOOCCHO MOO OOHOHCCOOOQQO .mO «OmmN.Hm OO ON Om ON OCOEOOOOOO OHEOOOOO OOmHmmm OOMOO .NO ONN. Nm OH ON ON HHOO OH OOOOOOOO OOHz OOOOOOOH OOHOOOO .mm OOHNN.mN OO ON HO Om OOQOHO>OO OOHOOC OOSOO OOOO .Hm OOO.H Nm OH HN ON EOMOOMQ HOCOHOOSHOOCH mOCOEOHQEOU .ON OOOOO.O OO ON Om mm OOOOOOouOO OH OHOOOOHoOOO Oooo .OH OMOQQSO HmCOHOOCMOmCH Nx O z O z EOOH OOmOO OOCOOCOO .OMHmCCOHOmmso OOCOHMOme HHmm OOCOOHmwm OSO Co EOOH comm OOO OOMOO OCm OOCOO IOOO OO OOCOQOOM OO OCOEOOMOO OO OOCODUOMO OCm OOCHm> OMMCOO HSUIICO>OO OOOHHOO .O OHQMB 118 OOm. mN O OH OH mmOCOMOBM HOMSOHCO mOOmMSOOCm .Om «OHOO.O HO OH Nm Hm OHOOO OOHH OHOOOHOOO O0 OHOOOxO OOOOOOonO .Om NmO. OO ON NO OO HHOC £OH3 OOHOCOOH OOCOOOOO .Om OONOO.OH OO ON OO mO OOCOOOOO CH OOOMOOCH HOCOOMOQ OO OCHHOOO .ON mOO. mm OH NO OO HOOOOOMQ HOHOOO HOEMOO Oo OCHHOOO .ON OOH. mm OH Om Om mmOHO>OO OOHEOCOCO OO mOCHHOOO Oz .mN OOO. mm OH mO OO OOH>HH OO0H0OOO .OOOOO O00O O0 OOOOHHO .OH OOHOO.O OOH Hm OO mO OOOHH OOOHOOHHOO: OO OMOLQOOEOO .OH OHO. O m OH OH OOHOOoHOO O0 OOHHOOO O O0HO>OO 0O OOOO .mH OMOQQOOEOO OO COHOH>OMm OOO. OO ON OO OO OOOOO 0O OOOOOOOHOO OOOOOHHHOOO .OO ONO.H OO mN HO Om OOOOOMQ OHOOMOOEOO Oo OCHOCOOOMOOCD .Om OHH.H ON O OO Om mmooco OOQO Om w>HH muwnOo OOH .Om OOO.N OH m Om ON OOCOHOOwa QHCOMOOOOH mOOMO Oz .Om OOm.m mO ON OO OO OCOHOOOO HHCQ OCO OCOHOOSOOHQ .Om mOO. OO ON OO mO mOOOOOMm CO anquOO xM03 szOMO .mm Omm.H OOH Hm OO mO OOOOOo OOH3 OOoaOOO OH O>HH .OOOOO .Nm «OOOO.HH OO ON Om Om OOOOOmooOO O>HOOOOOHOHOOO OOOHOHOOO .OH OCH>HH QSOMO CH OOCOHOOme Nx O 2 O z EOOH OOOOO OOCOOOOO OOOOHOOoo .O OHOOO 119 OOCOOHOHCOHO OO HO>OH HO.O« OOCOOHOHCOHO OO Hw>OH mO.O OOmNO.OH OO ON mm Hm OOO0HO>OO OOOHHou OOO30O OOHOon OOOOOOO .mO ONON.O HO mN Om Om OOOHHOO OSO OO mmOMOOMQ nOOCOSO mONHmmnmEm .OO NHO. OO ON OO OO mCOHOMOOOQxO mOH qOOOHHOO OO OOOCOHMO .OO OmO.H OO ON mO NO OOOHH00 OOO OOH; OOHOOOOH OOOOOOO OOHOm .ON OUOHHOU wflu HON whommsm NOO. mm HH Om ON OH0O HOOOOOOO O OOOOOOO OOOOO .OO HON. Om OH Nm Om OOOOOOOOO O0H>OOOO HOH00O OOHHOOOOO .mm OOOOO.OH OO ON Om Om HHH OH OOOOOOO Own: O30Ox OOOOO .mm OOH.N OO OH NO OO OOoHOOHOOOO OOOIOOHO O>HO0OOOO .Nm NNO. Om mH NO Om OOOOOOOO OOHmsoOO O0O OHOO .Hm OmO. OO Om mO OO OOoHOOHOOOO OOO OOHOHH0O O50OO OOoOOH .Om ONN.H HO NN OO OO OOOOOoo OOOOOOO O0 HoOOOoo .ON mOO.H OOH Hm mO NO OO0HOOHOOOO OOO OOHOHH0O O0 OOOOOOOoOOm .OH OOSOCOU OO COHmH>MOQdm Hmm. OO mN OO OO OHOOHHO>O O0HOOOO0OO OOO OOHOOOxm .NO OOOHm.O OO ON mO NO OOOOO :OHOOOOOOO: OoO OOHOHHHOOO .HO OOO.m mO ON OO mO mOCHOCOHOQ HMCOOMOQ MOO Oommm OOmsvwwa .OO mON.N OO ON OO OO COHOHOOmEOO mOMOQm OONHCMOMO MOO Ommm .mO OOmHO.OH OO Om mm Nm O>HH 0O OOOHO HO0H50O00O HHOm .HO OOHOO.ON OO ON OO Om OHOOO O00O OOOH>0OO HHOO OOHOHC .Om OOOOZ HOOHO>£m OO COHOOOOOHOOO Nx O 2 O z EOOH OOOOO OOOOOOOO OOCCHOCOU .m OHQMB 120 to develop good study habits are encouraged for most students only 41% of the students agreed that this happens to them. Differences of perception on item 42 are highly sigm nificant. Eighty-seven per cent of the staff members agreed with this item but only 30% of the students agreed. Item 45 is the other item in the Instructional Sup— port category in which a significant difference was indicated. Sixty-eight per cent of the staff members agreed but only 25% of the students believed opportunities were provided for discussion and dinners with faculty. The following items did not manifest significant differences in responses: Almost three-fifths of the staff (58%) and two-fifths of the students (41%) found an atmos- phere conducive to study and creative, productive thought in the hall (item 58). Slightly less than one-third of the staff and 21% of the students believed the hall program complemented the in~ structional and academic programs of College Seven (item 26). A slightly higher prOportion of students (56%) than staff (48%) found current magazines and newspapers in the halls for student use (item 46). Students (28%) and staff (32%) appear to be in fairly close agreement concerning informal student-faculty interaction in the hall (item 35). The differences found on item 12 are not highly sig— nificant. Almost all the staff members (94%) agreed that -.1..O. .. 121 the hall program contributes to the development of self_ direction but only about two-thirds of the students (69%) agreed. Differences on item 20 were highly significant. All but one staff member (97%) but only 59% of the students agreed that it is easy to discuss personal problems with the hall staff. Differences in perception on item 22 were also highly significant. Ninety-seven per cent of the staff mem- bers agreed that students are encouraged to accept responsi- bility for their own behavior, but slightly less than two- thirds of the students (63%) agreed. Responses to item 49 were not highly significant but did indicate that while 97% of the staff members agreed that a variety of social functions take place in the hall, 77% of the students believed that they do. The responses to the remaining items in this cate— gory do not show significant differences in student and staff perception. All the staff and 85% of the students agreed that the hall program does not attempt to build religious values (item 15). Slightly over three—fifths (62%) of the students and about four-fifths of the staff (81%) felt opportunities existed in the hall for students to express ideas and use creative energy (item 23). 122 Four items in this category refer to the development of social competence. One of these, item 49, was discussed above. Three-fourths of the students and 84% of the staff agreed that social maturity is developed through experience in a variety of social situations in the hall (item 47). Three-fourths of the staff and three-fifths of the students found opportunities in the hall for students to become acquainted with persons of the opposite sex (item 38). About equal prOportions of students, 56%, and staff, 55%, agreed that little emphasis is placed on learning etiquette and good manners (item 50). There is almost complete agreement between staff mem- bers and students on the items related to extending friend— ships. All the staff and 99% of the students agreed there is opportunity to broaden friendships in the hall (item 65) and all the staff and 98% of the students felt it is possible to meet people of backgrounds and interests different from the student's own (item 21). Experience in Group_Living. The only item showing a significant difference at College Seven in this category is item 14 on which 90% of the staff members but only 56% of the students agreed that the hall is an example of efficient, effective administrative procedure. There are three items in this category related to learning to live with others. All the staff and 96% of the students agreed that students learn to share and live in 123 harmony with other people in the hall (item 32). And 90% of the staff and 88% of the students said the hall program facilitates adjustment to peers (item 64). But 40% of the students and 29% of the staff members believed the hall pro- gram at College Seven encourages students to let other stu— dents live in whatever manner they choose (item 57). Responses to the questions concerned with experiences in group interaction indicate that all but two staff members and 88% of the students agreed there are Opportunities for students to work in groups in the hall (item 33). However, only three-fourths of the staff and three-fifths of the stu— dents felt understanding of the democratic process is achieved in the hall (item 59). But 83% of the staff and 70% of the students found leadership experience available to the students in the hall (item 56). Slightly more than two-thirds of the students (68%) and 83% of the staff found a stimulating atmosphere in the hall which encourages discussions and bull sessions among students (item 34). Provision of Atmosphere. Three items showed signifi- cant differences of perception in the Provision of Atmos- phere category. Responses to item 16 indicated all the staff members agreed that a "collegiate" atmosphere prevails in the hall and 77% of the students found this kind of atmosphere in their halls. 124 Table 8 shows perceptual differences on item 29 were highly significant. Responses indicate that 84% of the staff believed the hall atmosphere reflects a personal interest in the student but only 44% of the students agreed. Three-fifths of the staff and 32% of the students found an atmosphere in the hall and its furnishings which is an ex— ample of the style of life toward which students should aspire (item 37). Three of the remaining items in this category relate to the student's feelings of identity. About the same pro- portion of students, 82%, and staff, 84% agreed that the hall serves as a unit with which the student identifies (item 36). The same proportion of students and staff mem- bers-—10%—-found it was hard for students to develOp a feel— ing of belonging when living in the hall (item 13). But only 53% of the staff and 59% of the students agreed that feelings of anonymity do not develop in the hall (item 25). Only 18% of the students and 23% of the staff members perceived an atmosphere in the hall which encourages cultural awareness (item 54). But over half the staff (55%) and less than half the students (45%) perceived a climate of good taste and gracious living in the hall (item 19). About three—fifths of the students (62%) and 55% of the staff mem- bers said there is a feeling of formal social protocol and set standards of social behavior in life in the halls at College Seven (item 27). 125 Satisfaction of Physical Needs. The items showing significant differences in perceptions of staff and students in College Seven in the Satisfaction of Physical Needs function were items 30, 41, and 61. Differences on item 30 were highly significant. Re- sponses of staff members indicate that 87% agreed that dining hall meals are good but student responses show that only 40% of the students agreed. Differences on item 41 were also highly significant. All but one staff member (97%) agreed that the hall was an economical place for the student to live but only about half (54%) the students agreed that this was so. Table 8 shows that differences on item 61 were not as significant as the other differences in this category. Responses indicate that 90% of the staff members and about two—thirds of the students (65%) agreed that adequate facili- ties are available for household tasks. Sixty-five per cent of the staff and only 46% of the students agree there is adequate space in the students rooms for keeping personal belongings (item 48). There was more agreement between students and staff on item 62 that there are opportunities for physical exercise and recreation (69% of the students agree, 71% of the staff agree) than on item 43 that the hall serves as a base for organized sports competition (70% of the students agree and 84% of the staff agree). 126 Supervision of Conduct. The only significant differ- ence in the Supervision of Conduct category was on item 53. Responses indicate that 90% of the staff members and about three-fifths of the students (59%) agreed that the staff does know when students are ill. Responses to the remaining items in this category, as noted in Table 8, are not significantly different. All but one staff member and almost all the students (93%) agree that College Seven uses the hall program to in- form the students of the college policies and regulations (item 39). All the staff and 85% of the students agreed that the hall program is also used to enforce these policies and regulations (item 18). Fewer staff members (71%) and students (80%) perceived the hall program as a means to control student conduct (item 28). About one-thirdtof the staff (35%) and of the stu- dents (30%) believed the hall staff assumes a parental role in dealing with the student (item 60). More students (62%) than staff members (47%) believed that the sign-out regu- lations in the halls enabled the staff to accurately know the whereabouts of students (item 52). About equal proportions of students (52%) and staff members (57%) believed the hall program attempts to establish values and standards of social behavior patterns (item 55). Almost the same proportions also believed the hall is used as a unit to group students for administrative and activity purposes (item 51). 127 Support for the College. All but two of the staff members and 85% of the students agreed that the hall program helps students identify with the college (item 24). But there was a highly significant difference on item 63 where all but two staff members also believed that the hall program also develops student loyalty to the college and only 53% of the students experienced this. About the same proportion of students (80%) and staff members (87%) perceived the hall program as a means for College Seven to orient the students to its expectations of them (item 40). But there was a less significant differ- ence on item 44 in that 81% of the staff felt that the pro— gram emphasized the change and progress of the college; 56% of the students perceived the hall program in this way. Again, it must be emphasized that the sample obtained at College Seven was very small in comparison to the total number of students in the residence halls. The results discussed in the preceding general description should be viewed with this in mind. College Eight College Eight is a private, denominational, coedu- cational college. All men and women students not residing in the city where the college is located or living, by con— sent of the Dean of Men or Dean of WOmen, with near relatives are required to room in the college residence halls. 128 Approximately 550 women are housed in six women's halls and 600 men live in six men's halls. The hall program at College Eight is under the direction and supervision of the Dean of Men and the Dean of Women working with the Dean of Students. Each hall is staffed by one full-time staff member. Men faculty members are used in five of the men's halls. Undergraduate students serve as residence hall assistants. The College Eight catalogue states the following in discussing the objectives of the total program, both curricu— lar and co—curricular, at College Eight. (we are) concerned with the development of persons who are increasingly creative, competent and responsible members of the world . . . and who are achieving a clearer and more consistent set of values and beliefs that provide direction for their lives . (college) should first of all be an adventure of the mind. The total program is directed toward helping the student (1) refine and deepen his religious convictions, (2) clarify his ethical principles and bring his actions constantly in harmony with these principles, (3) increase his powers of comprehension, (4) develOp his powers of expression, (5) in- crease his skill in and develOp the habit of sound reflective thinking, (6) increase his power of appreciating beauty, (7) develop his skill in maintaining physical and mental health, (8) strengthen his sense of socio—civic responsi— bility and increase his competency in meeting and solving problems of society (9) develop an ability to carry out his 129 duties and responsibilities in the household unit of which he is a part. Student handbooks and staff manuals from College Eight suggest that the staff are encouraged to bring the intellectual life into the halls, that increased international awareness is fostered, and that social activities, athletics, and social service activities are encouraged. The Women's Residence Hall Handbook stresses the cooperation of resi- dents and counselors to the end that the residence halls be training centers for fine living. The handbook explains the privileges as well as the obligations of each resident. How— ever, rules are most often stated in a negative way with little or no explanation offered. Results of the Questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to the students and the staff members at College Eight by campus mail. The completed questionnaires were re- turned by the respondents to the Dean of Students Office. That office did one telephone follow-up in order that as many questionnaires as possible would be returned. There were eighty—six students or 67% of those sampled and eleven staff members or 75% of the staff sample who participated in the study at College Eight. The student sample consisted of forty—one men and forty-five women. Of these were thirty-one freshmen, twenty- eight sophomores, fourteen juniors, and twelve seniors. One respondent omitted this question. Nine of the students had 130 been or were presently hall officers and eight had been or were presently student assistants in the halls. In the staff sample, there were four men and seven women. Two of the men and one of the women were adminis- trators. One of the staff members had held his present position less than one year, five have been at College Eight from one to three years, four have worked there from four to seven years and one has been there from eight to fifteen years. Only one staff member had not attended college. Four had attended college but do not hold a degree. Two hold bacherlor's degrees, two hold master's degrees and two hold doctorates. Student and staff responses at College Eight to the Residence Hall Experience Questionnaire are shown in Table 9. Instructional Support. The three areas of per— ceptual difference in the Instructional Support category cover three different areas. Perceptions on item 42 differ quite significantly with all the staff members and less than half (45%) the students agreeing that the hall staff assists students in academic adjustment. Student perceptions on item 45 indicate that 85% of the students have not experienced opportunities for dinners and.discussions with the faculty in the residence halls. Staff perceptions are divided about evenly on this item. 131 mOO° OOH HH OO NO OOOOOmoOO OOHOOOOOHOO .mO OOO. OO O mO Om OOOCCOE OCO OOOOOOHOO CO OHOMQQEO Oz .Om mmO.m NO O OO Om HHOO OH OOOHO OOOO OOHOH>HO0O HOH00O .OO OOO. HO OH mO OO OOO0HO>OO OOHOOOOE HOH00O .OO OOOOO.OH OOH HH ON mm xOO OOHO0OO0 OOO O0 OO0OOOO OOmz .Om mmH.m OOH HH OO OO OOMOCO O>HOMOMO OCO mmOOH mmOmem .mN Omm.m OOH HH OO Om O0H>OOOO O30 O0O OOHHHOHOO0OOOO OEOOOO .NN OmO. HO OH OO HO OOOsoOOOOOO OOOOOOOHO O0 OHmomm OOOz .HN OOmmN.O OOH HH Nm mO OOOHnoOO HOOoOOOO OOOOOHO 0O OOOO .ON OOHO.O HH H NO mO OOO0HO>OO O0O OOOHO> OOoHOHHOm .mH OHO.H HO OH OO Om OOOEOOOH OOOOOOOOOOH .O0HO0OOHOIOHOO .NH HOSOH>HOCH OSO OO OCOEQOHO>OQ OmO. mO O OO mm OOSOO OO O>HOCOCOO OMOQQOOEOm .Om «OOO.m NO O HO mm OMOQOQOBOC OCm mOCHNMOmE OOHHMDO OCOOMCU .OO OOOHH.O mm O OH NH OOHCOOO SOHB OMOCCHO MOO mOHOHCCOMOQmO .mO OOOOm.O OOH HH mO Om OOOOOOOHOO OHOOOOOO OOOHOOO OOOOO .NO mHO.N mO m OH OH HHOO OH OOOOOOOO OOH3 OOOOOOOH OOHOOOO .mm mOm.H HO OH OO Om OOO0HO>OO OOHOOO OOOOO O00O .Hm OOO.m mO m OH OH EmMOOMm HmCOHOOOMOmCH mOCOEOHQEOU .ON OOO. NO O OO mO OOOOOO00OO OH OHOOOOHoguO O00O .OH OOOQQOO HOCOHOODMOOCH 0 O 2 O z Nx OOOOO OOOOOOOO OOOH .OMHOCCOHOOODO OOCOHMOmxm HHmm OOCOOHOOO OSO CO EOOH 30mm MOO OOmOm UCO OOCOU IOOO O0 OOCOOOOO Oo OCOEOOOOO Oo OOCOOOOOO OCO OOOHO> OOOOOO HnoagOanm OOOHHOO .O OHQOH . 8.71....” ,. 132 OON.m mm O OH OH mmOCOMm3m HOMCOHSO OOmMCOOCm .Om OOOO.O NO O Om Nm OHOOO OOHH OHOOOHOOO O0 OHOOOxO OOOOOmonO .Om OHO.N OOH HH NO NO HHOO OOH3 OOHOOOOH OOOOOOOO .Om OOmOm.O OOH HH Nm OO OOOOOOOO OH OOOOOOOH HOO0OOOO O0 OOHHOOO .ON NOO.H OO O Om mm H000O0OO HOH00O HOOOoO O0 OOHHOOO .ON mHH. mO O NO mm mmOHw>OU OOHEOCOCO OO mOCHHOOO Oz .mN OmH.N NO O mm OO OOH>HH OO0H0OOO .OOOOO O00O O0 OOOOHHO .OH OOO. HO OH mO HO .OOHH OOOHOOHHoo= O0 OOOOOOonO .OH OHO. O O OH HH OOHOOoHOO O0 OOHHOOO O OOHO>OO 0O OOOO .mH OMOOQWOEOO OO COHmH>OMm OOH. OOH OH HO OO OOOOO 0O OOOOOOOHOO OOOOOHHHOOO .OO OOmmN.O OOH HH Nm mO OOOOOOO OHOOOoonO O0 OOHOOOOOOOOOO .Om OmO.H OH N OO Om OO00O0 OOOO OO O>HH OOOOOo OOH .Om mOO.N OH H NO Om OOCOHMOmxw QHLOMOOOOH QSOMO Oz .Om OOO. NO O OO OO mCOHmmOm HHDQ OCm mCOHmmsumHQ .Om OOO.H HO OH HO HO OOOOOOMQ CO MOLOOOOO xMOB OQSOMO .mm OOO. OOH HH OO HO OOOOOo OOH3 OOonOO OH O>HH .OOOOO .Nm HOO.H HO O mm OO OOOOOOOOOO O>HOOOOOHOHEOO OOOHOHOOO .OH OCH>HH MOOMO CH OOCOHMOQXO 0Nx O 2 O z EOOH OOmOm mOCOUCOm OOOOHOcoo .O OHOOH 133 OOCOOHOHCOHO OO HO>OH HO. xix. OOCOOHOHCOHO OO HO>OH mO.O OOO H NO O Om OO OmmoHO>OO OOOHHOO OOO30O OOHOmoH OOOOOOO .mO OOOmm.O OO O Om mm OOOHHOO OLO OO mmOOOOMm nOOCmnO ONHmmszm .OO HOH. NO O NO OO OOoHOOOOOOxO OOH .OOOHHoo 0O OOOOOHOo .OO OOm. HO OH OO OO OOOHHOO OOO OOH3 OOHOOOOH OOOOOOO OOHOO .ON OOOHHOU mfiO MOO OMOdem mmO.H mO O mO Om OHOM HOOCOOOQ m mmEdmOm OOOOO .OO mOO.H OOH HH mO HO OOMOOCOOO MOH>OCOQ HOH00O anHanmm .mm OOmO.m OOH HH Om Om HHH OH OCOOSOO COQB OBOCM OOOOO .mm OOO. mO O mm OO OCOHOOHOOOM OSOICOHO O>HOOOOOM .Nm HNH m mO m -OH mH OOOOOOOO OOHOO0OO O0O OHOO .Hm mmN. HO OH NO OO mCOHOOHSOOM OCO OOHOHHOOH OCOQO EMOOCH .Om OON.H OOH HH HO OO OOOOCOO OCOOCOO OO HOMOCOO .ON NmH. OOH HH NO OO mCOHOmHsOOM OCm OOHOHHOQ OO OCOEOOMOOCm .OH OOOOCOO OO COHOH>Mmme mOO. mm O OO Nm OHQOHHO>O COHOOOMOOM OCm OOHOOOxm .NO OmH.H HO OH HO OO OmeO OOHonmmsonz MOO OOHOHHHOOO .HO OOO. NO O OO Om OOCHOCOHOQ HOCOOMOQ O0O wowmm OOOSOOO< .OO NON. mm O OO Om COHOHOOQEOO mOMOQm OONHCOOMO MOO Ommm .mO OOO H HO OH mO mm O>HH 0O OuOHO HO0H50O00O HHOO .HO HHO.N OO O Om OO OHOOE OOOO OOOH>OMQ HHOC OCHCHQ .Om mUOOZ HOOHm>£m OO COHOOOOOHOOO ONx O z O z EOOH OOOOO OOCOOOOO OOOOHOOOO .O OHOOO 134 Perceptual differences on item 46 are not as signifim cant as those discussed above. While four-fifths of the staff found current, quality reading material available for the students, barely three-fifths of the students agreed that these kinds of magazines and newspapers are found in the hall. Table 9 indicates the student, staff perceptions on the remaining few items in this category were not signifi« cant. The staff members at College Eight appear to be in general agreement in their responses to those items related to encouragement of scholarship. About the same proportion of staff members (82%) and students (76%) agreed that good scholarship is encouraged (item l7)° All but one staff mema ber and tw0uthirds of the students found that student ef~ forts to develop good study habits are encouraged (item 31). Slightly different. proportions of students (64%) and staff members (73%) felt the hall atmosphere is conducive to study and creative, productive thought (item 58), Less than half the staff (45%) and only 16% of the students perceived the hall program as complementing the academic and instructional program at College Eight (item 26), Two items in this category relate to studentofaculty interaction in the hall. Item 45 is discussed above, Less than half the staff members (45%) and only about one-fourth of the students (19%) believed there was informal studentm faculty interaction in the hall (item 35). 135 Development of the Individual. The three items on which Significant differences occur in the Development of the Individual category also refer to three different areas“ The differences on item 15 indicate that while only one staff member said that the hall does not try to teach religious values, half the students (52%) felt the hall did not do this, (Two staff members did not answer this questiono) However, when men’s and women's responses are examined sepaw rately, it is observed that 13% of the women but only_3g% of the men felt the hall does_gg§ emphasize this area. Responses to item 20 indicate that all the staff agreed that it is easy for students to discuss personal problems with the staff, but that only about half the stu~ dents (52%) found this true in their experience. The perceptual differences on item 38 concerning Opportunity to meet persons of the opposite sex are highly significant, Seventy per cent of the students disagreed with this statement while all the staff members agreed with it» Responses were not significantly different on the following items: All but one staff member and two~thirds of the stu- dents agreed that the hall program contributes to the de- ‘velopment of selfwdirection and independent judgment (item ‘12), and about the same proportion of students (69%) and staff'(lOO%) felt the students are encouraged to assume rew sgxnnsibility for their own behaVior (item 22), All the 136 staff members and 70% of students found opportunities in the hall for students to express ideas and use creative energy (item 23). Four items in this category relate to the development of social competenceo All except one staff member and three‘ fourths of the students agreed that social maturity is dew veloped through a variety of social situations in the hall (item 47). Less than half the students (45%) and 82% of the staff members found that various kinds of social activities take place in the hall (item 49). At College Eight there is almost complete agreement between students and staff that there are opportunities in the hall to increase friendships, All staff members and 96% of the students agreed there is opportunity to broaden friendships (item 65) and 91% of the staff and 94% of the students believed there are Opportunities to meet people of ibackgrounds and interests different from the student‘s own (item 21). Experience_in‘§rgup Living, The only significant ciifference in the function of Experience in Group Living oc~ curs in.item 59c Student perceptions are divided about evenily with 52% agreeing that understanding of the democratic runacess is achieved, All the staff agreed that this occurs fOITInOSt students, Table 9 does not show any Significant differences on time remaining seven items. All the staff members and 32% of 137 the students agreed that students learn to share and to live in harmony with other peOple in the hall (item 32) and all the staff and 91% of the students said the hall program facilitates adjustment to peers (item 64). While only 18% of the staff believed the hall program encourages students to let other students live in whatever manner they choose, 44% of the students perceived this kind of experience in the hall (item 57). Three items in this category are concerned with group interaction situations. All but one staff member and 7r% of the students believed students have opportunities to work in group situations in the hall (item 33) and fewer than half the students (42%) and only 10% of the staff said little or no leadership experience is available to the stu— dent in the hall (item 56). Item 59 which is related to this area is discussed above, About equal proportions of students (77%) and staff (82%» found a stimulating atmosphere in the hall which en~ (yourages discussions and bull sessions (item 34). Little more than half the students (55%) and 82% of the: staff saw the hall Operation as an example of efficient, (effective administrative procedure (item 14), Provision of Atmosphere° Two items on which differn eruxes occur in the Provision of Atmosphere function relate tc> the general surroundings and cultural awareness in the lualJ_o Responses to item 37 indicate that four~fifths of the 138 staff members believed that the hall atmosphere is an ex- ample of a desirable life style, while only slightly more than two—thirds of the students perceived the hall surroundw ings in such a way, On item 54 only 19% of the students perceived such an atmosphere in the hall which encourages cultural awareness of art, music and literature, but over half the staff members (55%) believed such an atmosphere is there° The third item on which significant differences 0cm cur is item 29. Student perceptions indicate 52% in agree— ment that the hall atmosphere reflects a feeling of personal interest in the student. However, when the men and women students' responses are examined separately, it is noted that 64% of the women agreed with the statement and 61% of the men disagreed. All the staff members agreed that stu~ dents would experience a feeling of personal interest in them. Four items in this category relate to the feelings of identity developed by the student in the hall. All the staff'and 72% of the students saw the hall as a unit with Vdnich students closely identify (item 36)° None of the :staff members and 13% of the students said it is hard to de- \nelop>a.feeling of belonging when living in the halls (item :L3) and 73% of the staff and 62% of the students said feel- jgugs of anonymity do not develOp in the hall (item 25), Item 29 is discussed above, 139 All but one staff member and 83% of the students perm ceived an atmosphere of "collegiate life" in the halls at ' College Eight. The remaining two items in this category pertain to the general atmosphere of the hall. About four-fifths of the staff members (82%), and over half the students (53%), found a climate of good taste and gracious living in the halls at College Eight (item 19). About two-thirds of the staff (61%) and 39% of the students found a feeling of social protocol and set standards of social behavior in the halls (item 27). Satisfaction of Physical Needs. All but one staff member and almost three-fifths of the students (57%) agree that the dining hall provides well-prepared, nourishing meals (item 30). A slightly larger proportion of staff (73%) than students (66%) agreed that the student rooms are adequate for keeping personal belongings (item 48). More staff (91%) than students (71%) felt there are adequate facilities avail~ able for performing personal and "household" tasks (item 61). All but one staff member said the hall is an economi- cal place for students to live and about twomthirds of the students (65%) agreed with this statement (item 41). Responses to the two items concerned with recreational opportunities are almost identical. Sixty per cent of the students and 55% of the staff felt there are opportunities for physical exercise and recreation available through the ‘4' 140 hall program (item 62) and 67% of the students and 55% of the staff found the hall serves as a base for organized sports activity (item 43). Supervision of Conduct. Table 9 indicates that staff and student opinion on the three items related to regu— lations and policies is approximately the same. All but one staff member and 92% of the students agreed that the college uses the hall program to inform students of its policies and regulations (item 39). And all the staff and 92% of the stu~ dents believed the program in the hall is used to enforce these policies (item 18). All the staff and 81% of the stu~ dents said the hall program serves as a means to control student conduct (item 28). Almost three—fourths of the staff (73%), but only 45% of the students, believed the hall staff assumes a parental role in dealing with the student (item 60). More staff members (73%) than students (55%) believed the sign» out regulations enabled staff to accurately know where stuw dents are (item 52). While all the staff members said the staff knows when students are ill, only 58% of the students agreed with this statement (item 53). This last item evi- denced a significant difference in studentmstaff perceptions at the .05 level. All the staff and 84% of the students agreed that the hall program does attempt to establish values and standards of social behavior patterns (item 55). 141 Less than half the staff (45%) and only 17% of the students saw the hall used as a unit to group students for administrative and activity purposes (item 51). Support for the College. All but one staff member and 78% of the students agreed that the hall program helps students to identify with the college (item 24). However, 82% of the staff and 58% of the students believed the program helps develop student loyalty toward the college (item 63). The same proportion of students (82%) and staff (82%) agreed that the college uses the hall program to help orient students to the college and its expectations of him (item 40). All but one staff member believed the hall pro- gram emphasizes the change and progress of the college rather than reinforcing the customs and traditions of the past but only about two-fifths (39%) of the students per— ceived this in their hall experience (item 44). Student and staff responses to this item are significantly different at the .01 level. Interviews Interviews were conducted with students and staff at three randomly selected colleges. This was undertaken for two reasons. One was to validate the questionnaire responses, the second was to gain additional information that may not have been ascertained from the questionnaire. 142 The interviewer talked informally with the students and staff and asked the students the general question, "What experiences have you had in your residence hall?" and “What is the most important aspect of your residence hall experi— ence?" Staff members were asked, "What do you believe the student experiences in the halls on your campus?" A special point was made with staff members that they consider what actually does happen to the student, not what they would like to happen. As was noted in Chapter III a total of thirty-seven students and twelve staff members were interviewed. Re— sponses of students and staff members to the interview questions were essentially the same as the responses to the questionnaire. In response to the question concerning the most im- portant aSpect of the residence hall experience, only one student did 39; mention the opportunity to learn to live 'with others and to meet new people. All the staff members also mentioned this experience. Another area mentioned by thirty of the students was the supervisory function the residence hall has for students. Staff members who mentioned this area usually spoke of this function in terms of setting standards for students, however. ,About half the students--fifteen-—said values were established kxefore the student came into the hall so that this function (sf the hall did not effect them. 143 About one—third of the students volunteered the opinion that the staff members may believe standards and values are developed by virtue of having rules the students are expected to follow. However, the students did not be— lieve that students learned standards from rules used in this way. The three other areas most frequently mentioned by students and staff in discussing the residence hall experi— ence were academic adjustment, social activities, and the general tone or atmosphere of the hall. Student and staff comments on the academic adjust- ment achieved in the hall differed in the interviews as it did on the questionnaire responses. The students were about evenly divided in their comments about the staff giving help in academic adjustment and about the ease with which one can study in the hall. The staff interviewed were unanimous in their opinion that students do receive help in academic ad— justment. All but three staff felt that an atmosphere which enables the students to study was found in the hall. Only five students mentioned having talked With or even having seen faculty members at hall functions. About half the staff members on the other hand, felt students had the experience of knowing faculty members through the hall program. Staff at one of the colleges interviewed indicated that persuading faculty to participate in the hall program \mas one of the biggest problems they faced because the faculty just were not interested. 144 As responses on the questionnaire indicated, there were differences in perception between the large and small colleges in the area of social activities found in the hall. The interview responses corroborated this. Students and staff at the large colleges mentioned this more than did those at the smaller colleges. Students in both small and large colleges said the informal kind of social function was more interesting to them than was the larger, more organized type. Staff members did not comment on this aspect of social activities. In the area of general tone or atmosphere of the hall, about two-thirds of the students interviewed believed the hall atmosphere did 29; evidence nor encourage cultural awareness. Of these students, about half (ten) felt there was no need for this kind of emphasis. Staff members, on the other hand, felt that the hall program did get across the feeling of cultural awareness to most students. This pattern of response was also found in the questionnaire responses. There were a number of areas mentioned, particularly by students, which were not covered in the questionnaire. .At one of the colleges where interviews were conducted, older women serve as head residents of both men's and women‘s halls. Three of the six men interviewed at this college com- Inented that they felt it was difficult to talk with and re— late to a woman in this position and expressed a desire to lmave a male head resident. When asked if this opinion were 145 representative of others in their hall, all three believed it was the feeling of many of the men students. Students at all colleges spoke positively of the under-graduate resident assistants employed in the halls on all the campuses where interviews were conducted. About one- fifth of the students interviewed commented that they had had an unsatisfactory experience with a student assistant at some time in their hall experience. Comments for the most part were favorable, however. About a third of the students interviewed in one of the small colleges commented that one of the valuable aspects of the hall experience was the opportunity this experience afforded for sharing solutions to common problems of ad- justment to college life. NOne of the students and staff at the other five colleges were interviewed in detail since the responses dis- cussed above appeared to follow the responses on the questionnaires. The Instrument The nature of the instrument used in this study does not afford statistical analysis of reliability. There are no right or wrong answers to the individual items from which a score could be derived for each subject. While each item is intended to be a measure of how the individual perceives liis residence hall experience, each item concerns a different phase of that experience. 146 Therefore, the usual methods of testing reliability, for example, the Kuder-Richardson 21 formula which assumes that items within a test are homogeneous and also require a score for each subject,do not appear to be applicable in this instance. However, from inspection of the responses of students in each of the eight colleges used in the sample, several re- sponse patterns are noted. The first of these patterns is the consistency of responses of students and staff. The total response to an item is consistent when 80% or more of the responses are the same at any one college. A total re— sponse is judged inconsistent when agreeing responses are be- tween 45 and 55%. All other responses not meeting this cri- teria were indeterminate. The consistency of responses of students for individual items for each of the eight colleges is shown in Table 10. There are sixteen items or 29.6% of the total number of items which evidence consistent responses in four or more of the eight colleges sampled. There were five items or 9% of the total number of items on which students in at least four of the eight col- leges gave inconsistent responses. In the Instructional Support category student re- sponses at four or more colleges were consistent on items 26, 35, and 45. In the Development of the Individual cate- gory; student responses were consistent in at least four col- leges on items 15, 21, and 65 and inconsistent on item 50. 147 ucwumHmcoucH H H OOMOmmHO NHHOOOOOHOCOD H OD “OOMOm OHOCOOOHOOOD n D uxmx o o o o o o o o Owcwcmoun mmHgmocmHum .OO H H I H H H H H meccmE Ocm OOOOSOHHO co mHmmnmEO 02 .OO H H I I Oo o H I HHmn cH momHm mxmp mmHuH>Huom HOH00O .OO I I I D I D I I OOQOHO>OO muHMsumE HOH00O .OO I I I I OD I H I xmm OuHmommo may mo mOOmMOm MOO: .Om I I I I H I I I OOMOOO O>HOMOMO Ocm mmmOH mmOmem .ON I I I D I I I I MOH>m£OQ :30 Mom OOHHHQHmcommmM 085mm< .NN o o o o o o o o mOcsoquomn ucmHmOmHO Ho mHmomm ummz .HN H I I H I I I H mEOHQOMm HmOOOMmm mmsomHO op Ommm .ON H D D D I D D I OOQOHO>OO no: mOsHm> OOOHOHHOO .mH I I I o I o o I ucmeOwsH ucmucmmmOcH .coHuomuHOIOHOO .NH HmsOH>HOCH Osu mo OCOEQOHO>OQ I I I I I I I I OOsum Ou O>HOOOCOO OanmwOEu< .Om I I H I OD I H OD memmmm3mc Ocm mOcHNmOmE muHHOSO OOOMMSD .OO Oo I O0 I co I I O0 HuHsumm cuHs mumccHO mom mmHuHcsuuommo .OO H I H I I OD I I ucmEuwsmOm OHEOOmom mumHmmm mmmum .NO mo I O6 I O6 I we I HHmc cH mucmcsum nqu uomumch OuHsomm .Om I I I H I I o I Ommon>mO manmn Husum Ooou .Hm OD OD OD OD OD I OD EOMOOMQ HMOOHOOOMOOCH mucmEOHmEOD .ON I I I I I I D D OOOMMSOOCO mH chmMmHonom Ooow .OH uMOQQdO HOCOHOODMUOCH uanm OO>OO me O>Hm Msom OOMOB O39 OOO EOOH mOOOHHOD ll .OMHmcCOHumOsO OOOOHMOmxm HHmm OOCOOHmOm Op mwmcommOM pchspm mo ODCOOOHOCOD .OH OHQOB 148 ucmumHmcoocH n H OOMOMOHO OHOOOOOHOCOD u OD “OOMOO hHucmumHchD u D O0 O0 O6 co co H.u I O0 I u H o I o I I H H I H I I H I I l H H I H I I H H I H I H H I o o I o o o o o co co co co so O6 O6 oo o o o o o o o o H o I I I I I H H I I I I I I H I I I O0 H I o I I o I o I I I o o o o o u o o o H H I I I I I I mmOcOMm3m HMMOUHDO mOOMMsoocm OHmum OOHH OHQOMHOOO Ho OHQmeO OMwnmwOEp¢ HHmn zuHs HOHucmOH mucmcsum mucmOsum CH ummMOOCH HmcomMOm MO OCHHOOO HOOOOOMQ HMHOOm HmEMOH mo OGHHOOm mmOHO>OO muHE>cocm mo mOcHHOOH Oz OOH>HH OOOHOMMO .wummu OOOO mo OumEHHD =OHHH OpMHOOHHOU: HO OMOSQOOEO< OOHOOOHOQ mo OCHHOOH m mOHO>OO Op OMmm OMOflQmOEHO m0 COHmH>OMm mMmOm Op usmEumsflOm mmumuHHHOMO mmOOOMQ OHumMOOEOO Ho OCHOcmumMOOOD mmOOOO mmnu um O>HH menuO OOH OOOOHMOme mHanOOme mOOMO oz mconmOw HHDQ Ocm wconwsowHQ muOOOOMQ co MOOOOOOO xMO3 mQSOMD wMOLOO OOHB OOOEan CH O>HH .Oanm mwMSOOOOMQ O>HOMMumHCHEOm ucmHunmm OCH>HH QSOMD CH OOCOHMOQNM "Omx .Om .Om .Om .ON .ON .ON .OH .OH .OH .OO .Om .Om .Om .Om .mm .mm .OH uanm CO>OO me O>Hm Msom OOMQB 039 0:0 mOOOHHOD EOUH Omschcoo .OH OHOOH 149 ucmumHOCOOCH n H HOOMOmmHO mHucwumHmcoo n OD “OOMOO OHOCOOOHOOOD u D OOM I H I H I I H H OOQOHO>OO OOOHHOO OMOBOO OOHMOOH ucmOsum .MO I H I I H I H I OOOHHOO OOH mo mmOMOOMm .mOcmnO mONHmmnmEm .OO D D I D I I D D wcoHumuOOme mOH .OOOHHOO Ou OOOOOHMO .OO I o o o I o o I mOmHHou may :uH3 HOHucmOH ucmvsum mmHmm .ON OOOHHOD map Mow uMommdm H I I I I I I I OHOM HmucmMmm m mOEOmmm Hmmvm .OO D H H I I I I H mOMmOcmum MOH>M£OQ HMHOOm anHQmumm .mm I I H I I I I D HHH OH ucmOsum cm£3 m3ocx Hmmum .mm H I H I o H I H mcoHumHsOmu usoIcmHm O>Huommmm .Nm OD H OD I I I I H mucmOsum OCHQDOMO Mom OHOD .Hm o o o o o o o o mcoHumHsOOH cam mmHoHHom psogm EuomcH .Om D D I I I D D I uOsOcou ucmOsum Ho HOMOCOD .ON D D D D D D D D mcoHumHOOOM Ocm mOHOHHOm m0 OOOEOOMomcm .OH OUOOOOD m0 OOHmH>MOQdm I I I I I I I I OHOOHHm>m coHummMOOM Ocm mmHOMOxm .NO I I H I I I I I mxmmu :OHOOOmsonz Mom mOHuHHHomm .HO I H I I I I I D OOOHOOOHOQ HMOOmMOm Mom Oommm mumsvafi .OO I I I I D H D D :oHquOmEoo muMomm OONHcmOMO Mom mem .OO I H I I I I I I O>HH ou OomHm HmOHEOcOOO HHmm .Hv I I D I I I I I mHmOE OOOO mOOH>OMQ HHmn OCHOHQ .Om mOOOz HmOHm>nm mo COHuommmHumm OOOHm cw>mm me O>Hm Msom OOMOB 039 Oco mOOOHHOD EmuH OOSCHUCOD .OH OHQOE 150 Student responses were consistent in the Experience in Group Living category on items 32 and 64; in the Provision of Atmosphere category on item 13, 16, and 54 and inconsistent on items 19 and 29. There were no consistent or inconsistent student re— sponses in at least four colleges in the Satisfaction of Physical Needs category. In the Supervision of Conduct cate- groy, student responses were consistent on items 18, 28 and 39 and inconsistent on item 52; and in the Support for the College category were consistent on items 24 and 40 and in- consistent on item 63. Staff responses were also examined for consistency patterns and these data are shown in Table 11. This data indicate there are only fourteen items on which there were _ggt consistent responses in at least four or more colleges. For these fourteen items, six are those on which inconsistent responses are noted in four or more colleges. In the Instructional Support category staff responses were consistent on items 17, 31, 42, and 58 and inconsistent on item 35. In the Development of the Individual category staff responses were consistent at four or more colleges on all the items in this category except item 50 which evidenced inconsistent responses at four colleges. Staff responses ‘were also consistent in at least four colleges on all the items in the Experience in Group Living and Support for the College categories. 151 ucmumHchOCH u H OOMOmmHO OHOCOumHchD H OD NOOMOm OHucmumHOCOD u D "%O& o o o o o o o o Omcmcmoun mmHnmucwHHm .OO I H H H H I I I mMmccmE Ocm OOOODOHOO co mHmwszO Oz .Om o o o o no. u o o HHmn cH wumHm mxmu mmHuH>Hpom HOH00O .OO o o I o I o H I Ommon>mO HuHusume HmHoom .OO D I D D D D D I xmm wuHmOQmo On» Ho mOOmMmm OOOE .Om D D D H I D D D OOMOCO O>HumOMO Ocm mmwOH mmOMme .ON D D D D I D D D MOH>m£mQ OBO Mom OOHHHQHOOOQOOM Ofismwd .NN o o o o o o o o mocsoumxomn ucmummmHO mo meomm uwmz .HN D D D D D D D I mEOHQOMm HOOOOMOQ mmsumHO O» mwmm .ON OD D D I I D D I OOQOHO>OO uoc mwsHm> OOOHOHHOO .mH o o o u o o o o usmEOOOH ucwccmmwccw.coHuumuHcIOHmm .NH HOSOH>HOCH map Ho OOOEQOHO>OQ I I D I D D D D xOsum Ou O>H05Ocoo OMOQQOOEOO .Om D H I H OD I D H mMOQmmm3wc Ocm mOcHNwOmE OOHHOSU OOOMMDD .OO H I I D I D D I NHUHsomm OOHB mMOccHO MOO mOHuHcsuMommo .mv o o o o o o o o namaumsflcm UHEmOmum mumHmmm mmmum .NO H I H H I H H o HHm: cH mucocsum nqu uomumucH HpHsumm .mm o o o o o o o o meon>mO manmn Hcspm coco .Hm H I I I H I D D EOMOOMQ HOCOHOOSMOOCH mucmstmEOD .ON D D D D D D D D OOOMMOOOCOMH mHanmHogom OOOO .OH uMOQQSO HMCOHOOOMHOCH OOOHm CO>OO xHO O>Hm Msom OOMOB O39 Oco . - EmuH I ,I :IiliIiI- mmmum .OMHmccoHummso OOOOHMOme HHmm OOCOOHmOm Op mmmcommOM Hmmum mo OucmumHmCOD .HH OHQMB 152 OOOOOHOOOOCH H H H I H I H CO H H U I H H U U H H U U U U U U I U U U U I U U U U I H MUU I I I H I U H U I I U H I U H I I U U H I U U U U U U U 0 OD HoU HoU I I I GO 00 U U U U I U U U U U U U U U U U U U U I I I U H U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U I I U U U U OOMOOOHO OHOOOOOHOOOD u OD NOOMOO OHHOOOOHOCOD u D "OOH mOOcOMO3O HOMOOHOO OOOMDOOOM .Om OHmuw OHHH OHQOMHOOO H0 OHQEOxO OMOSQOOEO< .Om HHmn OOH; HOHucmOH mucmcsum .Om muCOOsum OH umOMOucH HOCOOMOQ m0 OQHHOOO .ON HOOOOOMQ HOH00O HOEMOM mo OOHHOOm .ON OOOHO>OO OOHEOOOCO mo mOsHHOOm oz .mN OOH>HH OOOHOOMO .Oummw OOOO mo OOOEHHD .OH =OMHH OOOHOOHHOO: HO OMOOQOOEum .OH OCHOCOHOO mo OOHHOOM O moHO>OO Ou OMOO .mH OMOsmWOEum mo OOHOH>OMm mMOOQ Op OOOEOOSOOO mOumuHHHOOm .OO mmOOOMQ OHOOMOOEOO mo OCHOCOOOMOOCD .Om OmOOLO OOOO mm O>HH OMOOOO OOH .Om OOCOHMOQxO QHOOMOOOOH mOOMO Oz .Om mconmOm HHsn Ocm mconmsomHQ .Om muOOOOMQ co MOSOOOO» xMoz mQOOMD .mm mMOnuO OOHB OcoEMOS CH O>HH .OMOLO .Nm mOMsOOOOMQ O>HuOMumHCHEOm OOOHOHHHM .OH OOH>HH QSOMD CH OOCOHMOme OOOHm OO>OO me O>Hm Msom OOMSB 038 Oco EOuH mwmum _ O OmscHucoo .HH OHQOH 153 OOOOOHOCOOCH u H OOMOOOHO OHOCOOOHOCOD H OD NOOMOO OHpcOumHchD n D OOM D D D D I D H H OOQOHO>OO OOOHHOO OMOBOO OHHOOOH OOOOOHO .mO D D D I H D H D OOOHHOO OOH HO OOOMOOMQ .OOCOSO OONHmmszm .OO o o o o o o o o mcoHumuowme mOH .OOOHHoo 0O OOOcOHHo .OO O o o o o o o o OOOHHoo On» :uHa HOHOCOOH ucmcsum.mmHOm .ON OUOHHOD Onu MOH HMOQQDO I I I I I I I H OHOM HOHOOMOQ m OOEOOOO HHOOO .OO o o o o o o o o OOHOOcmum HoH>mamn HmHoom :mHHQmumm .mm D D D D D D D D HHH mH OCOOsum COQB OBOOH HHOHO .mm I H H I I H I H mcoHuOHDOOM HOOIOOHO O>HOOOHHm .Nm H H o I I o H H mucmwsum OchsouO HOH pHcs .Hm D D D D D D D D mcoHumHSOOM Ocm OOHOHHOQ usonm EMOHCH .Om D I D I D D D D OOOOCOO OCOOOOO HO HOMucOD .ON D D D D D D D D OOOHHOHOOOM Ocm mOHOHHOQ Ho OOOEOOMOHOM .OH HOOOCOD mo COHOH>MOQDO H I D D I D H I OHQOHHO>O :oHuOOMOOM Ocm OOHOMOxm .NO D D D I D D D I mxmmu :OHOOOOSOS: MOH mOHuHHHOOm .HO I I D I D D D D OOOHOOOHOO HOCOOMOQ MOH Oommm OHOSOOOm .OO H D D D D I H I COHHHOOQEOO muMOQm OONHCOOMO MOH Ommm .mO o o I o o o H o O>HH on oumHm HOUHsocooO HHmm .HO D D D D D D D D OHOOE OOOO mOOH>OMQ HHOO OOHOHQ .Om mOOOz HOOHm>£m HO COHHOOHOHOOO OOOHm OO>OO me O>Hm Msom OOMOB 039 Oco Hmmum swuH IIHI' OOOCHHCOD .HH OHQOH 154 In the Provision of Atmosphere category staff re- sponses were consistent in at least four colleges on items l3, 16, 29, and 36 and inconsistent on items 37 and 54; in the Satisfaction of Physical Needs category, these responses were consistent on all items but item 62. Staff responses were consistent in four or more colleges on items 18, 28, 39, 53, and 55 and inconsistent on items 51 and 52 in the Super- vision of Conduct category. Both students and staff members reported inconsistent responses to item 52 at four colleges. Responses in items 13, 15, 21, 65, 32, 64, l6, 18, 28, 39, 24, and 40 were con- sistent in both student and staff groups in four or more colleges. Significant differences in student and staff per- ceptions occurred on thirty-two items or 59.2% of the total number of items. There were a total of seventy—eight sign nificant differences on these thirty-two items. Table 12 shows the number of significant differences on each item. Items are listed by categories. Three items had five or more significant differences indicated and four additional items had four significant differences indicated. Significant differences at six colleges were indi- cated for item 42. Five colleges evidenced significant differences for items 38 and 29. The items on which signifi- cant differences were observed at four colleges were 37, 52, and 54. 155 Table 12. Incidence of significant differences between stu- dent and staff perceptions of individual items summarized for all colleges. Significant differ- ences at the level of: Item .001 .01 .05 Total Instructional Support 17. Good scholarship is encouraged - 26. Complements instructional program - 31. Good study habits developed 2 — 35. Faculty interact with students in hall - - l 42. Staff assists academic adjustment 2 2 45. Opportunities for dinners with faculty 2 1 - 3 46. Current quality magazines and newspapers - - l 58. Atmosphere conducive to study 1 — l 2 21 Development of the Individual 12. Self—direction, independent judgment - - 1 1 15. Religious values not developed — - l 1 20. Easy to discuss personal problems 1 2 l 3 21. Meet people of different backgrounds — — - — 22. Assume responsibility for own behavior 1 - l 2 23. Express ideas and creative energy — — 1 l 38. Meet persons of the opposite sex 2 - 3 5 47. Social maturity developed — — - - 49. Social activities take place in hall — - 3 3 50. No emphasis on etiquette and manners - - - - 65. Friendships broadened - - - - L II... . .. 156 Table 12. Continued Significant differ- ences at the level of: Item .001 .01 .05 Total Experience in Group Living 14. Efficient administrative procedures 1 - — l 32. Share, live in harmony with others - - - — 33. Groups work together on projects - - — — 34. Discussions and bull sessions - - — — 56. No group leadership experience — - l l 57. Let others live as they choose - — - - 59. Understanding of democratic process — 2 - __%_ Provision of Atmosphere 13. Hard to develOp a feeling of belonging — — — - 16. Atmosphere of "collegiate life" — 1 - 1 19. Climate of good taste, gracious living - — 25. No feelings of anonymity develops - - 27. Feeling of formal social protocol — — - - 29. Feeling of personal interest in students 2 l 5 36. Students identify with hall — — l 37. Atmosphere example of desirable life style 1 2 l 4 54. Encourages cultural awareness — - _4 l7 Satisfaction of Physical Needs 30. Dining hall provides good meals 2 1 - 3 41. Hall economical place to live 2 l — 43. Base for organized sports competition - - - 48. Adequate space for personal belongings 61. Facilities for "household" tasks - l — 62. Exercise and recreation available — - - \Ill I--J I I 157 Table 12. .Continued Significant differ— ences at the level Item Of: .001 .01 .05 Total Supervision of Conduct 18. Enforcement of policies and regulations - - - - 28. Control of student conduct - — H _ 39. Inform about policies and regulations - - ~ - 51. Unit for grouping students - - _ - 52. Effective sign-out regulations - - — - 53. Staff knows when student is ill 2 1 1 4 55. Establish social behavior standards 1 - l 2 60. Staff assumes a parental role - - - - 6 Support for the College 24. Helps student identify with the college - — - - 40.. Oriented to college, its expectations - — ~ - 44. Emphasizes change, progress of the college - 1 3 4 63. Student loyalty toward college developed 1 — 2 3 -—7— A11 eight items in the Instructional Support cate~ gory had at least one significant difference. There are 21 significant differences in this category more than in the other six categories. The Provision of Atmosphere category has a total of seventeen significant differences scattered in seven of the nine items. The Development of the Individual category has a total of sixteen significant differences spread over seven of the eleven items in this category. 158 There are seven significant differences in two of the four items in the Support for the College category and six significant differences in two of the eight items in the Supervision of Conduct category. In the Satisfaction of Physical Needs function, there are seven significant differences scattered in three of the six items and there are only four significant differ— ences scattered in three of the eight items in the Experience in Group Living category. Because a good many comments were made on the pretest about the negatively stated items, it is reasonable to in- spect the negatively stated items which were left in the questionnaire. The seven ”negative" items are 13, 15, 25, 27, 50, 56, and 57. Of these items 15, 25, 50, and 56 were worded to include a negative such as the adverb "not" or the adjective ”little." Item 15 (The hall program does not attempt to de- velop religious values) evidences consistent responses of students and staff members in five colleges and inconsistent. responses of one student group. Students in three colleges and staff members in two, indicated inconsistent responses to item 25 (Experience in hall living does not allow a feeling of anonymity to develOp). Students in seven colleges and staff members in four indi- cated inconsistent responses to item 50 (Little emphasis is placed on learning etiquette and good manners). Two college's student groups marked consistent responses and one marked 159 inconsistent responses to item 56 (Little or no group leader- ship experience is available to students in the hall). Six staff groups consistently disagreed with item 56. Since inconsistency of response may have been caused by lack of understanding of the question, consideration might be given to rewording items 25, 50, and possibly 56 for future use of this instrument. As is explained in the questionnaire directions, re- spondents were asked to answer the questions in terms of their own definition of the terms involved. However, three items should be examined on the basis of the interpretation of the language. Item l6--An atmosphere of ”collegiate life” prevails in the hall--was intended to convey the idea of collegiate life discussed by Trow (17). This concept defined the col— legiate culture as a world of football, dates, cars, drink- ing, and campus fun. Teachers, courses, grades, and the intellectual life of the university are seen only dimly by students who are a part of this culture. Placing the words "collegiate life" in quotation marks was intended to set the concept apart. However, 80% or more of the students in six colleges and of the staff members in seven colleges agreed with this item. On the basis of personal knowledge that the residence hall programs being examined here do not evidence "collegiate culture" to that extent, and on the basis of the responses 160 of students and staff in the interviews which indicated none of those questioned interpreted the question in the manner intended, it is assumed that the responses to this question are invalid. The item should either be reworded or discarded. Five students asked the meaning of the "anonymity" in item 25. This does not appear to be enough evidence to warrant changing this item. Item 52 (Daily, overnight and vacation sign-out regu— lations enable the staff to accurately know where students are most of the time) relates to a phenomena primarily found in women's halls. This may be the reason there were incon- sistent student responses and staff responses in four col- leges. Even though men students in four colleges and women students in five colleges responded consistently to this item, there were seven of the eight colleges in which there was a difference in the direction of responses of men and women students. That is, if the majority of women re- spondents agreed with the item, the majority of men re- spondents disagreed or vice versa. These trends would indi- cate the necessity of examining this item to see if it should be reworded or drOpped from the questionnaire. Summary The data from each of the eight colleges partici- pating in this study were analyzed using the chi square technique corrected for continuity. Significant differences in the perceptions of students and staff members were found 161 in all eight colleges. Student and staff responses to all items were summarized for each college. The number of items at each college on which signifi- cant differences occurred ranged from two to eighteen. At College One, significant differences in student— staff perceptions were observed on two itemsjh*0ne was red lated to informal faculty-student interaction in the hall and the other to the support the hall program gives the aca- demic and instructional program of the college. In both cases more staff than students agreed these situations happen to students in their hall experience. There were five items on which significant differ- ences occurred at College Two. Two of these were related to the social program in the hall. More staff members than stu- dents perceived Opportunities for students to meet other students of the Opposite sex in the hall and believed various kinds of social functions take place in the hall. A feeling of personal interest reflected in the hall atmosphere was perceived by more staff members than students. The final two items concerned the support given the academic and inn structional program by the hall and the assistance given by the staff members to students in adjusting to academic life. More staff members than students agreed with both these items. At College Three, there were eighteen items on which significant differences were evidenced. Five of the most 162 highly significant were in the Instructional Support cate- gory. More staff members than students perceived that good scholarship and student efforts to develop good study habits are encouraged,’that the hall staff assists the student in adjusting to the demands of academic life, and that the hall atmosphere is one conducive to study and creative, productive thought. JMany more staff than students believed dinners and discussions with faculty members are encouraged. Fewer stu— dents than staff believed it is easy to discuss personal problems with hall staff and that it is easy for students to express ideas. Slightly more staff members than students felt students are encouraged to assume responSibility for their own behavior. More staff than students believed under- standing of the democratic process is achieved in the hall and more students than staff believed there is little group leadership experience available in the hall. There were also four items of significant difference in the Provision of Atmosphere category at College Three. Staff members were more in agreement than were students that anonymity does not develop in the hall and that personal interest is shown in the student. Compared to staff members, few students believed the style of life in the hall is one to which they would aspire. More students than staff members feltajatmosphere of cultural awareness is lacking in the hall. Fewer students than staff believed the staff knows when a student is ill and believed values are established by the hall program. 163 More staff than students felt the dining hall pro- vides well-prepared meals and that the hall is an economical place to live. At College Four, significant differences were ob- served on six items. .MOre students than staff members be- lieved the hall program does not support the academic and in— structional program of College Four. More staff than students felt that the hall atmosphere is conducive to study and cre- ative, productive thought. A much higher proportion of staff members than students felt there are Opportunities to become acquainted with persons of the opposite sex through the hall program. More staff than students believed there is a climate of good taste in the hall and that this is a style of life toward which the student might aspire. A high proportion of students but not as many staff members believed there is a lack of cultural awareness in the hall. There were eleven items on which significant differ— ences occurred in College Five. More staff members than stu- dents perceived that the development of good study habits is encouraged and that the hall staff assists the student in aca- demic adjustment.?wA few more staff than students believed dinners and discussions with faculty are encouraged. More staff members than students said it is easy for students to discuss personal problems with hall staff. Opportunities to become acquainted with persons of the Opposite sex are per- ceived more by staff members than students. More students than staff saw a lack of cultural awareness in the hall 164 atmosphere. In comparison with staff members' perceptions, very few students believed staff members know when students are ill. More staff than students believed the hall program established values and standards of social behavior patterns. Slightly more staff than students said the hall program de- velops student loyalty toward the college. Seven items evidence significant differences at College Six.j More staff than students believed the hall atmosphere is conducive to study and creative, productive thought and perceived that the students are assisted in aca— demic adjustment by the hall staff. Two items of significant difference relate to the social program. On both, slightly more staff than students felt the hall program affords Oppor- tunities to meet persons of the opposite sex and that various kinds of social functions are held in the hall. More staff than students also perceived a feeling of personal interest in the student expressed in the hall atmosphere. Fewer stu- dents than staff members believed the hall program develops loyalty toward the college and emphasizes the change and progress of the college through the hall program. At College Seven, there were significant differences on eighteen items. The Instructional Support category con- tained four of the most highly significant items. More staff members than students believed good scholarship and student efforts to develop good study habits are encouraged in the hall. Many more staff than students believed students are assisted in their academic adjustment by the staff. 165 Opportunities for dinners and discussions with faculty members are perceived to be a part of the hall program by more staff members than students. Three items showing sig- nificant differences relate to the student's personal ad- justment. Fewer students than staff members believed the hall program contributes to the development of self—direction and independent judgment, found it was easy for students to discuss personal problems with hall staff members and be- 1ieved students are encouraged to assume responsibility for their own behavior. A few more staff than students said various kinds of social functions are held in the hall. More staff members than students at College Seven perceived a "collegiate" atmosphere in the hall, believed personal interest is reflected in the atmosphere of the hall, and said that students should aSpire to the style of life exemplified in the hall. Many more staff than students be— lieved the dining hall serves good meals, that the hall is an economical place for students to live, and that adequate facilities are provided for the student to accomplish personal and ”household" tasks. Fewer students than staff members believed the staff knows when students are ill. Slightly more staff than students felt the hall pro- gram emphasizes the change and progress of the college and many more staff than students saw the hall program develop- ing student loyalty toward the college. There were twelve items on which significant differ- ences in staff-student perceptions occurred at College Eight. 166 More staff members than students believed the staff assists students in their academic adjustment. A slightly higher prOportion of staff than students found current, quality magazines in the halls for the students' use. Very few stu— dents but over half the staff perceived opportunities for dinners and discussions with faculty members in the halls. A much larger proportion of staff than students believed the hall program attempts to develop religious values. More staff than students believed it is easy for students to dis- cuss personal problems with hall staff. Many more staff than students perceived opportunities in the hall program for students to meet members of the opposite sex. A larger proportion of staff than students believed understanding of the democratic process is developed in the hall. Also at College Eight, perception of an atmosphere reflecting personal interest in the student, of a hall pro— gram emphasis on the change and progress of the college, and of style of life in the hall toward which the student should aspire are areas where a larger proportion of staff members than students are in agreement. More staff than students al- so believed the staff knew when students are ill. More stu_ dents than staff members sense a lack of cultural awareness in the halls. Responses in the interviews with students and staff corroborated the general findings of the questionnaire. The major point made by students was that the hall is first and 167 most importantly a place to learn to live with others and to make friends. Because the usual tests of reliability were not applicable to the instrument used in this study, inspection of the item responses was used as one method to assess the usefulness of the questionnaire. Consistent responses were given by students in four or more colleges to sixteen or 29.6% of the items. Incon- sistent student responses were evidenced in at least four colleges on five or 9% of the items. Staff members responded consistently in four or more colleges on forty or 74% of the total number of items and inconsistently on six or 11% of the items. Significant differences in student and staff per- ceptions occurred on thirty-two items. There were a total of seventy-eight significant differences. Responses to four negatively stated items were examined for indications of mis-interpretation on the part of the respondents. Responses to three items in which semantic difficulties appeared to have occurred were in- spected for evidence of lack of clarity and difficulty in interpretation. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In this chapter, the problem and method used in the investigation are summarized. Conclusions of the study are stated and discussed in further detail. Finally, impli- cations for further research are discussed. Problem and Methodology The problem explored in this study was an assessment of the effectiveness of residence hall programs. Effective- ness here is defined as agreement between student and staff perceptions concerning the accomplished residence hall ob- jectives in that institution. If a residence hall program is effectively accomplish— ing what it has been structured to do, the students who par— ticipate in the program should perceive the activities and purposes of the hall as being achieved in their own particular residence hall experience. There is no attempt in this study to evaluate the objectives of a given hall program as good or bad. Rather, the essential element is to examine the residence hall experience as the student sees it in contrast with how the 168 169 staff members concerned with residence hall programming be- lieve the student experiences it. Riker's seven functions for a residence hall were chosen as a basis for developing the items for the Residence Hall Experience Questionnaire were developed. These cate- gories are Instructional Support, Development of the Indi- vidual, Experience in Group Living, Provision of Atmosphere, Satisfaction of Physical Needs, Supervision of Conduct, and Support for the College. Sources of item content were personal experience, literature in the field, and discussion with students and student personnel workers. Students and staff members re— sponded to the items describing the residence hall experience in terms of whether this particular situation occurred in the residence hall experiences on that campus. The final questionnaire, after pretesting and re- vision, consisted of fifty—four items. Eleven personal data items were used for the students and nine for the staff members. A response scale of Strongly agree, Agree, Dis- agree, and Strongly disagree was used. The sample used in this study was drawn from five small, private colleges and three large, state-supported uni— versities in central Michigan. In all of these colleges stu- dents are required to live in university residence halls for at least part of their college experience. Administrative staff who worked directly with residence hall programming as well as full—time residence hall staff members were used in 170 the staff sample. A random sample of men and women students living in the halls was used in the student sample. The data were collected by administering the question- naire in group settings to students and staff. Interviews were conducted with students and staff at three randomly se- lected colleges to validate the data gathered on the questionnaire. Comparison of responses using the chi square analysis corrected for continuity was made to determine the degree of similarity of difference in perception of staff and students. Agreement between staff and students on an item would indi- cate that the objective as seen by the staff is being met. Disagreement would indicate a discrepancy in perception that this objective is accomplished in the halls. The level at which the responses of staff members and students to any given item was said to be different because of factors other than factors of chance was the .05 level of significance. A test of consistency of responses for staff and for student responses for each item was applied. The arbitrarily set level of 80% or more agreeing or disagreeing designated a consistent response. Agreeing or disagreeing responses betweenluwéand 55% were judged inconsistent. All other re- sponses not meeting this criteria were indeterminate. Significant differences in student and staff per- ceptions were noted in all eight colleges.l At College One, lComplete statements of the items are found in the questionnaire in Appendix B and are also identified in shortened form in Tables 2 through 9 in Chapter IV. 171 the responses to items 26 and 35 in the Instructional Support category were significantly different. Items 26 and 42 in the Instructional Support cate- gory, items 38 and 49 in the Development of the Individual category, and item 29 in the Provision of Atmosphere cate- gory showed significant differences in responses at College Two. There were eighteen items on which significant differ- ences in student and staff responses occurred in College Three. These were items 17, 31, 42, 45, and 58 in In- structional Support, items 20, 22, and 23 in Development of the Individual, items 56 and 59 in Experience in Group Living, items 25, 29, 37, and 54 in Provision of Atmosphere, items 30 and 41 in Satisfaction of Physical Needs, and items 53 and 55 in Supervision of Conduct. At College Four, responses to items 26 and 58 in the Instructional Support category, item 38 in the Development of the Individual category, and items 19, 37, and 54 in the Provision of Atmosphere function were significantly different. At College Five, items 31, 42, and 45 in the In— structional Support category, items 20 and 38 in Development of the Individual, item 45 in Provision of Atmosphere, items 30 and 41 in the Satisfaction of Physical Needs function, items 53 and 55 in the Supervision of Conduct category, and itemtfi3in Support for the College showed responses of sig- nificant difference. 172 There were seven items on which significant differ- ence in response occurred in College Six. These were items 42 and 58 in Instructional Support, items 38 and 49 in De— velOpment of the Individual, item 29 in Provision of Atmos— phere, and items 44 and 63 in the Support for the College function. College Seven also evidenced eighteen items on which there were significantly different responses. These were items 17, 31, 42, and 45 in Instructional Support, items 12, 15, 10, 22, and 49 in Development of the Individual, item 14 in the Experience in Group Living category, items 16, 29, and 37 in the Provision of Atmosphere category, items 30, 41, and 61 in Satisfaction of Physical Needs, item 53 in Super- vision of Conduct, and items 44 and 63 in Support for the College. The sample at College Seven is of doubtful validity and the results should be viewed with this in mind. At College Eight, there were twelve significant differences. These were items 42, 45, and 46 in Instruction- al Support, items 15, 20, and 38 in Development of the Indi- vidual, item 59 in Experience in Group Living, items 29, 37, and 54 in Provision of Atmosphere, item 53 in Supervision of Conduct, and item 44 in Support for the College. In all eight colleges, there were a total of seventy- eight significant differences among thirty—two of the fifty- four items. Three items had five or more significant differ- ences indicated and four more items had four significant differences indicated. 173 Students in four or more colleges responded con- sistently to sixteen items and inconsistently to five items. Staff members in at least four colleges responded consistently to forty items and inconsistently to six items. Conclusions 1. There were significant differences in student and staff perceptions of the students' residence hall experiences in all eight colleges. The range in number of significantly different items in each college was two through eighteen. 2. There is more unanimity of opinion among staff members about the students' hall experiences than there is among the students on the same subject. 3. In all eight colleges sampled, the largest number of total significant differences in student and staff per- ceptions, both in total numbers and in relation to the number of items in the category, was in the Instructional Support category. 4. The largest number of highly significant differences (above the .001 level) in student and staff perceptions was also found in the Instructional Support category. 5. The smallest number of significant differences in staff and student perceptions both in total number and in relation to the number of items in the category was in the Exe perience in Group Living category. 6. There appear to be more significant differences in student and staff perceptions in larger residence hall 174 systems than in smaller ones. Differences in larger hall systems tend to be more highly significant. 7. Taking all eight colleges together, there does not appear to be any observed relationship between the number of significant differences in student and staff perceptions and the proportion of professionally trained student personnel workers on the hall staff. However, when results at the small colleges and large colleges are examined separately, the fewest significant differences are observed at those colleges with the highest proportion of professionally trained staff. 8. Students in each of the eight colleges responded consistently on slightly less than one-third of the items although not all groups responded consistently to the same items. 9. Examination of student and staff responses to indi- vidual items on the questionnaire will indicate whether the objective described by that item is a part of a given resi— dence hall system. A composite picture of accomplished resin dence hall activities can be derived by describing the re- sponses to items and groups of items on the questionnaire. 10. Items on which significant differences in student- staff perceptions appear, describe areas where the residence hall program is least effective in terms of what the staff believe is happening to the student or else is accomplishing something of which the staff is unaware. 175 11. This or a similar questionnaire appears to be one way to successfully examine and describe the perceptions of students and staff members about what is happening as a rem sult of the hall experience. Other related uses of this questionnaire are discussed in the section on further research. Discussion One of the most striking facts observed about the student responses is that 80% or more of all the students in all eight colleges agreed with the items concerned with opportunities to broaden friendships in the hall, to learn to get along with others, and to meet people of differing backgrounds and interests (items 21, 32, 64, and 65). These areas were also the aspects of the residence hall experience which students in the interviews said were the most important to them. Schleman (13), it will be recalled, found this same pattern of response in the informal survey conducted in a large women's residence hall system at a mid—western land grant institution. A number of the significant differences noted in the present study are similar to those found by Chick (3) in his study of student and staff perceptions of the function of residence hall student government. The most significant differences in Chick's study indicated that more staff than students perceived faculty being included in the hall program. Significant differences 176 in student-staff perceptions were noted in the present study in three colleges on item 45 which concerns the involvement of faculty in the hall program. More staff than students perceived such involvement. Another area in which more staff than students agreed in Chick's study concerned the opportunities to develop leadership skills. Only one significant difference in which more staff than students agreed was noted in this area, item 56, in the present study. Significantly more students than staff in the Chick study believed that the hall government informed residents of university regulations and policies. However, in the present study, there were no significant differences noted on items 18 and 39 which are concerned with the functions of informing students about regulations and then enforcing them. In fact, students and staff in all eight colleges consistently agreed with both these items. In the present study, slightly more than one-fourth of all the significant differences in student and staff perceptions occurred in the Instructional Support category. In addition, there were three items in this category with which students in at least four colleges disagreed. These facts seem to indicate that the area concerned with en— couraging academic endeavor, assisting in academic adjustment, and providing situations which complement the academic pro- gram of the colleges and afford opportunities for faculty— student interaction in the halls is one of the least 177 effectively accomplished in the eight residence hall pro- grams sampled in this study. While the colleges sampled in this study all have the traditional residence hall programming patterns, the current trend at some colleges is to establish "living- learning centers." This latter type of program consciously integrates class and out—of—class activities. Such emphasis might produce different perceptions in the Instructional Support category on this questionnaire. Residence hall programs in the colleges sampled ap— pear to be most effective in those areas involving group living experiences and relating to the supervisory and regulatory aspects of the program. These areas are two of the traditional and almost universally accepted residence hall functions. The group living experience is, in most cases, a natural result of groups of individuals living in close proximity. Student opportunities to benefit from this kind of experience are difficult to avoid. In most instances, careful efforts are made to de— fine and explain the regulations, rules, and policies of the institution and of the hall to the students. The enforcement of these rules is a highly visible phenomenon to most students. This area, therefore, is one which students can easily see as being a part of the residence hall program in situations where this is so. The areas of Provision of Atmosphere, Instructional Support, Support for the College and Development of the 178 Individual are less visible and not so obvious in their manifestations in the hall program. It would seem that more effort must be made to communicate the objectives of those particular areas to students if it is desired to make these factors a vital and meaningful part of the hall program. The remaining area of Satisfaction of Physical Needs is one which elicits perennial dissatisfaction on the part of students. It is interesting to note that the only signifi- cant differences in staff and student perceptions in this category occurred in the three large colleges. The fact that generally more differences occurred in the larger colleges with larger residence hall systems may reflect the increased difficulty in communication that often is found in large groups. It may be assumed also that the populations of students in a large university are more heterogeneous and would perceive experiences in the hall in a more varied fashion. Another factor that may affect the number of differ— ences which occur in the various colleges is the amount of training and experience the staff has had in residence hall work and in group work techniques. While there is no ob- served relationship over all eight colleges between the number of significant differences and the number of pro— fessionally trained staff, there is another observable trend. Among the three large colleges represented in the sample, the colleges with the fewest significant differences in student-staff perceptions was the college with the highest 179 proportion of professionally trained staff members in the halls. The same phenomenon is true of the five small colleges in the sample. Differences in student-staff perceptions may also occur because of differences in student and in staff defi— nition of terms in an item. The directions for answering the questionnaire explicitly stated that answers were to be made in terms of the respondent's own definition of the terms. Therefore, if differences occur because of lack of agreement about what the item means, more care should be given in clarifying objectives for both staff and students so that both groups are thinking about the same thing. Assuming that the responses of students and staff are honest and that the sample is random, it is possible to form from the results of the questionnaire a pattern of the residence hall experience in each college. Since items even within general categories are concerned with a variety of issues, it is recommended that each item be examined sepa— rately or in conjunction with similar items as was done in describing each college's responses in this study. A general impression can be derived from examination of the seven general categories. The Instrument In general, the items on the questionnaire appear to be understandable and applicable to a residence hall experi— ence. The fact that a certain experience described in a 180 given item may not be intended to happen in a particular residence hall program is irrelevant. If the situation described by that item does not exist in a particular resi- dence hall program, the respondent merely disagrees with that item. No judgment is made about the value of the ex— perience. The questionnaire is purely a descriptive device. The items of questionable validity on the question- naire were discussed in Chapter Four. It is recommended that all negative and negatively stated items be changed to positive statements to avoid awkwardness as well as misin- terpretation and to facilitate interpretation of the meaning of the item. Changes are recommended in the items as follows: 13. It is easy to develop a feeling of belonging when living in the residence hall. 15. Religious values are developed through the hall program. 25. Drop the item OR change it to--Feelings of anonymity develop when living in the hall. 50. There is an emphasis in the hall on learning etiquette and good manners. 56. Group leadership experiences are available to students in the hall. Item 16 should be dropped because of what appears to be consistent misinterpretation of the meaning of the phrase, "collegiate life." Item 52, concerning sign-out requirements, should be used only when it is possible to analyze men's and women's responses separately as well as in a single group. 181 The response scale used in the questionnaire ap- peared to be adequate. There were only a few complaints from both students and staff that there was no ”don't know" or "sometimes" category. Only 0.22% of the items in the stu- dent groups and 0.49% of the items in the staff groups were not marked. Implications for Future Research Further use of the instrument used in this study as well as additional examination of the results described here would appear to be feasible. Analysis of the data already available for each col- lege in terms of the size of hall, sex of the student, and class standing of the student may be useful in gaining further information about how different groups of students perceive their hall experience or why they perceive them as they do. Determination of cause and effect relationships in the areas where significant differences appear would prove helpful in adducing change in program method and objectives. Administration of the questionnaire to additional or larger populations in the eight colleges sampled in this study would provide a reliability check for the instrument as well as provide additional evidence of how students per- ceive their residence hall experience in these colleges. Regular use of this questionnaire over a period of years or periodically would be helpful in three ways. First, , H'— 182 it would provide evidence of the effectiveness of program changes and innovations that may be instituted from time to time. Second, it would provide an index of how student popu~ lations over a period of time View the hall experience. And third, staff perceptions of the students' hall experiences over a period of time and as staff composition changes can also be determined. A further use would be to compare answers to the questionnaire about what_i§ happening in the halls and what one believes should happen in the halls. For the instrument to be as useful as possible, con— tinued efforts should be made to refine the items and cate- gories used. New items, peculiar to a given campus, may be added to facilitate evaluation of the hall experience on that campus. In general, further use of this questionnaire in other colleges both similar to and different from those in the present sample would be useful in further validation of the instrument. It is hOped that additional work with the instrument and the method of response analysis, will prove it valid and reliable in what it proports to measure. That is, (l) to determine the effectiveness of a residence hall program in terms of what the staff members believe it is accomplishing for students and (2) to describe the general pattern of stu- dent perceptions of their hall experience. 183 Unless hall programs do accomplish what they are planned, programmed, staffed, financed, and designed to ac— complish, the residence hall is no more than a place to eat and sleep and cannot be considered a meaningful part of the ongoing endeavor of the university. If it is possible to ascertain what happens to students in their hall experiences, more adequate, successful, and significant hall programs can be developed to better meet the needs of the student and of the university. 10. 11. BIBLIOGRAPHY American Council on Education. ”The Student Personnel Point of View," revised edition, 1949. Arbuckle, D. S. and Kauffman, J. "Student Personnel Services in Liberal Arts Colleges," Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 38 (1959), pp. 196—299. Chick, Robert W. ”How Residents, Residence Hall Officers, and Residence Hall Staff Living in University Housing Perceive the Functioning of Residence Hall Student Government." Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Uni- versity of Denver, 1960. Feder, Daniel D°:.§E.§l° "The Administration of Student Personnel Programs in American Colleges and Universi- ties," American Council on Education, Series VI, 1958. Harry, Ormsby L. "A Study of Student Personnel Services at Michigan College of Mining and Technology." Un- published Doctoral thesis, Michigan State University, 1960. Hays, William L. Statistics for Psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. Mueller, Kate Hevner. Student Personnel Work in Higher Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961. Parrott, Leslie. "A Study of Student Personnel Services in Six Liberal Arts Church Colleges." Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Michigan State University, 1958. Riker, Harold C. Planning Functional College Housing. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1956. Rork, John B. and D'Amice, Louis A. "How Well Are Colleges and Universities Equipped to Provide Resi— dential Accomodations?," Educational Record, Vol. 43 (January, 1962), pp. 57-61. Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and University. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962. 184 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18 19 2C 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 185 Ruthenberg, Donald Burton. "Differences in Staff Per— ceptions of Rules, Regulations, Policies, and Procedures in Residence Halls at the University of Denver, 1960- 61." Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Denver, 1961. Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. XXII, p. 3762. Schleman, Helen B. "WOmen's Housing," Journal of the National Association of Deans of Women, Vol. 11 (October, 1947), Pp- 31-39. Sillers, Dan J. "Attitudes of General and Student Personnel Administrators Toward Student Disciplinary Problems." Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Denver, 1961. Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. XXII, pp. 4076—4077. Strozier, Robert M.,_§t_§l. "Housing of Students," American Council on Education, Series VI, 1950. Tamte, James A. "How Faculty, Student Personnel Workers, and Students Perceive Student Personnel Services at the University of Denver." Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Denver, 1964. Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. XXV. PP. 1761—1762. Trow, Martin. "The Campus Viewed As A Culture," inuge— search on College Students, western Interstate Commis— sion for Higher Education and the Center for Higher Education, December, 1960, pp. 105-123. Wagenschein, Miriam. "Institutional Housing, Selective Clienteles, and Social Class of Women Students." Un- published Doctoral thesis, Stanford University, 1963. Williamson, E. G. "Symposium: Residence Halls in Higher Education," Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 36 (February, 1958), pp. 392—398. Wise, W. Max. "Residence Halls and Higher Learning," Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 398-402. APPENDIX A Letter to Students It? M O 8 T0: Spec Univ FROM: JC In c a study c experien: give you residenc CGptions means tc PErience 187 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Special Residence Hall Study Group of Eastern Michigan University FROM: Jo Anne Johnson Graduate Student, Michigan State University In cooperation with the Director of Housing, we are conducting a study of perceptions held by students about their residence hall experiences. You are one of the students who is being invited to give your reactions to some of the experiences you have had in the residence halls at Eastern. It is recognized in colleges that per- ceptions students hold about residence hall living are effective means to learn more about hall programs. Your reactions to the ex- periences you have had would contribute significantly to such a study. A short questionnaire will be administered to the students in- vited to participate in the study on Wednesday, March 10 from 6 to 10:30 pm in Downing Hall Recreation Room. The questionnaire takes about 20 minutes to complete and you may come any time during the specified hours. Your individual responses will be strictly confi— dential. At a later date I will talk with some of you in person to find out more about your ideas of the residence halls. From the results we hope to find ways to develop meaningful and effective ~ residence hall programs. It is possible to select only a limited number of students to represent the perceptions of points of view at your college. And I sincerely hope you will be able to participate. If it is impossible for you to attend in person to answer the questionnaire, would you ask a roommate or friend to substitute for you? I will look forward to seeing you on Wednesday, March 10 be: tween 6 and 10:30 pm in Downing Hall Recreation Room. APPENDIX B Residence Hall Experience Questionnaire and 1230 Scoring Sheet stud! askeI nitil ARE . IMPO conf exte resi othe resi ate to t on1§ spor Shes SpOI 189 RESIDENCE HALL EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE This is a study to determine what experiences the student has in the residence halls on your campus. You are asked to respond to the items below in terms of your defi— nition and perception of the meaning of the statement. THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS. IT IS YOUR OPINION THAT IS IMPORTANT. Your individual responses will be strictly confidential. For each statement in the questionnaire, indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree that this particular residence hall experience is achieved for most students. In other words, has this happened to most students in their residence hall experience? Indicate your responses by blacking in the appropri- ate space on the answer sheet beside the number corresponding to that item. Use only the special pencil provided. Mark only one response for each item. Erase completely any re- sponse you wish to change. The item numbers on the answer sheet run across the sheet from left to right. For the personal data questions below, mark the re— sponse which best describes your situation. 1. Title 5. No. of people re- 1. Head Residence, Head sponsible to you in Advisor, Resident area of hall program Director 1. 3 or fewer 2. Dean of Students, Dean of 20 4-10 Men, Dean of Women 3, more than 10 3. Director of Housing 4. Assistant Dean of Men, of 6. Sex Women 1. Male 5. Other 2. Female 2. No. of years in present position Skip items 7 and 8 on the 1. less than 1 answer sheet 2. 1-3 3. 4-7 9. Status in the hall 4. 8—15 1. student 5. over 15 2. full-time staff 3. No. of years in similar or re- 10° Size of hall lated positions 1. under 100 1. 1—3 2. 100 - 200 2. 4-7 3. 200 - 300 3. 8-10 4. over 300 4. more than 10 ll. Kind of hall 4. No. of years of college 1. MenIs l. 0 2. WOmen's 2. attended but no degree 3. Coed 3. bachelor's degree 4. master's degree Please go on to next page 5. doctorate ing : items mean: ANSW] vidu; exte resi word hall Spac that one wish acro Spon 190 RESIDENCE HALL EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE This is a study to determine what you are experienc- ing in the residence halls. You are asked to respond to the items below in terms of your definition and perception of the meaning of the statement. THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS. IT IS YOUR OPINION THAT IS IMPORTANT. Your indi- vidual responses will be strictly confidential. For each statement in the questionnaire, indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree that this particular residence hall experience is achieved for you. In other words, has this happened to you in your experience in the halls? Indicate your responses by blacking in the appropriate space on the answer sheet beside the number corresponding to that item. Use only the special pencil provided. Mark only one response for each item. Erase completely any response you wish to change. The item numbers on the answer sheet run across the sheet from left to right. For the personal data questions below, mark the re- sponse which best describes your situation. 1. Age at last birthday 7. Are you a transfer 1. 17 or under student? 2. 18 1. Yes 3. 19 2. No 4. 20 5. 21 and over 8. Are you a foreign student? 2. Sex 1. Yes 1. Male 2. No 2. Female 9. Status in the hall 3. Class in college 1. Student 1. Freshman 2. Full-time staff 2. SOphomore 3. Junior .10. Size of hall 4. Senior 1. under 100 2. 100 - 200 4. Do you belong to a sorority or 3. 200 _ 300 fraternity? 4. over 300 1. Yes 2. No 11. Kind of hall 1. Men's 5. Are you presently or have you 2, Women's been a residence hall officer? 3, Coed 1. Yes 2. No Please go to the next page. 6. Are you presently or have you been a residence hall assistant? 1. Yes 2. No ter of hag 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2C 21 2E 191 For items 12 through 65, indicate your responses in terms of the key given below. Remember, indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement that these things have happened in your experience in the hall. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. KEY . Strongly agree . Agree . Disagree . Strongly disagree IPOJNH The hall program contributes to the development of self— direction and independent judgment. It is hard to develop a feeling of belonging when living in the residence hall. The residence hall operation provides an example of ef- ficient, effective administrative procedure. The hall program does not attempt to develop religious values. An atmosphere of "collegiate life" prevails in the hall. Good scholarship is encouraged. Enforcement of university policies and regulations is part of the hall program. A climate of good taste and gracious living is found in the hall. It is easy to discuss personal problems with the hall staff. There are Opportunities to meet peOple of backgrounds and interests quite different from your own. As a result of hall experiences the student is encouraged to assume responsibility for his own behavior rather than having the college take this responsibility from him. It is easy for students to express ideas and use cre- ative energy. The hall program helps the student to identify with the college. Experiences in hall living do not allow a feeling of anonymity to develop. The residence hall program Complements the academic and instructional program in broadening intellectual interests by providing lectures, movies, discussion groups and similar activities. 27, 28. 29- 30.. 31. 33. 34, 36.. 37‘ 38, 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 192 KEY 1. Strongly agree 3. Disagree 2. Agree 4. Strongly disagree Life in the residence hall has a feeling of formal social protocol and specifies set standards of social behavior. The hall program serves as a means to control student conduct. The atmosphere in the hall reflects a feeling of personal interest in the student. The dining hall provides well-prepared, nourishing meals. The student's effort to develOp good study habits is encouraged. One learns to share and to live in harmony with other peOple. There are Opportunities for student groups to work to- gether on projects for their mutual benefit and enjoyment. There is a stimulating atmosphere which encourages dis- cussions and bull sessions among students. Faculty members interact with students on an informal basis in the hall. The hall serves as a unit with which the student closely identifies while at college. The hall atmosphere and furnishings are an example of the style of life toward which the student should aspire There is opportunity through the hall program to become acquainted with persons of the opposite sex. The college uses the hall program to inform students of its policies and regulations. The hall program serves as a means through which the stu- dent is oriented to the college and its expectations of him. The hall is an economical place to live while at college. The hall staff assists the student in adjusting to the de- mands of academic life. The hall serves as a base for organized sports competition. The hall program emphasizes the change and progress of the college rather than reinforcing the traditions and customs of the past. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50° 51 52. 53_ 54, (fl U1 56 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 193 KEY 1. Strongly agree 3. Disagree 2. Agree 4. Strongly disagree The hall program encourages and provides opportunities for dinners and discussions with faculty members. There are current quality magazines and newspapers such as the New York Times, Harper's, New Yorker, in the hall for the student's use. ' Social maturity is developed through experiences in a variety of social situations. The student's room provides adequate space to keep his personal belongings. Dances, mixers, dinners, teas, coffee hours, special parties and other social activities take place in the hall. Little emphasis is placed on learning etiquette and good manners. The hall is often used as a convenient unit to group stu- dents for campus administrative and activity purposes as voting and group scholarship awards. Daily, overnight, and vacation sign—out regulations en- able the staff to accurately know where students are most of the time. The hall staff knows when a student is ill. An atmosphere which encourages cultural awareness of good art, literature, music, and architecture exists in the hall. The hall program attempts to establish values and standards of social behavior patterns pertaining to smoking, drinking, sexual behavior, etc. Little or no group leadership experience is available to students in the hall. The hall program encourages students to let other students in the hall live in whatever manner they choose. There is an atmosphere conducive to study and creative, productive thought. By means of actual practice in the hall, understanding of the democratic process is achieved. The residence hall staff assumes a parental role in deal- ing with the student. 61. 62 63 64 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 194 KEY 1. Strongly agree 3. Disagree 2. Agree 4. Strongly disagree Adequate facilities are available to facilitate personal and "household" tasks, i.e., laundry, ironing, sewing, car washing. Opportunities for physical exercise and recreation are available through the hall program. The hall program develops student loyalty toward the college. The hall program facilitates adjustment to peers. There is opportunity to broaden friendships by living in the hall. 342W s-COL/ MAKE YOUR 1* ~.‘-- I::::: TT'I’L = ..... 7 p.11: 3 333:: ----- 3 --::: .1: 1::::_ .‘“:- 3::::: 3 1‘73 E ::::: :1 ‘1: ‘. ~~~~~ ~ 5:: Vitr- . ~»:: 3::::y L :Z: lf‘~«- .‘ 2:; ,:~--‘ ' ':: 31%-- '”‘:: 3:-~._ I I)! I I I l >4 I I I \ 21:: 1::§:‘ I 21313;: ; “If 3::::: :7 1::::‘ Sign. L 3:.:~- ‘ .}::::: : h ‘51:}. I "T, 3::::: 3:“_j: 1:::\ \::::: 3:::“ ‘9 > :1: 4 :‘T:~ I) I I l I l. I I I I .1 a _-_-H. 4 >-. ‘—- hi_‘~- I ~_ ~.,‘— s::~. [I I I I [I I I I I ‘ ;;;-. 9 I:~-- C 1::~- 4 :::~ \ 4 :~-\ .LJJ NAME LAST FIRST MIDDLE GRADE—SEXWAGEfiDATE SCHOOL NAME OF TEST INSTRUCTOR MAKE YOUR MARKS HEAVY AND BLACK- -ERASE COMPLETELY ANY ANSWERS YOU WISH TO CHANGE 51:: 22:21: 3221:: 4:222: 5222:: 2I::::: 2123:: 33:2: 42:2: 5122:: 3I::::: 2::::: 312::: 41:22: 5222:: AIrrrr: 212:1: 3:31: 4:21: 52:": ::::: 2::::: 32:22: 422:: 52:22: (31:2: 2::::: 3::::: 4::::: 5::::: 71:22: 2:22: 3::::: 4::::: 5:23: 812:: 2::::: 3::::: 47‘" 5:-::: 23131 211313 3131:: 4112:: 511311 1011113 23:31: 3233:: 422:: 52:23: IIIIIIII 21133: 3112:: 4212:: 531:2: I2I=IZ-- 2311:: 3322:: 4111:: 511:2: :22: 2:: 3222:: 4:22: 5:2“: IAI::::: 2 22:: 3:2: 4:2: 53:: ISIIIIII 211:1: 3-——:= 4212:: 121-1 16113333 2 III 3132:: 4131:: 5111:: N333: 213353 3333:: 433333 53:33: I8|31333 2 33:33 3333:: 4333:: 5:333: I9I33333 233333 313333 4333:: 5133:: 2013333: 233333 31333: 433333 533333 2311:: 3221:: 43:2: 5111:: 2211311: 2311:: 311:1: 4:111: 511:2: 23I:::== 2122:: 321:: 4222:: 5122:: 24:21: 2111:: 3333:: 422:: 5:112: 3331: 211333 3‘": 432331 511111 26:13:33 2 31111 3213:: 4313:: 5:131: 27IIIIZI 23:13: 333311 4111:: 533:1: 28 I331: 231:: 33:11: 4111:: 51113: 1:11: 2122:: 32:2: 41:12: 5133:: 3OI:::I: 2 III 3:32: 42:33: 5:11: 31I:::=: 2:112: 3331:: 4'"? 5:12: 32I::::: 2:11: 31:32: 42:22: 511:: I-:::: 2123:: 3332:: 4121:: 5:133: 34IIIIII 2 311:: 3211:: 42:32: 5112:: 35I::::: 2212:: 3222:: 4222:: 5:122: 36II-Irr 3:22: 3223:: 4221:: 5: I: I-:::: 21:12: 3:22: 42:12: 5211:: 38I::::: 2223:: 312:1: 4122:: 5222:: 39I::::= 2:112: 3221:: 4111:: 521:3: AoIzzzit 23:32: 32:22: 4::::: 5:22: 212:: 2122:: 33:2: 412:: 5111:: 42 I::::: 2222:: 3211:: 42:11: 5::::: 43I::::: 22:1: 3132:: 4:33: 5:23: 44I::::: 2:123: 3:221: 4222:: 52::2 '2: 2::::: 3::::: 42:22: 5::::: 46133311 2::::: 3::::: 4::::: 5::::: 4712:: 2::::: 3::::: 4::::: 5:22: 48I:::-- 2::::: 32:22: 4::::: 5211:: i331: 2321:: 3322:: 4222:: 511:2: 50I12111 2 13111 3121:: 4321:: 5:211: SIIIIIII 231311 3311:: 4122:: 521212 5211121: 231111 311111 411111 53‘1': ;:_-:: 2:212: 3232:: 4:222: 5321:: 5412212: 2122:: 3221:: 422:2: 511:2: 55I:==== 2:111: 3:211: 4112:: 522:1: 56I=:::= 2 1:11: 3111:: 42:2: 51:22: 33333 2333?: 333133 43:33: 533331 58I33333 2 "‘33 3333:: 43:33: 533333 59|33333 2:333: 3333:: 4333:: 533:3: 60I33333 2 :33: 333333 413333 53:33: 2:11: 311:: 4:22: 512:: 62I::::: 21==== 3===== 4221: 512:1: 63:22:: 22==== 33:22 4:22: 5212:: bAIIIII: 22:11: 32:1: 42:22: 53:32: 31:31 2111:: 3111:: 4 '3‘: 51:31: be=:::: 2:111: 3212:: 4:113: 5111:: (,7.::::: 2232:: 3232:: 4113:: 5__::: 68I::::= 2221:: 3333:: 4 ::::: 511:1: - 2:12: 3:21: 4:222: 5222:: 70:21:22 2 2:: 3322:: 4221:: 522:2: 71:12:11 2 122:: 3112:: 4:113: 5:312: 72Irrrrr 2 ::::: 31:21: 42:11: 511:: :33: 233333 3333:: 433:3: 53:33: 74|33333 2 33:3: 3333:: 43:33: 513333 75133333 2 33:3: 33:35: 43:33: 5333:: 7613333: 2 3333: 333333 433333 5:33: 33:33 2333:: 3333:: 41333: 533333 78l33133 2 3333: 333333 43:33 53:33: 79l33333 23333: 33:33: 433333 51113: BOIZIIZZ 23:33: 33:33: 411333 5131:: 3313: 2:222: 3222:: 4:222: 522:3: 82 I323: 2:221: 3:22: 42:2: 512:: 83I::::: 2::::: 3:12: 42:22: 5111:: 84133:: 2:21" 32:2: 4::::: 5:13: 1::2: 2 ::::: 32:22: 4::::: 5::::: 86IIZZZZ 2 222:: 3::::: 42:2: 522:: 87I::::: 2::::: 3::::: 42:2: 5::::: 38I::::: 2'": 3::::: 4::::: 5222:: 3333? 2331:: 3113:: 413:: 5221:: 9OI1313= 233211 33'212 4112:: 522:2: 9III=I=I 2 313:: 3111:: 4121:: 51:22: 92IIIII= 2111:: 3331:: 4:221: 5111:: -: 2:112: 3111:: 4:22: 51:22: 94I::::: 2312:: 3212:: 4:22: 5222:: 95I:==:= 2 22:3: 3112:: 42:1: 521:: 96:22:: 21:13: 3222:: 4211:: 5::1‘: 2 :22: 321:: 42:22: 5:12: 98I::::: 2 ::::; 31': 41:11: 5131:: 99 I::::: :::-- 33:2: 4222:: 5:22: IOOI::::: 2:23: 32:21: 4:2: 512:: ---:: 2 311:: 3111:: 41:2: 53:33: IO2IZIII= 2 1:13: 31:22: 4323:: 512:2: IOBIIIIII 2 211:: 3:112: 4:211: 5:112: IOAIZZZZZ 21:11: 3131:: 4:222: 5:213: 33?: 2111:: 3212:: 4221:: 511:2: IObIIII: 21:31: 3311: 411:1: 511:2: IO7I:::== 2:111: 3111:: 4:222: 5222:: IOBIIZIII 2131:: 321:2: 4:122: 531:: 5:33: 2 2:33: 3:111: 4111:: 5:133: IIOIZZZiI 2222:: 3:121: 4:321: 5122:: I I I I232: 23:31: 3211:: 422:2: 5221:: II 2 IZIIII 2 3:33: 3-1-11 4332:: 522:: 33:13 2111:: 3222:: 4:122: 51:12: I I AIIIZII 2 12:2: 3311:: 4222:: 5:222: IISIIZlII 2 122:: 3:232: 4212:: 5'“: 1 I bIIIZII 233311 3113:: 412:2: 512-:- xx; 2 2:22 3:222: 42:: 511:3: IIBI33333 22:22: 3122:: 4222:: 5:22: I I W232 211:: 32:: 4::::: 522:: I2OI::::: 2 211:: 322:: 42:: 5::‘22 313: 2:23: 322:2: 4312:: 512:: I22!22332 22:32: 3113:: 4:222: 5:222: I23I::::: 2222:: 3:32: 4:22: 5232:: I24 |::::: 2:22: 3:211: 4:222: 52:22: 111:: 2::::: 3::::: 42:2: 5111:: IZOIIIII: 2::::: 3::::: 4::::: 5::::: 127I::::: 2::::: 322:2: 42:2: 5212:: I28I::--: 2:12: 3::::: 4::::: 5:12: 1111: 2:11: 32:21: 4122:: 2:" I3oI::::: 22:1: 3131:: 4:221: 5222:: I 3 I IIIIII 2:221: 3:222: 4222:: 5:22: I32I:=::= 22:11: 3:22: 421—" 52:: --:-: 2 2:11: 311:: 4111:: 5111:: I34I:::=: 22:11: 31:: 4:22: 5112:: I35u====z 2:111: 3111:: 4:222: 5:222: I36I::::: 2 :12: 32:21: 4----: 5:2: 3:31: 2 21:: 32:3: 42:: 5:11: I38I::::: 2:22: 32:22 4:23: 52:22: I39I=IZI= 2 ===== 3131:: 4:21: 52:22: I40|33333 2 ::::: 321:: 42:22: —__::: 331:: 2 1:32: 313:: 41:22 53:1: IA2I=:=== 212:: 33:22 42:22: 53:11: 143I=::== 222:: 3:11: 431:1: 5:222: IAAIIII: 21:22: 3:": 4222:: 5:1": ‘3": 232:: 313:1: 4222:: 5:321: 1461:2122 2332:: 312:2: 412:1: 53:33: 147 I223: 2111:: 3:22: 41:31: 51:11: I48|::::: 2:111: 3222:: 4::_-- 5131:: 1131: 2 =22: 312:: 41:12: 52:22: I50I::::: 22:1: 3213:: 43:2: 512:: 15 I I223 222:: 3311:: 4:31: 51:22: 152I=:::: 2 123:: 32:: 4---: 522:: 2 11:1: 32:21: 422:: 51:21: 154I::::: 2 1:: 322:2: 4122:: 5222:: 155I::::: 2:2: 312:: 4:22: 5": ISbuIrrrr 2 :23: 3111:: 4222:: 5:21: .:-_: 2 1:12: 31:11: 4222:: 522:: 158 I::::: 2 22:2: 31:1: 42:22: 5:22: 1591222: 2 1:11: 3:111: 42:1: 5211:: I60I3313? 2 1:21: 3122:: 41:2: 5::::: 1?:1? 2323:: 3:122: 422:: 5132:: I62 I21: 2::::: 3:23: 4::::: 5212:: 163I::::: 211:2: 32:22: 41:2: 521:1: 164m: 2212:: 322:: 4::::: 5121:: ;:::: 2 --::: 32:1: 4::::: 5:211 166122;: 2::::: 3::::: 42:2: 52:23: Ib7I::::: 2::::: 3::::: 4::::: 5:1": IbBI::::: 2::::: 321:: 4::::: 5::::: 2 33331 3 311:: 4222:: 5112:: I70I:::II 211111 333331 4111:: 5121:: I7 IIIIIII 2333:: 323121 41:12: 52:22: I72IIIIZI 2 if: 3---: 41:11: 5:32: '1 2 121:: 3311:: 4132:: 52:21: 1741:2211 2 2:33: 3111:: 42:22: 52:21: I75IIIZI: 21211: 33:21: 4122:: 522:2: I76I::::: 2 :3: 3221:: 4131:: 533131 22:23: 33:12: 412:: 511:: I78I2=II= 21:11: 3112:: 422:: 522:: I79I::::: 2 21:1: 3:2: 4:22: 522:2: IBOIZII: 22:2" 3211:: 4213:: 5113:: 2 11213 333111 4:312: 5:331: 132.::::: 2113:: 3133:: 4112:: 511:1: I83IIIIII 21111: 3111:: 42:3: 51:11: IBAIIIIII 221131 33:11? 4111-1 513:2: ‘ :— 2 31:2: 3133:: 4122:: 513:3: 18¢“:th 2111:: 3:11: 4 321:: 5===== 187I==::: 222:1: 31:13: 411': 5:11: I881::::: 2 ::::: 3311:: 42:2: 5111:: I- 2 2:12: 33:33: 4321:: 5:331: 190I::::: 2 1333: 3113:: 43:31: 52:13: I 9 IIIIIZI 21:33: 3113:: 4133:: 5:233: I92IIIZI 233333 3232:: 4:22:12 51:32: — 2 2:22: 3323:: 411:2: 53:32: 194I::::: 23:12: 31131: 4222:: 5:332: I95I:=::: 2 23:: 3:322: 4:222: 5111:: 196133331 2 1:22: 3:23: 4221:: 522:2: 9::::: 3221:: 42:22: 5221:: IQRIIZI: 2 :22: 3:22: 4:22: 5:222: I99I::::: 2222:: 32:1: 42:2: 5223:: QOOI::::: 2:32: 3:222: 4222:: 51:”: APPENDIX C Percentage of Men and WOmen Students in Each College Agreeing on Each Item 197 Percentage of Men and Women Students in Each College Agreeing on Each Item. Item College One College Two College Three College Four No. Men Women Men WOmen Men WOmen Men Women 12 77 62 83 76 83 76 85 69 13 14 9 15 3 28 15 10 15 14 63 67 45 74 52 71 45 64 15 86 62 93 71 94 86 85 59 16 89 95 68 91 78 86 70 85 17 83 83 83 94 65 67 50 69 18 97 91 90 100 94 100 70 90 19 36 55 43 65 35 66 35 41 20 51 57 53 49 44 44 45 44 21 92 88 83 85 98 97 95 92 22 86 62 73 50 72 63 9O 69 23 69 55 50 62 50 61 6O 38 24 6O 79 73 97 72 88 70 77 25 57 67 63 59 37 55 60 64 26 17 17 28 44 ll 15 5 10 27 31 38 45 76 39 63 10 56 28 54 83 80 91 76 84 55 72 29 57 57 33 68 28 49 45 64 30 69 81 38 91 54 62 60 62 31 66 74 83 85 35 47 60 56 32 100 98 95 97 91 96 90 87 33 87 81 53 94 70 75 55 69 34 83 67 75 50 78 66 80 72 35 29 36 15 29 24 22 10 23 36 74 69 63 85 70 84 45 74 37 32 41 35 32 ‘ 28 39 25 36 38 40 31 58 32 83 72 5 26 39 86 81 88 100 83 87 85 92 Ite No. 41 42 44 45 46 47 4E U1 U1 (J1 U1 U1 U1 U1 U1 U I If] mm Item No. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 College One Men 80 71 63 89 80 26 11 74 83 69 6O 46 14 71 9 46 34 54 37 51 34 57 76 49 89 91 Women 88 67 64 83 48 17 31 74 91 57 41 43 9o 86 19 60 26 41 48 48 36 67 50 41 86 98 College Two Women Men 75 43 58 95 35 38 45 58 75 38 63 25 25 55 10 63 43 65 7O 63 23 73 80 43 65 98 198 97 7o 62 59 53 85 53 65 44 67 24 56 85 65 38 85 o 24 68 77 47 62 32 53 91 100 College Three Men 66 37 39 61 48 11 24 78 72 87 63 54 24 22 11 17 48 33 31 35 22 81 57 48 74 91 WOmen 75 3O 34 42 68 3O 33 91 64 9O 37 68 76 45 20 54 34 38 47 7O 49 74 57 65 92 97 College Four Men 70 7O 70 100 70 5 5 70 85 O 75 3O 7O 65 20 10 65 55 45 55 20 55 7O 3O 80 100 Women 77 59 56 69 38 15 5 63 50 5 41 39 92 56 13 80 44 26 41 59 46 67 51 39 85 100 f\.) I\) [\l Item No. 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 4O 41 42 43 College Five Men 66 18 44 88 79 59 97 12 47 97 88 56 74 47 85 32 62 44 38 44 94 88 91 29 71 35 62 88 97 44 44 82 Women 87 11 74 9O 87 79 96 53 45 92 79 69 86 57 64 48 62 52 43 57 99 86 71 31 89 44 50 96 87 38 39 72 College Six Men 81 5 29 85 72 67 76 19 57 100 67 52 86 38 14 10 57 29 91 63 86 52 71 10 57 5 24 91 72 43 48 76 199 WOmen 69 8 54 100 69 77 88 54 58 82 55 69 85 62 15 42 65 50 96 62 100 77 69 23 50 19 31 92 77 42 46 65 College Seven Men 67 12 55 85 73 55 85 33 55 100 64 61 89 45 18 52 79 39 36 39 91 88 79 33 7O 3O 67 85 7O 52 24 97 Women 70 9 56 84 80 58 100 52 61 97 61 63 83 64 22 67 81 47 42 41 99 88 63 25 89 33 58 97 86 55 33 56 College Eight Men 68 17 51 78 73 63 85 32 54 95 76 66 68 61 20 27 76 37 51 56 88 63 76 20 71 37 22 88 68 71 44 100 WOmen 64 9 58 29 91 87 98 73 51 93 62 73 87 62 13 49 87 64 6O 78 100 78 78 18 73 38 36 93 93 58 47 38 Item No. 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 65 65 Men 74 65 38 79 21 35 65 91 21 18 24 34 18 47 33 56 29 79 62 32 82 97 (College Five WOmen 63 62 46 82 66 76 49 70 7o 43 18 43 15 4o 36 62 31 73 69 61 82 99 College Six Men 19 14 33 62 57 19 86 14 14 43 5 43 76 62 52 10 24 33 62 29 81 100 200 Women 27 19 54 58 58 42 62 27 69 54 31 65 15 58 35 62 50 54 54 46 85 100 College Seven Men 64 15 58 76 61 76 61 52 15 55 12 36 36 36 55 49 30 58 85 52 82 97 WOmen 52 31 55 75 39 78 53 52 86 61 20 59 27 41 34 67 30 67 61 53 89 100 College Eight Men 44 7 39 63 73 49 71 24 7 39 12 73 37 39 51 56 29 85 88 42 88 93 Women 33 20 42 54 6O 42 22 11 98 76 24 93 47 49 76 49 6O 55 36 71 91 98 I'IICHIGRN sm‘rE UNIV. LIBRARIES IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 31293104523919