THE PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS, FACULTY MEMBERS, AND STUDENTS OF THE STUDENT PERSONNEL PROGRAMS OF THE SENIOR COLLEGES OF THE AMERICAN LUTHERAN CHURCH Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY GLEN E. PETERSON 1968 min-w This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Perceptions of Student Personnel Administrators, Faculty Members, and Students of the Student Personnel Programs of the Senior Colleges of. The American Lutheran Church. ..‘ presented by Glen E. Peterson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. d , Administration and egree III—— Higher Education flea. ”and W, 4% Major professor August 28, 1968 Date 0-169 7 I‘ " lamomc av . " “ORB ll SONS' .l BOOK BINDERY INC. ‘ LIBRARY BINDERS .' 4 —-...__..___ — —‘— m__,. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII _‘ 3 1293 10546 3487 .- Iconmnm‘ .' v 7v L.‘ ' . . ,. p a”; clv‘cl‘. «I-.r:ng a In mg .3 ~‘ u.‘ “. g“, I v mire as well a: 13 mmWA‘ * ' n-‘R‘J-‘V ABSTRACT THE PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS, FACULTY MEMBERS, AND STUDENTS OF THE STUDENT PERSONNEL PROGRAMS OF THE SENIOR COLLEGES OF THE AMERICAN LUTHERAN CHURCH by Glen E. Peterson The primary purpose of this study was to determine the basic nature of the student personnel programs for the senior col- leges of The American Lutheran Church, and to make a comparative analysis of the differences in perceptions of the scope and quality of the existing student personnel services by the basic student person— nel administrative staff, faculty members, and students. The study also sought to determine if the three respondent sample groups from each college perceived a need to implement any non-existing student personnel services. The study was conducted during the Winter and Spring of 1968. Copies of the Inventory of Selected College Services were mailed to the project coordinator at each of the ten participating col- leges. Directions were given during a faculty meeting regarding . C‘fio‘mpletion of the questionnaire as well as the deadline and designated . of -. V :1" v, 0’.— Glen E. Peterson place for returning the completed form. A two-day visit to each campus was made by the project director so that the instrument could be administered to the basic student personnel administrative staff and a 5% stratified random sample of undergraduate students. Total usable responses for this study included 113 student personnel administrators, 597 faculty members, and 667 students. Small group interviews were held with some of the faculty and student participants in this study so that additional substance could be attached to the responses given by the three respondent groups. Procedure of the Study The Inventory of Selected College Services (136 items) used in this study was a modified version of the questionnaire developed by Raines for the Carnegie study of junior college student personnel programs. Modification of the instrument made it applicable for studying student personnel programs in four—year institutions. The instrument was designed to measure thirty-three student personnel services and contained four identical items for each service: (1) the degree of need for implementing the service (to be rated only if the respondent perceived that the service was non-existent at the college), (2) rating of the scope of the service, (3) rating of the quality of the service, and (4) use made of or involvement in the service by the respondent. The chi square statistic was used in the analysis of the Glen E. Peterson data, and a minimum confidence level of .05 was used to determine the statistical significance. Whenever differences in perceptions among the three respondent groups were significant at a higher con— fidence level (.02, . 01, or .001), these statistical differences were reported. Conclusions of the Study 1. There were significant differences in perceptions by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to the scope and quality of some student personnel ser- vices at each of the ten colleges. 2. Differences in perceptions by the three respondent groups with respect to the quality of the student personnel services were found more frequently than differences in perceptions of the scope of the services. 3. A trend was noted among the ten colleges that the three respondent groups more frequently gave substantially negative com- posite mean score ratings to the scope of the student personnel ser- vices while they more frequently gave substantially positive composite mean score ratings to the quality of the services. Negative compos- ite mean score ratings by the respondents from several of the colleges were recorded for the scope of the following student personnel services: Health Educative (10 colleges), Group Guidance (9 colleges), ————_——— Glen E. Peterson Basic Skill Diagnostic (8 colleges), Program Evaluation (8 colleges), Off-Campus Housing (4 colleges). Positve composite mean score ratings were recorded for the scope of the following services: Stu- dent Activities (7 colleges) and Religious Program (5 colleges). Positive composite mean score ratings were recorded for the quality of the following services: Student Activities (7 colleges), Pre— College Information (6 colleges), Religious Program (5 colleges), and Food and Dining (4 colleges). 4. At least 25% of all respondents in the colleges (number of colleges indicated in parentheses) reported a need to implement the following student personnel services: Health Educative (10 col- leges), Foreign Student (7 colleges), Group Guidance (7 colleges), Basic Skill Diagnostic (6 colleges), and Program Evaluation (4 col- leges). 5. One of the most important concerns expressed by the student groups from each college was in regard to their desire to be greater participants in the decision-making process of the institution WhiCh had any significant impact upon their academic and social pro- grains. 6. Due to the fact that many respondents from each college indicated that there was a need to implement certain student personnel services which were already available there, there is a need to Glen E. Peterson ~ .rators and the students and faculty. ‘o-' 7. In the small-group interview sessions, both the faculty ‘61 3 and students openly discussed in detail both the positive and negative aspects of the student personnel services. They seemed to express a common concern that the college should provide the best possible Gomprehensive student personnel program. , 8. The Inventory of Selected College Services used in con- junction with the small—group interview technique is a successful ‘. method for'examining and describing the perceptions of student per- 7 sonnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect ~25 to the effectiveness of a student personnel program on a given college mus . THE PERCEPTIONS OF «$231414? NT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS, FACULTY MEMBERS, “' “hm STUDENTS OF THE STUDENT PERSONNEL PROGRAMS ; . OF THE SENIOR COLLEGES or . o" t ' ‘3 a, . THE AMERICAN LUTHERAN CHURCH By 1,0 15 Glen E. Peterson A THESIS I Submitted to 'Michigan State University I in partial fulfillment of the requirements " for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1968 of his] ’. ‘p 'T I?" ‘1 It , I martin: ‘I- ‘I I I Copyright by Glen E. Peterson 1968 _ College Pa‘ ‘ a. ‘ -. :1 m Ed‘tfl‘atim‘ ":41, 1.2', I_ .I ‘GUId-lhfc “id x. ' 'V' '- fine . I ill Glen Elster Peterson Candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Date of Examination: August 28, 1968 Dissertation: The Perceptions of Student Personnel Administrators, Faculty Members, and Students of the Student Person— nel Programs of the Senior Colleges of The American Lutheran Church Outline of Studies: Major Area - Higher Education; Student Personnel Admin— istration Cognate Area — Sociology Biographical Data: Birthdate — May 13, 1929, Worthington, South Dakota Undergraduate Studies - Augustana College, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Bachelor of Arts, 1950-1954 Luther Theological Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota, Bachelor of Divinity, 1955—1959 Graduate Studies - University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Master of Arts, Summers of 1957-1959 Membership: American Personnel and Guidance Association American College Personnel Association South Dakota Education Association (Life) South Dakota Guidance and Personnel Association Phi Delta Kappa iii r g ' ‘ I ' instructor in Armament Systems, U.S. Air Force, 1948-1950; “High School teacher and coach, Beaver Creek High School, ' ' Beaver Creek, Minnesota, 1954-1955; Dean of Men, teacher, coach, Augustana Academy, Canton, South Dakota, 1957-1958; Principal, teacher, coach, Augustana Academy, Canton, South Dakota, 1959-1963; Assistant Dean of Men, Director of Housing, Head Resident, Admissions Counselor, Coach, "Augustana College, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, 1963—1966; Teaching Assistant, Administrative Assistant, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1966—1968 iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer of this study gratefully recognizes the contribu— tions of others who were instrumental in producing this study. A debt of thanks is extended: To Dr. Eldon R. Nonnamaker for his wise counsel and direction given as Chairman of the Guidance Committee, and who was most willing to interrupt a very busy schedule to open new hori- zons of learning. To Dr. Walter F. Johnson, Dr. William E. Sweetland, and Dr. James R. Hundley, Jr. , who extended the author's vision in the classroom, in Committee decisions, and through many informal associations. To Dr. Max R. Raines who provided a model instrument with which to conduct this study as well as some creative insights for developing this research project. To Dr. James W. Costar whose encouragement and counsel was extended so often throughout this program. To all who participated in the study at each of the ten cam- puses: the Dean of Students and staff, the faculty members, the students, and the secretaries who willingly burdened themselves with all the details for implementing the study. This study would not have become a reality without the total cooperation, enthusiasm, and assistance given by the senior colleges and the Board of Educa- tion of The American Lutheran Church. And to Irene, Angela, and Renee who were willing to make 80me significant sacrifices to share in this undertaking. This hus- band and father simply says: "Thank you so very much. " TABLE OF CONTENTS Page .I.:ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................. v ULISTOFTABLES . LIST OF APPENDICES I ., Chapter 0 Q" A I. THE PROBLEM H Introduction . . . Statement of the Problem . Objectives of the Study . Definition of Terms Limitations of the Study ‘Overview of the Study dehIhI-o .11 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . 10 The Need for Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Studies Relating to Evaluation of Student Personnel Services. . . . . . . . . . 12 ‘ 23 ,,;~j5?fk‘fiiiitroduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 >._. Sample 25 I‘ ['Biltrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 . .--._, .3: '"Cbllection of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 ‘ ‘.2AnalyzmgtheData. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 ‘ E’reuntationofData. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Chapter Page IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 37 Basic Services for a Comprehensive Student Personnel Program . . . . . . . 37 Perceptions of Student Personnel Admin— istrators, Faculty Members, and Students Regarding the Student Person—- . nel Services . . . . . . . . . 38 ‘ College One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 College Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 College Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 College Four . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 College Five . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 19 College Six . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 College Seven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 College Eight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 College Nine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 College Ten . . . . . . . 190 A Comparison of the Student Personnel Services Among the Ten Colleges . . . . . . . 210 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . 224 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 Procedure of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 Conclusions of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 226 Implications for Further Research . . . . . . . 228 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 vii -"’V - Tab 16 3-1 LIST OF TABLE S Page Student personnel administrators, faculty mem- bers, and students of the senior colleges of The American Lutheran Church who completed the Inventory of Selected College Services listed by sex.......................32 The basic student personnel services which should encompass a comprehensive student personnel program at The American Lutheran Church senior colleges as agreed upon by the Deans of Students forthesecolleges................ 39 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Pre-College Information ServiceatCollegel 43 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Academic Advisory Service atCollegel..........'.........47 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Off— Campus Housing Service atCollegel........... ....50 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Food and Dining Service at Collegel....................52 viii Tab 1e 46 o Need for implementing Health Educative Service as perceived by the student personnel adminis- trators, faculty members, and students at College 1 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Health Educative Service at College 1 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Health Clinical Service at College 1 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Counseling Service at College 1 Need for implementing Basic Skill Diagnostic Service as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College 1 Need for implementing Group Guidance Service as perceived by the student personnel adminis- trators, faculty members, and students at College 1 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Self-Government Service at College 1 . . . . . . Need for implementing Program Evaluation Service as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and stu- dents at College 1 Page 53 54 55 57 58 59 60 63 ..- Table 4, 14 4.19 Need for implementing Foreign Student Service as perceived by the student personnel adminis- trators, faculty members, and students at College 1 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Testing Service at College 2 . A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Inductive Service at College2 ......... A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Academic Advisory Service at College 2 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Food and Dining Service at College 2 Need for implementing Health Educative Service as perceived by the student personnel adminis— trators, faculty members, and students at College 2 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Health Educative Service at College2 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope Page 64 66 68 70 73 74 75 Table Page and quality of the Health Clinical Service at College2.......... .....76 4 , 22 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Counseling Service at College2....................77 4. 2 3 Need for implementing Basic Skill Diagnostic Service as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students atCollegeZ...................78 4- 24 Need for irnpelementing Group Guidance Service as perceived by the student personnel adminis— trators, faculty members, and students at College2....................79 4:. 2 5 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Activities Service at College2....................80 4- 2 6 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Intramural Athletics Service atCollege2...................82 4- 27 Need for implementing Program Evaluation Service as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students atCollege2...................84 4- 2 8 A statistical comparison of student personnel I administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Pre- -College Information ServiceatCollege3 85 xi Table 4, 29 4- 30 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Financial Aid Service at College 3 . A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Inductive Service at College 3 Need for implementing Health Educative Service as perceived by the student personnel adminis— trators, faculty members, and students at College 3 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Health Clinical Service at College3............... Need for implementing Basic Skill Diagnostic Service as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College 3 Need for implementing Group Guidance Service as perceived by the student personnel adminis- trators, faculty members, and students at College 3 . . A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Religious Program Service atCollege3 . . . . . . . A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope Page 87 88 90 91 93 93 94 Table Page and quality of the Intramural Athletics Service atCollege3...................96 Need for implementing Foreign Student Service as perceived by the student personnel adminis- trators, faculty members, and students at College3....................99 Need for implementing Program Evaluation Service as perceived by student personnel administrators, faculty members, and stu- dentsatCollege3 100 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Testing Service at College 4 . . . 102 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Financial Aid Service at College4.................... 104 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Inductive Service at College4.................... 105 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Academic Advisory Service atCollege4................... 107 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Campus Housing Service at College4................-.... 108 xiii Table 4, 44 4. 49 Need for implementing Health Educative Service as perceived by the student personnel adminis- trators, faculty members, and students at College 4 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Health Clinical Service at College4 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Self-Government Service at College 4 . A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Intramural Athletics Service at College 4 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Placement Service at College 4 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Pre-College Information Service at College 5 . . . . . . A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Testing Service at College 5 . A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students Page 110 112 115 116 118 120 122 Table Page with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Financial Aid Service at College 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 4, 52 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Inductive Service at College5.................... 125 4- 53 Need for implementing Off-Campus Housing Service as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students atCollege5................... 126 4. 54 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Food and Dining Service at CollegeS.................... 127 4. 55 Need for implementing Health Educative Service as perceived by the student personnel adminis- trators, faculty members, and students at College5.................... 129 4t- 5 6 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Counseling Service at College5.................... 130 4- 57 Need for implementing Basic Skill Diagnostic Service as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students atCollege5...................131 Need for implementing Group Guidance Service as perceived by the student personnel adminis- trators, faculty members, and students at College5.................... 132 XV Table 4, 59 4. 64 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Activities Service at College 5 Need for implementing Campus Protection Service as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College 5 Need for implementing Foreign Student Service as perceived by the student personnel adminis— trators, faculty members, and students at College 5 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Academic Advisory Service at College 6 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Campus Housing Service at College6 . . . . . . . A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Off- Campus Housing Service atCollege6 .. A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Food and Dining Service at College6 . Need for implementing Health Educative Service as perceived by the student personnel Page 133 134 136 138 140 142 143 I I Table 4. 67 4. 68 4.71 administrators, faculty members, and students at College 6 Need for implementing Basic Skill Diagnostic Service as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College 6 Need for implementing Group Guidance Service as perceived by the student personnel adminis- trators, faculty members, and students at College 6 . . Need for implementing Foreign Student Service as perceived by the student personnel adminis— trators, faculty members, and students at College 6 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Self—Government Service at College 6 . . . . . A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Campus Protection Service at College 6 A statistical comparison of student. personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Financial Aid Service at College 7 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Registration Service at College 7 xvii Page 145 146 147 147 149 150 153 155 Table A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Off- Campus Housing Service atCollege7 . .. A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Food and Dining Service at College 7 Need for implementing Health Educative Service as perceived by the student personnel adminis— trators, faculty members, and students at College 7 , A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Counseling Service at College 7 Need for implementing Foreign Student Service as perceived by the student personnel adminis— trators, faculty members, and students at College 7 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Intramural Athletics Service at College 7 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Inductive Service at College 8 . A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students xviii Page 157 158 160 161 163 168 Table 4. 83 4. 85 with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Campus Housing Service at College 8 . A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Food and Dining Service at College 8 Need for implementing Health Educative Service as perceived by the student personnel adminis- trators, faculty members, and students at College 8 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Basic Skill Diagnostic Service atCollege8 ...... Need for implementing Group Guidance Service as perceived by the student personnel adminis- trators, faculty members, and students at College 8 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Financial Aid Service at College 9 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Inductive Service at College9 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Academic Advisory Service at College9 xix Page 170 171 172 175 176 180 182 183 Table 4. 89 4. 90 4. 92 4. 94 4. 95 4. 96 Need for implementing Health Educative Service as perceived by the student personnel adminis- trators, faculty members, and students at College 9 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Counseling Service at College 9 Need for implementing Basic Skill Diagnostic Service as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College 9 Need for implementing Group Guidance Service as perceived by the student personnel adminis- trators, faculty members, and students at College 9 . . Need for implementing Foreign Student Service as perceived by the student personnel adminis- trators, faculty members, and students at College 9 Need for implementing Program Evaluation Service as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College 9 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Pre-College Information Service at College 10 . . . . . . . A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Inductive Service at College 10 . XX Page 184 185 186 187 188 189 191 193 ‘I d Is. Table 4.99 4. 100 4. 101 4.102 4. 103 4.104 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Academic Advisory Service at College 10 . . . A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Campus Housing Service at College 10. . . . . . Need for implementing Off—Campus Housing Service as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College 10. . . A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Food and Dining Service at College 10 . . Need for implementing Health Educative Service as perceived by the student personnel adminis— trators, faculty members, and students at College 10 . A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Health Clinical Service at CollegelO. A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Counseling Service at College 10 . Need for implementing Basic Skill Diagnostic Service as perceived by the student personnel xxi Page 195 196 198 199 200 201 202 Table Page administrators, faculty members, and students atCollegelO................... 203 4. 105 Need for implementing Group Guidance Service as perceived by the student personnel adminis— trators, faculty members, and students at CollegelO.................... 204 4. 106 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Self-Government ServiceatCollege10.. .. . . . . . . . .. . . 205 4. 107 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Religious Program Service atCollege10................... 206 4. 108 A statistical comparison of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Campus Protection Service at CollegelO.................... 208 4. 109 Need for iInplementing Vehicle Regulatory Service as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students atCollege10209 4. 110 Composite mean score ratings by the student personnel administrators, faculty, and students with respect to the Scope of the student person— nel services provided by The American Lutheran Church senior colleges listed by college . . . . . . 212 4' 111 Composite mean score ratings by the student personnel administrators, faculty, and students with respect to the Quality of the student person— nel services provided by The American Lutheran Church senior colleges listed by college . . . . . . 216 xii Table Page 4. 112 Total percentage of all respondents (student personnel administrators, faculty, and students) from The American Lutheran Church senior colleges who perceived a Need for implementing the student personnel services at their college, listed by college . . . . . . . . . 219 xxiii Appendix A. B. LIST OF APPENDICES Inventory of Selected College Services Basic Services of a Comprehensive Student Personnel Program for The American Lutheran Church Senior Colleges . Letters and Forms for Project Colleges . IBM 1230 Scoring Sheet Supplementary Data for Project Colleges xx iv Page 239 280 283 295 297 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction According to Gardner, 1 American institutions of higher edu— cation have had a long history of providing certain phases of non- instructional services for its students. As one segment of the higher education scene, the liberal arts college has focused considerable attention upon the provision of student personnel services. Arbuckle and Kauffman stress that: . no type of institution of higher learning has a greater need or is better suited for the fullest student personnel program than the liberal arts college. . . . it is concerned with learning and growth per—se, rather than the cultivation of a specialized skill or utilitarian goals. Its curriculum, particularly in general education, is aimed at broadening dimensions of outlook, under- Standing one' s heritage, and developing one' s capabilities to the fullest extent. During the past two decades, the church-affiliated liberal arts COlleges have experienced vastly increased enrollments. \ U _ I 1Donfred H. Gardner, Student Personnel Services (Chicago: “Wersity of Chicago Press, 1936), p. 1. 2Dugald S. Arbuckle and Joseph F. Kauffman, "Student Per- :mmel Services in Liberal Arts Colleges, " Personnel and Guidance £1911. Vol. 38 (December, 1960), p. 296. .Au 'J—V Administrators have developed student personnel programs to accom- modate the demands required of enlarged student communities. In many cases these programs have just unfolded in response to the growing "bigness" of the once small and struggling provincial "school of the church" rather than developing as a result of thorough research and evaluation of the college' s student personnel program. A review of recent literature in the field of student person- nel Work reveals that very little research is being conducted by or for the traditional church—affiliated liberal arts colleges. Further- more, there is no indication that any comprehensive study of the St“dent personnel programs of The American Lutheran Church senior colleges has been made except for a minor survey of the counseling s'P-Jt'vices. 3 During the year 1967, and continuing through 1970, there Will be greater emphasis placed upon the important role which the Program of Christian Higher Education is accorded by The Ameri- Can Lutheran Church at large. During this period of time, the people of the church will be challenged through a promotion of the Lutheran Ingathering For Education (LIFE) program which has been deSigned to achieve four objectives: \ 3Alvah P. Byers, "A Study of Counseling Services in the Colleges of The American Lutheran Church, ” An Individual Research Project, University of North Dakota, 1964, 39 pp. 1. To strengthen the church' 5 sense of unity through the first church-wide challenge——except for the annual benevolence program-~it has faced since its formation in 1961. 2. To awaken the members of the ALC to a strong sense of appreciation for and responsibility to the church' 8 educa- tional institutions and ministry. 3. To create among the members of the academic communities of the ALC a deeper sense of concern for and responsibility to the church of which they are an educational arm. 4. To provide financial resources of "more than $20, 000, 000” to place on each campus a new, major teaching facility and strengthen the campus ministry as a tangible evidence of the strong relationship between church and school. These colleges' record of service to the educational needs Of The American Lutheran Church youth as well as other students attending these institutions is marked by a century of rich and varied tradition. The first one, Capital University at Columbus, Ohio, was f0lllnded in 1850, while the youngest member of this enterprise, Cali- fOI‘nia Lutheran College at Thousand Oaks, California, was estab- lished in 1959. The motivating philosophy of Christian Higher Education f°r The American Lutheran Church is reflected in part by one of its recent college graduates: "I believe that the environment provided by a Christian liberal arts education is essential to the continued \ 4What LIFE Is All About, " statement printed by the Board or College Education, The American Lutheran Church, 1967. .. h\h vitality of the church. "5 The LIFE program is giving a renewed sense of importance to the collegiate institutions of The American Lutheran Church. Because no comprehensive study of the student personnel programs in these colleges has been made, it is appro— priate to examine these programs and their impact upon student life at these institutions. Statement of the Problem It is the purpose of this study to determine the basic nature 0f the student personnel programs for the senior colleges of The American Lutheran Church, and to make a comparative analysis of certain selected student personnel services as perceived by the basic slindent personnel administration staff, faculty members, and the Students at each of these colleges. Objectives of the Study The major objective of this study is to obtain information about the perceptions held by the student personnel administrators, 1Faculty members, and students with respect to selected student per- 8°nnel services at the senior colleges of The American Lutheran \ 5Andrew B. Boe, "Why A Christian Liberal Arts Education?" Meme Facing Our Church Colleges, Division of College Educa- tion, The American Lutheran Church (series of articles appearing in Greater Works), P. 31- Church. This data can be used to evaluate these student personnel programs. The study is designed to answer the following questions: 1. What basic student personnel services do the Deans of Students feel should be included in a comprehensive student person- nel program for senior colleges of The American Lutheran Church? 2. What are the scope and quality of the student personnel services as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students of each senior college of The Ameri— can Lutheran Church? 3. Do the student personnel administrators, faculty mem- bers, and students of the senior colleges of The American Lutheran Church have differing perceptions of these selected student personnel sEI‘vices‘?‘ 4. Is there a need for the implementation of any additional Student personnel services at any of the senior colleges of The Anierican Lutheran Church? Definition of Terms Student Personnel Services. -- Student personnel services have been characterized by several writers in the field as including: . not only those processes and functions which emphasize the intellectual, social, emotional, cultural, and physical development of the individual, but also those which help build curriculums, improve methods of instruction, and develop ..... .. , . .._ .e . ,_ .- “\ .... -. . tr- ~‘I‘. 0.. l _ ..-. \ - ~ ..... I., “ I A Q. h7.\ u~ \ “\ . , e g. ... .. U. _ -. u o— "a. y. \ ‘ r \ so so leadership programs. Student personnel work complements as well as supplements the instructional program in the total devel- opment of the individual. Perception. —- A perception refers to the importance allo- cated to, and, the conscious opinion and knowledge which the respon- dent has regarding the student personnel services. In this study, perceptions are determined both by personal experience as well as secondary sources of information about the student personnel ser- vices, Basic Student Personnel Administrative Staff. -- The basic Stildent personnel administrative staff included in this study will be the staff members at each institution who perform the functions of the following roles: Vice-president for Student Affairs, Dean of Stu- dents, Dean of Men, Dean of Women, Campus Chaplain, Assistant Dean of Men, Assistant Dean of Women, Director of Admissions, Director of Counseling, Director of Financial Aids, Director of Food Service, Director of Foreign Students, Director of Health Service, Director of Housing, Director of Intramural Athletics, Director of Placement, Director of Student Activities, Director of the Student Union, Director of Testing, and the Registrar. Some of these posi- tiOns are combined into one job description at certain institutions \ 6Willard W. Blaesser and Barnes B. Crookston, "Student Personnel Work--College and University, " Encyclopedia of Educa- tional Research, ed. C. W. Harris (New York: MacMillan Com- Pany, 1960), p. 1415. vv"t‘ u. -. .,.,a \ -1 .4 .,,. \ _ .~... ---._‘ ‘e. “- included in this study. It should be noted also that some of these positions are not included as a part of the official student personnel program in the administrative structure of these institutions. Need for Implementing a Student Personnel Service. -- Re— spondents who perceive that the college does not offer a particular student personnel service listed in the questionnaire are asked to determine the extent of the need for the service to be made available for students at that college. Scope of a Student Personnel Service. -— The scope of a ser“\rice means the range or extent to which a specific service is available for students at that college as perceived by the student Personnel administrators, faculty members, and students of that C011ege. Quality of a Student Personnel Service. —- The quality of a sEI'vice means the degree of excellence to which a specific service is performed for students at that college as perceived by the student Pergonnel administrators, faculty members, and students of that c'Dllege . Limitations of the Study Any conclusions that may be projected from this study should be interpreted in the light of limitations that apply to this research: A I 1. This study is limited by factors inherent in the use of any questionnaire. These include the difficulties in securing com— plete cooperation of the sample selected, the bias and interest of the respondents, the time involved in completing the instruments, and the fact that some individuals may be unable to adequately reflect their true perceptions of the student personnel services. The tape- recorded group interviews will attempt to gain some in-depth under— standing of the responses given through the questionnaire. 2. Personal visits to all colleges involved in the study will be helpful in providing an appraisal of each student personnel pro- gram, but the amount of time spent at each college will be too re— strictive. Personal knowledge of some of the programs and people ierolved in the study as well as accessibility of information prior to each campus visitation will help to reduce this limitation. 3. The findings of this research project are limited to the Senior colleges of The American Lutheran Church. However, one of the purposes of this study is to provide another effective means for evaluating college student personnel programs. Other institutions of higher learning using the same method and instrumentation may find this to be very useful in researching their student personnel programs, eVen though the obtained results will always reflect the uniqueness 0f the institution involved. A...” . It. “I u ,. lens. 0 _ Luau-o. . u- A Overview of the Study ,This study is developed in a format of five chapters. In ‘ r‘II the literature relevant to this study is reviewed. A de- ‘riifir I «1 report of the methodology used in the development of the in- T Monte and the procedures of analyzing the data are contained in , yWer III. The findings of the study are reported in Chapter IV " iii the conclusions and implications for further study appear in .' . A.” :J ‘ 1,. o ,I J I l u N" 's TIT "_.-I ~ ._. \ g r \ ' " I... _ . a': ., . -...: ‘ ’ Q . H u...» ... ‘p. u. .. w W‘ ‘1‘.“ I» .‘ ...‘: O ' I! . L.“ . . 1.“! .‘.- . I- I— h "u r»_ ~d : ‘4 Ll' CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The Need for Evaluation One of the repeated concerns expressed in the literature in the field of student personnel work is the need for evaluation to as- 8688 the effectiveness of student personnel services. Wrenn defined evaluation as: . a particularized form of research. The distinctive char- acteristic of evaluation is the establishment of criteria against which the performance of the function is measured or judged. Almost any method of research may be employed but evaluation must always be against criteria. Williamson emphasized that there is a need for evaluation 1:0 determine the extent to which the objectives of the student person- nel program are being achieved: No program can continue to develop in step with increases in related knowledge without such evaluation. It is the mark of an effective program and of effective staff work when personnel workers are interested in constant evaluations of their efforts. . . . Such evaluation may take the form of informal spot checking; it may involve systematic collection of opinions and reactions of student clients; or it may take the form of \ 7C. Gilbert Wrenn, Student Personnel Work in College (New YOrk: Ronald Press Company, 1951), pp. 476-477. 10 T95 .. 11 objective and controlled experimentation, using quantified cri- teria of changes in the behavior of self-percept of the individual student . Two basic reasons were given by Arbuckle indicating the need for continuous evaluation of student personnel services offered by any institution of higher education: No professional worker can accept as the truth anything that 1. has not stood the test of scientific logic. . as a matter of professional ethics no personnel worker can be satisfied with what he does unless there is valid evidence to indicate the positive effect of his labors. 2. If personnel workers cannot give some valid evidence to indicate the positive effects of their services, then those who pay for the services are naturally going to question their continuance. Lloyd-J ones and Smith supported the contention that evalua- tion should be a cooperative endeavor since "it is important that all those involved should be consulted and given an opportunity to con- tribute their ideas. "10 8E. G. Williamson, Student Personnel Services in Colleges and Universities (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961), P- 131. 9Dugald S. Arbuckle, Student Personnel Work in Higher Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1953), pp. 9- W‘— 10Esther Lloyd-Jones and Margaret Smith, Student Per- .?g\11‘nel Work as Deeper Teaching (New York: Harper and Brothers, 54f pp. 324-325. .o— ,_ . u-~ -\ .._~ Ill According to Pattillo and MacKenzie, one of the marks of a quality institution is "self-criticism": A good college is constantly striving to improve its program. It uses the best techniques that have been developed for apprais— ing educational results. . . . It gathers systematic evidence regarding the impact of its program on its students. 1 One of the very positive features of the attitude found in the professional student personnel worker today is his increased aware- ness of the need for evaluative studies. According to Feder and Sillers, this may very well be: . . a sign of increased security of student personnel workers in the higher education complex. It also appears to be a corre— late of the increased numbers of professionally prepared persons who have entered the field in the last decade. With professional preparation, inevitably they would tend to question the validity of practices which are neither based on data nor pragmatically evaluated . Studies Relating to Evaluation of Student Personnel Services Blaesser13 reported that the first nationwide survey of stu- dent personnel programs was sponsored by the American Council on 11Manning M. Pattillo and Donald M. MacKenzie, Church- Msored Higher Education in the United States (Report of the Dan- fc>I‘th Commission) (Washington, D. C. : American Council on Edu- cation, 1966), p. 68. 12Daniel-D. Feder and Daniel J. Sillers, ”Non—instructional Egb‘rices," Review of Educational Research, Vol. 30, 1960, pp. 361- 0 . 13Blaesser and Crookston, loc. cit. IP‘ . o .-- -7 ~ 7 a 1.. 1.- \- .— ..N \ us.’ v‘oe o ‘v. ._ ,u— .1 _"‘r <. n.‘ ’— ._... ‘v-..‘ 5. ‘ . l ‘\-4 ... , a 7"” H.” _ ”H. l- " 7‘ r- y.‘ W 9.. ,- vn ‘ h.‘ \~. .H‘ a .254 a..“-~' ,'~Lr-.. \. -.',.. u . ~-. t“. * ! .,_"‘“1 . ‘s 1 “u - l‘h ’ . . . . Ar it ~ . 13 Education in 1925 under the direction of L. B. Hopkins. In visiting fourteen colleges and universities, he rated their performance of twenty student personnel services. 14 In 1932 a point scale was de- veloped by Brumbaugh and Smith15 to evaluate ten student personnel services. When the North Central Association of Colleges and Secon— dary Schools employed Gardner to make a study of fifty—seven of its institutions in 1935, 16 it signaled the interest and need for establish- ing evaluative criteria for student personnel programs by the regional accrediting agencies. This study investigated the extent to which provisions for student personnel services were associated with edu- cational excellence. In checking a weighted system of evaluating eleven different services against the score card system of Brumbaugh and Smith, 17 a significant coefficient correlation of .87 was found. Gardner concluded that it is possible to analyze the provisions for 14L. B. Hopkins, ”Personnel Procedures in Education: Oilser'vations and Conclusions from Visits to Fourteen Institutions of ngher Learning," Educational Record Supplement, Vol. 7 (1926), PP. 1-96. 15A. J. Brumbaugh and L. C. Smith, "A Point Scale for Evaluating Personnel Work in Institutions of Higher Learning, " Lelisious Education, Vol. 27 (1932), pp. 230-235. 16Gardner, loc. cit. 17Brumbaugh and Smith, loc. cit. ..¢‘ vv .. ..4 ‘1 c.,, .-, 14 student personnel services as being a valuable index of overall insti- tutional excellence. An example of the North Central Association' 8 present-day concern for the evaluation of student personnel services was found in the Quarterly report: Is student life on the campus well-balanced and educationally meaningful? The general effect of the student personnel pro- gram will be reflected in the attitudes and action of the faculty, student personnel staff and students.1 In 1949 the American Council on Education tant criteria for the evaluation of student personnel programs: 1. Students' expression of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the services should be received. These expressions may be informally collected or may be gathered systematically. Obviously, such expressions need to be critically evaluated in terms of the total situation. 2. Expressions of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the pro— gram by members of the teaching staff should be elicited. Such expressions need to be evaluated also. 3. There should be continuous improvement in the profes- sional training and professional status of members of the personnel staff through additional formal training, experi- ence, committee assignments and other local, regional and national recognition. 4. There should be a quality of interpersonal relationships and cooperation between personnel workers and members of the instructional and non-instructional staffs, and among per- sonnel specialists themselves. 18North Central Association Quarterly, Vol. XXXIX, Sum- mer, 1964, No. 1, p. 18. 9American Council on Education, The Student Personnel Point of View, Series VI, No. 13, 1949, p. 18. E 0' ‘ I...» . .. -o Q i .l\1~~—l -' v\ u — a" _ U. 1.... ~;“':’v-v- 15 Surveys during the 1940' s were sponsored by the Western Personnel Institute which serves the eleven western states. One such study in 1948, used the sixteen student personnel services delineated by the 1937 American Council on Education' 8 Student Personnel Point of View to examine how many services were being provided in thirty member schools. 20 All but one of the institutions expressed a need for more extensive evaluation of their student per- sonnel services. Some of the earliest reported studies of overall institutional effectiveness of student personnel services included one at Ohio State in 1931, 21 and the Williamson-Sarbin study22 of the University of Minnesota in 1940. One of the most recent attempts to develop a systematic approach toward evaluation of student personnel programs on a large scale was introduced in 1953 by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. The Evaluation Aids23 manual and 0Blaesser and Crookston, loc. cit. 21Ibid. 22 . . . E. G. W1111amson and T. R. Sarbin, Student Personnel Work in the University of Minnesota (Minneapolis: Burgess Publish- ing Company, 1940), 115 pp. 3National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Commission of Program and Practice Evaluation, "Report of the Com- mission of Program and Practice and Evaluation" (Washington: The Association, 1953), pp. 139-173. 1,. s... 16 instrument was unique in its flexibility of evaluating twenty different student personnel services in both small and large institutions. Its value may be questioned because no reports of its use was substan- tiated in the literature by 1960. 24 Kamm and Wrenn 5 developed an evaluation instrument to be used by student personnel administrators. Later they provided a companion form, the ”Inventory of Student Reaction to Student Per- sonnel Services, "26 to secure a more comprehensive evaluation of the services. A slight modification of this evaluation instrument was used by Braileyz7 in his study of the student personnel services at six urban universities. Both the Kamm and Wrenn instruments were used by Pershing28 in establishing criteria for evaluating the student 4 Blaesser and Crookston, loc. cit. 25Robert B. Kamm and C. Gilbert Wrenn, ”An Inventory of Student Reactions to Student Personnel Services, " Mimeographed Manual (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1950). 26Robert B. Kamm, ”An Inventory of Student Reaction to Student Personnel Services, " Educational and Psychological Mea- surements, Vol. 10 (1950), pp. 537-544. 27Lester G. Brailey, "The Effectiveness of Student Per- sonnel Services in Certain Urban Universities" (unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburg, 1952). 28John J. Pershing, ”The Student Personnel Program of Georgia Tech--An Evaluation" (unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Indiana, 1952). .. .2 o ., u.. .., I on -.. eh. .5... A, w 1,, e. a” 'v -. 17 personnel program at Georgia. Institute of Technology. Brantley29 used Kamm and Wrenn' s "An Inventory of Student Personnel Services” to analyze both the student and the student personnel staff percep- tions of twelve student personnel services at Clark College. When Shigley30 used the same instrument for evaluating the student per- sonnel services at Marion College, he found there was a need for better communication between the student personnel administrators and the students and faculty. He also found that faculty members who were in a position to do the most about making improvements in the personnel services were much more satisfied with the present program than were other faculty members. Rackham31 constructed a ”Student Personnel Services In- ventory" to measure fifteen services which produced a theoretical or "ideal" profile in order that an institution can visualize its com- parative ratings. This Inventory was refined from 848 items to 328 29Edward J. Brantley, "A Study of the Student Personnel Program at Clark College" (unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Uni- versity of Colorado, 1960). 30E. Harold Shigley, "An Evaluation of Student Personnel Services at Marion College" (unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Indiana, 1958). 31Eric Rackham, "Determination of Criteria for the Evalu- ation of Student Personnel Services in Institutions of Higher Learn- ing" (unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1951). 18 by Hage32 with a resulting correlation of . 96 between the two instru- ments. In addition to administering this instrument to student per- sonnel administrators at nineteen Kansas colleges, he also used the interview method to secure his data. A study of both the student and faculty reactions to twelve student personnel services performed at four Minnesota colleges was conducted by Mahler. 33 To validate his "Student Personnel Services Inventory, " Mahler obtained an independent rating by comparing it with the Rackham Inventory. He also conducted personal interviews with the student personnel workers at these four institutions. During the 1940's and 1950's numerous studies of student personnel program effectiveness incorporated the use of the Mooney Problem Check List. Parrott34 used a student questionnaire along with the Check List to investigate student perceptions of their per— sonal problems as well as knowledge of the student personnel ser- vices available to them. He found differences in perceptions between 32Robert S. Hage, "A Revision of the Rackham Student Per- sonnel Services Inventory" (unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Uni- versity of Iowa, 1957). 33Clarence A. Mahler, "A Study of Student and Faculty Re- actions to Student Personnel Work" (unpublished Doctoral Disserta- tion, University of Minnesota, 1955). 4Leslie Parrott, "A Study of Student Personnel Services in Six Liberal Arts Colleges" (unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1958). 19 the students and the faculty. In addition to reviewing the printed mate- rials produced by each of these six church-affiliated liberal arts col- leges, he also conducted personal interviews with administrators and faculty members so that he could more fully understand the under— girding philosophy of their student personnel programs. A replication of Parrott' s study using the same two forms to assess student reaction to the student personnel services offered at one Michigan college was executed by Harry. 35 He also secured faculty perceptions of the program by administering two question— naires to them. The student personnel staff completed Wrenn and Kamm' 8 ”Evaluation Report Form for Student Personnel Services. " In her study of the teaching faculty at Michigan State Uni- versity, Fitzgerald36 sought to determine their perceptions of the student personnel services. She not only developed a questionnaire which would be applicable to any institution of higher learning, but her study also attempted to increase more effective communication and understanding between the academic staff and the student 35Ormsby L. Harry, ”A Study of Student Personnel Services at Michigan College of Mining and Technology" (unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1960). 36Laurine E. Fitzgerald, "A Study of Faculty Perceptions of Student Personnel Services" (unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1959). 20 37 personnel staff, Shaffer would support this approach since he has concluded that faculty perceptions of student personnel services are intimately related to faculty knowledge of and involvement in these services. In her study, Fitzgerald found that: In general, the faculty responses indicate that Student Person- nel Services functions are recognized as having importance for the achievement of the philosophy and purposes of higher educa- tion. The degree of importance accorded these functions is, to some extent, dependent upon the nature of the service. . . . Faculty members who work closely with student organizations are more favorable in their perceptions of the importance of student personnel services functions for higher education, and they indicate that these services are accomplished in a more satisfactory and outstanding manner than is expressed by faculty personnel not working closely with student groups. Fitzgerald's "Student Personnel Questionnaire" has been further validated by Rankin, 39 Ross, 40 and Tamte41 in their studies of college student personnel programs. Ross42 concluded that 37Robert H. Shaffer, "Problems of Communication of the Expanding College Campus, " Journal of the National Association of Women Deans and Counselors, Vol. 22, 1959, pp. 56-60. 38Fitzgerald, loc. cit. 39Gary E. Rankin, "Graduating Seniors' Perceptions of the Student Personnel Services at Colorado State College" (unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Colorado State College, 1966). 0Margaret Ann Ross, "Administration, Faculty and Student Personnel Workers' Evaluation of Student Personnel Functions" (unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio University, 1967). 41James Tamte, "How Faculty, Student Personnel Workers 9nd Students Perceive Services at the University of Denver" (unpub- 11Shed Doctoral Dissertation, University of Denver, 1964). 42Ross, loc. cit. Ava-v v‘ .a I v —.~ _ . ‘I. H e..' . i q n~.,,'. n u..‘ A.“ ”L“. .~.~.‘, .r"»~. . ' .- _..~.,.‘ ‘5’..- ‘ ‘1’ III . __~ - I' v; . ....._ u. , .‘-. c...“‘ ; ‘0 ». ’v-1 2“ _ F “4“ ." "p L. .- V»- u. » N. 21 communication should be promoted among administrators, faculty members and student personnel workers to obtain a better under- standing of the purposes of the student personnel program. It was also recommended that there should be a greater effort to further involve the faculty in the student personnel program. A revised form of Fitzgerald' s instrument was adapted by Zimmerman‘i3 for his study of student perceptions of the student personnel services at Michigan State University. For his sample of fifty seniors from the Class of 1962, he used a semistandardized interview. He concluded that more should be done to make students aware of the fact that these services are available for them. He also found that students desired to be more fully involved and responsible in the areas of student activities, student conduct and housing. A study of the perceptions of student personnel administra- tors and college administrators at sixteen small liberal arts colleges in the midwest was pursued by Scott. 44 He found evidence that all of these institutions had a great need for evaluating the effectiveness of their student personnel programs. 43Elwyn E. Zimmerman, "Student Perceptions of Student Personnel Services at Michigan State University" (unpublished Doc- tOral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963). . 44William L. Scott, "A Study of Student Personnel Services In. Small Liberal Arts Colleges" (unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, M1 Chigan State University, 1959). 22 A nationwide Carnegie-sponsored study of Junior Colleges was directed by Raines45 to determine criteria for evaluating these programs. In a recent study of the student personnel program at Alfred College in New York, Raines administered these same two instruments, the "Inventory of Selected College Functions" and the "Inventory of Staff ReSponses" to the student personnel staff. Fac- ulty and students were included in the study and were given a modi— fied version of the "Inventory of Selected College Functions. " Some of the faculty and students participated in small-group interviews so that the researchers could gain some in-depth understanding of the responses to the questionnaire. Bradley46 used the same instru- ments to make a study of the community and state colleges in Wash- ington. Further use of Raines' instruments were involved in a recent study‘l'7 of the student personnel program at Eastern Illinois 45American Association of Junior Colleges, Junior College Student Personnel Programs, A Report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York, November, 1965, Prepared by the Committee on Ap- praisal and DevelOpment of Junior College Student Personnel Pro- grams (Washington: The American Association of Junior Colleges, 1965). 46Harry Leonard Bradley, "An Analysis of Student Person- nel Programs in the Community and State Colleges of Washington" (unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Washington State University, 1967). 47James D. Corey, "Evaluation of the Implementation of Selected Student Services at Eastern Illinois University and Implica- none. for Program Modifications" (unpublished paper for NDEA Coun- S"aling and Guidance Institute, Michigan State University, 1967-68). f‘ ...- ,c‘ u u. n s . ’- lt.“ H e . \v._ “L. ._ , .I‘ ‘. i 23 University. Instruments used in the Carnegie study were modified and adapted for this study of the student personnel programs of The American Lutheran Church senior colleges. The Danforth Foundation study49 of 817 church—affiliated colleges and universities revealed that very little comprehensive research of student personnel programs in these institutions has been accomplished. This study has recommended that research of this type should receive some priority within these institutions and therefore has provided some motivation for the development of this study. Summary In this chapter a review of the pertinent literature regard- ing evaluation of student personnel programs has been investigated. Supporting evidence indicated that institutions must give high priority to the evaluation of student personnel services. This is essential so that each college may assess the degree to which program objec- tives are being maintained. According to the literature, several techniques and instru— ments have been developed and used to evaluate student personnel 48See Appendix A. 49Pattillo and Mackenzie, loc. cit. 24 programs. Some have sought to determine the perception of student personnel program effectiveness primarily from one vantage point-- the student personnel administrative staff, or the faculty, or the stu- dents. But very little effort has been spent in assessing the percep— tions of all three groups. Such a study which involves all three groups' perceptions of the student personnel programs of The Ameri- can Lutheran Church senior colleges will be helpful in ascertaining the program effectiveness. In Chapter III the design and methodology of the study will be discussed in depth. 4“ an» CHAPTER III PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY Introduction The major objective of this research study was to analyze the perceptions held by students, faculty members and student per- sonnel administrators of selected student personnel services at the senior colleges of The American Lutheran Church. This chapter is concerned with the composition of the sample, the instrumentation used in the study, the method used for collecting the data, and the procedures used for analyzing the data. Sample The population of this study consisted of the basic student personnel administrative staffs, the faculty members, and the stu- dents at the eleven senior colleges of The American Lutheran Church during the 1967-68 academic year. These four-year colleges, oper- ated under the guidance of the Board of College Education of The American Lutheran Church with headquarters in Minneapolis, Min- nesota, are located as follows: Augsburg College, Minneapolis, 25 26 Minnesota; Augustana College, Sioux Falls, South Dakota; California Lutheran College, Thousand Oaks, California; Capital University, Columbus, Ohio; Concordia College, Moorhead, Minnesota, Dana College, Blair, Nebraska; Luther College, Decorah, Iowa; Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma, Washington; St. Olaf College, North- field, Minnesota; Texas Lutheran College, Seguin, Texas; Wartburg College, Waverly, Iowa. Although Dana College elected not to be involved in the study, the other ten colleges agreed to participate after receiving and reviewing the research design of the project. Details of the research plan were spelled out by the project director at the joint biennial meeting of the student personnel staffs of these colleges held in November of 1967, at Capital University. The Board of College Education gave its endorsement to the study as well as underwriting the major financial obligations involved in the study. The sample of student personnel administrators included the staff members of each college who performed the functions of the following roles: Vice-President for Student Affairs, Dean of Students, Dean of Men, Dean of Women, Campus Chaplain, Assistant Dean of Men, Assistant Dean of Women, Director of Admissions, Director of Counseling, Director of Financial Aids, Director of Food Service, Director of Foreign Students, Director of Health Service, Director of Housing, Director of Intramural Athletics, Director of Placement, 27 Director of Student Activities, Director of the Student Union, Direc- tor of Testing, and the Registrar. Some of these positions are com- bined into one job description at certain institutions involved in this study. In some instances staff members were either absent at the time of the project director' 8 visit to the campus or else they elected not to participate in the study. The sample of faculty members from each college consisted of all the full-time faculty members at the participating institutions. A 5% stratified random sample of undergraduate students was selected separately from each college. Using a table of random numbers, this sample was stratified on the basis of classification, sex, and leadership, and was selected from the class lists which were prepared by each college during the first term of 1967-68. Instrumentation The first step involved in designing the instrument was the identification of the basic student personnel services which should be included in a comprehensive student personnel program for The American Lutheran Church senior colleges. The Deans of Students at these colleges were given a list50 of fifty-two student personnel services which are provided for college students today. They were 508cc Appendix B. .v 7"“ \ ....-- ‘ a.“ 1 o 4. -.. \ 5-4-4' 1 -¢ n ~.¢_ , ‘ ' N I a. re — u. .u. ’7‘— 1 ¢._’ . - ”wt-s .--_ Ia g~ u. 4 .' a e.‘ \ a». ._‘. .‘V ‘. o >.. a... -. \_~, .,\ l‘| . ~c 28 instructed to disregard the scope and structure of their present programs and to select those services which they felt should be provided by the colleges to best meet the needs of young people attending their institutions today. The list of services agreed upon by means of this survey became the basis for con- structing the Inventory of Selected College Services used in this study. The questionnaire developed for the original Carnegie study by Raines, 51 the "Inventory of Selected College Functions, " was modified so that it would be applicable for the study of stu- dent personnel programs of four-year institutions. After modi- fying the questionnaire, it was submitted to groups of under- graduate students at Michigan State University and Olivet College as well as to some doctoral students at Michigan State University. This field test provided valuable feedback regarding the communi- cation of ideas and the length of time required to complete it. The Inventory of Selected College Services52 contained thirty-three services or items in its final form. Listed below is an example of one item in the questionnaire: 1American Association of Junior Colleges, loc. cit. 52See Appendix A. 29 A. THE PRE-COLLEGE INFORMATION SERVICE: providing in- formation about the college to prospective students and others (parents, counselors, pastors, etc.) ..... preparing catalogs and brochures describing programs and requirements ..... answering requests for college information ..... etc. 5. If this service is £121 being done by the college, what need is there for it? If you do not answer this question, then proceed to question number 6. 1 No need 2 Needed a little 3. Needed moderately 4 Needed a lot (If you answered this question, then proceed to service "B") 6. If this service is being done by your college, how would you rate the scope of this service at the college? By scope we mean the range of Specific services available. 1. Very broad 2 . Broad 3. Adequate 4. Narrow 5. Very narrow 7. Regardless of the scope of this service, how would you rate the quality of this service at your college? 1. Very good 2 . Good 3. Average 4. Poor 5. Very poor 8. Have you made use of or been involved in this service at any time? 1. Yes 2. No The respondents were asked to consider each service in relationship to its use on their own campus. The cover sheet for 'hu‘“ ‘.'.-‘_ o,_ v ‘1 30 the questionnaire contained directions for completing it. The first four questions served as identification items for the respondents. Collection of the Data The feasibility of this study evolved from a meeting with some of the Deans of Students from these colleges who were in at- tendance at the annual National Association of Student Personnel Administrators convention in Cincinnati in April of 1967. Further contact was made with the Deans of Students from the eleven col- leges in October of 1967 by means of a letter which accompanied a copy of the research proposal. 53 As each college representative responded affirmatively to the invitation for involvement in the study, he was asked to provide the following: 1. A confirmation of satisfactory dates for conducting the research project on campus. 2. Lists of students by classes. 3. Lists of faculty members according to faculty rank. 4. A list of the basic student personnel staff. 5. An indication that necessary schedule arrangements and contact of student participants could be provided. 6. The name of the person who would serve as the project coordinator on campus to clear all arrangements. 53See Appendix C. v If) 0 ...c . . .9 .c- - . 1 . 1 ... p.. " . ‘dx‘-~ _ ..,_ a-.. “w- . " ~..... -. e. . , ‘o ,. ,- ., . " Hg ' 1 " ~7r .. ..\~. ‘9 \ '_‘~.. a... u... I 31 The questionnaires for the faculty were mailed to the pro- ject coordinator at each college late in January of 1968. During a faculty meeting in February, directions were given to the faculty regarding completion of the questionnaire, and the deadline and designated place for returning the completed form. Periodic follow- up reminders were sent out by the Academic Dean' 3 office at each college encouraging the faculty to complete the questionnaire prior to the research director' 3 personal visit to the campus during March or April of 1968. The questionnaire was given to the student personnel admin- istrative staff during a group meeting with the project director early on the first day' s visit to each campus. Staff members were instructed to complete the questionnaire and return it the next day at a noon luncheon meeting of the staff. A group setting was used to administer the questionnaires to the students involved in the study. Two class periods were set aside for this purpose so that schedule conflicts could be reduced to a mini- mum number. Following the administration of the questionnaire to the students, time was set aside for the small-group interviews dur- ing the rest of that day and part of the next morning. These forty- five minute tape-recorded interview sessions were limited to ten or less groups of students or faculty who had completed the questionnaire. ~ . .....a. l v 4"] \ ..,.. /I 32 The usual schedule at each college was: three or four student groups, two or three faculty groups, and one group of student leaders. The student leaders meeting was scheduled during the supper hour. These group interviews attempted to elicit some in-depth understand- ing of the responses given to the questionnaire. According to the data in Table 3. 1, there was a total of 1377 student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students who participated in the study. TABLE 3. 1. -- Student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students of the senior colleges of The American Lutheran Church who completed the Inventory of Selected College Services listed by sex Administrators Faculty Students College Total Men Women Men Women Men Women No. 1 l3 4 55 22 40 45 179 No. 2 12 5 50 13 49 45 174 No. 3 9 3 54 24 23 31 144 No. 4 . 8 4 85 31 45 45 218 No 5 7 5 17 9 17 18 73 No. 6 7 2 36 6 30 27 108 No. 7 6 2 50 11 29 33 131 No. 8 9 1 37 18 29 31 125 No. 9 4 2 16 3 34 37 96 No. 10 6 4 33 27 29 30 129 Grand Total 81 32 433 164 325 342 1377 v”, .~ '— . .n. .. u... . o . .. _‘. v - v,. u...“ s“ ro- P‘ — "~~. “n” T“‘ ‘1.., H \ | Iv».g . a -.-.., , - v- ‘.‘-~¢ . .,,. w— ‘ n...4 Ir. u. 33 Although it was impossible to secure the complete participa- tion of either the selected student sample or the designated alternates from each college, great efforts were extended by each institution reminding them of their appointment for the administration of the questionnaire. Faculty members and student personnel staff mem- bers who had not completed the questionnaire prior to the project director's departure from campus were encouraged to complete it and mail to the project director at Michigan State University. Analyzing the Data Scoring and analyzing of the data was facilitated by using the IBM 1230 Scoring Process. Answers were recorded by each re- spondent on the special 1230 answer sheets. 54 These responses were then transformed into punched cards so that the data could be processed and analyzed on the IBM 3600 CD Computer. The chi square statistic was employed to determine inde- pendence of relationship between the groups. Minimum confidence level of .05 was used to determine the statistical significance in the interpretation of the data. Presentation of Data To facilitate the presentation of the data, a summary table was used. The table included a statistical comparison of the 54See Appendix D. 34 perceptions of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students included in this study with reSpect to scope and quality of the thirty-three student personnel services investigated. The table also included the rating scale used in the Inventory of Selected College Services, a Mean Score, and the resultant measures of sta- tistical significance. The scales for scope and quality were rated as follows: _R_at_ir_1g_ Stage Quality 4 Very Broad Very Good 3 Broad Good 2 Adequate Average 1 Narrow/Very Narrow Poor/Very Poor Determination of the Mean Score was carried out according [f(r) 21 to the following formula: Mean Score = Illustration of Computation of Mean Score Rating _i_'_ f(r) 4 3 12 _ 50 _ 3 10 30 Mean Score — T7 — 2.94 2 4 8 1 _9 .9 Sums: 17 50 Mean Scores were used as a method of determining and presenting the sub-group (student personnel administrators, faculty members, 35 and students) ratings as well as total group ratings for each of the services investigated. Mean Scores provided an effective statistic for making comparisons of perceptions between the sub-groups within each institution and comparisons among the sub-groups for all the institutions. Mean Scores were also effective in supplementing the analysis of the data by the use of the chi square method. In par- ticular, the use of Mean Scores provided a quick estimate of the extent to which the sub-group and total ratings varied positively or negatively. The measures of statistical significance used in the tables included: degrees of freedom, X2, and an indication of the signifi- cance level of the analysis. Due to the sheer volume of data obtained in this study, only selected student personnel services for each of the institutions in- vestigated were presented and discussed. The major criteria for selecting the services presented and discussed were (1) the extreme nature of the Mean Score ratings, and/or (2) differences in percep- tions between the sub-groups (student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students) which were found to be statistically significant according to the X2 method of data analysis. 36 Summary Ten of the eleven senior colleges of The American Lutheran Church elected to participate in this study. The basic student per- sonnel administrative staff, the faculty, and a 5% stratified random sample of students were selected to complete the questionnaire, the Inventory of Selected College Services. The respondents were asked to consider each service with respect to its use on their own campus. The thirty-three services included in the questionnaire were refined from the responses given by the Deans of Students from the participating colleges. Their responses reflected the services they felt should be provided by the college to best meet the needs of young people attending their institutions today. The project director made a personal visit to each campus in March and April of 1968, so that the questionnaires could be ad- ministered to the students and the student personnel administrative staff members. Small group interviews were conducted with some of the participants in the study. A comparison of reSponses by chi square analysis was made to determine the degree of similarity or difference in the perceptions of the three groups. Minimum confidence level of .05 was used to determine the statistical significance. In Chapter IV, an analysis of the data will be presented. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction This chapter is presented in two major sections. The first section includes the reSponses of the reSpective Dean of Students for The American Lutheran Church senior colleges regarding the nature of student personnel services which should be provided by the institutions. The second section includes an analysis of the data regarding the perceptions of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students from each of the institutions with respect to the scope and quality of student personnel services pro- vided by their respective institution. The data are analyzed sepa- rately for each college as well as for all the institutions combined. Basic Services for a Comprehensive P Student Personnel Program It was important to determine which basic student personnel SeI‘Vices should be included in this survey. A majority of the Deans of Students agreed that forty-five of fifty-two basic student personnel 37 38 services55 should be included in a comprehensive student personnel program for The American Lutheran Church senior colleges. As observed in Table 4. 1, less than 60% of the Deans of Students agreed that certain student personnel services were necessary in such a program. However, it was felt that most of these services were selected frequently enough to merit inclusion in the final form of the Inventory of Selected College Services. Not included were three services, (1) Alumni Program, (2) Intercollegiate Athletics, and (3) Non—Student Counseling, because these were judged to be non- student personnel services for these colleges. Such services as (1) Selective Service Information and (2) Sponsorship of Educational Programs were "write-in" suggestions by some of the Deans of Stu- dents. Because these were considered appropriate services to be incorporated in the survey, they were included as part of two other services. Since it was logical to assimilate some of the services under broad categories, the Inventory of Selected College Services in its finished form was refined to a total of thirty-three services. Perceptions of Student Personnel Administrators, Faculty Members, and Students Regarding the Student Personnel Services A summary of the responses by the student personnel admin- istrators. faculty members, and students of The American Lutheran \ 5 58cc Appendix B. 39 TABLE 4. 1. -- The basic student personnel services which should en- compass a comprehensive student personnel program at The American Lutheran Church senior colleges as agreed upon by the Deans of Students for these colleges No. of Deans Item Student Personnel Service Agreeing that % No. Serv1ce be Included 1 Academic Advising 9 90 2 Administrative Organization 6 60 3 Admissions (pre-college information) 10 100 * 4 Alumni Program 1 10 * 5 Athletics--Intercollegiate 2 20 6 Athletics - - Intramural 6 6 0 7 Civic and Social Involvement Programs 8 80 8 Counseling--Educational ‘ 10 100 9 Counseling--Marriage 9 90 *10 Counseling--Non-Student 2 20 11 Counseling--Personal 10 100 12 Counseling--Religious 10 100 13 Counseling--Vocational; Career 10 100 14 Financial Aid-~Loans 10 100 15 Financial Aid--Part-time Work 10 100 16 Financial Aid-—Scholarships 10 100 17 Financial Aid—-Work-Study Program 9 90 18 Follow-up and Drop-out Studies 8 80 19 Food Service 8 80 20 Foreign Student Program 10 100 21 Group Guidance 8 80 22 Health Service--Health Appraisal 10 100 23 Health Service-~Health Clinical 9 90 24 Health Service-~Health Educative 6 60 25 Housing Service--Married Students 9 90 26 Housing Service-~On-campus 10 100 27 Housing Service--Off-campus 10 100 23 Housing Service--Societies; Fraterni- ties; Sororities 7 70 *Item not included in the Inventory of Selected College Services, 40 TABLE 4. 1-- Continued No. of Deans Item Student Personnel Service Agreeing that % No. Seerce be Included 29 In-Service Training of Staff and Faculty 9 90 30 Occupational Information 9 90 31 Orientation of New Students 10 100 32 Placement Service--Graduates; Alumni 10 100 33 Program Articulation to High Schools 6 60 34 Program Research and Evaluation 8 80 35 Protective Service for Campus 6 60 36 Psychiatric Service 9 90 37 Registration 5 50 38 Religious Activities/Programs 8 80 39 Regulatory--Academic 5 50 4O Regulatory--Disciplinary; Social 10 100 41 Regulatory—-Parking; Vehicle Control 5 50 42 Special Clinics--Remedial Reading 4 40 43 Special Clinics--Speech and Hearing 3 30 44 Special Clinics--Study Habits; Skill Development 10 100 45 Student Activities--Social; Recrea- tional 10 100 46 Student Government 9 9O 47 Student Records--Academic; Student ’ Personnel 8 8O 48 Testing--Basic Skill Diagnosis 9 9O 49 Testing--Educational 9 90 5O Testing--Vocationa1 10 100 51 Veterans Advisory Service 9 90 52 Staff Development 8 80 Others: 53 Selective Service Information 2 20 54 Sponsorship of Educational Programs (drugs, sex, etc.) 3 30 41 Church senior colleges regarding their perceptions of the student personnel services were included in this section. Their perceptions of the scope56 and qualitys'7 of the existing services as well as the responses of need58 for implementation of any non-existing services were contained in the analysis of the data. The analysis of the data included the determination of statistically significant differences in the perceptions of student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students, as well as non-significant (but highly positive or nega- tive) differences. The Mean Score ratings were based on an arith- metic average (see page 34 for method of computation) and were developed through the use of the following scales: Scope Quality 4 - Very Broad 4 - Very Good 3 - Broad 3 - Good 2 - Adequate 2 - Average 1 - Narrow/Very Narrow 1 - Poor/Very Poor 6Scope of a student personnel service was defined as the range or extent to which a specific service was available for students at the college as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students of that college. 7Quality of a student personnel service was defined as the degree of excellence to which a specific service was performed for students at the college as perceived by the student personnel admin- istrators, faculty members, and students of that college. 58Respondents who perceived that the college did not offer a particular student personnel service listed in the questionnaire were asked to determine the extent of the need for the service to be made available for students at that college. 42 Whereas few ratings of "Very Narrow" (Scope) and "Very Poor" (Quality) were selected by the respondents in this study, these were collapsed with the "Narrow" and ”Poor" ratings, respectively. This was done to insure a sufficient cell frequency for the chi square analysis of the data. A partial summarization of the tape—recorded interviews was included to provide additional substance to the perceptions of the respondents. The data were analyzed separately for each of the institutions investigated. These data may be found in the Appendix to the study. 5 9 College One The number of respondents for the sample groups of College One included the following: student personnel administrators, 17; faculty members, 77; students, 85; total, 179. Pre-College Information Service. -- According to the data in Table 4. 2, statistically significant differences were found in the perceptions of the quality of the Pre-College Information Service by the student personnel administrators, faculty, and students. The ratings of the scope of the service by these three respondent groups were not significant. 5 9See Appendix E. 43 TABLE 4. 2. -- A statistical comparison of student personnel admin- istrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Pre-College Information Service at College 1 Admin. Faculty Students Total Rating N % N % N % N % Scope Very Broad 3 17.7 6 7.8 6 7.1 15 8.4 Broad 10 58.8 28 36.4 48 56.5 86 48.0 Adequate 4 23.5 40 51.9 29 34.1 73 40.8 Narrow o 0.0 3 3.9 2 2.3 5 2.8 Very Narrow Totals 17 100.0 77 100.0 85 100.0 179 100.0 Mean Score 2. 94 2. 48 2. 68 2. 62 Quality Very Good 8 47.1 10 13.0 24 28.2 42 23.5 Good 6 35. 3 42 54. 5 47 55. 3 95 53. 0 Average 3 17.6 22 28.6 14 16.5 39 21.8 Poor/Very Poor 0 0. 0 3 3. 9 0 0. 0 3 1. 7 Totals 17 100.0 77 100.0 85 100.0 179 100.0 Mean Score 3.29 2.77 3.12 2.98 2 . . . Scope: DF 6 X2 = 11. 195 Not Significant Quality: DF 6 X = 16.420 Significant at .02 level During the interviews, it was learned that the faculty and students had a very high regard for the work of the admissions counselors. The counselors were characterized as being helpful and friendly as well as providing prospective students with a real- istic picture of campus life. It was pointed out that the Admissions 44 Office frequently had asked faculty members to discuss their academic programs with prospective students who were visiting the campus. There was general agreement that attractive and eye-appeal- ing informational brochures had been made available by the Admis- sions Office for prOSpective students. The students acknowledged that their requests for information about the college and its programs had received prompt attention. The interviews also revealed some areas in which the Admis- sions Office might strengthen its program. Many respondents felt that more of the local community high school graduates should be contacted. Several students indicated a desire to have a more diver- sified student population. It was suggested that the outreach of the admissions counselors should be expanded to other geographical areas. Some faculty members indicated that there should be greater involvement by the Student Development Board (a volunteer group of students whose goal was to interest high school students to attend college). They also felt that the Admissions Office should be more aggressive in promoting the summer, evening, and graduate school programs. Financial Aid Service. -- Differences in perceptions of the scope and quality of the Financial Aid Service were not statistically significant among the student personnel administrators, faculty, 45 and students. However, all three respondent groups responded very favorably to the service as presently offered. A high proportion of students (84. 7%) reported that they were involved in the financial aid program. According to the students' perceptions, financial aid had not been used as "bait" to attract students to the school. The students sensed that there was a continuing concern by the college to help all students who needed financial assistance while attending the college. An important objection was registered by the student respon- dents concerning excessive delays which they had encountered in re- ceiving notification of financial assistance. Some students expressed negative feelings about the ”tactless" manner in which they had been treated while seeking help from the Financial Aid Office. They re- vealed, however, that recent improvements had been made. Student Inductive (Orientation) Service. -- Although differences in Perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Inductive Service by the student personnel administrators, faculty, and students were not statistically significant, the three respondent groups indicated favorable impressions of the present program. Students were most appreciative of the opportunity to visit the faculty homes during Orientation Week. The students expressed a desire for more informal contact with the faculty during the school 46 year. Some students remarked that student leadership in the planning and execution of the program was the key factor for its success. Small group discussions of some assigned readings were considered a "waste of time" by many students because neither the discussion leaders nor the freshmen had read the books with much diligence. Furthermore, it was felt that the week-long program would have been more appealing if the activities had been compressed into a two or three day period of time. Students were very dissatisfied with the extended weekly orientation lectures which lasted until Thanks- giving time. Many students felt that some of the scheduled topics were not considered appropriate or worthwhile. Academic Advisory Service. -- As presented in Table 4. 3, the student personnel administrators, faculty, and students registered Significantly different perceptions of the scope and quality of the Aca— demic Advisory Service (significant at .01 confidence level). The mean score ratings by the three respondent groups were positive although nearly one-sixth of all respondents (15. 2%) rated the total advisement program as being inferior. Student reaction was the least favorable of the three respon- dent groups. However, the students acknowledged that faculty mem- bers "had gone out of their way to help them. " Because Of the cordial 47 faculty—student relationships, students frequently sought out faculty members other than their advisors for help with their academic planning. TABLE 4. 3. —- A statistical comparison of student personnel admin— istrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the sc0pe and quality of the Academic Advisory Service at College 1 Admin. Faculty Students Total Rating N % N ‘70 N % N 070 Scope Very Broad 3 17.6 14 18.2 5 5. 9 22 12.4 Broad 11 64.7 20 25.9 23 27.4 54 30.3 Adequate 1 5.9 31 40.3 43 51.2 75 42.1 N arrow/ 2 11. 8 12 15. 6 13 15.5 27 15.2 Very Narrow . Totals 17 100.0 77 100.0 84 100.0 178 100.0 Mean Score 2. 88 2.47 2.24 2.40 Quality Very Good 4 23.5 15 19.5 7 8.3 26 14.6 Good 10 58.8 25 32.5 24 28.6 59 33.1 Average 0 0. 0 27 35.1 39 46. 4 66 37.1 Poor/Very Poor 3 17.7 10 12.9 14 16.7 27 15.2 Totals 17 100.0 77 100.0 84 100. 0 178 100. 0 Mean Score 2.88 2.58 2.29 2.47 S . X2 _ . . . Cope. DF 6 2 — 19. 776 Significant at .01 level Quality: DF 6 X = 17.157 Significant at .01 level The greatest criticism of the academic advisement program Centered on the "haphazard" academic counseling the students had 48 experienced as beginning freshmen. Students felt that they had been given considerable misinformation concerning course and major selection as well as procedures to be followed. Some of the faculty expressed a desire to have more infor- mation about their advisees. There was also some need expressed for an advisement handbook to supplement information provided in the college catalog. This would be of particular assistance to new faculty members. Registration Service. —— Although the perceptions of the scope and quality of the Registration Service by the student person- nel administrators, faculty, and students were not statistically sig- nificant, the three respondent groups rated the program favorably. It was reported in the interviews that this service had been improved considerably during the past two or three years. Both students and faculty expressed a need for further updating of the procedures through the employment of data processing and computerization. Faculty members pointed out that some non—professional help could assume some of the tasks which they had been required to do each term. Campus Housing Service. -- Differences in perceptions of the sc0pe and quality of the Campus Housing Service as reported by 49 the student personnel administrators, faculty, and students were not significant. The student interviews provided some insights into their concerns for residence hall life. Students felt that they were able to get better acquainted with other students by living in the residence halls, but the students were dissatisfied with the practice of housing three students in two—person rooms. Because of the distracting noise level, men students expressed need for a better academic environment in their halls. Some students believed that greater care should be exercised in the selection of residence hall counselors. Students also recognized the need for an effective training program which would provide for better functioning hall counselors. While underclass women students perceived that their hall counselors were fulfilling the role of a coun- selor, several men disclosed that their counselors were primarily concerned about maintaining order. Because busy campus leaders frequently had been selected as hall counselors, it was reported that other demands on their time repeatedly had taken precedence over their expected responsibilities in the residence halls. Students noted that their residence hall governments were "quite ineffectual. " Student involvement in a residence hall govern- ment judicial process was considered practically non-existent. Some Of the girls living in the underclass residence halls strongly objected to their required "dorm meetings. " 50 Women students positively endorsed the small house resi— dences for sophomore women. These college-owned houses sur- rounding the campus were viewed as an excellent alternative to the larger residence halls. Off-Campus Housing Service. --As observed in Table 4. 4, some negative reactions were reported by the faculty and students TABLE 4. 4. -- A statistical comparison of student personnel admin- istrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Off-Campus Housing Service at College 1 Admin. Faculty Students Total Rating N 070 N (70 N 070 N % Scope Very Broad 2 12.5 4 5.7 3 3.9 9 5.5 Broad 7 43.7 19 27.1 12 15.8 38 23.5 Adequate 6 37.5 31 44.3 41 53.9 78 48.2 Narrow/ VeryNarmW 1 6.3 16 22.9 20 26.4 37 22.8 Totals 16 100.0 70 100.0 76 100.0 162 100.0 Mean Score 2. 62 2.16 1. 97 2.12 Quality Verysood 2 12.5 7 10.0 2 2.6 11 6.8 Good 9 56.2 17 24.3 14 18.4 40 24.7 Average 4 25.0 34 48.6 50 65.8 88 54.3 Poor/Verypoor 1 6.3 12 17.1 10 13.2 23 14.2 Totals 16 100.0 70 100.0 76 100.0 162 100.0 Mean Score 2.75 2.27 2.11 2.24 \ Sclope: DF X: = 10.320 Not significant Quality: DF X = 17.430 Significant at .01 level 51 with respect to the provision for off-campus living. Some faculty and students indicated that the college should systematically inSpect and approve off-campus living accommodations. They felt that this would help to insure greater safety precautions as well as better aca- demic surroundings for the students living in off-campus facilities. Food and Dining Service. -- Differences in the perceptions of the scope and quality of the Food and Dining Service by the student personnel administrators, faculty, and students were statistically significant at the .001 confidence level. According to the data in Table 4. 5, all three respondent groups rated the food service very positively. During the interviews, students gave the following positive descriptions of the food service: "outstanding selection and variety . the quality is excellent . . . the Food Service Director goes out of her way to find out what the students want and don't want . . the use of meal books in the dining hall and snack bar is most advan- talgeous . . . banquets and special meals are just fabulous. " Students felt that there was no need for any "food committee" because the director and staff have found ways of receiving commu- nication from the students about the food service. Some students expressed a concern about the long cafeteria lines during the noon hour rush. Some students reacted negatively to the significant 52 increase in costs for banquet meals when the cost for the same meal on the regular serving line was considerably less. TABLE 4. 5. -- A statistical comparison of student personnel admin- istrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Food and Dining Service at College 1 Admin. Faculty Students Total Rating N % N % N 070 N % Scope Very Broad 13 76.5 26 33.8 17 20.0 56 31.3 Broad 4 23.5 30 38.9 37 43.5 71 39.7 Adequate 0 0.0 20 26.0 25 29.4 45 25.1 Narrow/ 0 0.0 1 1.3 6 7.1 7 3.9 Very Narrow Totals 17 100.0 77 100.0 85 100.0 179 100.0 Mean Score 3.76 3.05 2.76 ' 2.98 Quality Very Good 17 100.0 47 61.0 28 32.9 92 51.4 Good 0 0.0 17 22.1 32 37.7 49 27.4 Average 0 0.0 11 14.3 18 21.2 29 16.2 Poor/Very Poor 0 0.0 2 2.6 7 8.2 9 5.0 Totals 17 100.0 77 100.0 85 100.0 179 100.0 Mean Score 4. 00 3.42 2. 95 3.25 Scope: DF 6 X: = 25.226 Significant at .001 level Quality: DF 6 X = 31.285 Significant at .001 level Health Educative Service. -- As presented in Table 4. 6, nearly one-third of all respondents (30. 2%) expressed some degree 0f need for the implementation of a Health Educative Service. 53 TABLE 4. 6. -- Need for implementing Health Educative Service as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College 1 Admin. Faculty Students Total Degree of Need N 070 N 070 N ‘70 N % Needed a Lot 0 0.0 1 1.3 7 8.2 8 4.5 Needed Moderately 1 5. 9 13 16. 9 18 21. 2 32 17.9 Needed a Little 0 0. 0 2 2. 6 12 14.1 14 7. 8 TOtalNeed 1 5.9 16 20.8 37 42.5 54 30.2 Responses No Need-~Service Perceived as 16 94.1 61 79.2 48 57.5 125 69.8 Implemented For those respondents who recognized that the college had already made some provision for a health education program, there were significant differences in the perceptions of the sc0pe (. 05 level) and quality (. 01 level) by the student personnel administrators, faculty, and students. As observed in Table 4. 7, nearly one-half of all stu- dents marked an inferior rating to both scope (49. 0%) and quality (46. 8%) of the program. Faculty members reflected similar negative Perceptions while the administrators rated the service quite positively. Interviews with students revealed that the freshman health education course was considered "quite worthless. H Some of the women students had been told by their instructor that it was just a ll ' filler" course. 54 TABLE 4. 7. -- A statistical comparison of student personnel admin- istrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Health Educative Service at College 1 Admin. Faculty Students Total Rating N 070 N (70 N 070 N 070 Scope Very Broad 0 0.0 2 3.5 0 0.0 2 1.7 Broad 5 31.2 3 5.2 5 10.6 13 10.7 Adequate 9 56. 3 27 46. 5 19 40. 4 55 45. 5 Narrow 2 12.5 26 44.8 23 49.0 51 42.1 Very Narrow Totals 16 100.0 58 100.0 47 100.0 121 100.0 Mean Score 2.19 1.67 1.62 1.72 Quality Very Good 2 12.5 3 5.2 1 2.1 6 5.0 Good 7 43.8 9 15.5 6 12.8 22 18.2 Average 6 37.5 30 51.7 18 38.3 54 44. 6 Poor/Very Poor 1 6.2 16 27.6 22 46.8 39 32.2 Totals 16 100.0 58 100.0 47 100.0 121 100.0 Mean Score 2. 62 1.98 1. 70 1.96 Scope: DF 6 X: = 14. 747 Significant at .05 level Quality: DF 6 X = 17.434 Significant at .01 level Health Clinical Service. -- Responses by the student person- nel administrators, faculty, and students with respect to their per- cePtions of the scope of the Health Clinical Service were significantly different at the .05 confidence level, as noted in Table 4. 8. Differences 55 in perceptions of the quality of the service by the three respondent groups were not significant. TABLE 4. 8. -- A statistical comparison of student personnel admin- istrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Health Clinical Service at College 1 Admin. Faculty Students Total Rating N '70 N '70 N ‘70 N % Scope Very Broad 3 17. 7 7 9.2 7 8. 5 17 9. 7 Broad 10 58.8 16 21.0 23 28.1 49 28.0 Adequate 4 23.5 36 47.4 40 48.8 80 45.7 NarrOW/ 0 0.0 17 22.4 12 14.6 29 16.6 Very Narrow Totals 17 100.0 76 100.0 82 100.0 175 100.0 Mean Score 2. 94 2.17 2. 30 2.31 Quality Very Good 5 29.4 13 17.1 13 15.8 31 17.7 Good 10 58.8 25 32.9 24 29.3 59 33.7 Average 2 11.8 30 39.5 36 43.9 68 38.9 Poor/Verypoor 0 0.0 8 10.5 9 11.0 17 9.7 Totals 17 100.0 76 100.0 82 100.0 175 100.0 Mean Score 3.18 2.57 2.50 2.59 Scope: DF 6 X: = 14.905 Significant at .05 level I Quality: DF 6 X = 10.757 Not significant During the interviews, it was learned that both the students and faculty had a high regard for the nurse who was in charge of the 56 Health Service. They said that she was "very capable . . . under- standing . . . friendly. " It was mentioned that she had "gone out of her way" to help the students--she had made "sick calls" to the resi- dence halls when students were very ill as well as during off-duty hours. The "cure-all" medicines and pills dispensed for different types of illnesses received some negative criticisms in the interviews. Some students perceived a need for the availability of the doctor' 3 services on campus more hours during the day. Some problems had been encountered by students because no regular health service was available on weekends. Student Counseling Service. -- Differences in perceptions of the quality of the Student Counseling Service by the student personnel administrators, faculty, and students were statistically significant (- 02 level). As observed in Table 4. 9, no significant differences were found in the perceptions of the scope by the three respondent gr oups. During the interviews, faculty and students were asked Where the students would go for counseling. Some of the main re- sources reported were: campus pastor, faculty members, deans (men and women), residence hall counselors (eSpecially for women), head residents, admissions counselors, and mental health center. 57 Faculty and students agreed that more information should have been made available regarding the accessibility of the mental health center for students. TABLE 4. 9. -- A statistical comparison of student personnel admin- ‘ istrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Counseling Service at College 1 Admin. Faculty Students Total Rating N ‘70 N 070 N ‘70 N ‘70 Scope Very Broad 4 23.5 6 8.2 4 5.1 14 8.3 Broad 6 35.3 25 34.3 17 21.5 48 28.4 Adequate 5 29. 4 30 41. 1 38 48.1 73 43. 2 Narrow/ Very Narrow 2 11.8 12 16.4 20 25.3 34 20.1 Totals 17 100. 0 73 100. 0 79 100. 0 169 100. 0 Mean Score 2.71 2.34 .06 2.25 Quality Very Good 6 35. 3 9 12. 3 8 10.1 23 13. 6 Good 8 47.0 23 31.5 22 27.9 53 31.4 Average 2 11. 8 35 48. 0 35 44. 3 72 42. 6 Poor/Very Poor 1 5. 9 6 8.2 14 17. 7 21 12. 4 Totals 17 100.0 73 100.0 79 100.0 169 100.0 Mean Score 3.12 2.48 .30 2. 46 2 . . . Scope: X2 = 11. 644 Not Significant Quality: X = 16. 059 Significant at .02 level While some freshmen men reported that their dean had been ”1th help to them for their counseling needs, many students 58 expressed negative reactions to the idea of seeing their dean for personal counseling. Some faculty and students stressed the need for a trained counselor to supplement the work of the campus pastor. A trained psychologist who would develop an educational-vocational testing program was perceived as an essential need for the existing program. Two other services in this study closely related to the total counseling program were the Basic Skill Diagnostic Service and the Group Guidance Service. As presented in Tables 4. 10 and 4. 11, a sizeable proportion of the respondents expressed a need for estab- lishing these services. TABLE 4. 10. -— Need for implementing Basic Skill Diagnostic Service as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College 1 Admin. Faculty Students Total Degree of Need N % N ‘70 N % N 070 NeededaLot 0 0.0 3 3.9 0 0.0 3' 1.7 Needed Moderately 1 5.9 9 11.7 13 15.3 23 12.9 NeededaLittle 0 0.0 4 5.2 10 11.8 14 7.8 TOtalNeed 1 5.9 16 20,9 23 27.1 40 22.4 Responses N0 Need--Service Perceivedas 16 94.1 61 79.2 62 72.9 139 77.6 plemented \ 59 TABLE 4. 11. -- Need for implementing Group Guidance Service as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College 1 Admin. Faculty Students Total Degree of Need N 0/0 N 0/0 N 070 N % Needed a Lot 0 0. 0 3 3. 9 12 14. 1 15 8. 4 Needed Moderately 1 5. 9 10 13. 0 19 22. 4 30 16.8 Needed a Little 0 0. 0 7 9.1 5 5. 9 12 6. 7 TOtal Need 1 5.9 20 26.0 36 42.4 57 31.9 Responses No Need--Service Perceived as 16 94.1 57 74.0 49 57. 6 122 68.1 Implemented Student Activities Service. -- Although there were no signifi- cant differences between the perceptions of the student personnel administrators, faculty, and students with respect to the scope and quality of the Student Activities Service, the three respondent groups responded very positively to the program. Students reflected that much of their positive views were attributed to the introduction of the Union Board of Governors during the past two years. Student respondents also related that the present Director of Student Activities had been very instrumental and helpful in giving direction and encouragement to their programs. The pro- vision of a "coffee house” had added increased variety to the program this past year. 60 Student Self-Government Service. -— As observed in Table 4. 12, differences in perceptions of the scope of the Student Self-Government Service by the student personnel administrators, faculty, and students were statistically significant at the .05 level. Ratings by the respon- dent groups of the quality of the service did not differ significantly. TABLE 4. 12. -- A statistical comparison of student personnel admin- istrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Self-Government Service at College 1 Admin. Faculty Students Total Rating N 070 N % N 070 N (70 Scope Very Broad 3 17.7 16 21.1 12 14.5 31 17.6 Broad 12 70. 6 31 40. 8 39 47. O 82 46. 6 Adequate 2 11.7 28 36.8 22 26.5 52 29.6 Narrow/ Very Narrow O 0.0 1 1.3 10 12.0 11 6.2 Totals 17 100.0 76 100.0 83 100.0 176 100.0 Mean Score 3.06 2.82 2.64 2.76 Quality Very Good 4 23. 5 17 22. 4 16 19.1 37 20. 9 Good 12 70.6 l31 40.8 37 44.1 80 45.2 Average ' '1 ' 5.9 26 34.2 23 27.3 50 28.3 Poor/Very Poor 0 0. 0 2 2. 6 8 9. 5 10 5. 6 Totals 17 100.0 76 100.0 84 100.0 177 100.0 Mean Score 3.18 2.83 2.73 2. 81 Scope: DF 6 X2 15. 568 Significant at .05 level Quality: DF 6 X2 11. 455 Not significant 61 Faculty and students agreed that student involvement on Faculty Committees had provided better channels of communication. Although the students seemed enthusiastic about the possibility of being granted voting privileges on most Faculty Committees, faculty members revealed some divided feelings on this matter. Some faculty members strongly objected to student participation on the Academic Policy and Faculty Personnel Committees, holding that the real decision-making process should be left to the administration and faculty. Faculty members expressed the feeling that student leaders had shown more initiative for good leadership in campus affairs in recent months. Students expressed a need for better communication between student government and the administration, other students, and the Board of Regents. Some students acknowledged that there should be frequent opportunities for open dialogue with the administration and faculty such as they had experienced during a recent "Danforth week- end" (a meeting of some faculty, students, and administrators to dis- cus 3 important issues). Intramural Athletics Service. -- Although no significant dif- fer‘ences in perceptions were registered by the student personnel administrators, faculty, and students with respect to the scope and 62 quality of the Intramural Athletics Service, all three respondent groups rated the service very positively. Students recognized that the Director for Men' s Intramurals had personally spent much time and effort to develop one of the really outstanding college intramural programs. An integral part of the interest and participation in the program had centered in team spon- sorship by the men' 3 social "societies, " residence halls, and inde- pendent groups. Students felt that the intramural programs for the residence hall and independent groups should be expanded so that these programs will approach the quality of the "society" program. Both men and women stressed that more facilities were needed so that the intramural program could be expanded. Campus Protection Service. -- There was general agreement by the student personnel administrators, faculty, and students that both the scope and quality of the Campus Protection Service needed to be improved. Students established a need for some type of patrol service for the women' 5 off- campus small housing units as well as the Parking lots to reduce vandalism. The Student Council had dis- C‘JSSed the need for campus police service at night. Although campus lighting had improved considerably during the past two years, some Stmients wanted more lights installed between the union building and 63 the coeducational residence hall. Some of the men students disclosed ‘ that fire drills were practically non-existent in their halls. Other Services. -— There were significant differences inper- ceptions among the three respondent groups found through the anal- ysis of the data for seven other services in the Inventory of Selected College Services. These included: Testing Service, Health Apprais- al Service, Academic Regulatory Service, Social Regulatory Service, Religious Program Service, In-Service Education Service, and Ad- I ministrative Organization Service. The student personnel administrators, faculty, and students agreed that the scope of the Program Evaluation Service was too restrictive. According to the data in Table 4. 13, over one-fourth TABLE 4. 13. -- Need for implementing Program Evaluation Service as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College 1 . Admin. ' Faculty Students Total Degree of Need N % N 070 N % N % Neededa Lot 2,. 11.8 7 ' 9.1 5 5.9 14 7.8 Needed Moderately 2 11. 8 9 11. 7 17 20. 0 28 15.6 Needed a Little 0 0. 0 3 3‘. 9 4 4. 7 7 3. 9 Total Need 4- 23.6 .19 24. 7 26 30. 6 49 27. 3 Responses N0 Need--Service , ‘ Perceived as 13 76.4 58 75. 3 59 69. 4 130 . 72. 7 Implemented \ 64 (27. 3%) of all respondents agreed that there was a definite need to evaluate the existing programs. All three respondent groups rated the Religious Program Service very positively. Most students felt that they had been pro- vided with numerous Opportunities to further their religious beliefs while attending college, but some students indicated a need for more student involvement in the planning of all religious activities. Involvement in the Social Regulatory Service was primarily a re8ponsibility assumed by the student personnel administrators (70. 6%). Less than 35% of the students and 20% of the faculty mem- bers reported that they had been involved in this service. As presented in Table 4. 14, many respondents indicated a need for a Foreign Student Service on campus. TABLE 4. 14. -- Need for implementing Foreign Student Service as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College 1 Admin. Faculty Students Total , Degree of Need N ‘70 N ‘70 N ‘70 N ‘70 Needed a Lot 0 0.0 1 1.3 0 0.0 1 0.6 Needed Moderately 0 0.0 5 6.5 19 22.4 24 13.4 Needed a Little 2 11.8 7 9. 1 16 18.8 25 14.0 Tot R 31 Need 2 11.8 13 16.9 35 41.2 50 28.0 eSponses 1:0 Neéd-uService erceived as 15 88.2 64 83.1 50 58.8 129 72.0 Implenlented \ 65 College Two The number of respondents for the sample groups of College Two included the following: student personnel administrators, 17; faculty members, 63; students, 94; total, 174. Pre-College Information Service. -- The scope and quality of the Pre-College Information Service were given very positive ratings by the student personnel administrators, faculty, and stu- dents, with no statistical significance found regarding differences in perceptions of the work accomplished by the Admissions Office. Both the faculty and students spoke highly of the fine work done by the admissions staff to attract top quality students to the college. Materials prepared for and sent to prospective students were regarded as an important asset to the admissions program. Some faculty members registered a concern that more out- standing male students should be recruited by the college. However, they felt that a larger scholarship fund would be needed before this could be accomplished. Testig Service. -- According to the data in Table 4. 15, there were significantly varying perceptions of both the scope and quality of the Testing Service as reported by the student personnel admin- iStr‘ators, faculty, and students. Some of the students noted that the 66 "personal aptitude" test had been helpful in coursework and career selection. This test, designed by the Director of Counseling to assist students in assessing their interests and general aptitudes, had been administered and interpreted during the freshman year. TABLE 4. 15. -- A statistical comparison of student personnel admin- istrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Testing Service at College 2 Admin. Faculty Students Total Rating N 070 N ‘70 N (70 N 070 Scope VeryBroad 1 5.9 6 9.5 5 5.8 12 7.2 Broad 5 29.4 25 39.7 16 18.4 46 27.5 Adequate 7 41.2 29 46.0 39 44.8 75 44.9 Narrow/ VeryNarrow 4 23.5 3 4.8 27 31.0 34 20.4 Totals 17 100.0 63 100.0 87 100.0 167 100.0 Mean Score 2.18 2. 54 1. 99 2.22 Quality VeryGood 4 23.5 15 23.8 6 6.9 25 15.0 Good 11 64.7 32 50.8 30 34.5 73 43.7 Average 2 11.8 14 22.2 37 42.5 53 31.7 Poor/VeryPoor 0 0.0 2 3.2 14 16.1 16 9.6 Totals 17 100.0 63 100.0 87 100.0 167 100.0 Mean Score 3.12 2. 98 2. 32 2. 64 Sc0pe: DF 6 X2 = 19.360 Significant at .01 level Quality: DF 6 X2 27. 344 Significant at .001 level 67 Financial Aid Service. -- The student personnel administra- tors, faculty, and students recorded correspondingly favorable per- ceptions of the scope and quality of the Financial Aid Service. These responses were not found to be significantly different. The affirmative student responses centered in part in their expressed feeling that the college had a continuing concern to help all students with financial need as they progressed through college. Some students reported that they had decided to attend the college because they were "tremendously impressed" with the college' 8 con- cern to help them as well as the efficiency with which they were granted assistance. Faculty members and students felt that the college should provide more scholarship assistance to remain competitive in at- tracting outstanding students to attend the college. Both the faculty and. students acknowledged that the financial aid program had been able to help large numbers of students with good work opportunities and sizeable loans. It was noted that over three-fourths (77. 7%) of the student respondents were involved in or had made use of the Financial Aid Service. Student Inductive (Orientation) Service. --As observed in Table 4. 16, perceptions of the student personnel administrators, faculty, and students with respect to the orientation program' s scope 68 were significantly different at the .05 confidence level. Although this service was rated favorably by all three respondent groups, nearly one-fourth (21. 5%) of the students felt that some improve- ments should be made. TABLE 4. 16. -- A statistical comparison of student personnel admin- istrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Inductive Service at College 2 Admin. Faculty Students Total Rating N ‘70 N % N % N 0/0 Scope VeryBroad 0 0.0 6 ,9.7 5 6.3 11 6.9 Broad 7 41.2 19 30.6 20 25.3 46 29.1 Adequate 7 41.2 30 48.4 26 32.9 63 39.9 garmwl 3 17.6 7 11.3 28 35.5 38 24.1 ery Narrow Totals 17 100.0 62 100.0 79 100.0 158 100.0 Mean Score 2.24 2.39 2.03 2.19 Quality VeryGood 1 5.9 5 8.1 6 7.6 12 7.6 Good 7 41.2 30 48.4 26 32.9 63 39.9 AVerage 7 41.2 24 38.7 30 38.0 61 38.6 Poor/VeryPoor 2 11.7 3 8.8 17 21.5 22 13.9 Totals 17 100.0 62 100.0 79 100.0 158 100.0 Mean Score 2.41 2. 60 2.27 2,41 \ Scope: DF X: = 14.022 Significant at .05 level Quality: DF X = 9.221 Not significant 69 Student involvement in the planning and execution of the weekly activities of the Student Orientation Service was considered vitally important to the success of the program, but several students felt that the administrators of the college were reluctant to permit students to become fully involved in setting up the program. Some transfer students felt that more should have been done to include them in the orientation sessions since they were also new to the cam- pus. Academic Advisory Service. -- Ratings by the student per— sonnel administrators and faculty of the Academic Advisory Service were distinctly more positive than the ratings by the students. As Presented in Table 4. 17, the perceptions held by the three respondent gI‘OUpS with respect to the scope and quality of faculty advisement were Significantly different at the . 01 level. The interviews revealed that very cordial and informal re- lationships existed between students and faculty members. Students indicated that faculty members were very willing to help students With their academic planning although they were not serving as their advisor. Students reported that some faculty members had invited groups of their major advisees to their homes periodically for infor- mal ”get-togethers" and discussions. 70 TABLE 4. 17. -- A statistical comparison of student personnel admin— istrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Academic Advisory Service at College 2 Admin. Faculty Students Total Rating N % N % N % N % Scope Very Broad 2 11.8 8 12.9 9 10.7 19 11.7 Broad 9 52.9 28 45.2 24 28.6 61 37.4 Adequate 5 29.4 26 41.9 30 35.7 61 37.4 Narmw/ 1 5.9 0 0.0 21 25.0 22 13.5 Very Narrow Totals 17 100.0 62 100.0 84 100.0 163 100.0 Mean Score 2.71 2.71 2.25 2.47 Quality Very Good 2 11.8 14 22.6 5 6.0 21 12.9 Good 10 58.8 23 37.1 29 34.5 62 38.0 Average 5 29.4 23 37.1 33 39.3 61 37.4 Poor/Very Poor 0 0. 0 2 3.2 17 20. 2 19 11. 7 Totals 17 100.0 62 100.0 84 100.0 163 100.0 Mean Score 2.82 2.79 2.26 2.52 Scope: DF X: = 22. 019 Significant at . 01 level Quality: DF X = 21.332 Significant at .01 level There were negative reactions by some students with respect to the academic advisement system of the college. This was particu- larly noted among the freshmen students. Students felt that being aS’Signed to an advisor without regard to academic major handicapped 71 them because the advisor only seemed knowledgeable about. courses in his own discipline. Some faculty members expressed a concern over the increased faculty-student ratio which had resulted in less time being available for counseling their student advisees. The faculty also sensed that some students were reluctant to seek out their advisors for any con- fidential discussions because faculty members frequently had shared office space with other faculty members. Campus Housing Service. -- There were no significant dif- ferences in the perceptions of the Campus Housing Service as reported by the student personnel administrators, faculty, and students. All three respondent groups rated the scope and quality of the service favo rably. Some students indicated that their residence hall facilities were "excellent" in comparison to other campuses. They particularly liked the new high rise buildings. The students felt that the liberali- zation of curfew hours for women had made residence hall life more attra ctive to upper-class women. They also believed that there was Considerable sentiment in favor of extending the privileges to all Women. Some freshmen revealed that they had no personal objec- tlons to the present hours system. 72 The interviews revealed that the student counseling in the residence halls was considered inadequate. The students felt that there should be a smaller student-counselor ratio, and that the coun- selors should be screened more carefully. There was an expressed need for more extensive in-service training for counselors than the brief session held at the beginning of each year. Food and Dining Service. -- Statistically significant differ- ences in perceptions of the scope and quality of the Food and Dining Service were recorded by the student personnel administrators, faculty, and students. As reported in Table 4. 18, all three respon- dent groups responded favorably to the service. Although some students registered complaints about the in- adequate quality and quantity of the food, there seemed to be general agreement among upper-class students that significant improvements had been made this past year. Part of the improvement was attributed to Changes instituted by the new food service manager. Numerous recommendations by students had been submitted through two sug- gestion boxes. A Food Service Committee was organized to consider these proposals and other on-going changes as well as suggesting f°°d menus. It was felt that the Food Service Committee should have been publicized more because of its newness to the students this past Year, 73 TABLE 4. 18. -- A statistical comparison of student personnel admin- istrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Food and Dining Service at College 2 Admin. Faculty Students Total Rating N 070 N ‘70 N 070 N 070 Scope Very Broad 1 5.9 9 14.5 13 14.1 23 13.5 Broad 9 52.9 27 43.6 26 28.3 62 36.2 Adequate 7 41. 2 25 40. 3 40 43. 5 72 42. 1 NarmW/ 0 0. 0 1 1. 6 13 14.1 14 8. 2 Very Narrow Totals 17 100. 0 62 100. 0 92 100. 0 171 100. 0 Mean Score 2.65 2.71 2.42 2.55 Quality Very Good 1 5.9 15 24.2 12 13.0 28 16.4 Good 12 70.6 24 38.7 35 38.0 71 41.5 Average 4 23.5 21 33.9 28 30.5 53 31.0 Poor/Very Poor 0 0. 0 2 3.2 17 18.5 19 11.1 Totals 17 100.0 62 100.0 92 100.0 171 100.0 Mean Score 2. 82 2. 84 2. 46 2. 63 Scope: DF 6 X: = 13. 370 Significant at .05 level Quality: DF 6 X = 18.259 Significant at .01 level Health Educative Service. -- According to the data in Table 4. 19, nearly one-half (47. 7%) of all respondents indicated that there was a need to implement a Health Educative Service. Some respondents gave positive rating to the scope and quality of the health education program, while a rather sizeable 74 TABLE 4. 19. -- Need for implementing Health Educative Service as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College 2 Admin. Faculty Students Total Degree of Need N % N % N % N % Neededa Lot 0 0.0 1 1.6 11 11.7 12 6.9 Needed Moderately 2 11. 8 14 22. 2 24 25. 5 40 23. 0 Needed a Little 1 5.9 5 7.9 25 26.6 31 17.8 TOtalNeed 3 17.7 20 31.7 60 63.8 83 47.7 Responses No Need-~Service Perceived as 14 82.3 43 68.3 34 36.2 91 52.3 Implemented proportion reacted negatively to the service as it existed. As pre- sented in Table 4. 20, significant differences in perceptions of the quality were recorded by the student personnel administrators, fa. culty, and students . Health Clinical Service. -- With respect to the scope and quality of the Health Clinical Service, a significant difference of opinion existed among the student personnel administrators, faculty, and students. As noted in Table 4. 21, only the students reacted negatively to the total service. Students in general did not speak well of the Health Clinical Service. They perceived the need to have the school doctor available for Service more hours each day. Students objected to the requirement 75 TABLE 4. 20. -- A statistical comparison of student personnel admin- istrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Health Educative Service at College 2 Admin. Faculty Students Total Rating N % N 070 N 170 N 070 Scope Very Broad 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.6 1 1.2 Broad 3 21.4 6 14.6 2 7.2 11 13.2 Adequate 5 35.7 21 51.2 13 46.4 39 47.0 Narrow 6 42.9 14 34. 2 12 42.8 32 38. 6 Very Narrow Totals 14 100.0 41 100.0 28 100.0 83 100.0 Mean Score 1.79 1.80 1.71 1.77 Quality Very Good 0 0.0 1 2.4 1 3.6 2 2.4 Good 5 35.7 13 31.7 2 7.1 20 24.1 Average 5 35.7 22 53.7 11 39.3 38 45.8 Poor/Very Poor 4 28. 6 5 12.2 14 50. 0 23 27.7 Totals 14 100.0 41 100.0 28 100.0 83 100.0 Mean Score 2. 07 2. 24 1. 64 2. 01 2 . . . Scope: DF 6 X2 = 4.463 Not Significant Quality: DF 6 X = 15. 313 Significant at . 02 level that they pick up medical excuses prior to 8:30 a. m. to properly be ex Cused from a lst hour class. Students doing this found that they had an excessive delay until the doctor arrived at the clinic. The nuI‘Sing staff, which was available on campus 24 hours per day, did not hOId "sick calls" in the residence halls. Although there was an 76 infirmary available on campus, students felt that it was very inade- quate, with one-half of the building used for a music listening room and faculty offices. TABLE 4. 21. —- A statistical comparison of student personnel admin- istrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Health Clinical Service at College 2 Admin. Faculty Students Total Rating N 070 N % N ‘70 N ‘70 Scope Very Broad 2 11.7 8 12.7 1 1.2 11 6.6 Broad 8 47.1 21 33.3 9 10.3 38 22.8 Adequate 7 41.2 25 39.7 46 52.9 78 46.7 Narrow/ Very Narrow 0 0.0 9 14.3 31 35.6 40 23.9 Totals 17 100.0 63 100.0 87 100.0 167 100.0 Mean Score 2. 71 2. 44 1. 77 2.12 Quality Very Good 2 11.7 8 12.7 0 0.0 10 6.0 G00d 11 64.7 26 41.3 13 14.9 50 30.0 AVerage 4 23.6 25 39.7 28 32.2 57 34.1 Poor/Very Poor 0 0.0 4 6.3 46 52.9 50 29.9 Totals 17 100.0 63 100.0 87 100.0 167 100.0 Mean Score 2. 88 2. 60 1. 62 2.12 \ Scope: DF 6 X: = 34.539 Significant at .001 level Quality: DF 6 X = 60.303 Significant at .001 level Student Counseling Service. -- There were statistically sig- nlfi Cant differences in perceptions of both the scope and quality of 77 the Student Counseling Service as reported by the student personnel administrators, faculty, and students. As presented in Table 4.22, the student personnel administrators gave the most favorable while students gave the least favorable ratings to the service. TABLE 4. 22. -- A statistical comparison of student personnel admin- istrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Counseling Service at College 2 Admin. Faculty Students Total Rating N 070 N ‘70 N 070 N % Scope VeryBroad , 2 11.8 10 15.9 9 11.0 21 13.0 Broad 11 64.7 24 38.1 18 21.9 53 32.7 Adequate 3 17.6 24 38.1 35 42.7 62 38.3 Narrow/ Very Narrow 1 5.9 5 7.9 20 24.4 26 16.0 Totals 17 100.0 63 100.0 82 100.0 162 100.0 Mean Score 2. 82 2. 62 2. 20 2. 43 Quality Very Good 5 29.4 13 20.6 13 15.8 31 19.1 Good 11 64.7 30 47.6 27 32.9 68 42.0 AVerage 1 5.9 17 27.0 34 41.5 52 32.1 0Or/VeryPoor 0 0.0 3 4.8 8 9.8 11 6.8 Totals 17 100.0 63 100.0 82 100.0 162 100.0 Mean Score 3.24 2.84 2.55 2.73 Scope: DF X: = 18.999 Significant at .01 level Quality: DF 6 X = 14.636 Significant at .05 level 78 Students and faculty members agreed that the counseling office has been the "backbone" of student personnel services for the campus. The Counseling Director' 5 unlimited availability and helpfulness in counseling students has generated a very heavy demand on the pres- ent counseling staff. Some faculty members and students felt that more professional counselors were needed to adequately handle the demands placed on the program. It was acknowledged that other counseling resources avail- able on the campus would include: campus pastor, religion teachers, faculty members, dean' 5 office, and residence hall counselors. Students expressed a need for more assistance with voca- tional counseling. The college recently has made plans to expand this part of the counseling service. TAB LE 4.23. --— Need for implementing Basic Skill Diagnostic Service as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College 2 Admin. Faculty Students Total Degree of Need N ‘70 N % N ‘70 N % \ NeededaLot 0 0.0 3 4.8 9 9.6 12 6. NeededModerately 1 5.9 6 9.5 29 30.9 36 20. eededaLittle 0 0.0 2 3.2 16 17.0 18 10. EOtalNeed 1 5.9 11 17.5 54 57.5 66 37. eSponses 11:0 Need-~Service erceivedas 16 94.1 52 82.5 40 42.5 108 62. plemented 79 The responses by the three respondent groups with respect to the Basic Sl:ill Diagnostic Service and the Group Guidance Service were not statistically significant. As revealed in Tables 4. 23 and 4. 24, there was considerable agreement among the respondents that these two services needed to be improved and expanded. TABLE 4. 24. -- Need for implementing Group Guidance Service as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College 2 Admin. Faculty Students Total Degree of Need N % N % N % N % Needed a Lot 2 11.8 2 3.2 14 14.9 18 10.3 Needed Moderately 2 11. 8 11 17.5 17 18.1 30 17.2 Needed a Little 0 0.0 5 7.9 10 10.6 15 8.6 TOtalNeed 4 23.6 18 28.6 41 43.6 63 36.1 Responses N0 Need--Service Perceived as 13 76.4 45 71.4 53 56.4 111 63.9 Implemented Student Activities Service. -- The differences in perceptions 0f both the scope and quality of the Student Activities Service by the Stl-ldent personnel administrators, faculty, and students were statis- tics-.1113, significant at the .01 confidence level. According to the data in Table 4. 25, all three respondent groups registered favorable im— preSalons of the program. 80 TABLE 4. 25. -- A statistical comparison of student personnel admin- istrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Student Activities Service at College 2 Admin. Faculty Students Total Rating N % N ‘70 N ‘70 N ‘70 Scope Very Broad 12 70.6 29 46.0 28 29.8 69 39.7 Broad 5 29.4 25 39.7 48 51.1 78 44.8 Adequate 0 0.0 9 14.3 11 11.7 20 11.5 Narrow 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 7.4 7 4.0 Very Narrow Totals 17 100.0 63 100.0 94 100.0 174 100.0 Mean Score 3.71 3.32 3.03 3.20 Quality Very Good 11 64.7 33 52.4 26 27.7 70 40.2 Good 6 35.3 23 36.5 44 46.8 73 42.0 Average 0 0.0 6 9.5 21 22.3 27 15.5 Poor/Very Poor 0 0.0 1 1.6 3 3.2 4 2.3 Totals 17 100.0 63 100.0 94 100.0 174 100.0 Mean Score 3.65 3.40 2.99 3.20 Scope: DF 6 X: = 17.487 Significant at .01 level Quality: DF 6 X = 17.461 Significant at .01 level The students felt that there had been many more "planned" events in the student union this past year. The Union Director was Very helpful to student organizations with respect to their planning of aCtivities. Although the Union Activities Committee had been re- ceptiVe to suggestions of "big name” entertainment by the students, 81 some students questioned whether their choices had been considered in the talent selection. Students felt a need for more professional entertainment on campus, but they also recognized that this was an expensive proposition. Faculty members acknowledged they had an interest in more informal discussions with students over social issues of the day. They felt that the ”coffee house" had provided a greater opportunity for this type of student—faculty dialogue. Student Self-Government Service. -— The responses by the student personnel administrators, faculty, and students of the Stu— All dent Self-Government Service were not significantly different. three respondent groups rated the service very favorably. Because communication between different segments of the college was an especially important concern for the members of stu- dent government, student representation on standing faculty commit- tees was considered very important by the students. Since it had been difficult for student representatives to secure adequate feedback from Other students, members of student government had sponsored SInall‘group discussions in the residence halls to gain a better under- s - . tandmg of general student reactions to campus issues. It was noted that the National Student Association Statement 0 n Student Rights had been jointly adopted by the students, faculty, a nd the Board of Regents of the college. Intramural Athletics Service. -- The student personnel ad- 82 ministrators, faculty, and students gave very favorable ratings to the scope and quality of the Intramural Athletics Service. sented in Table 4. 26, differences in the perceptions of the quality of As pre- the program were statistically significant at the .05 confidence level. TABLE 4. 26. -- A statistical comparison of student personnel admin— istrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Intramural Athletics Service at College 2 Admin. Faculty Students Total Rating N % N % N 070 N % Scope Very Broad 5 29.4 22 34.9 24 26.1 51 29.7 Broad 9 52.9 25 39.7 41 44.6 75 43.6 Adequate 3 17.7 16 25.4 23 25.0 42 24.4 Narrow] Ve Narrow o 0.0 0 0.0 4 4.3 4 2.3 Totals 17 100.0 63 100.0 92 100.0 172 100.0 Mean Score 3.12 3.10 2.92 3.01 Quality Very Good 5 29.4 24 38.1 29 31.5 58 33.7 Good 12 70.6 21 33.3 37 40.2 70 40.7 Average 0 0.0 18 28.6 22 23.9 40 23.3 POOP/VeryPoor o 0.0 o 0.0 4 4.4 4 2.3 Totals 17 100.0 63 100.0 92 100.0 172 100.0 Mean Score 3.29 3.10 2.99 3.06 \ Scope: DF 6 X: = 5.401 Not significant Quality: DF 6 X = 13.374 Significant at .05 level 83 The students reported that the intramural activities for both men and women were provided through a well-organized program. Students concluded that the organization of teams by "brotherhoods" (for freshmen) and residence hall corridors for upper-classmen was a key factor to success of the program. Many freshman women perceived the women' s intramural program as an activity provided primarily for the physical education students and this resulted in a reduced level of participation by fresh- man women. Other Services. -- Significant differences in perceptions of the three respondent groups were noted in the analysis of the data for :five other services in the Inventory of Selected College Services, including: Applicant Consulting Service, Personnel Records Service, Health Appraisal Service, Foreign Students Service, and Military Obligations Service. Although there were no significant differences found in the Perceptions of the three respondent groups for the Placement Service, the respondents were apparently very satisfied with the efforts made by the Director of the Educational Placement Services. Faculty and S tudents felt that the proposed plan to consolidate all placement a Ctivit ies under one office for the college would be most beneficial. 84 All three respondent groups rated the Religious Program Service very positively. Students felt that the variety of activities sufficiently met their needs for developing their religious faith. The work of the campus pastor was considered most vital to the success of the religious activities on campus. Substantially more student personnel administrators (64.7%) than students (42. 6%) or faculty (26. 9%) reported an involvement in the formulation of social regulations and procedures. TABLE 4. 27. -- Need for implementing Program Evaluation Service as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College 2 Admin. Faculty Students Total Degree of Need N % N (70 N % N % Neededa Lot 1 5.9 1 1.6 9 9 6 11 6.3 Needed Moderately 2 11. 8 4 6.4 22 23 4 28 16. 1 Needed a Little 1 5. 9 3 4. 8 8 8 5 12 6. 9 TOtalNeed 4 23 6 8 12 8 39 41 5 51 29 3 Responses N0 Need--Service Perceived as 13 76.4 55 87.2 55 58. 5 123 70.7 IITflplemented As illustrated in Table 4. 27, nearly one-third (29. 3%) of all r'eSpondents believed that there was a need to implement some type 01‘ evaluation for the student personnel services. 85 College Three The number of respondents for the sample groups of College Three included the following: student personnel administrators, 12; faculty members, 78; students, 54; total, 144. TABLE 4. 28. -- A statistical comparison of student personnel admin- istrators, faculty members, and students with respect to their perceptions of the scope and quality of the Pre-College Information Service at College 3 Admin. Faculty Students Total Rating N % N ‘70 N % N % Scope Very Broad 5 41.7 8 10.2 7 13.0 20 13.9 Broad 2 16.6 32 41. 1 30 55.5 64 44.4 Adequate 5 41.7 30 38.5 17 31.5 52 36. 1 Narrow/ Very Narrow 0 0.0 8 10.2 0 0.0 8 5.6 Totals 12 100.0 78 100.0 54 100.0 144 100.0 Mean Score .00 2.51 .81 2.67 Quality Very Good 3 25. 0 12 15.4 14 25. 9 29 20.1 Good 6 50.0 29 37.2 25 46.3 60 41.7 Average 3 25.0 34 43.6 13 24.1 50 34.7 1Door/Very Poor 0 0.0 3 3.8 2 3.7 5 3.5 Totals 12 100.0 78 100.0 54 100.0 144 100.0 Mean Score 00 2.64 .94 2.78 \ Scope: DF 6 X: = 18. 541 Significant at .01 level Quality: DF 6 X = 7.082 Not significant 86 Pre-College Information Service. -- The student personnel administrators, faculty, and students were in positive agreement with regard to the scope and quality of the Pre-College Information Service. According to the data in Table 4.28, the perceptions of the scope of the service by all three respondent groups were significantly different at the . 01 confidence level. Both the faculty and students were impressed with the work of the admissions staff. The Admissions Office appeared to have effectively involved the faculty in the "high school" days program. Similarly, students were also involved in the "Ambassadors" pro— gram for high school and church programs. Students revealed that their requests to the Admissions Office for information about the college' 8 programs had been given prompt attention. Some faculty and students expressed a desire to have a greater number of minority students on campus. Financial Aid Service. -- As presented in Table 4. 29, dif- feFences in perceptions by the student personnel administrators, faeulty, and students with respect to the Financial Aid Service' s S we; 2 .m men was Noe and was Se can on; sosooooam nsofino one 34 an .m was Ea no; main Be is was osoaoonE we 4 34 ace 3 .H g .2 Be one was one 8e nnoznwnoo sense: can we; 2 .N see as 3.; Sim is one Se 53:93. 35536 and was no .N Sam on .m men men sets an Ed 85254 assessors S. .N was one a .m co. .N a: 3.4.. some on .m was anemonm nooamzom Sim nee. me .N main one a: .m eon Sim men 25 onofinaoaoofiom onocsem Sn so .m S .e no .N see its awn Ea one no .N mongoose. 283m so; me .H SN $4. :4 mm; nets 8; see Noe 233m swaoaom eon Se 2 .m Sum can ea .2 as .m was «he was snooflsmom Hoaoom 2 .m SN 85 e: owe as can Sim an .N Ste snoonasmom Essence. 2.4 an; 34 5.4 is on; 5.2 :4 $4 so; 8:830 95.5 3 a e s e m e m a a omofioo comm no.“ mootfiom mo oaoom mo mwcfimm onoom smog opamanoU mow?“ mm 358 whom «seesaw oofisficovnt A: H .nv mdmgwrfl 214 Registration--Two (2. 94); Four (3. 07); Eight (3.14) Off-Campus Housing--Five (1. 49); Seven (1. 79); Nine (1.88); Ten (1. 70) Food and Dining--One (2. 98); Four (3.46) Health Appraisal--Three (l. 71); Five (1. 89); Eight (1. 62) Health Educative--One (1. 72); Two (1. 77); Three (1. 62); Four (1. 60); Five (1.51); Six (1. 65); Seven (1. 85); Eight (1.46); Nine (1. 70) Ten (1. 60) Health Clinical-~Three (l. 89); Five (1. 60); Eight (1.84) Student Counseling--Five (l. 89) Basic Skill Diagnostic--One (1. 81); Two (1. 70); Three (1. 69); Four (1. 75); Five (1.55); Six (1.57); Nine (1.44); Ten (1. 65) Group Guidance--One (1. 67); Two (1.76); Three (1. 77); Five (1. 56); Six (1.74); Seven (1.77); Eight (1.49); Nine (1. 59); Ten (1. 70) Academic Regulatory--Four (3. 25); Eight (3. 00) Foreign Student--Three (1. 66); Five (1. 33); Six (1. 71); Seven (1.87) Student Activities--One (2. 99); Two (3. 20); Four (3. 29); Six (3. 34); Eight (3. 10); Nine (2. 97); Ten (3. 01) Student Self-Government--Two (3. 09); Four (3. 00) Religious Program--Three (3. 34); Four (3. 46); Six (2. 96); Seven (2.91); Eight (3.29) Intramural Athletics--Two (3. 01); Four (3. 02) Citizenship Activity--Three (1.73); Five (1. 41); Nine (1. 86) 215 Military Obligations--Six (1.87); Ten (1.84) Campus Protection-~One (l. 69); Five (1.55); Ten (1. 48) Vehicle Regulatory--Ten (1. 72) Program Evaluation--One (1. 85); Three (1.75); Five (1. 57); Six (1. 89); Seven (1.64); Eight (1.79); Nine (1.59); Ten (1. 80) In—Service Education-~Five (1. 89); Nine (1.84) Administrative Organization--Five (l. 87) Quality. -- As presented in Table 4. 111, composite mean score ratings of the quality of the student personnel services by the student personnel administrators, faculty, and students were classi- fied as "average" for most services in a majority of the ten colleges. Substantially positive or negative mean scores for student personnel services were reported for the following colleges: Pre-College Information--One (2. 98); Two (3. 10); Four (3. 13); Six (3. 08); Seven (3. 18); Eight (3.43) Applicant Appraisal--Two (3. 1 1); Four (2. 98) Financial Aid--Two (3. 25); Seven (2. 99); Eight (3. 18) Student Inductive--Five (1. 89) Registration--Four (2. 96); Seven (1. 62); Eight (3.33) Personnel Records--Two (2. 96); Four (2. 90); Eight (2.97) Off-Campus Housing--Five (1. 72); Ten (1. 66) Food and Dining--One (3. 25); Three (2. 98); Four (3. 67); Ten (3. 00) 216 Se 22 2e and $2 eon 2 .2 2 .m 2.1m 2 .m osmosmnao 23m zoom 2 .N aim Sam 22 one 2 .m 2‘s Se 25 24s masonssoo Seesaw 2 .N men 3.2 Nee ems mod one eon 2 .m one 28:20 282 2:8. on; me .2 2 .m 2.2 $2 2.2 2.2 22m e22 258:5 282 see Ste. :2 Sim 2 .m 2 .N Ste 32 was $4. 286334 282 Se 25 Se 2 .m eon 2.2 see note was man mouse can ooom 2.2 2e 2 .N 2.2 was 2.2 its one Se and wsnnsom nsaasnofio 2a elm was and one one She 5e 25 Se manaom asafino mod 2; 5 .N Sim Sim En can use one ohm noaooom Hensonaom ems 2...». 2.2m No.2 Sim a2m cad see one 25 concession 2Q 2 .m Se 2 .N 25 mos use one ans Sim tonnes. oaaoonos on .m cm .N 2 .m 21m 2. .m an .2 2 .m 2. .N S .m E .N 9,885 Eocfim Se men 2 .e sad Sam 24“ Se 25 can «on Efloohmnm Cg manmficoamwm HMHOH. m0 mwquthmnH omozoo mo. ovum: .mmoZoo .222: 2a mootfimm “oncomama 223225 9: m5222083222 ho.“ Ummz m UO>M@OH®Q 0&3 mmwmzoo .HOwGwm SOHSSU Sahmfluflq GwOwhmg 03H. EOHH Amudmfifium 222.... .3303 .muouwfiflfifipw floccomhom «26633 mwsmpqommoh 2w mo ommuaoonma H309. u: .22 .v mamgfi - - Continued TABLE 4. 1 12 . 220 o cocaomoooooomcaocomNb N 2 LdaiNdedddodm'd—ioa'cdv; «5 N H H Nv-IH 8 I‘MNCDOOONL‘HOOOOOH co M t b. o O .0 u u o o o I u o I CD HCDLDOHOOV‘wCDb-HHODCO <1! '8 fi' Vt‘ r-cN V‘Vt‘ H 2 '0‘” cocoo2 N H v-IH N "do—II 80 EU ommmommooovd'moooco N NE v NN2NN22NNNN2NNNC; m H CO HH HH 0&1 2C: 38 Hmmqfioorcomb-v‘oommoovt' on g“ m NNNN2N2NNNNNNNNN; g3 N v v-«N HN H 82 g: mmmfifiioowljv-«QNV'LDN co an» L0 Jododbiéddr-ifl‘uico'p'éévi r3 3U) IO N NH co NN H mun TUNE, MV‘MV‘OOLDCDONNPCDOOO c: ‘58 '5‘ HHNC’SCdeOUDOOOMOOOO N E48 "‘ H N I-Iv-l H 92 :0. COfi‘NCOOl‘OHw'd‘OOOQO on NE m N2NNNNNNNNNNNNN<5 Cd co or) NH NH 4.; 8 a v-«NOVONNcomoocomvtmb on m N co'év'm'o'ééo'm'éo'co'm'oivi :5 D4 m N HF" mm H mmmOOb-Ov—ccov—«NOONCOCG co 2 2NNNN2N2NNNNNNNN m N HN v-i NH 4.» S: T) 0.) >> 5 $4 “hm G8 0 0 53.23:: smug-3 ma) 43% m0m$>53 .3844“: 540 H“ ®>2 .24., u (do 0"" QEDch {20.210 mafiam m> $3 “mu-100+! .bD Hdc> ‘* 0’ U>lhm4do cm 2 N28 mfifiowhmmogfi '5 (DMCfi mahmh‘” E'F‘m“ :3 E 50““ 5gp. "’09 H.“ +4 G530 5"“ CH ([3 D-cQJH-H 'gogmmmg‘ohmndq su,¢3o®°’,,_.mu,+;;0 "doom as Ocdoh'o'OHS-c'flr—cmgflc Ebb MCCOBBQH-H'Hr—t (DS-«é'US-c om2m.m wm.m SUN mm.m Nod mm.m Hv.m be; Hm; wH.N om.m no; mm.m mm; aim mo.m wm.m mm.m wo.m vm.m >w.m Nod :& pm.m omé pwé mm.m ¢N.m mp4 mm.m Hr; vm.m mo.m mad mm.m hm.m Nw.m v06 mo.m OH.N and mmé mwé wm .m aofiwfinmmno mfifimfimwfifigw on .m coflwonnm motiomufl mm . H cofiwflmsm 83quan mm .m .3335me 3033? mp .H coromuonm msmgv co .m acmfimowfim 2 .N mcosmmzno .9332 «m .m hfi>fio< 3:935qu mm .m mofimzfiw Hahsfimfifi mo .m Emnmoum msoflwfiom mo .m unm§m>ownfimm E355 mm .m mmEZB< Emcfim co .m pumvgm :wwmhoh wm .m mucumfifiwmm waoom 3 .m ~30??me 2835ko cc . N monwgzw 95nd mm .H 38835 23m 395 6055300 .3 .Hnmm mdmdfi. 300 ammo .2 a. .N om .m 2. .m 2 .m 3:355 Emufim 5:. .2 31m“ 2 .N E .m 2 .m 28258 28m 0 2%.: mm .2 E. .2 mm .2 g .m «>38st 5:25 0 m5 .2 g .N S .m cm .N mm .m 322a? 5282 c 3” .8 mm .m 3 .N a. .m 8 .2. .385 US... noom o 22. .2 £ .m 2 .N E .m 2. .m mfimsom $0285-30 0mm .2 3 .N 3 .m 8 .m we .m mfimsom mamas Sm .w 2 .m .3 .m 3 .m we .m 3.88m 3983mm 2; .m mm .m 2 .N am .N S .N cosmbmwmmm 0 N2 .2 S .N mm .m an .m S .N .6833. 2838< 2: .w E .m 3 .N 8 .m 8 .m @3835 283.0. So .m E .m 2 .N 3 .N g .N n3. 382E :5 .m 3 .m S .m S .N mm .N wfixsmcou 28233 :3 .m 2. .N 3 .N mm .m 2 .m 322%? “:8:me n gm .2 on .N 2 .m 3 .N 8 .m magma. a 2x. .2 mm. .m 2 .m E .m 201m. 85883 mwmzouépm a: ... 7: an u E A: n 7: E u 7: mmwpmsvw EU HSOH psmngm 516mm EEU< 832mm Hmscompmm pcmvam mm mmcfimm whoom S32 ch mwmfioU gm mpcmvgm new .mnonamfi 530mm .2on32”:va 3583mm Emcgm 05 .3 Umfimoumm mm mmoffimm Hmccomhmm “cmvgm 2: mo 3:220 23 mo mfimbmcm 9335 EU cam mwcfimp muoom 532 I. .m-m H1233. 301 H0>0H 000002.280 Hoo . «m “28¢“:me H03: 000002.300 Ho . Hm ”Emofifiamwm 0 3?”: 00003300 mo . Hm unmofiflcmfim 0 29,2 88228 no. a... Emofizwa m Eonmmh m0 mmmpmmw m mm m.mpm.m2 mm.m «222 Sim mmw.m mo.m pmo.m om.m m¢m.m mm.2 m 32.2 $.N m 222 om.~ mum.m Hp.m mmm.m mm.m m 2pm.v2 Nw.m www.22 2w.m mfim.p No.m mpw.v ¢N.~ a 22mm Sa 0 www.52 vw.m o pow.fim Hm.2 Ham.2 m2.m mm.m mm.m de and” mm; and vfi.m om.N wm.m mm.m mfm mm.m S.m ¢H.N Om.m Hm; min and Hm.m Hm; VN.N um; find OH.N mud om.m mo.m mm.m mo.m N.N.N CN.N mv.m mwé Cad mw.m SUN mH.N mod ro.m oo.m am.m NH.m ww.m aim aim mud mad 2%" oo.m KTN om.m uoflumuficmwnO 0300335804 cosmosum mowtmmufi nofiwgmkrm Emuw00m Eouflnwwm 3033/ cofiomuofm 033880 Emfimoflm 223330 083:2 0.05% 03330.6 003283 3050355 Smhmonm msowmflwm pqmficpokwowufimw «000:5 mmfigfiodw «cmvgm ucmngm :wwmpoh mugflswmm amfioom mucuflnwmm ofifimfimoafi 0000350 05000 332030 :05 0.3mm 0035300 5. .Nlm Hdmafl. 302 TABLE E-3. -- Involvement in or use made of student personnel ser- vices by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College One Involvement In or Use Made of Services By Student Personnel Admin. Faculty Student Total Service (N = 17) (N = 77) (N = 85) (N = 179) No. % No. % No. % No. % Pre—College Information 15 88. 2 60 77.9 74 87.1 149 83.2 Testing 12 70.6 43 55.8 71 83.5 126 70.4 Applicant Appraisal 10 58. 8 38 49.4 68 80. O 116 64.8 Applicant Consulting 13 76. 5 56 72. 7 72 84.7 141 78. 8 Financial Aid 13 76.5 41 53.3 59 69.4 113 63.1 Student Inductive 14 82 . 4 37 48. 1 72 84.7 123 68. 7 Academic Advisory 13 76. 5 60 77.9 76 89. 4 149 83.2 Registration 14 82.4 56 72. 7 84 93.8 154 86.0 Personnel Records 15 88. 2 47 61. 0 45 52. 9 107 59.8 Campus Housing 9 52.9 21 27.3 76 89.4 106 59.2 Off-Campus Housing 7 41.2 11 14.3 20 23.5 38 21.2 Food and Dining 13 76. 5 6O 77. 9 83 97.7 156 87. 2 Health Appraisal 12 70. 6 33 42. 9 53 62.4 98 54. 8 Health Educative 9 52. 9 21 27. 3 33 38.8 63 35. 2 Health Clinical 9 52. 9 40 51. 9 71 83. 5 120 67.0 Student Counseling 14 82.4 43 55. 8 55 64. 7 112 62.6 Basic Skill Diagnostic 6 35. 3 19 24. 7 27 31. 8 52 29.1 Group Guidance 11 64.7 15 19.5 22 25.9 48 26.8 Academic Regulatory 12 70. 6 37 48. 1 33 38.8 82 45. 8 Social Regulatory 12 70. 6 15 19. 5 29 34.1 56 31. 3 Foreign Student 7 41. 2 7 9. l 3 3. 5 17 9. 5 Student Activities 13 76. 5 57 74. O 79 92.9 149 83.2 Student Self-Government 12 70. 6 23 29. 9 51 60. 0 86 48. 0 Religious Program 12 70.6 56 72.7 69 81.2 137 76.5 Intramural Athletics 5 29. 4 14 18. 2 41 48. 2 60 33.5 Citizenship Activity 11 64. 7 38 49. 4 32 37. 7 81 45. 3 Military Obligation 7 41. 2 5 6. 5 15 17. 7 27 15. 1 Placement 11 64. 7 40 51. 9 21 24. 7 72 40. 2 Campus Protection 6 35. 3 17 22. 1 49 57. 7 72 40. 2 Vehicle Regulatory 10 58. 8 39 50. 7 41 48. 2 90 50. 3 Program Evaluation 13 76. 5 26 33. 8 40 47. 1 79 44. 1 In-Service Education 13 76. 5 49 63. 6 6 7.1 68 37. 9 Admm.‘Str.at”e 13 76. 5 32 41.6 33 38.8 78 43. 6 Organization AI 303 TABLE E-4. -- Need for implementing student personnel services as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College One Degree of Need No Need" Perceived as Student Personnel '° 4.» '5 . P 3 Total Implemented Serv1ce .8 0 g '0 ,8 3 3 '4 3 3 3 :3 Z <15 Z Z w No. % No. % Pre-College Information 0 O O 0 O. 0 179 100. 0 Testing 0 5 0 5 2. 8 174 97.2 Applicant Appraisal 1 3 1 5 2 . 8 174 97. 2 Applicant Consulting 2 1 0 3 1. 7 176 98. 3 Financial Aid 0 O 0 O O. O 179 100. 0 Student Inductive 3 4 1 8 4. 5 171 95. 5 Academic Advisory 0 1 0 1 0. 6 178 99. 4 Registration 0 O O O 0. 0 179 100. 0 Personnel Records 0 2 1 3 1. 7 176 98. 3 Campus Housing 0 0 0 0 0. 0 179 100. 0 Off-Campus Housing 2 11 2 15 8. 4 164 91. 6 Food and Dining 0 O 0 0 0. O 179 100. 0 Health Appraisal 3 14 15 32 17. 8 147 82. 2 Health Educative 8 32 14 54 30. 2 125 69. 8 Health Clinical 0 2 1 3 1. 7 176 98. 3 Student Counseling 1 5 3 9 5. O 170 95. 0 Basic Skill Diagnostic 3 23 14 40 22. 4 139 77. 6 Group Guidance 15 30 12 57 31. 9 122 68. 1 Academic Regulatory 1 2 2 5 2. 8 174 97.2 Social Regulatory 2 8 7 17 9. 5 162 90. 5 Foreign Student 1 24 25 50 28. O 129 72. 0 Student Activities 0 0 0 O 0. O 179 100. 0 Student Self-Government 1 2 O 3 1. 7 176 98. 3 Religious Program 0 0 0 0 O. 0 179 100. 0 Intramural Athletics 0 2 O 2 1. 1 177 98. 9 Citizenship Activity 9 11 2 22 12 . 3 157 87 . 7 Military Obligation 8 21 7 36 20. 1 143 79. 9 Placement 0 4 O 4 2 . 2 175 97. 8 Campus Protection 10 16 4 3O 16. 8 149 83. 2 Vehicle Regulatory 0 2 2 4 2. 2 175 97. 8 Program Evaluation 14 28 7 49 27 . 3 130 72 . 7 In-Service Education 6 15 1 22 12. 3 157 87. 7 Admm.18tr.atwe 3 6 i 10 5. 6 169 94.4 Organization um:- Student personnel administrators, 17 ; faculty members, 77; students, 85; total sample, 179. 304 ~v....:. ___... v ‘ ‘ . . uL‘ ~ e—Kx.~. 6 3m .2 3 .m om .m mm .m 3 .N 323560. Emefim c mmm .3. S .m E .H 3. .m E .N 18330 £3me «.3 .3 E .H 2. .H 8 A 2. .H 3:830. 53$ 8 m3 .3 no .N S .H 3. .N 8 .N 23383. 53$ 6 2.22 33 $3 :3 83 335 2:... 89.0 a: .w 3 .m 3 .N S. .N 3 .N 9:680 36830-50 2: .8 21m 3 .m S .m co .m 3380 35860 6 m8 .3 3 .N E .m 3 .m we .m 68860 3586.80 :5 .w 3 .m 3 .m S .m we .m 8383330 6 2o .3 Sim mm .N z. .m E .N .3833. 286680 3 m8 .3 2 .N mo .m 2.. .N E .m 63855 Emufim 32: a; 85 23 25 63328qu 3 So .2 E. .m mm .N 8 .m S .N 333300 38:63. mow .2 S. .m 3 .N 3 .N «a .N 338053. 38:86.3. 6 com .2 «N.N mm .2 Sim 3 .m 0333. 3; .m. 2. .m ms .m S .N 3 .m 8:38.83 63:60-30 3.: n 7: :3 u 7: as u 7: A: u E mmmth—Um «SD HNHOPH. uflmflfium hufifiomrm GHEUAV mowxwhmm MOSCOmhmnH wGOUSum mm mmcfimm 0.00m 0002 039. 0MOSOU um 300030 000 6.00805 13300.“ 63083025800 00000000 8.00030 05 .3 00300.00 00 0003000 00000000 «00030 0E. m0 0aoom 05 Ho 0203me 000500 30 0:0 mwaflmu 00000 :00? u- .mum M1533. 305 00.50 8000008 :5. ”E 880800 H0>0H 000000.300 Ho . 00 0000500mfim H0>0H 000000.080 mo . 00 “0000.00me H0>0H 00000E000 mo. #0 00000.20mwm 0 0 n, 0 0000000.“ 00 000.0000 0 00 0 0, mHH.m mmw.m pr.m m¢m.m Hm0.m vvv.oH mm>.w >o~.oH Ho0.m mmm.v mo>.m pw0.pfi www.mH wwo.w mum.b Hom.m va.> 20 $0 80 $0 8.0 3.0 £0 8.0 8.0.. $0 8.0 31m 50 $0 $0 3.0 2.0 om.m mm.m hm; Hm.m mad 22m mH.m mo.m mad N.N..m :5 mod aim >05 cad 3.4 Ag; mm.m m0.m mH.N mm.m 0o.m mo.m o¢.m ow.m 0H5 mod wo.m mm.m mm.m mm.m rm.m or; 2.4 0m.m oo.m mod C..N mmé 0m.m mH.m mm.m NH.m ww.m wo.m Z..m mm.m mad mw.m Hmé owé 0030500w00 03000000000004 0030000m 003.00mu0H 003030>m c00nwoum m030~0w0m 0H030> 003000.00m 0000000 “0000000Hnm 000000030 0.8002 0.0050 0308000 00303;. #0030035 E0pwo0m msofiwfi0m E000000>00u20m 00003m 0030>30< «000:5 a0003m 0w0000h N0000H0w0m H0woom m030300m 000000000. 000000000 00000 0008020 030 3000 00303000 I: .mnm Hdmdah. 306 m 2.0 .3 3 .0 mm .0 3 .m 3.0.. 000003550 050030 00 mom .8 m0 .0 mm .0 8 .0 mm .0 0800000 000.80 0 3m .00 0o .0 3 .0 3.0 3.0 300800000 00000800 0 Now .00. mm .m 00 .0 3 .m 0:. .0 080200000 000800 a $00.0: 0.0.0 3.0 3.0 000.0 00000000 00000 0080 8o .0: mm .0 3. .m 8 .0 mm .0 00000080 00000080000 3a .00 0: .m 00 .m S. .N 8 .00 000000600 0200080 0.. 003 .000 mm .0 mm .m S .m 3.0 00.0800 020008.80 003 .00 00 .N S .m 5 .m 00 .00 08002000000 o as .00 mm .0 mm .m 0: .0 mm .m 00.080030 0080080 03 .o. 00. .N 0.0 .m 8 .m 000 .0 038000.000 00000030 300 .0 mm .00 00 .m mm .m 0.00 .0 20 0002000000 0 0.8.00 S. .N 3.0 2. .m 3.0 0000000680 0008000000 800 .00 00 .m .3 .m S .m mm .00 0303000000 00080000000 0. 0.3 .5 3 .0 mm .0 mm .0 m0 .0 00008.0. 30. .00 0: .m 00 .m 8 .0 mm .0 080008.085 000000-80 030 u E 03 u 700 80 u 700 :0 u 700 000.0000m EU H000H 0.000005 330000 00000004 000>00m 000000.00m 00003m 0mm 0w030m 0.000m 000E 0.3.0. 000300 00 000000 000 000900000 00.00000 0.000000000000000 000000.000 000030 00.0. 03 00300000 00 0003000 000000.000 000030 000. .00 5000000 000. .00 0003000 0.0000 000 000 000300 0.0000 0002 nu .mum mqmma. 307 0260 8000000008 08. 00 008000000 00.00 0000000000 3. 0.0 00000000m0m 000000 0000000000 mo. 00 0000000000 005.00 0000000000 mo . 0 00000000000 0 0 o, 0 80000.00 00 000.0000 0 00 n .m 0 0 mm¢.m How.m N00.m Hmo.oH m¢w.m mmo.0 www.mH ~H>.o0 0>m.mH wmm.o 0mm.m Hmw.>0 Nam.mm mmv.HH mmw.v oom.o mmm.oH mm.m m¢.m Nm.m owd >H.m ww.m mw.m >0.m mod mw.m Had om.m o>.m >0.N om.m 000 om.m mm.m and >H.N mm.m de mm.m m0 .N mm.m mm.m m>.m mH.m mad mm.m 0m.m mm.m >H.N mm.m >0.m mm.m aim Sim mad mm.m wo.m mm.m CHAN mm.m mod 005 om.m >m.m mwd HH.N wad 1v.m om.m mwd m>.m NH.N 0:4.” and om.m mm.m min min mm.m mm.m 000 N06 mo.m mfim 0030300000 0300000000004» 00300000m~ 003.00mu00 0000030050 000.000an 030001000000 00030.? 00300000n~ 00000000 000000000nm 0803000000 0.0300002 0.0380 000000030000 003000.400 000000.35 0.00.0000m 0000w000m 00000009500000 0000005 00303004 0000005 0000000 0000.00.00 >0000H0w0m H0000m m0op000m0m 00800000004 00000000 00000 000080000 00000 0000mm 00503000 I: .mum— HAmAVAH 308 TABLE E-7. -- Involvement in or use made of student personnel ser- vices by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College Two Involvement In or Use Made of Services By Student Personnel Admin. Faculty Student Total Service (N = 17) (N = 63) (N = 94) (N = 174) No. % No. % No. % No. % Pre-College Information 15 88.2 46 73.0 84 89.4 145 83.3 Testing 15 88.2 34 53.9 75 79.8 124 71.3 Applicant Appraisal 13 76. 5 31 49. 2 74 78. 7 118 67. 8 Applicant Consulting 13 76. 5 44 69. 8 80 85.1 137 78. 7 Financial Aid 12 70.6 35 55.6 73 77.7 120 69.0 Student Inductive 15 88.2 39 61.9 66 70.2 120 69.0 Academic Advisory 15 88. 2 53 84. 1 77 81. 9 145 83. 3 Registration 12 70. 6 45 71. 4 92 97. 9 149 85.6 Personnel Records 16 94. 1 45 71. 4 56 59. 6 117 67. 2 Campus Housing 12 70.6 15 23.8 88 93.6 115 66.1 Off-Campus Housing 11 64.7 16 25.4 38 40.4 65 37.4 Food and Dining 12 70. 6 44 69. 8 87 92. 6 143 82.2 Health Appraisal 12 70. 6 22 34. 9 49 52.1 83 47. 7 Health Educative 9 52. 9 13 20. 6 14 14. 9 36 20. 7 Health Clinical 15 88.2 28 44.4 73 77.7 116 66.7 Student Counseling 16 94. 1 36 57. 1 57 60. 6 109 62. 6 Basic Skill Diagnostic 7 41. 2 17 26. 9 12 12. 8 36 20. 7 Group Guidance 7 41.2 19 30.2 26 27.7 52 29.9 Academic Regulatory 1 1 64. 7 44 69. 8 47 50. 0 102 58.6 Social Regulatory 11 64. 7 17 26. 9 40 42. 6 68 39. 1 Foreign Student 7 41.2 16 25.4 6 6.4 29 16.7 Student Activities 1 1 64. 7 49 77. 8 86 91. 5 146 83. 9 Student Self-Government 9 52. 9 26 41. 3 70 74.5 105 60. 3 Religious Program 11 64. 7 39 61. 9 87 92. 6 137 78. 7 Intramural Athletics 6 35. 3 26 41. 3 74 79.8 107 61. 5 Citizenship Activity 9 52. 9 32 50. 8 43 45. 7 84 48. 3 Military Obligation 9 52 . 9 7 1 1. 1 2 1 22. 3 37 21. 3 Placement 1 1 64. 7 37 58. 7 29 30. 9 77 44. 3 Campus Protection 1 1 64. 7 20 31. 8 61 64.9 92 52. 9 Vehicle Regulatory 1 1 64. 7 39 61. 9 40 42. 6 90 51. 7 Program Evaluation 10 58. 8 26 41. 3 31 32. 9 67 38. 5 In-Service Education 9 52. 9 30 47. 6 12 12. 8 51 29. 3 Adm‘n.‘5tr3twe 13 76. 5 24 38. 1 25 26. 6 62 35. 6 Organization 309 TABLE E-8. -- Need for implementing student personnel services as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College Two Degree of Need No Need-- Perceived as Studersit Personnel '8 +5 '8 '8 32*: Total Implemented erVICe *0 "U 'U “D +1 a) '4 a) 0 o j g “3 g 2 g w No. ‘70 NO. % Pre-College Information 0 1 O 1 0. 6 173 99. 4 Testing 0 3 2 5 2. 9 169 97. 1 Applicant Appraisal 1 2 2 5 2. 9 169 97. 1 Applicant Consulting 0 6 1 7 4. 0 167 96. 0 Financial Aid 0 1 0 1 0. 6 173 99.4 Student Inductive 3 12 1 16 9. 2 158 90. 8 Academic Advisory 2 6 4 12 6. 9 162 93. 1 Registration 0 0 O 0 0. 0 174 100. 0 Personnel Records 0 2 0 2 1. 2 172 98.8 Campus Housing 0 O 1 1 0. 6 173 99.4 Off-Campus Housing 1 4 1 6 3. 5 168 96. 8 Food and Dining 1 0 0 1 0. 6 173 99.4 Health Appraisal 4 20 14 38 21. 9 136 78. 1 Health Educative 12 4O 31 83 47. 7 91 52. 3 Health Clinical 3 3 1 7 4. 0 167 96. 0 Student Counseling 3 7 0 10 5. 7 164 94. 3 Basic Skill Diagnostic 12 36 18 66 37. 9 108 62. 1 Group Guidance 18 30 15 63 36. 1 111 63. 9 Academic Regulatory O 1 1 2 1. 2 172 98. 8 Social Regulatory 1 4 2 7 4. 0 167 96. 0 Foreign Student 2 22 20 44 25. 3 130 74.7 Student Activities 0 0 0 0 O. 0 174 100. 0 Student Self-Government O 1 1 2 1. 2 172 98. 8 Religious Program 0 1 1 2 1. 2 172 98. 8 Intramural Athletics 0 0 1 1 0. 6 173 99. 4 Citizenship Activity 7 12 4 23 13. 3 151 86. 7 Military Obligation 8 20 3 31 17 . 8 143 82 . 2 Placement 0 1 0 1 0. 6 173 99. 4 Campus Protection 2 8 2 12 6. 9 162 93. 1 Vehicle Regulatory O 2 2 4 2. 4 170 97. 6 Program Evaluation 11 28 12 51 29. 3 123 70. 7 In-Service Education 8 29 6 43 24. 7 131 75. 3 Admm.13tr.‘"‘twe 3 14 2 19 1o. 9 155 89. 1 Orgamzatlon Student personnel administrators, 17; faculty members, 63; students, 94; total sample, 174. 310 2.3 .v S .m S. .m mm .N no .N 3:358 582% SN .fi 3 .H S .2 mo .m as. .H 18:50 £36m g .m S .H mm .H mm A 8 .H 258an 53% NS. .s E .H S. .H mm A «m .H 332831 53$ «.2. .m 8 .m S .m a .N no .m mafia 98 80m 2: .m we .m so .N we .m we .m mfimsom 3988-30 mg .m on .m 3 .m S .m S .m wfimsom mango e 3m .2 3 .m E .m 3 .N E. .H mEoomm Hmccowamm So .H E .m we .N g .m g .m cozmbmzmmm 3m 4‘ mm .N 5 .m g .m at .m 8832 028889“ a fig .3 om .m mm .N an .N as .H @5035 Emufim m So .2 3 .N g .N N.N .N mm. .m 93. 328E am .2 S .m we mm mm .m S .m 3:388 E8283. mom .m S .N no .N 3 .m 8 .N 39893. 38:93 mg .m we .N so .m m: .N 3 .H madame o 21:: 8 .m S .m 33 86. 8238885 63:00-63 3: u 7: as n 7: as u E 3H n 7: waozmsvm EU amuoH udmpgm minowm 5:554 outflow Hocaomsmm pnmpsum mm mmdfimm ozoom S82 @935. owmfiou um mucopgm paw .mzonama 3303 .mpopwuumfifisfiom Hoscomnod “sovgm mg 13 63.30me mw moofirnom Hmccomnod Empgm 93 mo odoom 2: mo mzmfimsw mumsdm 30 98 mans—mp “Zoom 532 .i .mum HAmmm.>~ www.mH Nm¢.m NHN.N omm.oH mHH.m H¢m.m arm.m mmm.m ¢wo.m hmm.w mmm.m mcm.v rwm.> b¢N.m HwH.¢ mH.N mo.m 2.4 m¢.m N.N.m SIN mm.m mp4 mm.m ¢m.m mzv.m SUN mmé mm.m aim 5.4 mmé Hm.m mm; mvé om.m mm.m vw.m No.m mmé m¢.m m¢.m wm.m owd main mm.m vm.m mmé vmé HH.N aim wmé mm.m mud CNN mm.m mwé mm.m mm.m mm.m 32m mp4 orim m¢.m mmé mp4 rm.m 2.4 omé mm.m >H.N mm.m aim mmé mm; um.m om.m om.m corn mm.m mud mm; o¢é cofiwfldmwnO mzumfimfifiapd. ~838va oofifiomufi dofimfimcrm Smnmoum ngmgswom 3033/ cofiogoam 95:80 unmamoflm 2038290 83:22 .9333“. 832338 83353. 2358835 EmmeLm msowwflmm “cogpocrowufiom ammonium m3fi>fio< unopsum «Gonna :mwonom mugflsmom Hwfioow maoumfizwom cwfiovmozw . moswgsw Q5080 28835 3% 06mm 6055300 1: .muH Mdmmwh. 312 soo .2 os .o oo .o os .o as .o ocnoofiao EooBm o sss .oo so .o oo .2 so .o as .o 282:0 £28m ooo .2 oo .2 oo .o os .2 oo .o ozooosom £28m ooo .o so .2 oo .2 so .2 oo .N 282284 8.2822 ooo .s oo .o so .o oo .o oo .o mafia ooo ooom oss .s om .o s .o 2N.N oo .o ofiosom 3885-220 22 .o so .o os .o oo .o os .o ofimsom osofioo ooo .2 oo .o ss .o oo .o oo .2 mooooom Hocooooom ooo .2 oo .o oo .o so .o os .o oozotosoom ooo .o oo .o 2 .o as .o s2 .o 882.84 2838252 2o .o ms .o so .o s .o oo .2 938382 Eoosoo s2 .o. oo .o os .o oo .o oo .o odes 28$ch ooo .2 2 .o so .o ooo ooo 3:338 28:83 ooo .o oo .o oo .o ms .o os .N 282884 Eooioss ooo.o Hoo 2o oso ooo onto: ooo .s os .o so .o so .o oo .o 8238.83 823065 s2 n E so u 7: Aos n E 2 n 73 mmozmzvm EU 230B Eopfim mfizowh 583w outflow Hoscomnom snoossm tom mmfifiom whoow smog ooch omofiou so mssoossm pom 625288 13283 .mposwbomscsaom Hoccompod Bongo 2: may cofioouoa mm mootfiom Hoscomuod “:8me 9: so .33ng of Mo 29328 opwsvm Eu cam mwfifiou opoom smog .i .oTH Mdmafl. 313 3:: mosovflqoo So. to osmoaflcmsm 3?”: oesopflcoo Ho. so Emoflficwflm ER: monocflcoo mo. 8m samoflscwfim Hos/3 monopflsoo no. am #:822212me c o D m Eovoonm mo moopwon m mm .m w n n mmm.m www.mH Nmo.w va.w mwm.o Hwfi.m bom.oH wom.fi wmm.NH www.mH wmm.¢ rmo.w mum.m wmm.m wom.mfi mam.m m~¢.m wN.N >H.N No.m ¢m.m mm.m Hm.m v¢.m po.m mm.m Hm.m wm.m SUN mm; vm.m mm.m HH .N OH.N ov. mo. um. ma. hm. «so. wm. mo. mm. Hm. Hm.m N.N..m mmé mm.m mm.m >0.N NH.N MNNNNNNHNN ufid mm.m OH.N mm.m mm.m mm.m m¢.m mo.m mm.m wad Sim Nw.m oo.m Rim med OH.N bod ms .m cospmuwsmwno ofismfimwfifinsos oo . N Gowumonvm mowtmmufl cm .H 283359,.an Smuwonnm oo . m spoofimgwom 3023.? mm . m cossoouosm madawv mm . m “soaoomfim S .o 293920 23:22 oo .2 sszooss 8228qu co .m moEoEfiw 3.232335 so .m Smuwoum msoswfiom so .m smogposrownflom unovzum oo .o mosrfioss Eoofim mm .H scoossm :wsouom co .m muoswfizmom Hmsoom mo .m mposmfiswom osfioowosw mm . N 028350 95.50 os .o osoocoso :Em usoom coscficou In .oHum Mdmsosht 314 TABLE E-11.-— Involvement in or use made of student personnel ser- vices by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College Three Involvement In orUse Made of Services By Student Personnel Admin. Faculty Student Total Service (N = 12) (N = 78) (N = 54) (N = 144) NO. 0/0 NO. 070 NO. % NO. 070 Pre-College Information 12 100. 0 53 67. 9 52 96.3 117 81. 3 Testing 10 83.3 46 58.9 45 83.3 101 70.1 Applicant Appraisal 10 83. 3 41 52. 6 45 83. 3 96 66. 7 Applicant Consulting 7 58. 3 55 70. 5 49 90. 7 111 77. 1 Financial Aid 11 91.7 28 35.9 38 70.4 77 53.5 Student Inductive 11 91. 7 48 61. 5 49 90. 7 108 75. 0 Academic Advisory 8 66. 7 63 80. 8 47 87. O 118 81. 9 Registration 6 50.0 50 64. 1 53 98.2 109 75.7 Personnel Records 10 83. 3 50 64. 1 38 70. 4 98 68. 1 Campus Housing 9 75.0 13 16.7 47 87.0 69 47. 9 Off-Campus Housing 7 58.3 9 11.5 15 27.8 31 21.5 Food and Dining 8 66.7 49 62.8 53 98.2 110 76.4 Health Appraisal 7 58. 3 27 34. 6 28 51. 9 62 43. 1 Health Educative 4 33. 3 18 23. 1 8 14. 8 30 20. 8 Health Clinical 9 75. 0 32 41. 0 51 94.4 92 63. 9 Student Counseling 11 91. 7 40 51.3 38 70. 4 89 61.8 Basic Skill Diagnostic 3 25. O 17 21. 8 6 11. 1 26 18. 1 Group Guidance 6 50.0 16 20.5 18 33.3 40 27.8 Academic Regulatory 7 58. 3 36 47. 2 25 46. 3 68 47. 2 Social Regulatory 10 83. 3 23 29. 5 30 55. 6 63 43. 8 Foreign Student 2 16. 7 4 5. 1 2 3. 7 8 5. 6 Student Activities 10 83. 3 51 65. 4 51 94.4 1 12 77. 9 Student Self-Government 10 83. 3 35 44. 9 4O 74. 1 85 59. 0 Religious Program 9 75. 0 57 73. 1 51 94.4 117 81.3 Intramural Athletics 3 25. O 24 30. 8 29 53. 7 56 38. 9 Citizenship Activity 7 58. 3 28 35. 9 22 40. 7 57 39.6 Military Obligation 6 50. O 9 1 1. 5 21 38. 9 36 25. 0 Placement 6 50.0 31 39.7 31 57.4 68 47.2 Campus Protection 9 75. 0 29 37. 2 47 87. 0 85 59. 0 Vehicle Regulatory 8 66. 7 50 64. 1 25 46. 3 83 57. 6 Program Evaluation 9 75. 0 46 58. 9 22 40. 7 77 53. 5 In-Service Education 8 66. 7 51 64. 4 12 22. 2 71 49. 3 Admm.18tr.atwe 10 83. 3 37 47. 4 23 42. 6 7o 48. 6 Organization 315 TABLE E-12. -- Need for implementing student personnel services as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College Three Degree of Need No Need-- Perceived as Student Personnel '8 +-’ '8 '8 50:) Total Implemented Serv1ce 1, 3 1, 'o 'o .4: a) o O o .4 :2 “3 g E :2 w No. % No. % Pre-College Information 0 0 0 O 0. O 144 100. 0 Testing 0 2 1 3 2. 1 141 97.9 Applicant Appraisal 1 0 1 2 1. 4 142 98. 6 Applicant Consulting 3 1 1 5 3. 5 139 96. 5 Financial Aid 0 1 O 1 0. 7 143 99. 3 Student Inductive 1 3 1 5 3. 5 139 96. 5 Academic Advisory 0 1 1 2 1. 4 142 98. 6 Registration 0 0 O 0 0. 0 144 100. 0 Personnel Records 1 1 0 2 1 . 4 142 98. 6 Campus Housing 0 1 2 3 2. 1 141 97. 9 Off-Campus Housing 1 7 6 14 9. 8 130 90. 2 Food and Dining 0 0 O 0 0. O 144 100. 0 Health Appraisal 5 13 9 27 18. 7 117 81 . 3 Health Educative 6 29 21 56 45. 8 78 54. 2 Health Clinical 3 1 0 4 2. 8 140 97. 2 Student Counseling 1 2 0 3 2. 1 141 97. 9 Basic Skill Diagnostic 7 24 12 43 29. 9 101 70. 1 Group Guidance 13 23 8 44 30. 6 100 69. 4 Academic Regulatory 1 0 1 2 1. 4 142 98. 6 Social Regulatory O 1 5 6 4. 2 138 95. 8 Foreign Student 5 18 34 57 39. 6 87 60. 4 Student Activities 0 O 0 O 0. 0 144 100. 0 Student Self-Government 0 1 O 1 0. 7 143 99. 3 Religious Program 0 0 O 0 0. 0 144 100. 0 Intramural Athletics 1 2 0 3 2. 1 141 97. 9 Citizenship Activity 10 16 4 30 20. 8 1 14 79. 2 Military Obligation 3 9 3 15 10. 4 129 89. 6 Placement O 0 O 0 0. O 144 100. 0 Campus Protection 0 0 0 0 0. 0 144 100. 0 Vehicle Regulatory 0 0 0 0 0. 0 144 100. 0 Program Evaluation 10 18 2 30 20. 8 1 14 79. 2 In'-Service Education 10 11 2 23 16. O 121 84. 0 Adm‘n.18tr3twe 4 3 3 10 6. 9 134 93. 1 Organization Student personnel administrators, 12; faculty members, 78; students, 54; total sample, 144. 316 soo .o so .o oo .2 2 .o oo .o oo22oo§oo 282% oso .22 oo .o 2 .o so .o oo .o 28222220 2222oom o ooo .2 oo .2 oo .2 ss .2 oo .2 322826222 2222332 oso .22 22 .o oo .2 2N.N oo .N 2828223. £28m Nos .o os .o os .o ss .o oo .o 325 oso ooom ooo .o s2 .o 2 .m 2 .o om .o ofiosom 926852.20 22 Nos .2 oo .o so .o oo .o so .o ofiosom osoSoo o oso o2 os .o oo .m oo .o s2 .o mooooom 2o§oo2om 2oo .o so .o 2 .o oo .o ms .o 2822862322 22 ooo .so so .o os .o oo .o oo .o 28332 o2Eoo8< o sss.s2 oo .o oso oo .o ooo 822622252 oooofio sso .2 2s .o os o so .o oo .o o2 2o2oooc2r2 ooo .3 so .o os .o 2s .o oo .o o522soaoo 222822223 oso .o so .o oo .o so .o os .N 2828222? 222822222? ooss s2.o s2.o ooo os.2 3228.2. ooo .o oo o os .o oo .o oo .o 82222828222 032260-862 82m u 7: so u 7: 822 u E 82 n 72v mwopmsvm ED 1308 ssocgm 330mm EEU< outflow Hoccomponm scoossm hm mmcfimm osoom smog 250m owoSoU to monopzsm pow .msoQEoE 2330mm .mzosmfiflfiaom 3222209292 “condom was one vofioouoa mm moot/now Hoccomuod «22.212me was so omoom of .20 m2m§mc2o osmium. 30 was mwcfimn whoom ammo/H nu .me m3m~<8 317 2262 8282622228 So. on 2822222226 2262 822352200 3. so «smosflsmsm 2962 ooconfldoo mo. so osmoflsdwsm 2962 mocovacoo no. to ssmoflawfi U o n m Eoooofi so moopwow o no sss ooo U o soo 6 So o2o o ooo 2os soo o oos o 2os 2oo ooo s2 ooo ooo oos oso n .m .mm .m2 .5 .m .om .oH .H .mH .mH 2: .oH .mm 2: .m .m .s. wm.m m¢.m uvo.m mm.m ¢N.N wm.m om.m Hm.m mo.m wwd oo.m mad wm.m ms..m and um; mp; SYN wH.N pm; main“ o¢.m mm.m NH.N sew ww.m >m.m >m.m mm.m aim SEN mm.m pm; mwé find ¢m.m S.m Hm.m NH.N mv.m and m¢.m mo.m m¢.m oo.m mm.m mm.m SIN >N.m mmé mwé mm . m 2203mu222mwn0 ozowhumsfiagw mm . N :ofimospm ooszomufi ms .H soSmBmsrm Emuwoum ms . m huoumasmom 3033’ ac . m 2.822.030an madEmU S .m unmaoomfim oo .o 262232222220 12232222222 ms .N 322226234 22222232220 om . m mofiogfiw 2.2522335 mm .m Swuwoam m=o2w£om S .m “Coachosrowuflom «cough oo .o $222223 Emofim on .N “swoon—m. :wEuoh mm .m huoumgwom Hmsoom co .m hnosmgwom osfiovmosq ms .2 002.8ng 920.20 oo .2 62282235 22262.6. Boom Umncscob In .mHnm Himmswmt 318 mm; .o 3 .N om .m 3 .N 3 .N 3:358 Emofim a mom .2 an .N mm .m on .N g .m 3355 axmom 2;. .o 3 .H mm .H mo .m 3 .H «>385; £18m E .w a. .m mm .m S .N S .m H3833 53mm omm .v g .m S .m 3 .m mm .m 335 Ba coom E .3 S .N S .m E .m mm .N mfimsom msafimoéo .0 m3 .3 E. .m mm. .m 8 .m 8.4.. mfimsom 3950 m8 .m cm .N 3. .m 21.. a. .m mnuoomm Hmccomgom 3o .m 3 .N mm .m wm .m S .m sosmfimwwmm n «2 .mm 2. .m om .N 8 .N mm .m @833 36384 n omm .2 mg .m 8 .m mm .m om. .N 3:39: Emcfim u Rm .3. E .N mm .m 86. £5 23. 385an 0 wow .2 we .m $ .m 3 .N S .N @2580 382%.... mg g. mm .N mm .m mo .m 8 .m H3333. 282%.... 3 mg .2 a. .m 3 .m mm. .N on .N mfiumme So a 2 .m we .m S .m S .m 8.3883 mmmzou$$ as u 7: Sa u E a: u 7: AS u 7: wwoumsvm EU H309. unmngm misowm EEU< moffimm Hmacompom Emvgm Nam mwdfiwm whoom :mmz mach mmmfiou fim musmcfim vcm .mumnfimfi .3303 .mnopmfimfififinm 3882mm ”:8st m5 .3. cmfimogmm mm mmotfimm 3982mm 3256 93 mo bfimsG 2.: mo mfimbmcm mgwsvm 30 98 mmcfimn 980m 932 u- .Enm H1533. 319 3%: 883.28 So. 3 Emoficmwm Hm>3 mosmvflcoo Ho . um Emofififiwwm ~m>3 mocmcflnoo mo . «m. Emoflficmfim H33 853:8 no. 3 Emoficfim U 0 Q m Eocmmnm mo mmmuwmv m mm wHH.¢ o flmdm mHH.m o Nfim.mfi HHm.m www.mm mpm.mfi mm¢.w mHH.m mmm.m www.mH mfim.¢ mpp.wfi mum.mfi mmm.m mam.oH wpm.m n m n n m¢.m wed mmd mm.m aim wm.m Hmd mm.m mod mvd mo.m mm.m mm.m m>.m Kim and wmé wm.m Sim mm.m mod mm.m w¢.m mH.m mw.m wad ova mm.m vmfi N.N.N ow.m 3.5 ¢m.m Ho.m mm.m EKN mm.m mm.m Hm.m mm.m «Aim mm.m mod mm.m wo.m vmd AKIN wm.m >m.m mm.m rm; BIN mw.m Nwé and N.N.N mw.m om.m wm.m om.m 22m mm.m «aim wm.m and mo.m mm.N Nwé coflmficmwuo mfiumfimfifiagw cofiwoscm mofizmmufi ““3339me Ewpwoam .9335me 3033/ cofiomuOQm mSQEmU «amamomfim mcoummzno .6352 53:3 Esmsmnza 33353. 3.38895 Emhwoum msoflwflmm pamgpmkwowufimm EmuBm m3fi>fio< EovBm pawcsum :wfimnom muouflswmm Hmfioom mucumgwmm 3:39“..ko mocmgsw Q5030 osmonmma 23m 23m 33:80 .: .E-m mama? 320 TABLE E-15.-—Involvement in or use made of student personnel ser~ vices by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College Four Involvement In orUse Made of Services By Student Personnel Admin. Faculty Student Total Service (N = 12) (N: 116) (N = 90) (N = 218) No. % No. % No. ‘70 No. % Pre-College Information 1 1 91 . 7 74 63. 8 85 94.4 170 78. 0 Testing 7 58.3 65 56.0 67 74.4 139 63.8 Applicant Appraisal 9 75 . O 58 50. O 82 91.1 149 68. 4 Applicant Consulting 3 25. O 82 70. 7 83 92.2 168 77. 1 Financial Aid 9 75.0 54 46.6 48 53.3 111 50. 9 Student Inductive 9 75. O 61 52. 6 80 88.9 150 68. 8 Academic Advisory 7 58. 3 93 84. 5 80 88. 9 185 84.9 Registration 8 66.7 89 76.7 89 98.9 186 85.3 Personnel Records 8 66. 7 86 74.1 57 63. 3 151 69.3 Campus Housing 7 58. 3 20 17.2 85 94.4 112 51.4 Off-Campus Housing 6 50.0 16 13. 8 20 22.2 42 19.3 Food and Dining 9 75. 0 83 71. 6 88 97. 8 180 82. 6 Health Appraisal 7 58. 3 34 29. 3 37 41. 1 78 35. 8 Health Educative 6 50.0 19 16.4 17 18. 9 42 19.3 Health Clinical 7 58. 3 48 41. 4 74 82.2 129 59. 2 ' Student Counseling 7 58. 3 50 43. 1 48 53. 3 105 48. 2 Basic Skill Diagnostic 4 33. 3 30 24.9 57 63. 3 91 41. 7 Group Guidance 5 41.7 31 26.7 55 61.1 91 41.7 Academic Regulatory 6 50. 0 80 68. 9 57 63.3 143 65.6 Social Regulatory 6 50. 0 30 25. 9 56 62. 2 92 42. 2 Foreign Student 4 33. 3 36 31. 0 8 8. 9 48 22. 0 Student Activities 8 66. 7 83 71. 6 83 92. 2 174 79. 8 Student Self-Government 8 66. 7 29 25. 0 61 67. 8 98 45. 0 Religious Program 4 33. 3 86 74. 1 78 86. 7 168 77. 1 Intramural Athletics 1 8. 3 28 24. 1 41 45.6 70 32. 1 Citizenship Activity 4 33. 3 48 41 . 4 51 56. 7 103 47. 3 Military Obligation 6 50. 0 13 1 1. 2 25 27. 8 44 20. 2 Placement 6 50. 0 51 43. 9 25 27. 8 82 37. 6 Campus Protection 3 25. 0 25 21. 6 75 83. 3 103 47. 3 Vehicle Regulatory 6 50. 0 69 59. 5 36 40. 0 1 11 50. 9 Program Evaluation 6 50. 0 50 43. 1 56 62. 2 1 12 51 . 4 In-Service Education 9 75. O 64 55. 2 10 11. 1 83 38. 1 Admmiswétlw 9 75. 0 4o 34. 5 19 21. 1 68 31. 2 Organization 321 TABLE E-16. -- Need for implementing student personnel services as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College Four Degree of Need No Need-- Perceived as Student Personnel '8 +3 '0 , "U .3" Total Implemented Serv1ce ,0 3 g '8 ,8 g 8 as 3 E 8 '4 N ‘7 N a] Z Z Z m 0. a O. o Pre-College Information 1 O 0 1 0. 5 217 99. 5 Testing 3 11 8 22 10.1 196 89.9 Applicant Appraisal 0 2 2 4 1 . 8 2 14 98. 2 Applicant Consulting 0 5 2 7 3. 2 2 1 1 96. 8 Financial Aid 0 0 0 0 O. O 2 18 100. 0 Student Inductive O 2 8 10 4. 6 208 95. 4 Academic Advisory 0 1 0 1 O. 5 217 99. 5 Registration 0 1 O 1 O. 5 2 17 99. 5 Personnel Records 2 1 0 3 1 . 4 215 98. 5 Campus Housing 0 2 0 2 0. 9 216 99. 1 Off-Campus Housing 1 3 3 7 3. 2 211 96. 8 Food and Dining 0 1 O 1 O. 5 217 99. 5 Health Appraisal 6 28 12 46 21 . 1 172 78. 9 Health Educative 7 34 41 82 37. 6 136 62. 4 Health Clinical O 0 1 1 0. 5 217 99.5 Student Counseling 0 3 1 4 1 8 214 98. 2 Basic Skill Diagnostic 2 16 13 31 14 2 187 85. 8 Group Guidance 4 14 7 25 11 3 193 88. 7 Academic Regulatory O 1 2 3 1 . 4 215 98. 6 Social Regulatory 2 2 1 5 2 . 3 213 97 . 7 Foreign Student 2 10 15 27 13. 4 191 86. 6 Student Activities 0 0 O 0 O. 0 2 18 100. 0 Student Self-Government O O O 0 O. 0 218 100. 0 Religious Program 0 O 1 1 O. 5 217 99. 5 Intramural Athletics 1 1 0 2 0. 9 216 99. 1 Citizenship Activity 0 7 4 11 5. 0 207 95. 0 Military Obligation 15 22 7 44 20. 2 174 79. 8 Placement O 6 1 7 3. 2 21 1 96. 8 Campus Protection 1 5 2 8 3. 7 2 10 96. 3 Vehicle Regulatory O 1 1 2 O. 9 216 99. 1 Program Evaluation 5 15 9 29 13 3 189 86. 7 In-Service Education 4 12 6 22 10 0 196 90. O Admm.18tr.atwe 1 18 9 28 12 9 190 87. 1 Organization Student personnel administrators, 12; faculty members, 116; students, 90; total sample, 218. 322 «1.2.. c t— ikrnxfllnliflli \Ill\lli r Ripla 1:31.223. u n i . n. 2 :3 2.212 31>? 1" il|||||ll||\|||||\|.lll.\n/ new 8 mg .2 3 .2 on .2 mm .2 mm .m 32282800 2 3m was .22 8 .2 ms .2 cm. .2 m2. .2 282520 52de £22 .2. 2m .2 S .2 8 .2 ms .2 32282622 5282.2 82 .m 8 .2 8 .m S .2 3 .2 282882.. 22822 a 822 5.2 8.2 23 N: 32225 new 882 82. .m 3 .2 on .2 3 .2 mm .2 9229822 322880.20 mg .m 2. .m 2; 2m .m 2. .m 922252 3222280 «mm .2. mm .m 2m .N E .m 5 .m 3.2832 2358832 2.23 .o. S .N 2;. .N .3 .m 2. .N 82882322 3m .22 8 .2 8 .2 2 .N 8 .m .9833. 2888.22 0 2.3 .2 3 .2 no .N 8 .2 co .N 328282 282.28 22?. .22 2. .m 2. .m 2 .m 2.2 .m 2.22.2 28288222 was .s 2.0 .m 2 .2 mm .m 2.2 .N 332380 382232.. 2.8 .m mm .m 2 .m 2 .N on .N 2828322 882232.. 0 who .3 2a .2 mm .2 mm .2 was 92228.2. a 2m .2 2N .m S .N 222 .2 mm .m 82388.25 m32.28220982 22. u 722 22.. u E as u 7: 22 u 7: mmopmsum EU 130R. 28655 530mm 5222322 outflow Hoccomsmm unwoswm hm mmcfimm ouoom 2802 oZm mmoSoO um mucocgm n28 6.250.222.2222 inn—2220mm .muouwfifififipw Hoccompoa 28me 2t .3 @0300qu mm mootfiom 2222209822 «Congo 2: mo omoom mg .20 393me oumzvm Bo paw mwcfimh omoom 22.82 .i .SIH mamma. 323 2962 88222.88 28. 2.22 2822222226 2962 8220222200 2o. 2m 222m022222w2m 20262 mocmvficoo mo . 2m 222.82.2222w2m 2962 8283,2280 mo. 2m 222mo2m222m2m v o n. m 820250.22 .20 mmmpwmv m mm w¢m.¢ bmm.w who.m mo>.> HmH.H 2mm.oH ¢NN.H mm¢.m mHm.HH www.ma How.m www.mfi 20¢.m www.mH mom.v N¢m.HH ¢b¢.m Pm; mwé pm; NH.N mm; wmé bo.m .34 SUN Nvd aim ov.m mmé mm; Had mmé mmé an; mwé hm; oo.N 2b; vm.m mH.m mmé mw.m mm.m aid mm.m :4 cmé mH.m de mm; omé mmé mmé mH.m omé mm; oo.m mm; om.m mm.m mm.m ov.m cm; 5.4 mmd ent“ omé oo.m mm; $04 N¢.N mm; mmJ cod mmé oo.m :6 mm.m mm.m mmé wad wo.m may; pmé 22023328pr m>22m22m222222€< 2.2022853. mofifimmufi defianamfim Emuwoanm 2023.222me 3033/ 2.822.030.2m 95222220 2amfimom2n~ 2022222222220 2.2322222 222222232. 222222232220 8223222322 2922222222225 Smumoum m2202m22om 2cw§2m>owufimm Emugm mm$2>fio< unanswm 222232225 cmBuoh muoumfismmm Hm2oom reuflswmm 028222232. $283220 95.20 0228222522 222% 0292.22 60222232200 nu .vfium Magma; 324 1_.\l\-l1\\l\\rinw\v\'ll\hflhfl\\l» .22-. .22... wow .2 222 .22 22 .m 8 .N 222 .2 2322322260 2.525% $2. .222 25 .N mo .2 2222 .2 2222 .2 28222220 52322 Nam .22 5 .2 222 .2 2222 .2 2222 .2 322822222 2222822 2.8 .22 222 .m 8 .N 22 .N 2.2 .2 2328222222. 22222222222 22 223 .5 8 .2 m2. .2 222. .2 mm .2 mafia 2.222.. 2.8m mac .2 2 .2 on .2 2w .2 on .2 222223022 322250-220 222.22 .22 mm .m E .2 «22 .2 mm .N 222282622 3222280 222222 :2 22.. .m S .m on .2 mm .m 2222,2832 222228.292 222222 .22 22 .2 mo .22 mm .m S .2 822362322 2222 .22 no .N 2.22 .2 222 .2 mm .2 2.82.2224 0288822 2: 2.. 8 .2 2m .2 mm .2 mm .2 3222222222 2.525% 22 222222 .22 S .N 222. .N 222 .N we .22 2.2.22 22222292222 22.2 .22 2o .2 mm .2 m2 .2 mm :22 322222228 222822222222. 222222 .m an .m 2222 .2 22... .2 N2. .22 2822222222. 22282222222 02222.3 2.2.2 25.2 8.2 2222.2 22222232. 2.. 222222 .22 222.. .N 2222 .2 mo .2 2.2 .2 822228202222 223228-225 A? u 722 322 u 2,: 82 u 26 22 H 2,22 mumsvm EU HmuoH Emvgm 232220222222 222226422 mo2>2mm Hmcqomumm 2.2822225 mm mm mmcfimm mpoom 22.82 22222.22 mmmSoU 222 32522225 222222 .mquEmE 23226.3 .m202m22m22228222m 222222.20»..th 228222225 @222. 23 2522200an mm mmotfimm 2222220322 2280223 9: .20 232222.220 9: mo Embmcm mumzvm Eu cam. mwcfimu 0.2025 22282 nu .wHum "flaming 325 2262 882222228 28. 2.22 222822222m2m 2962 922522222200 20 . 22.. 2.222.202.2222w2m 2962 2202322222200 mo. 2“ 2225022222w2m 222.262 82522222200 mo. 22m 222m022222w2m U o a. w 222025922 .20 mmmummv w m 222.22 22¢.m a 222.22 ow2.m owo.2 a 222.22 222.2 m22.m 222.22 222.2 mw¢.m o¢m.2 mam.¢ 222.2 222.2 22¢.w mam.” 2.22.2 m2.m mo.m N.N.N mm.2 mm.m mm.m @222 >w.m mm.m m2.m and mw.2 mo.m m2.m 222.2 2.0.N mm.2 m2.m mm.2 ©N.m $2.2 2;..m om.m $2.2 oo.m 2m.m om.m 2m.m wo.m oo.m mo.m mm.m oo.m 2m.2 wo.m Nw.2 m2.m 00.2 oo.m 22 .m 25.2 om.m m2.m m2.m mm.m 2&2 mm.2 M2.N ww.2 oo.m 22 N22 . m aofimflqmwno m>22m22m2522222< mm . m no2awosum motfimmufi 3 .m 22022225292222 awhwopm mm . m 22.202.222me o2o2sm> mm .2 22022039222 «22222222220 om . m 225228022222 2222 .2 2282222222220 2232222 mm . 2 22222222022 Q222mnou2220 mm .m 822622.224 28222222222222 mm .m Ewhwonm 32023232 oo . N 2cw222222m>00u22mm 22.822225 mm .2 32222222022. 2.525% cm . 2 ”Fauna 229920.22 N22 . m 22.20222222me 2m2oom. mm . m h202m222wmm 02222022220222 2. . 2 mocmgsw 22220.20 22 .2 02282222322 222% swam 6.222.522.2200 .i .m2um2 Hdmzwh. 326 TABLE E-19.--Involvement in or use made of student personnel ser— vices by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College Five Involvement In or Use Made of Services By Student Personnel Admin. Faculty Student Total Service (N = 12) (N = 26) (N = 35) (N = 73) NO. (70 NO. % NO. 070 NO. % Pre-College Information 12 100.0 17 65.4 32 91.4 61 83.6 Testing 7 58.3 15 57.7 21 60.0 43 58.9 Applicant Appraisal 7 58. 3 17 65. 4 31 88.6 55 75.3 Applicant Consulting 6 50. O 19 73.1 32 91.4 57 78.1 Financial Aid 7 58. 3 14 53. 9 27 77. 1 48 65. 8 Student Inductive 11 91.7 15 57.7 31 88.6 57 78. 1 Academic Advisory 7 58. 3 2 1 80. 8 35 100. 0 63 86.3 Registration 7 58. 3 17 65. 4 35 100. 0 59 80. 8 Personnel Records 7 58.3 17 65.4 17 48.6 41 56.2 Campus Housing 10 83. 3 4 15. 4 35 100. O 49 67.1 Off-Campus Housing 4 33. 3 1 3. 9 4 1 l. 4 9 12. 3 Food and Dining 8 66. 7 15 57. 7 34 97. 1 57 78.1 Health Appraisal 6 50. 0 6 23. 1 18 51. 4 30 40. 1 Health Educative 4 33. 3 6 23. 1 7 20. 0 17 23. 3 Health Clinical 7 58. 3 7 26. 9 31 88. 6 45 61. 6 Student Counseling 6 50. 0 15 57. 7 19 54. 3 40 54. 8 Basic Skill Diagnostic 4 33. 3 8 30. 8 13 37. 1 25 34. 3 Group Guidance 6 50. 0 6 23. 1 6 17. 1 18 24. 7 Academic Regulatory 6 50. O 14 53. 9 17 48. 6 37 50. 7 Social Regulatory 9 75. 0 7 26. 9 12 34. 3 28 38. 4 Foreign Student 4 33. 3 6 23. 1 1 2. 9 11 15. 1 Student Activities 6 50. O 19 73. 1 35 100. 0 6O 82. 2 Student Self-Government 5 41 . 7 10 38. 5 28 80. O 43 58. 9 Religious Program 8 66. 7 22 84.6 33 94. 3 63 86. 3 Intramural Athletics 6 50. O 8 30. 8 22 62. 9 36 49. 3 Citizenship Activity 4 33. 3 6 23. 1 19 54. 3 29 39. 7 Military Obligation l 8. 3 3 1 1. 5 10 28. 6 14 19. 2 Placement 5 41.7 8 30.8 8 22.9 21 28.8 Campus Protection 2 16.7 3 11.5 5 14.3 10 13.7 Vehicle Regulatory 4 33. 3 11 42. 3 21 60. 0 36 49. 3 Program Evaluation 6 50. 0 13 50. O 13 37. 1 32 43. 8 In-Service Education 5 41. 7 10 38. 5 6 17. 1 21 28. 8 Admm.15tr.atwe 7 58. 3 9 34. 6 1o 28. 6 26 35. 6 Organization 327 TABLE E-20. -— Need for implementing student personnel services as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College Five Degree of Need No Need-- Perceived as Studersit Personnel '8 2. '8 . '8 .33 Total Implemented erv1ce .5 3 .0 1: .5 :5 a) a) O a.) .4 :2 m g E :2 w No. % No. % Pre-College Information 0 0 O 0 O. 0 73 100. 0 Testing 5 4 1 10 13. 7 63 86.3 Applicant Appraisal O 0 1 1 1. 4 72 98. 6 Applicant Consulting 3 1 O 4 5. 5 69 94. 5 Financial Aid 0 0 0 O O. 0 73 100. 0 Student Inductive 1 1 0 2 2 . 7 7 1 97. 3 Academic Regulatory 0 0 0 O O. 0 73 100. 0 Registration 0 0 O O 0. O 73 100. 0 Personnel Records 0 0 0 0 O. 0 73 100. 0 Campus Housing 0 0 O O 0. 0 73 100. O Off-Campus Housing 9 13 7 30 41. 1 43 58. 9 Food and Dining 0 O O O O. O 73 100. 0 Health Appraisal 4 13 5 22 30. 1 51 59. 9 Health Educative 2 23 8 33 45. 2 40 54. 8 Health Clinical 5 3 0 8 1 1. O 65 89. 0 Student Counseling 8 3 1 12 16. 4 61 83. 6 Basic Skill Diagnostic 6 7 7 20 27. 4 53 72. 6 Group Guidance 15 17 8 40 54. 9 33 45. 1 Academic Regulatory 4 1 1 6 8. 2 67 91. 8 Social Regulatory 3 3 0 6 8. 2 67 91. 8 Foreign Student 5 11 11 27 37 1 46 62. 9 Student Activities 1 O 0 1 1. 4 72 98. 6 Student Self-Government O O O 0 O. 0 73 100. 0 Religious Program 0 0 0 0 0. 0 73 100. 0 Intramural Athletics 0 0 1 1 1 4 72 98. 6 Citizenship Activity 6 8 4 18 24 7 55 75. 3 Military Obligation 3 4 4 11 15. 1 62 84. 9 Placement 2 1 2 5 6. 8 68 93. 2 Campus Protection 18 24 7 49 67. 2 24 32. 8 Vehicle Regulatory 0 1 0 1 1. 4 72 98. 6 Program Evaluation 9 11 3 23 31 . 5 50 68. 5 In—Service Education 7 7 4 18 24. 7 55 75. 3 Admln.15tr.“‘tlve 3 7 3 13 17. 8 60 82 . 2 Organization Student personnel administrators, 12; faculty members, 26; students, 35; total sample, 73. 328 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 222 .2 22 .2 22222322250 22222632 222.2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 28222222 22222222 222.2 22 .2 22. .2 22 .2 22 .2 22222822222 2222322 222.2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22222222222. 2222322 26 222 .222 2.2 .2 22 .2 22. .2 22 .2 222222222 26222 22822 6 222.22 22 .2 22 .2 222.2 22.2 222222622 2222222220220 2.. 222 .22 22 .2 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 222222622 2222222220 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222882 2222822222 222 .2 22. .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2822222222222 22 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2.8222622. 62862.32. 2.2.22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222262222222 22222232 2.22 .2. 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222. 22262822222 2 222 .22 222 .2 22 .2 22. .2 22 .2 2222222222260 222822222. 2.22 .2 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22.222.222.22. 2228222222. 6 222.22 22 .2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22222222. 2222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 282228262222 22.222.225.2322 2222 u E 222 u 222 222 u 26 22 u 722 Emsvm EO 2302. Empgm 2322202222 222222322 outflow 26222.20m2on2 2222222225 mm 22m mwcfimm o200m 22262222 2222 22.22200 22 2.222222me 222222 .m2on2226222 292220222 3.2022222222228222. 2222222092622 2222222226 @222 23 2292260222 mm mootfimm 2222202222222 2222222223 62: .20 ogoom @222 .20 222922me opmsvm 22.20 2222.2 mmfiumu 920022 22.22.2222 I. .2mum m2m mmo.vH mw¢.¢ wa.w Hmm.w mmm.r OHN.2 NHr.m mm.m mmé mmé 2N.N mo.m vm.m rm; and mm.m mm.m mm.m ¢m.m 22.2 Cain o¢.m 3.4 pm; N.N.N oo.N $2.2 om.N mwé fied 2w; mmé wm.m vwfi mm.m om.m mmé vmd Hm.m «>4 2.2.4 2N.N oo.m mo.N wo.m mflm c¢.m mmé mm.N w~..m mo.m oo.m mm.m «m4 Hm.m m¢.m Hmé mmé mm .m 22022222wa20 2232225252254 om . 2 aoflmosvm motfimmufi oo . m 22023322322 Smhmofm mm . m m2ouwfismmm 30222222? mm .2 2822030an 32228220 mp . N wamfimomfim 22 .2 22222222220 2222222222 mu . N 2323204 922922222220 co . m 9233222 12222222223222 .3 .m Empwoum 962323.22 co .m unmegmkkufimm 2.220252% 3. .m. mm222>220< unmvam om .2 «Gmczwm 223920.22 mp . N 22.23.22:me Hgoom mm .N 22.2322222me 022223222022 mw. . H 22022223220 920.20 22 .2 22229222222 22222 222222 222252232200 In .Hmnm ammfifi 330 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 222222860 222232 222.22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2822220 522222 222.22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222822222 £22222 2 222.22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 222222222 2222222 2 222.22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222 2:2 2822 2 222.22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22222622 222820-220 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22222622 222820 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22.2832 228822222 222.2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 282222222232 2 222.22 22 .2 22 .2 22.2 22 .2 2.823222 22822822 222.22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22.282222 28232 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222 2222222222 2 222.22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22222222220 222222224 222.22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 222282222 228222222. 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 222222222222 222228-82 2222 u 7: 222 n 22 222 u 722 22 n 7: mmmpmsvm EU Hmuoh EmvBm Rhizomm 222222322 mo2>2mm Hancomnmnm Emcgm 22m mmcfimm whoom 222232 222 2222220 22 325an 222222 £22383: 2222220222 .m202222m2c2822 222222202..me amusum @222 mp 2538qu mm mmotfimm 22222220922222 22863.2 2.3 20 222212220 @222 .20 3922me 92222622 30 222222 mwcfimn 2.2.2on 22.22.22 I. .mmum mamdwm. 331 2962 82822228 222. 22 2282222222 2962 25222222222200 2o . 2m 222202.22nw2m 2m>m2 2202822222200 No . 222 222.202.22nw2m 2962 2202822222200 mo. 22. 2cmo2m2cm2m 22 o o. 2 22202222922 .20 .2692me m 22.2 mN>.N mmN.m 2mw.m2 2mm.w omm.mN who.o2 mmm.> omb.o2 o¢m.m mm2.w N©N.>2 mv>.v 2Nm.w om¢.v2 wNm.o2 mum.2 m2w.m mwN m2.N 2.2.N mN.N M2.N 2N.N oo.N m22.N Nw.N me 22m.N bmd VON 22m.N mm.N N2.N 2m.2 m2..N m2.N mm.2 mN.N mm.2 m2..N 25.2 2N.N m2..N 2N.N ON.N mm.m 2&2 N2.N 2.2.N 2.2.N mm.2 wwN mN.N Nm.N @2.N SYN mmN m2.N rmN mmN No.m 2N.N rmd ON.N 22m.N 22m.N mo.N 2.22.2 mm . N 2202222222222m20 m>2umh2m222222222< oo .N 2202220222222 wotfimmufi Nm . N 2.202222222222222 22.222.292.222 mm . N 22.20322:me 302222;. mm . N 2202uom202n2 3:28.20 00 .m 22222800222222 22 .2 2822222220 2222222222 22 .2 2223822 222222222220 00 . m mo22m2222< 22252222222222 NN .m 22222292222 m2202w22mm 2 2 .m 2cm§2m>00u22mm 2.282222% 2.2 .m 222222232022 2.825% cm .2 2.222223% 2.2392022 22 .N 22.2022222wmm 2m2oom Nm .N h202m2=mmm 022262222022 oo .N @0222222220 22220.20 22 .2 22222222222 22222 222222 2222222280 -- 22.222 22.2322. 332 TABLE E-23.--Involvement in or use made of student personnel ser- vices by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College Six Involvement In or Use Made of Services By Student Personnel Admin. Faculty Student Total Service (N = 9) (N = 42) (N = 57) (N = 108) NO. ‘70 NO. % NO. ‘70 NO. ‘70 Pre-College Information 9 100. 0 34 80. 9 54 94.7 97 89. 8 Testing 5 55.6 21 50.0 40 70.2 66 61.1 Applicant Appraisal 4 44. 4 25 59.5 41 71.9 70 64. 8 Applicant Consulting 7 77. 8 34 80. 9 47 82. 5 88 81. 5 Financial Aid 6 66.7 26 61.9 39 68.4 71 65.7 Student Inductive 8 88. 9 28 66. 7 40 70. 2 76 70. 4 Academic Advisory 6 66. 7 37 88.1 49 85. 9 92 85. 2 Registration 6 66. 7 32 76. 2 56 98. 3 94 87. 0 Personnel Records 6 66. 7 29 69.1 30 52. 6 65 60. 2 Campus Housing 5 55.6 4 9.5 51 89.5 60 55.6 Off-Campus Housing 5 55.6 1 2.4 14 24.6 20 18.5 Food and Dining 7 77. 8 24 57. 1 51 89. 5 82 75.9 Health Appraisal 6 66. 7 8 19. 1 44 77.2 58 53. 7 Health Educative 5 55. 6 5 11. 9 25 43. 9 35 32. 4 Health Clinical 6 66. 7 14 33. 3 49 85.9 69 63. 9 Student Counseling 7 77. 8 21 50. 0 22 38. 6 5O 46. 3 Basic Skill Diagnostic 2 22.2 10 23. 8 6 10. 5 18 16. 7 Group Guidance 5 55.6 11 26.2 17 29.8 33 30.6 Academic Regulatory 3 33. 3 26 61. 9 34 59.7 63 58. 3 Social Regulatory 5 55. 6 14 33. 3 37 64. 9 56 51. 9 Foreign Student 4 44. 4 7 16. 7 3 5. 3 14 13. 0 Student Activities 7 77 . 8 30 71 . 4 55 96.5 92 85. 2 Student Self—Government 5 55. 6 1 1 26. 2 45 78.9 61 56. 5 Religious Program 5 55. 6 29 69. 1 50 87. 7 84 77. 8 Intramural Athletics 6 66. 7 16 38. 1 43 75. 4 65 60. 2 Citizenship Activity 4 44. 4 23 54. 8 26 45. 6 53 49. 1 Military Obligation 3 33. 3 5 11. 9 19 33. 3 27 25. O Placement 6 66.7 21 50.0 13 22. 8 40 37.0 Campus Protection 4 44. 4 8 19. 5 39 68. 4 51 47. 2 Vehicle Regulatory 4 44. 4 19 45. 2 28 49. 1 51 47. 2 Program Evaluation 6 66. 7 17 40. 5 27 47. 4 50 46. 3 In-Service Education 6 66. 7 29 69. 1 9 15. 8 44 40. 7 Admm.18tr.atwe 8 88.9 20 47. 6 16 28. 1 44 4o. 7 Organization 333 TABLE E-24. -- Need for implementing student personnel services as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College Six Degree of Need No Need-- Perceived as Studegt Personnel '3 2 '5 'U 2’ Total Implemented erv10e ,0 o g 'o ,8 33 A o .2 8 c6 8 E 8 A NO % NO 0] z z z 2 ' ' ° Pre-College Information 0 0 O 0 0. O 108 100. 0 Testing 0 4 1 5 4. 6 103 95. 4 Applicant Appraisal O 4 2 6 5. 5 102 94. 5 Applicant Consulting 2 O 0 2 1. 8 106 98. 2 Financial Aid 1 O O 1 O. 9 107 99. 1 Student Inductive 1 4 O 5 4. 6 103 95. 4 Academic Advisory 3 0 3 6 5. 5 102 94. 5 Registration 0 0 O 0 0. 0 108 100. 0 Personnel Records 0 1 1 2 1. 8 106 98. 2 Campus Housing 0 1 1 2 1 . 8 106 98. 2 Off-Campus Housing 2 2 4 8 7. 3 100 92. 7 Food and Dining 4 1 9 5 4. 6 103 95. 4 Health Appraisal 4 12 3 19 17. 6 89 82 . 4 Health Educative 2 22 13 37 34. 3 71 65. 7 Health Clinical 1 2 1 4 3. 7 104 96. 3 Student Counseling 0 3 0 3 2. 8 105 97.2 Basic Skill Diagnostic 7 25 10 42 39. 0 66 61 . 0 Group Guidance 3 18 5 26 24. 1 82 75. 9 Academic Regulatory 1 6 1 8 7. 3 100 92 . 7 Social Regulatory 3 5 0 8 7. 3 100 92 . 7 Foreign Student 3 26 20 49 45. 4 59 54. 6 Student Activities 0 2 0 2 1. 8 106 98. 2 Student Self-Government 1 3 O 4 3. 7 104 96. 3 Religious Program 1 0 1 2 1. 8 106 98. 2 Intramural Athletics 0 O 1 1 O. 9 107 99. 1 Citizenship Activity 1 12 4 17 15. 7 91 84. 3 Military Obligation 7 9 7 23 20. 4 85 79. 6 Placement 0 2 1 3 2 . 8 105 97. 2 Campus Protection 3 3 4 10 9. 3 98 91 . 7 Vehicle Regulatory 1 3 2 6 5 5 102 94. 5 Program Evaluation 5 7 4 16 14 8 92 85. 2 In-Service Education 3 13 6 22 20. 4 86 79. 6 Admm.13tr.atwe 1 1o 4 15 13 9 93 86. 1 Orgamzat1on Student personnel administrators, 9; faculty members, 42; students, 57; total sample, 108. 334 2 222.22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222250 222232 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222228 22222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 232222222 22222222 222.22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 222222222. 22222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222 222 2822 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22222522 2228222220 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2522522 222820 222.22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2228222 2222222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 222222222232 222.22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2.822.222. 22822222. 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 23222222 222232 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222. 2222222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22222222220 2222222222 2 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222222 2222222222 222.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22:22.2. 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 82228222222 22222202222 2222 u 22 222 u E 222 u 722 22 u 722 mmmnmsvm EU 22220.2. 1 22.8me 5230.222 222222622 outflow 2222202222222 2282255 mm mwcfimm whoom 22.22222 229/om mwm22oO pm 328me 22222 £225.83: 32502.2 6.2022222222228222 2222209822 228222226 22222 22.22 2222369292 mm mmo2>2om 22222220922222 22222255 22222 ‘20 mmoom 222.: .20 2229222282 92222222.. 22.20 2222.2 mwcfimn whoom 22.2022 .3 .mNum mamamp. 335 2962 222222228 222. 22 2222222222222 2952 92222222222200 8 . 22 2222202229225 2962 9222222222200 No . um 222.202.2222w2m 22:62 92222222222200 mo . 222 222.202.2222w2m 22 o 22 .2 222025922 .20 mooummv m 22 NmN.22 v©2.m Nmo.o me.m2 2mr.N2 mov.22 ¢m¢.w 2m>.m2 wm©.w2 wmm.22 va.m mmN.o2 mmo.m wmo.¢2 mrv.> mmm.v m2¢.m m2.N 222.2 222.2 M22.N me 2N.N 2.22.2 ooN SUN 2N.N mwN me N.N.2 2N.N va 2.2.2 poN w2.N ww.2 um.2 O22.N mmN ON.N Nm.2 2222.2 2©.N me 2222.N oo.m :22 2N.N mmN NN.2 mm.2 22 .N NON MFA @22.N 22m.N mmN N2.N om.N mod wo.m mwN mod mm.2 2m.N N22.N 2.2 m2.N mm . N 22022222222qu m>22222m222222222< cm .2 22022220222222 mo2>2omu222 o2 .2 22022222222>m2 822m02n2 2m . N 22.202222512222222 m2o2£o> 2w .2 22022030222 22222222220 2m .2 “cogoom2n2 22 .2 22222222220 2222222222 22 .2 22232222 22222222220 2m .N 20222222222422 2222222222222 2m .m Emumoum mso2m22om mN .N 2Gm§hm>00122mm 228255 22 .2 222222222222 2222232 5 .2 «copsum 222.222.20.22 2m .N 22.202222:me 2w2oom. oo .N ano2w2swom 0222262222022 222 .2 220222222220 22220.20 22 .2 22222222222 22222 222222 252222222200 1.. .mmum 2.2.7132sz 336 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 222222528 22228.2 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222520 2222222 2 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 232222222 22.22222 2 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 222222222 2222222 2 222.22 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 2222222 222 2822 2 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22222622 222820-220 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 222222622 2222820 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22.28222 2222222222 2 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222222222 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2.8222222 22822222. 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 23222222 222232 2 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222 2222222222 2 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222220 2222222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222222. 2222222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 25222.2. 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22222822222 22222202222 2222 u 22 222 u 7: 222 u 722 22 u 722 mmmpmzvm EU 222202. 22822225 292262.22 222222322 oo2>2om 222222209522 Empgm 22m mwcfimm mpoom 22222222 co>om 92262200 222 222222222222 2222 22222228222 2322622 6.2022262222222222 2222209292 2282222222 2.: 23 @9230me mm mmo2>2mm 22222220922222 222222253 of 20 23222.50 2:: 20 2229222222 92222225 2220 222222 mmcfldu 92002.. 22.822 :1 .mNnH Hdmdflw 337 2962 2202822222200 200. 222 222.202.2222m2m 22:62 8222222222200 2o . 2.2 2:2o22222w2m 2962 92282222280 No . 2.2 2cmo2m2cm2m 2962 62322222200 mo . 2.2 2:2022222w2m 22 o D 2.. 22202222922 20 mmofimmp m 22 222.22 222.2 222. 222. 222. 222. 222.2 222.22 222.22 222.2 222.2 222.2 222.22 222.22 2 222 .22 2 222 22 222.2 HCDCDN 2 ON.N m2.N mm.2 Nm.N mmN 2222.N N2.N 2N.N 2N.N mmN 222.N me boN mNN mmN 220.N 2N.N m2.N wo.N 2.2.22.2 m2.N 2N.N mmN mo.N 212.2 mmN mvN mmN me 2222.2 22 .N 2N.N 22.2 2N.N m2.N mN.N om.2 mwN woN mmN Nm.N mmN me mpN N2.N No.22... 22 .N 2222.N om.N No.N 2222.N rwN ow.2 oo.N NwN mN.N mm.2 N2.N N2.N NwN oo.m omN mpN 2N.N 2N.N mN.N om.N mN.N cofimflcmmuo 22322223222832 22022202622 oo2>homu222 2202222222262 Eupwoum 2202m2swmm m2o222¢> 22022oo202n2 92228220 222m§oom2n2 22222222220 222222222 22232222 222222222229 822622232 2225222222222 Smuwoum m=o2w22om 2co§m>00122mm 228222226 mo222>2uo< «covspm 2.282252% 229920.22 22.202.225mom 2m2oom muoum2swom 02228222042 mocmEaU 22220.20 22222222222 22222 222222 222222222200 1: .oNnH Mdmma. 338 TABLE E-27.--Involvement in or use. made of student personnel ser- vices by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College Seven Involvement In or Use Made of Services By Student Personnel Admin. Faculty Student Total Service (N = 8) (N = 61) (N = 62) (N = 131) No. % No. % No. % No. % Pre-College Information 7 87. 5 53 86. 9 57 91. 9 117 89. 3 Testing 7 87.5 45 73.8 39 62.9 91 69.5 Applicant Appraisal 4 50. 0 36 59. O 50 80. 7 90 68. 7 Applicant Consulting 3 37. 5 51 83. 6 57 91. 9 111 84. 7 Financial Aid 6 75. 0 27 44. 3 44 70. 9 77 58. 8 Student Inductive 5 62 . 5 4O 65. 6 54 87. 1 99 75. 6 Academic Advisory 5 62. 5 56 91. 8 57 91. 9 118 90. 1 Registration 4 50. O 47 77. 1 60 96. 8 111 84. 7 Personnel Records 7 87. 5 38 62. 3 27 43. 6 72 55. 0 Campus Housing 5 62. 5 12 19. 7 57 91. 9 74 56. 5 Off-Campus Housing 3 37. 5 12 19. 7 14 22. 6 29 22. 1 Food and Dining 4 50. 0 35 57. 4 58 95. 1 97 74. 6 Health Appraisal 4 50. 0 25 40. 9 28 45. 2 57 43. 5 Health Educative 4 50. 0 13 21. 3 29 46. 8 46 35. 1 Health Clinical 4 50. O 26 42. 6 45 72. 6 75 57. 3 Student Counseling 7 87. 5 33 54. 1 25 40. 3 65 49. 6 Basic Skill Diagnostic 3 37. 5 22 36. 1 32 51. 6 57 43. 5 Group Guidance 5 62. 5 15 24. 6 23 37. 1 43 32. 8 Academic Regulatory 3 37. 5 28 45. 9 24 38. 7 55 42. 0 Social Regulatory 4 50. 0 15 24. 6 28 45. 2 47 35. 9 Foreign Student 3 37.5 10 16.4 10 16. 1 23 17.6 Student Activities 4 50. 0 4O 65. 6 59 95. 2 103 78. 6 Student Self-Government 5 62. 5 14 22. 9 48 77. 4 67 51 . 2 Religious Program 5 62 . 5 48 78. 7 56 90. 3 109 83. 2 Intramural Athletics 1 12. 5 21 34. 4 39 62. 9 61 46. 6 Citizenship Activity 3 37. 5 19 31. 2 34 54. 8 56 42. 8 Military Obligations 3 37. 5 14 22. 9 19 30. 7 36 27. 5 Placement 2 25.0 23 37.7 17 27.4 42 32. 1 Campus Protection 3 37. 5 16 26. 2 53 85. 5 72 55. 0 Vehicle Regulatory 4 50. O 40 65. 6 33 53. 2 77 58. 8 Program Evaluation 2 25. O 23 37. 7 29 46. 8 54 41. 2 In-Service Education 2 25. O 28 45. 9 9 14. 5 39 29. 8 Admm.13tr.auve 5 62. 5 24 39. 3 23 37. 1 52 39. 7 Orgamzatlon 339 TABLE E-28. -- Need for implementing student personnel services as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College Seven Degree of Need No Need-— Perceived as Total Implemented Student Personnel 13+, '0 . '0 service .80 .813 .8 23"1 3g” 3 Z N Z Z DRL ‘% NO. % Pre—College Information 131 100. Testing 130 99. Applicant Appraisal 130 99. Applicant Consulting 128 97. Financial Aid 131 100. Student Inductive 127 96. Academic Advisory 127 96. Registration 131 100. Personnel Records 128 97. Campus Housing 131 100. Off-Campus Housing 2 1 110 84. Food and Dining 131 100. 109 83. 97 74. 130 99. 128 97. 122 93. 110 84. 128 97. 129 98. 91 69. 131 100. 129 98. 129 98. Health Appraisal Health Educative Health Clinical Student Counseling Basic Skill Diagnostic Group Guidance Academic Regulatory Social Regulatory Foreign Student Student Activities Student Self-Government Religious Program I—nt-t NH [\3 CDODCDOHCDOOOOHHOOHNCDODNOODCDOOEONOWWONOOO NCDCXDOU'Ii-h-JOGDU'U‘OMWOOOCOOOGDOCIDOOOOOOHHmemo H H OOU‘CDU‘OHI-‘OHOWHNNHQNOQOHOWWOHOOC (JO .5 WM 1—sNMOONchowr-sANOHOOJOrP-QOOOHHO NDIFCDONCDODHHHI—IOCDNOWHHOFFNOCDONOOOONOHO p—A 01OOHOOOOHOOOOOOOCfimOOrhOOOCDOOOD-‘HOOOOO aLittle mNMOMGWONUWOWU‘IQOHQMONOOOWOCDCDOQNNQ Intramural Athletics 130 99 . Citizenship Activity 1 1 7 1 1 14 87 . Military Obligation 14 1 117 89. Placement 11 120 91. Campus Protection 2 129 98. Vehicle Regulatory 0 . 131 100. Program Evaluation 16 26 1 105 80. In-Service Education 15 22 1 109 83. Admmist r.at1ve 5 1 2 1 1 9 90 . Orgamzation Student personnel administrators, 8; faculty members, 61; students, 62; total sample, 131. 340 222 .2 22.2 22.2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222250 222232 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22222220 22222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 232222222 522222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222222 22.22222 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222 222 2822 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 222222822 222820-220 2 222 .22 22 .2 22.2 22 .2 22 .2 22222522 2222820 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22222222 222822222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2.2223222 22822222. 2 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 232222222 222232 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222 222222522 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222222220 2222222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222222. 2222222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22:22.2. 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 28222822222 222228-822 2222 u 7: 222 u 722 222 u 722 222 u 722 «moumsvm EU 2220.21 222022225 232220.222 2222222222. mot/how 292282.822 22222255 hm mwcfimm whoom 22222222 2222222 222228 22 22228me 22222 222522222222 22.222522 22022532228222 2222222092022 2222222226 of 23 222522292622 22 28222.82 2922202222222 22822252.. 2:: 2o oaoom 2:22 20 2222222222222 2222222222.. 2220 2222.2 mwnfimu Boom 22on !. .mNnm m2m<8 341 2962 2222222222202 225 . 2m 2222222222w2m 222262 2222222222202 20. 22 2:22222cw2m 22262 monop22coo No . 22 22222222222225 292.222 2202822222202 mo. 22 22222022222w2m 22 o n .2 22202222222 20 22222.2me 2 m 222. 222. 222. 222. 222. 222. 222. 222. 222. 222. 222. N22. 222. 222. 222.2 222 .2 2 222 22 V‘L‘CDCDLONOOV‘CDLDwv-tlnm v-i H 2N.N 222.N 3X2 NN.N mo.N 2N.N mo.N N2.N mmN NN.N. mwN O26 2o.N m2.N oo.m 2222.2 2o.N mmN NN.N 2.3.2 2222.N oo.N omN NON mm.2 pmN N2.N mbN N2.N oo.N N2.N NN.N mm.2 mw.2 NN.N N2.N @222 poN No.N oo.m moN 2N.N mmN mm.m 2N.N No.2” 23.2 mo.N No.m mm.2 N2.N 22 NN .N c022222222m20 23222522228252 mm .N 2202223222222 ootfimmufi 22. .2 22022222222222 Smpwonm om .N 22.202222222222222 22202222> mm .N 220222039222 322222220 mm .N 2222222200272 22 .2 22222222220 2222222222 on .N 2222322222 2222222822220 2.2 .N 222222222222 22222222222222 mm .m Smumonfl 230232222 NN .m 22222222222>001222m 22222223m 2222 .m 22222222320422 22222225m NN .N 2222222222m 2.2392022 aw .N 22.23.2222wom 2m2oom 22 .m 22.202.2222mom 0222222222222. NN . 2 2222222250 22220.20 22 .2 22222222222 22222 222222 222222220 -- .22.22 222222222. 342 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222260 222232 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22222220 22222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 225222222 22222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222222. 22222222 2 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222 222 282 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 222232 222822-220 2 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 222222522 222820 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22.28222 222222.822 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2.82322. 22822222. 2 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 23222222 222232 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 222. 2222222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222222 2222222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222222 2222222222 222.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22:22.2. 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22222822222 222222222222 2222 u 7: 222 n 722 222 u 722 222 n 722 mmmhmDUm 222D HNHOH. “vafium huHSOmrm. GMSUAV wow>2mm HOGCOmhmnH wflmfifipm mm 29222222 ozoom 2222222 222222 2222220 22 322222232 22222 6222282282 222222222 6.202222222228222 222222292th 222222252 22222 23 222232292222 m2 22.222.22.225 222222092222 2:222:22 of 20 222222250 2222. .20 2322222222 22.223222 22222 22222 mwfififi whoom 22.22222 1.. .omsm mamxa. 343 2252 222222228 222. 22 2222222222 2962 2222822222200 222. 2.2 222.202.2222m2m 2962 2028222222022 No. 2.2 22222022222w2w 2252 222222.228 22. 22 22222222222 22 o 22 .2 22202222922 .20 mmogwmc m 22 m m>¢.¢2 Nmm.¢ CNN.m Nm>.w ¢ON.m mwo.m m¢2.¢ www.M2 ¢wN.m wmm.v vm>.m 2N>.N wa.m ¢¢N.w m2N.m m>>.22 ww¢.m m¢.N SUN oo.N 222.N 2N.N 2.0.2.” NN.N mvN NN.N 2N.N om.N mo.m mvN m2.N NN.N oo.N me O22.N me 2m.2 22m.N NN.N me mN.N wN.N omN NN.m ow.N o2.m 222.N No.N N2.N mm.2 N22.N 2m.N 2N.N mo.N NN.N N.N.N m2.m NN.N mmN va mm.m mmN No.m NN.N N.2N 220.2” mo.N MEN omN om.N oo.N co.m SUN ON.m EXN oo.N om.N ON.m ON.m 32.2" omN o2..N oo.m oo.N ovN 2822222222qu 2.2222223222252222 22022220522222 oo2>hmmu222 220222222w>m2 Smumonm 22.202222222222222 m2o2£m> 2202202220222 3222222220 2282222202222 22222222220 2222222222 22232222 222222222220 20222222222422 222.22.282.35 2222.22.20.22 mso2w22mm 2co§uo>owu22om 2222222225 mm222>220< 222222225 2:222:25 22.32.2022 2220222swo22 2m2oom 22.202.22smom 0282222222422 220222222220 95.20 22222222222 22222 222222 223222222200 11 .omnm Mdmxwh. 344 TABLE E-31.--Involvement in or use made of student personnel ser- vices by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College Eight Involvement In or Use Made of Services By Student Personnel Admin. Faculty Student Total Service (N = 10) (N = 55) (N = 60) (N = 125) NO. % NO. % NO. (70 NO. C70 Pre-College Information 9 90. 0 42 76. 4 56 93. 3 107 85.6 Testing 8 80.0 32 58.2 41 68.3 81 . 64.8 Applicant Appraisal 8 80. 0 24 43. 6 46 76. 7 78 62. 4 Applicant Consulting 7 70. O 42 76. 4 60 100. 0 109 87. 2 Financial Aid 8 80.0 20 36.4 50 83.3 78‘ 62.4 Student Inductive 9 90. O 36 65. 5 51 85.0 96 76. 8 Academic Advisory 8 80. 0 46 83. 6 58 96. 7 112 89. 6 Registration 6 60. O 42 76. 4 60 100. 0 108 86. 4 Personnel Records 8 80. O 38 69. 1 44 73.3 90 72. 0 Campus Housing 7 70.0 12 21.8 58 96.7 77 61.6 Off-Campus Housing 6 60. O 14 25. 5 37 61. 7 57 45. 6 Food and Dining 5 50.0 35 63.6 59 98.3 99 79.2 Health Appraisal 4 40. O 19 34. 6 23 38. 3 46 36. 8 Health Educative 3 30.0 11 20.0 12 20.0 26 20.8 Health Clinical 4 40. 0 32 58. 2 49 81. 7 85 68. 0 Student Counseling 8 80. 0 24 44. 4 42 70. 0 74 59. 7 Basic Skill Diagnostic 6 60. O 14 25. 5 20 33. 3 4O 32. 0 Group Guidance 5 50.0 8 14.6 22 36.7 35 28.0 Academic Regulatory 7 70. 0 34 61. 8 38 63. 3 79 63. 2 Social Regulatory 5 50. 0 19 34. 6 22 36. 7 46 36. 8 Foreign Student 7 70.0 6 10.9 9 15.0 22 17.6 Student Activities 6 60. O 32 58. 2 58 96. 7 96 76. 8 Student Self-Government 7 70. 0 19 34. 6 43 71. 7 69 55. 2 Religious Program 5 50. O 35 63. 6 59 95. 0 97 77. 6 Intramural Athletics 4 40. 0 12 21. 8 24 40. O 40 32 . 0 Citizenship Activity 6 60. 0 27 49. 1 29 48. 3 62 49. 6 Military Obligations 6 60. 0 6 10. 9 24 40. O 36 28. 8 Placement 6 60. 0 32 58. 2 30 50. 0 68 54. 4 Campus Protection 4 40. O 17 30. 9 35 58. 3 56 44. 8 Vehicle Regulatory 5 50. 0 33 60. 0 29 48. 3 67 53. 6 Program Evaluation 5 50. 0 19 34. 6 35 58. 3 59 47. 2 In-Service Education 7 70. 0 31 56. 4 17 28. 3 55 44. 0 Admm.13tr.atlve 6 60. o 20 36. 4 23 38. 3 49 39. 2 Organization 345 TABLE E-32. -- Need for implementing student personnel services as perceived by the student personnel administrators, faculty members, and students at College Eight Degree of Need No Need-- Perceived as Studgnt Personnel '8 .2 B . "g 3 Total Implemented erv1ces “o 3 1, '8 'o E a) ‘D a) 21 g :6 g 2 E w NO. % NO. % Pre-College Information 0 O 0 0 O. 0 125 100. 0 Testing 3 0 O 3 2. 4 122 97. 6 Applicant Appraisal O 0 2 2 1 . 6 123 98. 4 Applicant Consulting 0 0 O 0 O. O 125 100. 0 Financial Aid 0 0 O O O. 0 125 100. 0 Student Inductive 0 2 0 2 1. 6 123 98. 4 Academic Advisory 0 1 O 1 0. 8 124 99. 2 Registration 0 O O O 0. 0 125 100. 0 Personnel Records 0 0 1 1 O. 8 124 99. 2 Campus Housing 0 0 0 O 0. 0 125 100. 0 Off-Campus Housing 0 1 1 2 1. 6 123 98. 4 Food and Dining 0 0 0 O O. 0 125 100. 0 Health Appraisal 9 22 9 40 33. 0 85 67 . 0 Health Educative 8 24 17 49 39. 2 76 60. 8 Health Clinical 0 1 0 1 0. 8 124 99. 2 Student Counseling 1 2 0 3 2 . 4 122 97. 6 Basic Skill Diagnostic 1 8 2 1 1 8. 8 1 14 91. 2 Group Guidance 5 20 11 36 28. 8 89 71. 2 Academic Regulatory 0 0 0 0 0. O 125 100. 0 Social Regulatory 5 3 3 1 1 8. 8 1 14 91 . 2 Foreign Student 5 9 9 23 18. 4 102 81. 6 Student Activities 0 0 0 O 0. 0 125 100. 0 Student Self-Government 1 0 0 1 0. 8 124 99. 2 Religious Program 0 0 0 0 O. 0 125 100. 0 Intramural Athletics 0 O 0 O 0. 0 125 100. 0 Citizenship Activity 2 11 3 16 12 . 8 109 87. 2 Military Obligation 3 13 7 23 18. 4 102 81 . 6 Placement 0 0 0 0 O. 0 125 100. 0 Campus Protection 1 5 1 7 5. 6 118 94. 4 Vehicle Regulatory 0 1 2 3 2. 4 122 97. 6 Program Evaluation 5 13 8 26 20. 8 99 79. 2 In-Service Education 0 7 1 8 6. 4 1 17 93. 6 Admmisuéme o 3 1 4 3. 2 12 1 96. 8 Organization Student personnel administrators, 10; faculty members, 55; students, 60; total sample, 125. 346 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 222222560 222232 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22222220 2222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 232222222 522222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22222223252222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222 222 28.2 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22222822 222822-220 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22222622 22228222 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22.28222 22:82.82 2 222 .22 22 .2 22.2 22 .2 22.2 222222222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2.82322. 228222222 2 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 23222222 22228.2 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222 2222222222 2 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222220 222222222. 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222222 222222222. 222.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 25222.2 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22222822222 222225-822 222 ... 722 222 u 722 222 u 722 22 u 722 amoumzvm EU 2220.2. EocBm 2222:2222 2222222222. motiom 22222209222 22222222225. 22m mwafimm onoom 22.22222 2222272 229222200 22 3222222223 22222 6225222228 32:02.2 6.2322222252222222 2222222092222 2222222223 @222 mo. 2222222292222 mm. mmo2>hom 22222220922222 222222526 22222 .20 mmoom 22.22 .20 m2mm2w2222 2.222222% 2220 2222.2. mmnflmh mucom 22222222 1: .mmum M15243. 347 222.22 222222228 222. 22 2222222222 2252 82222228 22. 22 2222222222222 2962 22222222222022 NO . 2.2 222.202.2222m2m 22222 82222228 22. 22 22222222222 22 o n .2 222022222222 .20 mmmhmou m 22.2 2 222.22 222.2 222.2 222.2 222.2 222 .2 222 .2 222 .2 222.2 222.2 222.2 2 222.22 222.2 222.2 222.2 222.2 222 .2 mm.2 2&2 9.2.2 N2.N M2.N 2.22.2 2.22.2 2222.2 mN.N NN.N mwN NN.N mm.2 NO.N NON mm.2 222.2 2222.2 Om.2 Om.2 NON O2.N OO.N N222 9.22.2 22m.N OO.N 22m.N OO.N 222.N pmN NO.N 2222.2 N222 2.2.N 20.2 26.2 2N.N OO.N mm.2 OO.N 222.2 OO.N OO.m #wN N2.N 22m.2 OO.N ON.N 2:22 OO.2 mm .N 2822.222222qu o>22222m222222222< OO . N 22022202222222 0222:2515 OO .N 22022222292222 Emumonm mm .N 2,2322%.2222 220222222, 2.2 .N 2202222229222 22222222220 22 .2 2222222202222 22 .2 2822222220 22222222 22 .2 22232222 22222222220 OO .N 92222222222 2225222222222 22 .m Emhmofm m=o2w22om 02 .N 2co§o>001222m 222222222m mm . N 2202222222222 2222222225 ON .2 2.282222% 92222222022 co .m 22.202.22swom 2m2oom OO . N 22.23.2222wom 02222222222042 mm .2 20222222220 22220.26 22 .2 22222222222 222222 022222 222522220 -- 22-2.2 22.222222. 348 2 222 .22 22.2 22.2 22 .2 22.2 2222222250 222232 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 28222220 22222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 23282622 22222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 222222222 22222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222 2:2 2.822 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22222222 222820-220 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22222522 2222820 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22.28222 2228222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222222222 2 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2.222332 228222222 2 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22.2 232222222 222232 2 222.22 22 .2 22 .2 22.2 22.2 2222 2222222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 222222222222 228222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222222 2222222222 222.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22:22.2. 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 82228222222 m222228.822 222 ”7: 222 ”722 222 ”722 22 "722 mmmnmsvm EU 230,2. 2cmcs2m 232220.222 222222322 mo2>2mm 2222225292 22822225 mm mmcfimm ouoom 22.2022 @2222 mmm22oU um muzmwgm 22222. 62222222222222 23226222 6.2022225222282222 2022220922222 222.2an @222 2222 222530th mm mmofifimm 2222209522 2282222222 22222 .20 232222220 mg (20 3922222222 92222225 2220 2222.2 mmcfimu 92on 22232 I. .22mum2 mfimxa. 349 2962 82522222200 :5 . 22 2222022222226 2952 2202322222200 8 . .222 222.202.2222w2m 2962 922822222200 No . 22 2222022222225 2962 922822222200 mo. 22 222.202.2222w2m U o n 22 222025922 .20 mmmpwmv m 22 a, m moo.m2 mmm.m wmv.b mmw.¢ N¢m.22 ¢Nr.¢ 2¢b.m www.m2 wmm.m mo2.w www.m mNm.O2 Nom.N >mm.m www.m2 me.m wmm.m o2.N $2.2 Nw.2 N2.N mo.N N2.N 222.N m2.N ovN mpN me NN.N mNN 2m.N mNN OO.N mm.2 mm.2 no.2 2.2..2 woN no.2 222.N N2.N N2.N mwN mmN 2m.N mwN NN.N «N.N N2.N 3.2 222.2 mmN 2&2 222.2 mNN NN.N moN 22 .N OO.N wN.N mwN u22m.N 22w.N m2.N mmN me NN.N o2..2 m 2.2 .N 22032222222220 22222222225532 00 .N 22022202222222 motfiomufi ON .N 22022252222222 222222220222 om . N mmoum2zmmm 0202222222. 2.2 .N 220220029222 92225.20 mm . N 222m222mom2n2 22 .2 222222222220 2.2322222 mm . N 52320422 22222222522220 oo . N mo22m2222¢2 22222222222222 2.2 .m Eupwonm mso2w22om om .N 222m§m>00u22mm Hmongm. 22 .2 2222232222 228232 _ON .N Bougm 22392022 co .m 22.2322222me 2w2oom 3 .N muoaflsmmm 02222222322 mm .N mosmgsw 22220.20 22 .2 22222222222 22222 222222 2202222222200 .1. .22mum2 HAm ON .2 220220229222 2222222220 oo . N 2222222202222 22 .2 222222222220 2.2222222 Om .N 2222320222 22222222222220 ON . N 202222222422 2222222222222 on .N 822moun2 2220232222 ow .N 22222222222>00u222m 222222222m 22 .2 2222232222 2222232 OO .N 22222232m 2222.20.22 O2 .2 22.20222522222 222oom NN .N 22202222222222 022222222022 3. .2 20222222220 9220.20 22 .2 22222222222 22222 222222 2222222222290 .1. .522 mamaod. 354 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 222222550 2222232 2. 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22222220 522222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 232222222 22222222 2 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 222222.222 522222 2 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222 22222 22222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22222222 2228222220 2 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 222222622 2222820 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22.82222 2228222222 2 222.22 22.2 22 .2 22.2 22.2 222222222222 2 222.22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22.2 2.822622 228222222 2 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 23222222222 22222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222 2222222222 2 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2222222222220 2222222222 222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 222222222 222222222. 2222.22 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 25222.2. 2 222 .22 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22222822222 222225-222 2222 u 722 222 n 722 222 n 722 222 u 722 222222222m EU 2220.2. 222222225 222225222 222222322 mo2>22m 22:220222n2 222222225 22m 29222222 opoom 222222 222:2. mmmZoO 22 2228222222 22222 222222222222 222222022 2.2022222222222222 2222220222222 2222222222 2222 23 2223292222 22 220222.222 2222220222222 2222222222 2222 20 222222220 22.22 .20 2222222222 2.222222 22.20 22222 2922222 2.2002 222222 .3 .wmum mdmdfi. 355 2252 222222222222 222. 22 222222222222 29222 22022222222200 2O . 22 222202.2222w2m 2252 2222222222 22. 2.2 222222222222 22262 22022222222200 mo . 22 222202.22nm2m p o D 2 2220222222 20 2222mm; O 2 222.2 222.2 222.2 222.2 222.22 222.22 222.2 222.2 222.2 2 222.22 2 222.22 222.2 222.2 222.2 222.22 222.2 222.2 22 a. NN.N ON.N O2.N 2m.2 2&2 222.N OO.N Om.N mqu 20.N NON OO.N ON.N 222.N ON.N N2.N NO.N ON.N NN.N bO.N mm.2 222.2 NN.N 20.2 me OvN ON.N 2N.N m2.m ON.N OO.N O2.N .252 «$2 2N.N ON.N 2N.N OO.2 OO.2 mmN >O.N 222.N m2...N OO.N 2N.N OO.N NN.N 2.2N N2.N 22 .N 22 .N 2 OO . N 22022222222w20 2.4222222222228322 NN . N 22022202222222 motfiomufi OO .N 220222522>m2 822m0222 mN . N 22.2022222me m2o2£2> o2. .2 220220229222 2222222220 om .2 2222222202222 22 .2 22222222220 222222222 22 .2 2223222 22222222220 ON .N 20222222222. 2222222222222 OO .m 2222.2woan2 mzo2w22mm OO .m 22222222222>00n222m 222222222m 22 .2 2222232222 222232 On .N 2:222:2m 222222022 Om .N 222022223222 222oom 2222 .N 22.20222an22 0222222220222 N2. . N 20222222220 22220.20 O2 .2 022202222222 22226 322m 2222222222200 :1 .wmum m2m