MSU

LIBRARIES
.2553.

»

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped be10w.

 

 

 

’ MM“

Liar :gpio’; _;
ZPG ADQS

V H I ~

e5

 

 

EDUCATION AND INDIVIDUAL MODERNITY AMONG SAUDI STUDENTS:
A STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF FORMAL AND CROSS-CULTURAL
EDUCATION ON MODERNIZING ATTITUDES AND VALUES

By

Mahroos Ahmed Ghaban

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Teacher Education and Curriculum

Comparative and Social/Philosophical
Foundations of Education

May 1986

© 1987

MAHROOS AHMED GHABAN

All Rights Reserved

ABSTRACT
EDUCATION AND INDIVIDUAL MODERNITY AMONG SAUDI STUDENTS:
A STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF FORMAL AND CROSS-CULTURAL‘
EDUCATION ON MODERNIZING ATTITUDES AND VALUES
BY

Mahroos Ahmed Ghaban

This study was conducted to profile the individual
modernity of the Saudi student and to investigate the impact
of a set of independent variables (level of education,
experience of studying and length of stay in the United
States, mass media exposure, urban experience, father's
education, and age) upon the dependent variable of indi-
vidual modernity of Saudi students in both Saudi Arabia and
the United States.

A questionnaire was distributed to cross-sectional
samples of 111:0 Saudi male students. From the 900 usable
returns, 200 were secondary students, 1100 college students
in Saudi Arabia, and 300 college students in the United
States. Factor analysis was used to construct the dependent
variable scale and to profile the modernity of Saudi
students. Regression analysis was employed to determine the
impact of different independent variables on the dependent

variable of modernity.

Mahroos Ahmed Ghaban

The results suggest the modern Saudi student is similar
to his counterpart in other nations. Central to his
modernity profile is a sense of efficacy and a universal
outlook. However, unlike his counterpart, the modern Saudi
student prefers the urban life to the rural life, and is
less inclined to trust people other than his relatives and
friends.

The variable that positively (and significantly)
influenced the overall modernity of Saudi students in both
the United States and Saudi Arabia was the level of
education. Whereas, 1J1 Saudi Arabia, mass media exposure
positively affects the overall modernity, and half of its
dimensions, the same variable has no significant contri-
bution to overall modernity of Saudi students in the United
States and contributes to limited dimensions. Length of
stay in the United States has a significant positive impact
on the overall modernity and nearly all of its dimensions,
especially the dimension of Family Modernism. This is not
altered significantly by level of education in both
countries. Age in both countries has no significant
contribution to students' overall modernity and affects very
limited dimensions. Neither father's education nor urban
experience make significant contributions in) overall
modernity, nor any dimension of it, except that the former
negatively affected the dimension of risk taking of students

in the United States.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my gratitude and appreciation to all
the individuals in Saudi Arabia and the United States who
helped make the completion of this study possible.

Sincere thanks and deep gratitude go to Dr. Kenneth
Neff, Chairperson of the Doctoral Guidance Committee, for
his advice, concern, and encouragement. Grateful acknow-
ledgements and appreciation are extended to Dr. Allan
Beegle, Dr. Ben Bohnhorst, and Dr. James Snoddy for their
willingness to serve on my committee and for their valuable
suggestions.

Special thanks go to Dr. Fred Waisanen. It was as a
student in his seminar on "Comparative Social Psychology"
that I become interested in this dissertation topic.

I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my parents
for their support and encouragement.

Additionally, I extend my thanks and gratitude to the
following friends at King Abdulaziz University for their
participation in collecting the data: Mr. Abdulgani
Abualhassan, Dr. Mohammad Feda-Aldean, Dr. Hamed Al-Bar, Dr.
Asaad Atiyah, and Dr. Mohammad Jefri. Thanks and appre-

ciation also go to my dear friend, Hasen Shehri, for his

ii

help and assistance in scoring the study data as well as to
Abdulmohsen Saad for his assistance with the same task.

I am grateful to my wife, Suad, for her encouragement
and patience. find my beloved son, Motaz, and my daughters,
Hadeel and Dema, for their moral support and cheerful smiles
which eased the tension and difficulties faced during my
graduate work.

Last, but not least, I would like to thank Mr.
Abdulrizak Habib for his computerized assistance in data
analysis, to Marilyn for her beautiful typing of the
manuscript and niceness, and Beckey for her professional

editing and kindness.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES ....................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................... ix
CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................
Statement of the Problem ....................
Purpose of the Study ........................
Research Hypotheses .........................
Importance of the Study .....................
Limitations and Delimitations ...............
Definitions of Terms ........................
Organization of the Study ...................

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................
Education in Saudi Arabia ...................

General Education ........................

Higher Education .........................

\OKO (DNU'IkUOUUt-‘H

HH
NH

Study Abroad ................................
Saudi Students Study Abroad ..............
Determinants of Saudi Students'

Flow to the United States ..............

I-‘|-‘
:1:

N
O

The Meaning of Individual Modernity
and Its Theoretical and Empirical

Ba81s .0.0..000......OOOOOOOOOOOOOO...0.0.. 22

Individual Modernity and Education .......... 27
How Education Modernizes the
Perspectives of Students ............... 30

Individual Modernity and National
Development 00.0.0000...0.00.00.00.00..00.. 35

summary OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 39

iv

CHAPTER Page

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY O...IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO “1
Variables Involved .......................... A1

Development of the Instrument ............... A2
Translation and Pre-Test of the
Research Instrument .................... A5

Target Population ........................... A6
Sample, Sampling Procedure, and Setting ..... A6
Data Collection Procedure ................... 50
Data Analysis Procedure ..................... 53
Summary ..................................... 55

IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA 00.0.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 56
Characteristics of Participants ............. 57

Scale Construction "Factorial Structure
Of MOdernity scale" IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 62

Profile of the Modern Saudi Students ........ 73

Reliability and Validity .................... 76
Reliability of the Modernity Scale ....... 76
Validity of the Modernity Scale .......... 77

Operationalization of the Study
Independent Variables ..................... 78

Results of Testing the Hypotheses ........... 83
Modernity and Level of Education ......... 83
Modernity and College and Secondary

Education in Saudi Arabia .............. 87
Modernity and College Education in

the United States and Saudi Arabia ..... 88
Experience of Studying Abroad and

Length of Stay ......................... 88
Modernity and Other Influencing

Variables .............................. 90
Interpretation of Results and

Discussion ............................. 93

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ......................... 10A
Theoretical Implications .................... 109
Practical Implications ...................... 110
Recommendation for Further Research ......... 111

APPENDICES O0.0.0.0....0..IOOCOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0000000000
Appendix A: The English and Arabia Version

Appendix
Appendix

Appendix

BIBLIOGRAPHY

of the Study Questionnaire ...........

B: A Copy of the Follow-up Letter .......

C: Letters from the Dean of the

College of Education to Other
Agencies Asking Them to Help
the ResearCheP OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

D: Principal Factor and Rotated

Factor Solutions for the
MOdernity Items OOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

vi

Page
113

113
129

131

136
138

LIST OF TABLES

Page
TABLE

1 Number of Saudi Students Studying Abroad
(1973/7u t0 1983/8“) 00000000000000.0.0.0.0000... 16

2 Saudi Students Abroad by Field and Level
Of Study, 1983/8“ 0.0.0.000...000...00....0000... l7

3 Saudi Students Abroad by Country of Study
(1983-8u) a...ooooooooooooooooooooooooocooooooooo 19

A The Number and Percent of Distributed and
Usable Returned Questionnaire Forms ............. 5A

5.1 Frequency and Percentage of the Levels of
Education of the Research Sample ................ 58

5.2 Frequency and Percentage of the Ages of
the ReseaFCh sample .0........00...0...000.0...0. 58

5.3 Frequency and Percentage of the Students
Experienced Studying Abroad (in a
Developing Country or Countries) ................ 6O

5.A Frequency and Percentage of the Students
Length or Stay Abroad 0.00....00...00......00.00. 60

5.5 Frequency and Percentage of the Students
Place of General Education ...................... 61

5.6 Frequency and Percentage of the Students
Fathers' Level of Education ..................... 61

5.7 Distribution of the Student's Exposure to
M388 media .000.0....0...00..00000000000.0...0.0. 62

6 Modernity Items Grouped by Sub-scale with
Loadings on Principal Axis Factor (Unrotated
Solution) and Rotated Axis Factors and
Where Similar Items are Found ................... 66

vii

TABLE

10

11

12

Page

Zero-Order Correlations Between Individual
Modernity and the Three Independent
(criteria) variables ooooooooooooooooooooooo00000 78

A Description of the Independent Variables
Used in Regression Estimates of Modernity ....... 81

Regression Coefficients (beta values) on

Overall Modernity and Each Dimension of

It for Saudi Students Studying in Saudi

Arabia .......................................... 85

Regression Coefficients (beta values) on

Overall Modernity and Each Dimension of

It for Saudi Students Studying in the

United States ................................... 86

Regression Coefficients (beta values) on

Overall Modernity and Each Dimension

of It for College Saudi Students in the

United States and Saudi Arabia .................. 89

Regression Coefficients (beta values) on

Overall Modernity and Each Dimension of

It for All Saudi Students Both in the

United States and Saudi Arabia .................. 91

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
FIGURE

1 The Process of Modernization (Based on
Inkeles and smith, 197a) 00.0.0.0...0..0.......00 37

ix

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Statement of Problem
The efforts of developing countries to bring about economic,
social, and political modernization is usually resisted by
those with traditional values, attitudes, and beliefs
towards things, peOple, and time. To facilitate the
multi-aspects of modernization, including individual
modernity (modernization of values and attitudes) developing
nations put their faith in education. Education is viewed
"as the key that unlocks the door of modernization"
(Harbison, 196A:181). The role of education. in promoting
the attitudes and values favorable to modernization is
vital. Education is one of the few institutions available
for changing values and attitudes that are incompatible with
the modernization process (Abernathy, 1969:9). A number of
empirical research studies, utilizing data from many
developing countries, indicate that modern formal education
is the single most powerful variable in determining
individual modernity (Inkeles and Smith, 197A; Kahl, 1968).
From a development standpoint, the purpose of education is
to rationalize attitudes, values, and behavior as well as to

impart knowledge and skills.

2

Thus, the degree to which an educational system, in
fact, produces individuals with modern orientations can be
regarded as a vital dimension of any nation's efforts to
modernize. Saudi Arabia, as a developing country, seeks to
modernize vigorously. Yet, her educational system has been
accused, by many, of not being fully committed to promoting
values and attitudes conducive to national development.

After analyzing the systems of educational and manpower
development in Saudi Arabia, Hamman concluded "the present
system of education and manpower does not respond to the
needs of societal development" (1973:303). Another Saudi
educator, in his thesis about industrial vocational
education in Saudi Arabia, contends that all available
information does not indicate any action has been taken to
overcome the negative attitudes of Saudis toward manual work
and vocational education (Alaki, 1972). Szyliowicz sums up
the situation by saying:

In every country of the Middle East, though more

so in some cases than in others, the structure of

a modern educational system has been created, but

in every country the functioning of that system,

at all levels, possesses many aspects that are

dysfunctional for modernization (1973:AA8) . . .

. . . an educational experience featuring tradi-

tional methods and emphasizing traditional values

does not produce the kinds of flexible and innova-

tive types who are necessary if modernization is

to be achieved . . . the longer the present

educational systems continue to operate along

these lines the more difficult it will be for

these states to achieve modernity (A53).

To verify the above assumptions, this study will

investigate, empirically, the impact of formal education in

Saudi Arabia on the attitudinal or individual modernity of
students and will use the modernity of Saudi students in the

United States as a reference point in discussing such an

impact.

The purpose of this study is to profile individual
modernity of Saudi students and to evaluate the following

questions and statements regarding certain factors known to

3

Purpose of the Study

influence modernity.

1.

Based on reviews of relevant literature,

What is the relationship between level of
education and individual modernity among Saudi
students in the United States and Saudi
Arabia?

What is the relationship and impact of
undergraduate college education in Saudi
Arabia on individual modernity of students in
comparison with secondary education?

What is the relationship and impact of college
education in Saudi Arabia upon modernity of
Saudi students in comparison with college
education in the United States?

To what extent does the experience of studying
and length of stay in a developed country
(i.e. U.S.A.) effect individual modernity of
students native to a developing country (i.e.
Saudi Arabia)?

To ascertain the effects of other variables
that influence modernity (i.e. mass media
exposure, father's education, urban
experience, age).

Research Hypotheses

 

research hypotheses were set up:

the following

u

1. There will be a positive significant relation-
ship between level of education and individual
modernity among Saudi students in Saudi Arabia
and the United States.

2. The impact of undergraduate education in Saudi
Arabia on individual modernity will be higher
than the impact of secondary education.

3. The impact of American college education on
individual modernity of Saudi students will be
significantly different from the impact of
college education in Saudi Arabia.

A. There will be a significant positive relation-
ship between the experience of studying and
length of stay in a developed country (i.e.
U.S.A.) and individual modernity of students
originating from a developing country (i.e.
Saudi Arabia).

5. There will be significant relationships
between mass media exposure, urban experience,
father's education, age, and individual
modernity.

Importance of the Study

 

Previous major studies (Kahl, 1968; Inkeles and Smith,
197A) shared a serious limitation by working with adult
samples, this study, however, assesses the impact of formal
education by investigating the attitudes of students rather
than adults. It has been argued (e.g. Waisanen and Kumate,
1972) that individual modernity may be modified signifi-
cantly by the further experience of individuals after
leaving school. Furthermore, this study covers a wider
range of levels of education than most similar previous
research. This study examines the impact of levels of
education (secondary, undergraduate, and graduate) on

modernity. Whereas previous studies limited themselves

5
either to the secondary level or elementary level and rarely
combined more than one level.

This study investigates a variable that, to the best of
our knowledge, has not been previously validated, empiri-
cally, on student samples;* that is, the impact of studying
in a developed country (i.e. the U.S.A.) on the modernity of
individuals coming from a developing country (i.e. Saudi
Arabia). Furthermore, the attitudes of these students are
compared to those of Saudi students studying in general
secondary schools and colleges in Saudi Arabia.

It is desirable that the findings of this study will
validate, on empirical grounds, the beliefs (stated under
the heading of the Statement of the Problem) regarding the
impact of formal education in Saudi Arabia on student's
attitudinal modernity, as well as to demonstrate the impact
of studying abroad (i.e. the U.S.A.) on Saudi students'
modernity. Thus, such findings would also allow the policy
makers in Saudi Arabia to evaluate the promising
contributions of formal education and study abroad to the

process of modernization in the country.

Limitations and Delimitations
This study has the following limitations which are

related in most part to the sampling restrictions:

 

*On the available literature there has been only one study
that attempted to study such a variable (among most samples
of workers), i.e. Sack's study (1972).

6

1. This study was limited to male general secondary
school students drawn from one school in Medina and two
schools from two small towns under the supervision of Tabuk
General School District, Saudi Arabia. This restriction to
male students was made because of the dual nature of the
Saudi education system. Given the nature _of the
educational system of Saudi Arabia (see Chapter II), the
researcher had no reason to believe that general secondary
schools in these two districts are significantly different
from other Saudi Arabia schools. Hence, the findings of
this study could be generalized to apply to other general
secondary school students in the country.

2. This study also was limited to three male colleges
at the university of King Abdualaziz. The selection of this
university was based on the following criteria. First, it
is one of the typically secular modern universities in the
country (see Chapter II). Second, it hosts typical major
colleges. Third, its student population is one of the
largest. In regard to the limitation of the three colleges;
College of Education, College of Engineering, and College of
Administration, their selection was determined by the
study's main objective: to compare the individual modernity
among college Saudi students studying in the United States
and Saudi Arabia. Hence, the criteria required that similar
levels and fields of study should be available and popular
among Saudi students in both countries. However, due to the

similarity of the situations and curricula among the

7

colleges in modern universities in Saudi Arabia, the
findings of this study could be generalized to apply to
other colleges. Generalization of the findings to religious
colleges should be undertaken with extreme care.

3. The sample for Saudi students studying in developed
.countries was drawn only from those Saudi students in the
United States according to the above criteria. Since there
is a similarity in the characteristics and in the situations
between Saudi students studying in the U.S.A. and those
studying in Western Europe, the results of this study may

have some applications to them as well.

Definition of Terms

 

Individual Modernity or Attitudinal Modernity: refers
to a complex set of interrelated attitudes and values that
are deemed to be generated from and/or required for,
effective functioning in a modern, industrial society.

Attitude: will refer to a learned disposition, or
stand, that upholds responses in a favorable or unfavorable
manner with respect to objects, issues, persons, groups, or
institutions (Ajzen, 1975:6). In this study the twin
concept, "value and attitudes," will be lumped together.

Cross-cultural Education: refers to "the reciprocal
process of learning and adjustment that occurs when
individuals sojourn, for educational purposes, to a society
that is culturally foreign to them, and who normally return
to their own society after a limited period of time" (Smith,
l956:1).

8
General Secondary Schools: refers to public schools in
Saudi Arabia, for males, that track students into either an
art or a science concentration at the end of the tenth
grade. These students are generally between 16-18 years of

age.

Organization of the Study

The study was organized into five chapters: a discus-
sion of the statement of the problem, purpose of the study,
importanme of the study, research hypotheses, limitations,
and definition of terms is presented in Chapter I. A review
of related literature is included in Chapter II, followed by
a presentation of the methods of data collection and
analysis in Chapter III. Inn Chapter IV, the findings and
interpretation of the results are presented. A summary of
the study, conclusions based on the findings, theoretical
and practical implications, and recommendations for further

research are presented in Chapter V.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter will present a review of literature
dealing with the issue of individual modernity as well as a
brief presentation to education in Saudi Arabia and Saudi
students who study abroad.

The review covers research and investigation undertaken
on the subject of individual modernity and its linkage to
education and development by utilizing data from several
developing countries.

The presentation of this chapter is centered on the
following five topic areas: first, general background
information on education in Saudi Arabia with emphasis on
its general and higher education major features; second, a
review of Saudi students studying abroad and determinants of
Saudi student flow to the United States; third, the meaning
of individual modernity and its theoretical and empirical
basis; fourth, individual modernity and education and how
schools modernize student perspective; and, finally,

individual modernity and development.

Education in Saudi Arabia

 

The establishment of the Ministry of Education, in

1953, and the introduction of formal education for girls, in

9

10
1960, marked a new era in the educational history of Saudi
Arabia. There were only 196 elementary schools in the
kingdom in 1950 with 23,835 students; approximately 20 years
later, after the establishment of the Ministry of Education,
the number of elementary schools jumped to 1,917 with
36A,561 students (Al-Zaid, 1982:20).

The government of Saudi Arabia made it clear, from the
beginning, that its ultimate goal is to build a "modern"
Islamic nation and education will be the primary means to
achieve this objective. This concern is manifested clearly
through the official statement on the purpose of education:

The purpose of education is to have the student

understand Islam in a correct, comprehensive

manner, to plant and spread the Islamic creed, to
furnish the student with the values, teaching,

and ideals of Islam, to equip him with the

various skills and knowledge, to develop his

conduct in constructive directions, to develop

the society economically, socially, and

culturally, and to prepare the individual to

become a useful member in the building of his

community (Ministry of Higher Education, 1978,

Article #28, p. 10).

To achieve these objectives, the Saudi government has
invested heavily in education. This is best illustrated by
the Third Development Plan (1980-85) budget allocation.
Approximately 25% of the Saudi national income is allocated
to education and human resources development. The education
budget is second only to defense. Consequently, the
educational system at all levels has reformed, developed,

and expanded extensively. For example, the number of

universities in the country went from four in 197A to seven

11
currently. Furthermore, in the last ten years (1975/76-
l98A/85), the number of schools, at all levels, doubled from
3,092 to 6,305 (Ministry of Education, 198A/85:2l7).

General Education

 

The distinctive tenets of general education under the
Ministry of Education are:

-- The education structure adopted for the
general education follows a four stage ladder.
Children start school in kindergarten,
progress through six years of elementary
school (starting at age 6), followed with
three years of intermediate school, and then
attend three years of secondary school. It
should be noted that pre-school education is
still very limited.

-- The educational system is very centralized.
Most, if not all, curriculum and related
decisions are made by the Ministry of
Education directly or through its regional*
offices. Thus, what is to be taught, how,for
how long, and by whom are decisions primarily
made outside of individual school adminis-
tration.

-- Education is not compulsory, but all indivi-
duals have access to free schooling.

-- Promotion from grade to grade is based on
end-of-year exams, in addition to continual
evaluation of student progress. The inter-
mediate and secondary levels are regulated by
certificate exams, which are written and
marked by external examiners.

-- Students who pass the tenth grade have to
choose specialization in either the arts or
sciences sections.

-- The curriculum is supplemented with consider-
able religious and Arabic subjects. At the
lower the level, these subjects are more
intensive.

-- There is no co-education. Male and female
students attend separate schools during every
stage of their education.

12

-- English is the second language and is intro-
duced during the first year of the inter-
mediate stage.

-- General education includes special education
for the handicapped, adult education, and
several secondary vocational/industrial
schools.

-- In 197A-75. several comprehensive high schools
were established for the first time in Saudi
Arabia and followed an American model.
However, their number is still limited and
they remain in experimental stages of
development.

-- The methods of teaching at all educational
levels, as one Saudi educator notes, "are
based largely on transmitting what is laid
down in the textbooks and repeats what they
have acquired in these textbooks. There is
little encouragement for original thought,
intellectual discourse, or creativity (Faheem,
1982:81).

Higher Education

 

College and university education in Saudi Arabia is a
fairly recent development. The first established institu-
tion of higher education was the College of Sharie (Islamic
theology and Law) in 19A9. In 1957, Saud University was
established and marked the beginning of modern secular
university education in Saudi Arabia (Hammand, 1973:1A3).
There are now seven universities, composed of 62 colleges,
in Saudi Arabia. These institutions are: Saud University
(1957), Islamic University (1961), University of Petroleum
and Minerals (1963), King Abdulaziz University (1967), Imam
Mohammad Bin Saud University (197A), King Faisal University
(1975), and Um Al-Qura University (1981).

13
The main features of university education in Saudi
Arabia are:

-- The Saudi universities fall into two cate-
gories; the modern-oriented universities
(University of Saud, King Abdulaziz, Petroleum
and Mineral, King Faisal, and to a lesser
degree Um Al-Gura) and the religious-oriented
universities (Islamic and Imam Mohammad Bin
Saud). The major difference between these
types is that the religious universities
emphasize Islamic learning and culture with
little regard to secular and Western
knowledge. In: contrast, the modern-oriented
universities stress the secular, professional,
and technological bodies of knowledge (Faheem,
1982:80).

-- The Ministry of Higher Education supervises
and coordinates the activities of all
universities and functions as the supreme
authority.

-- The total enrollment in the universities and
other institutions of higher education has
risen from 7000 in 1969/70 to approximately
83,000 in l983/8A (Ministry of Higher Educa-
tion, 1985, VII).

-- In 1982/83, close to A0% of undergraduate male
students were enrolled in humanities, reli-
gious studies, and social sciences; 31% were
enrolled in engineering, medicine, agricul-
ture, and natural science; 13% were in
education; and the remaining 16% studied
administration and management.

-- Graduate education is very limited. The
majority of male students who study at master
and doctorate levels are studying religious
subjects and humanities.

-- Higher education is tuition free and students
are also provided with free housing and
monthly stipends.

-- All students, no matter what they study and
what kind of college they attend, must
complete a minimum number of Islamic culture
courses.

-- The higher educational system in Saudi Arabia
encounters similar problems found in many

1A

higher educational systems in developing
countries: lack of indigenous teachers,
personnel, textbooks, publications and tech-
nology; unplanned enrollment expansion; and a

dualistic system with unclear objectives, to
name a few.

Study Abroad

 

The phenomenon of study abroad is not by any means new.
It dates back to as early as 500-300 B.C., when Athens was
the Mecca of academic pilgrimage for scholars from all over
the Old World; foreign study seems to be a universal
phenomenon (Fry, 1985:55). The number of individuals
studying in countries other than their own has rocketed
during the last 30 years. In 1950, there were approximately
50,000 tertiary level students studying out of their home
countries, but now the number approaches one million

(Cummings and So, 1985:A03). According to UNESCO's

 

Statistical Yearbook, 1981, the United States hosted nearly

 

one-third of all foreign students reported in 1978
(263,9A0). France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom,
and the Federal Republic of Germany, respectively, were the
next largest host countries. These five countries hosted

nearly two-thirds of all foreign students.

Saudi Students Study Abroad

 

Since World War II, the Saudi government, like other
developing nations, invested. heavily’ in supporting, study
abroad for its citizens. The adoption of this policy has
been dictated by the fact that its national system of higher

education is limited in size and quality.

15

Linked to the substantial increase of the price of oil
in the 19703 (from which the Saudi government has benefited
as one of the largest oil producers in the World) there has
been a comparable increase in the number of Saudi students
studying Abroad. In 1973/7A, there were 2,660 Saudi
students studying abroad, and by 1981/82 they numbered
12,521. (See Table 1.) This represents an increase of over
A70%. ZIt seems, however, that the level peaked in 1981/82
and has declined since then. In 1982/83, the number of
Saudi students abroad was 11,097 and was 10,092 in 1983/8A.
This trend of decline is expected to continue in following
years It is likely the main reason for this is the
government policy of Saudi Arabia to reduce the number of
students being sent abroad for studies at the undergraduate
level. In 1979/80, there were approximately 7,000 students
at the bachelor's level, but in 1983/8A the number decreased
to 2,605 (Ministry of Higher Education, l983/8A:22).

131 terms of level and field of study in 1983/8A, the
largest number of male students were studying undergraduate
engineering. This represented 39.5% of the total male
students at this level. The next largest number of male
students was enrolled in social sciences (27.7%), followed
by natural sciences (13.0%), and medicine (9.7%). (See
Table 2.)

16

TABLE 1

Number of Saudi Students Studying Abroad
(1973/7A to 1983/8A)

 

 

 

 

Total Number of Students
Studying Abroad

Years

Male & Female Female Male
1973/7A 2660 315 23A5
197A/75 5310 875 AA35
1975/76 8280 785 7A95
1976/77 8035 733 7302
1977/78 9096 880 8216
1978/79 9919 897 9022
1979/80 10035 917 9118
1980/81 11921 978 109A3
1981/82 12521 37A8 8773
1982/83 11097 3539 7558
1983/8A 10092 3351 67A1

 

 

 

 

 

.am .a .Aw\mwmA
.osmmH nae .cmonn< mucocsum Aosmw no mOAumAumum .coAumosom LonmAm no mhumAcAz Hoonsom

 

macaqdc hmnwan nonnaocHua

17

qunmsoAAop movsaocH.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmom amom mmm ommm mm ASNH as mAAA Ammm maam H<aos
ANS: ammH HoA me am new SH am mmmm AoaH cacao
.. A a QA n- m u- m a mm :aH
.. .. oA eA .. A H A AA AN mane och
u- o w a u- A: -- m: m aoH oasuAsoAama
How HA Hm mm NA m: oH AA gum oaH mmAuAcaasm
moA AmH ow Hm m mAA a moH mom mm: acoHuaosom
.. H mm mHm 0 mm mm 3mm mo mum ocAeroz
A mm Hm mom a mmA A ASA AA mpo moocoHom Haasuaz
A Am mm mmo mm ANA HH Hem AAA mmMA mmoconm HaAoom
HH mam m mam .. moA A mmH om omAH chamochcm
m z m z m z m z m z

Assam ao eHmAm

Honuo nvonomm anaconda moumnouooo Amuoa
=w\mmaH .Aospm Ho Ho>oH use oAmAm an eaoan< aucoosum Aesam

N mqm<a

 

18

At the master's level, 33.2% of the male students were
studying social sciences, 13.0% were in natural sciences,
12.9% in engineering, and 11.8% in education. At the
doctorate level 22.7% of the male students were enrolled in
social science, 20.A% in medicine, 1A.3% in natural
sciences, 13.9% in engineering and 9.A% in education.

Among female students, 355 were enrolled at the bachelor
level, 93 at the master's level and 7A at the doctorate
level. They primarily studied social sciences, humanities,
education, and medicine. (See Table 2.)

The major host countries of Saudi students abroad in
1983/8A were: United States, United Kingdom, United Arab
Emirates, Egypt, and West Germany, respectively. (See Table
3.) The largest number of Saudi students, numbering 6,550,
were in the United States. Out of 5,187 students studying
at the university level, 78% were in the United States, 8.5%
in the United Kingdom, and 7.5% were in the Arab countries.

Sponsoring agencies in the education sector were the
Ministry of Higher Education, the Ministry of Education, and
the universities. They sponsored 90% of the doctorate
students, 78% at the master's, and 52% at the bachelor's
level in 1983/8A. Other ministries, government departments,
and autonomous organizations sponsored the balance. A very
small group met their own educational expenses (Ministry of

Higher Education, l983/8A:29).

19

 

 

 

 

TABLE 3
Saudi Students Abroad by Country of Study
(1983-8A)
Number Percentage
Country
Total Male Female Total % Male Femala
U.S.A. 6550 A38A 2166 6A.9 65.0 6A.6
U.K. 1207 11A3 6A 11.9 16.9 1.9
U.A.E. 558 160 398 . 5.5 2.3 11.8
Egypt A28 26A 16A ~A.2 3.9 A.8
W. Germany 288 231 57 2.8 3.A 1.7
Austria 1A0 87 33 1.3 1.2 0.9
Canada 131 122 9 1.2 1.8 0.2
Italy 120 107 13 1.1 1.5 0.3
Other
Countries 670 2A1 AA7 6.6 3.5 13.A
TOTAL 10092 67A1 3351 100 100 100

 

 

 

 

 

20
During the 1A year period from 1970/71 to 1983/8A,

there were 10,A68 Saudi students who earned their degrees,

diplomas, and certificates abroad. Of these, 683 were
females. The degrees included 1,008 doctorates, 2,028
master's, A,817 bachelor's, and 2,615 other certificates,
including training and education at general school levels
(Ministry of Higher Education, 1983/8A:26).

Determinants of Saudi Student
Flow to the United States

 

 

Since the United States, as shown above, is the largest
host country for Saudi students studying abroad, let us
investigate why this is so. Cummings and So (1985) observed
that over time, increased proportions of Asian students
turned to the United States to pursue their education; by
1978 the United States was chosen by a majority of the
students from ten Asian countries: the Philippines (80.8%),
Saudi Arabia (79.6%), South Korea (77.A%), China (73.6%),
Japan (72.9%), India (70.6%), Iran (66.8%), Thailand
(59.7%), Pakistan (5A.3%), and Kuwait (50.3%). Having
observed this, Cummings and So identified eight elements of
the Asian-American relationship to American higher education
that influenced student preference. These elements are:

1) improving Asian-American political relations

2) increased volume of Asian-American economic
exchange

3) sharp increase in Asian immigration to the
United States

A) increasing similarity in the structure and
content of Asian and American educational
systems

21

5) absorptive capacity of American higher
education

6) quality of American higher education

7) the principle of Asian demand and American
supply, and

8) opportunities in American higher education to

meet educational expenses through part-time
work.

In the Saudi case, the more relevant elements of the
above models are: first, improving Saudi-American political
relations. During the past several decades, the political
ties between Saudi Arabia and the United States have grown.
Second, accompanied with the political ties is an increase
in economic exchange. In 1982, for example, the United
States was Saudi's top trading partner (with a surplus of
$2.3 billion dollars). During that year, the United States
was the top supplier to Saudi Arabia, to the tune of some $8
billion (Al-Turki, 1986:5).

It is suggested that those two elements are strategic
because they determine the basis for the Saudi student flow
to the United States. However, there are other factors of
extreme importance. One is the great capacity of the
American educational systems to accommodate foreign
students. This factor is possibly the most important. A
second factor is the declining enrollment of domestic
students in American institutions of higher education which,
for economic reasons, encourages many American institutions

to adopt a policy welcoming foreign students. A third

factor concerns the Saudi graduates from the United States.

22

A large number of Saudi students who obtained their degrees
in the United States have assumed key positions in the Saudi
government and universities. Those individuals admire the
American educational system, and influence the decision to
send more Saudi students to the United States. The leaders
also introduce key features of the American education
system, such as the credit system which, in turn, links the
Saudi educational system to the United States'. Thus
students find it easier, in many cases, to attend United
States' universities where the educational system is more
familiar.

The Meaning of Individual Modernity
and Its Theoretical and Empirical Basis

 

Since the end of World War II, a considerable body of
social science literature has been produced to describe and
explain the process and determinants of modernization,
particularly in the developing countries. Generally
speaking, two approaches have been employed in studying
modernization. The first approach emphasizes the
organizational and institutional aspects of modernization.
It is concerned with the social structures within society.
The second approach assigns primacy to the individual. It
stresses the role personality characteristics play in the
modernization of society. For the former, the usual
indicators of modernization are GNP per capita, extent of
industrialization and urbanization, degree of political

centralization, and the extent of communication networks.

23
For the latter, the typical indicators of modernization are
the display and acquisition, on the part of individuals, of
certain types of values, attitudes, and behavioral
orientations. These are assumed to be related to the
emergence and functioning of a modern industrial society.

Hence, the focus of the second line of thought is on
the social-psychological or attitudinal dimension of
modernization with which present research is concerned.
There are a number of scholars who contribute significantly
to the development and formation of theories concerning this
dimension. Lerner (1958), McClelland (1961), Inkeles (1960,
1966), Smith and Inkeles (197A), and Kahl (1968), are a few
scholars who deserve mention here.

There is a notable agreement in literature regarding
crediting Lerner for being first to develop a theory of
modernization, which recognizes the importance of social-
psychological attributes in the process of modernization.

In Passing of Traditional Society, Lerner conducted a survey

 

in seven Middle Eastern countries characterized by differing
degrees of development (Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan,
Egypt, Syria, and Iran). Lerner argues that "empathy" is
the fundamental trait of the modern man. This he defines as
"the capacity to see oneself in the other fellow's
situation" (p. 50). For him, an empathic man is able to
project himself in many roles and to adjust himself to the

changing environment.

2A

Kahl, in Mexico and Brazil (1968), conducted a major
study that measured individual modernity. Having argued
that peOple and nations in the contemporary world tend to
move toward a convergent culture, Kahl was interested in
empirical investigation: to what degree does industrialism
create a common culture for all people? (p. 3). To answer
his question, Kahl developed a model of modern man with
fourteen components: activism, low stratification of life
changes, low community stratification, low occupational
primacy, low integration with relatives, individualism,
trust, mass-media. participation, anti big companies, pro
manual work, preference for urban life, family modernism,
low religiosity, and risk-taking. He then constructed a set
of Likert-type items. to operationalize them. This measure
was administered to 627 Brazilian males and 7A0 Mexican
males, their ages ranged between 25 to A9 years. The sample
of his study composed provincials, migrants, and metro-
politans with different occupational levels. Through the
use of a factor-analytic technique, Kahl concluded there is
a "core of modernism." Based on this core of modernity, or
modernism, Kahl inferred:

A 'modern' man is an activist; he attempts to

shape his world instead of passively and

fatalistically responding to it. He is an

individualist, who does not merge his work career

with that of either relatives or friends. He

believes that an independent career is not only

desirable but possible, for he perceives both

life chances and the local community to be low in

ascribed status. He prefers urban life to rural
life, and he follows the mass media (p. 37).

25
Kahl added subsidiary traits associated with modernity, or
modernism, including: interpersonal trust, a positive
attitude toward manual work, a willingness to take risks to
gain useful ends, and respect for others' right to express
their own opinions.

By far the most ambitious attempt to conceptualize,
validate, and measure the construct of individual modernity
has been the work of Alex Inkeles and David Smith (197A).
Their theoretical premises and assumptions are similar to
those of Kahl. Inkeles contends that as industrialization
tends to be a worldwide phenomenon a common culture emerges
producing men having similar characteristics. To concep-
tualize this theory, they identify a number of personal
qualities deemed to be characteristics of modern man.
Central to the theoretical concept of modern man is:

1) an openness to new experience

2) a readiness for social change

3) a disposition to form or hold opinions

A) being more energetic in acquiring facts and
information

5) .an orientation to the present or the future
rather than to the past

6) a sense of efficacy

7) an orientation toward long—term planning

8) confidence that his world is calculable, and
that people and institutions around him can

be relied upon

9) the valuing of technical skill and belief in
distributive justice

26

10) placing higher value on formal education and
schooling

ll) awareness of, and respect for, the dignity of
others

12) an understanding of production (Inkeles and
Smith, 197A:19-2A).

In addition to the above attributes, two other dimensions
were considered: universalism and optimism.

To measure the presumed qualities or themes, which
designate the modern man, Inkeles and Smith developed 119
questionnaire-interview items to register these themes.
They administered this questionnaire to approximately 6,000
men, ages 18 to 32, from the urban working class (about 70%)
with the remainder from cultivators and urban nonindustrial
workers in six developing countries (i.e. Pakistan, India,
Nigeria, Israel, Chile, and Argentina).

On the basis of this study, Smith and Inkeles concluded
there is a personality syndrome designating a type of man
who may be characterized as "modern."

The modern man's character, as it emerges from

our study, may be summed up under four major

headings. He is an informed participant citizen;

he has a marked sense of personal efficacy; he is

highly independent and autonomous in his

relations to traditional sources of influence,
especially when he is making basic decisions

about how to conduct his personal affairs; and he

is ready for new experience and ideas, that is,

he is relatively open—minded and cognitively

flexible (Inkeles and Smith, 197A:290).

In general, the "modern" man of Kahl and Inkeles and
Smith are strikingly similar. Also, these studies suggested
that individual modernity was associated with a similar set

of background variables in such dissimilar countries as

27

Pakistan, Israel, Nigeria, Argentina, Chile, India, Brazil,
and Mexico~ Background variables typically connected with
levels of modernity were experienced in urban settings, with
exposure to mass media, and to the number of years of formal
education. It should be noted the studies carried out by
Inkeles and Smith, and Kahl are not all of the research
available measuring individual modernity. However, they are
the major attempts in this field and present recent
research.

On the basis of the above discussion, the concept of
individual modernity has been modified to incorporate the
common social-psychological traits and attributes of
individuals participating in modern, industrial societies.
Thus, individual modernity can be defined as a complex set
of interrelated attitudes, values, and behavioral
orientations and are deemed to be generated and/or required
for effective functioning in a modern, industrial society.

The theoretical formulations of this study will be
based on the modernity studies of Inkeles and Smith (1966,
197A), and Kahl (1968). Also, many of the questionnaire
items, which measure the individual modernity of this study,
were adapted from Inkeles and Smith, overall modernity

scales, and the Kahl scale of Modernism I.

Individual Modernity and Education

 

There has been a growing body of empirical literature
that links education to individual modernity. One can cite

a number of studies and investigations, i.e. Lerner (1958),

28

Inkeles (1969), Kahl (1968), Armer and Youtz (1971),
Waisanen and Kumata (1973), Inkeles and Smith (197A), Sack
(197A), Holsinger (197A), Cunningham (197A), Waisanen and
Kumar (1979), and Chiu (1979), that have been undertaken on
this subject and use data from several developing societies.
The findings of these studies support the hypothesis that
education, directly or indirectly, modernizes individual
attitudes and values.

The pioneering study which empirically documents the
contribution of literacy to individual modernity was Daniel
Lerner's study (1958) in Middle-Eastern countries (discussed
earlier). Lerner found psychic empathy as the fundamental
dimension upon which all modernity characteristics rest and
is highly correlated with education.

Lerner's early observations in Middle-Eastern countries
were further supported by numbers of subsequent studies in
other countries. Kahl (1968), for example,. found the
correlations between formal education. and individual
modernity, or modernism, in Mexico and Brazil to be 0.55 and
0.57 respectively.

' In their study of individual modernity in six
developing countries, Inkeles and Smith (197A) found their
measure of individual modernity, the OM scale, showing
strong correlations with education as follows: Argentina,
0.59; Chile, 0.51; East Pakistan (Bangladesh), 0.A1; India,
0.71; Israel, 0.AA; and Nigeria, 0.51 (133). To be certain

that education was a truly independent factor in determining

29

modernity, Inkeles and Smith statistically controlled the
effects of competing independent variables such as
socio-economic status, urban experience, and mass media.
Having done that, they found the association between
education and modernity remained strong. Furthermore, they
discovered that among men with the least education, within
their country, less than 10 percent were classified as
modern on the basis of their overall modernity score. By
contrast, among the most educated men, in their country, 80
percent were classified as modern. This overwhelming
evidence led them to conclude:

In all six countries, education emerged as unmis—

takably the most powerful force in shaping a

man's modernity score (30A).

Although the studies of Kahl, and Inkeles and Smith
document the positive association between education and
modernity, they both had a serious limitation. Both studies
were conducted with adult participants who left school long
before they were interviewed. Thus, one could argue as
Waisanen and Kumar (1979) did correctly and Inkeles himself
came to acknowledge, that the effects of education upon
individual modernity may be indirect or may be mediated by
some variables. in: state it differently, people were not
made more modern by virtue of spending more time in
acquiring more schooling, but rather were made more modern
by further exposure to modernizing influences of mass media,
employment in formal organizations, and the like, which

education provides.

30

A number of more recent researches, however, have been
undertaken on this subject without the above limitation.
Armer and Youtz (1971), for example, interviewed 591
Nigerian 17—year-old male students in Kano City, Nigeria.
Utilizing a measure of modernity composed of six dimensions:
independence from family, ethic equity, empiricism,
efficacy, receptivity to change, and future oriented, they
found there was a direct association between individual
modernity and exposure to formal Western education. In
examining the impact of other variables which might explain
the association, Armer and Youtz found the relationships
between educational levels and individual modernity were
present even after the impact of mass media exposure, family
differences and other alternative) modernizing forces was
statistically calculated.

How Education Modernizes
The Perspectives of Students

 

 

In the context of the previous discussion, one could
ask this question: What are the mechanisms by which a school
teaches and shapes the values, attitudes, and behavioral
orientations which are defined as "modern?" One hypothesis
which is strongly proposed by Inkeles (1969) and Inkeles and
Smith (197A), and is likewise suggested by Waisanen (1971),
is that the school carries out such tasks by its distinctive
characteristics as a social organization. Inkeles and other
scholars who share his perspective argue that the moderniz—

ing effects of school follow not from the school's formal

31
curriculum and formal instruction in academic subjects, but
rather from its "hidden" curriculum. In a direct answer to
the question proposed at the beginning of this paragraph,
Inkeles and Smith state:

We believe the answer lies mainly in the

distinctive nature of the school as a social

organization, something which has little to do

with the curriculum as such. In our view...the

school modernizes through a number of processes

other than formal instruction in academic
subjects. These are: reward and punishment,
modeling, exemplification, and generalization

(197A:1A0).

However, this assertion was not empirically tested by any of
these studies in terms of their concrete findings.

Armer and Youtz (1971) were the first to test the above
hypothesis in their study of the impact of formal education
on individual modernity among Nigerian youths. One of the
primary research objectives of their study was to investié
gate whether the formal curriculum or the structural aspects
of the formal education system played a more critical role
in explaining the association between education and
modernity. Their basic argument was that if organizational
aspects of schooling were more important than the curriculum
content, then modernization of values and attitudes would
also result from the formal education systems with
non-modern curriculum. On the other hand, if the curriculum
were more important, then there would be differences in the
modernization perspectives of the two types of modern and

non-modern educational systems. rm: test their assumption,

Armer and Youtz compared the students in Koranic schools

32

with those in Western schools. They suggest that the Koranic
schools differ from Western schools in curriculum content,
but the formal institutional characteristics of the two are
similar. The results of this comparison suggest there is a
slight tendency of negative association between individual
modernity and increasing years of Koranic education rather
than the positive associations expected if structural
characteristics were primarily responsible for modernity.
It should be noted that selective recruitment into Koranic
schools versus Western type schools cast doubt on the above
finding. One could argue that Western type schools
initially attract individuals who are "modern." The
culturally traditional schools recruit individuals also who
are relatively "traditional."

Armer and Youtz (1971) made a further attempt to test
the effects of curriculum by comparing the degree of
modernity among students from different types of secondary
schools: 1) secondary grammar schools; 2) teacher-training
"colleges"; and 3) technical and vocational schools. The
social organization of these schools is nearly the same, but
there exists great variations in their curriculum emphasis.
The results show there are significant differences of
modernity scores among those experiencing different types of
secondary schools. Those with secondary grammar school
education score substantially higher on modernity in
comparison with the other types of schools. In contrast

with Inkeles and Smith, they conclude:

33

..., these data offer consistent, preliminary

support for the suggestion that the curriculum

may be more effective in producing differences in

psychological modernity than is the formal

organization of the school (Armer and Youtz,

1971:621).

In his study of education and modernization in Tunisia,
Sack (1972) was interested in investigating the impact of
vocational education as opposed to general secondary
education upon the shaping of individual modernity. Using
the regression method, Sack concluded that the number of
years of schooling rather than the type of schooling had a
more significant effect on modernity. Thus his finding is
in accordance with the hypothesis of Inkeles and Smith
(stated earlier), but it is in contrast with the finding of
Armer and Youtz.

As is evidenced from the above discussion, the issue of
whether the school modernizes the perspectives of students
by its inherent social structure or by its direct formal
curriculum is unsettled and the investigation is yet to be
fully completed.

There is, however, still another legitimate alternative
explanation for the positive association between education
and modernity. It is that educational recruitment
selectively favors modern individuals. That is, those who
are more modern in their attitudes and values tend to be
more likely to attend and stay longer in school. Armer and
Youtz (1971) attempted to account for this alternative.

Their argument is "if selectivity factors are responsible

for the observed association, it is reasonable to expect

3A

that differences in the percentage of 'more modern'
respondents would be most pronounced at the beginning of
primary or secondary school rather than during primary or
secondary school" (p. 612). However, they used a cross
sectional design (collecting data at one point of time)
which, in turn, effected the validity of their findings. It
seems that the only unambiguous way to prove this alterna-
tive explanation would be by sampling a group of children of
school age, comparing their value-orientation changes at the
beginning and end of the ensuing years, and comparing those
in school with children out of school and of comparable age
and family status. This is essentially what Holsinger does.

By far the most meticulous and comprehensive effort
attempting to investigate the link between education and
modernity is the work of Donald Holsinger (197A). His
methodology is novel and superior in the realm of modernity
for the following reasons: 1) unlike previous studies which
drew their sampling subjects from youths or adults,
Holsinger used elementary school children in their third,
fourth, and fifth grades (he randomly selected students in
Brasilia), 2) the inclusion of a longitudinal approach to
examine the same individual children at two different points
in time as well as a cross-sectional approach to measure
modernity of the selected sample at essentially the same
time, and 3) the comparison of non-school children of
equivalent age and socio-economic status to examine the

effect of education.

35

After analyzing the data of the cross-sectional sample
of third, fourth, and fifth grade elementary school
children, Holsinger found a statistically significant and
uniform positive increase between children's level of
education and modernity scores. In the longitudinal
analysis, he finds a uniform and significant increase at all
three levels. In the non-school baseline analysis, 300
non-school children were divided into three groups to match
the mean age of the school sample. The result showed the
scores of modernity among the three groups of non-school
children were virtually the same despite age differences.
Also, none of these three groups obtained higher modernity
scores than any of the school children. Further, after
reviewing the effects of alternative modernizing factors,
such as family status, media exposure and teacher's
modernity, were statistically evaluated, Holsinger found a
strong relationship between modernity and schooling.

Hence, the evidence particularly that provided by
Holsinger and others, leaves little doubt about the

contribution of education to individual modernity.

Individual Modernity and National Development

 

For the last four decades the problem of national
development, especially in developing countries, has had a
central place in the literature of social science. This
problem has been approached from different perspectives.
The dependency approach to development, for example, links

the underdevelopment of developing countries to the

36
domination and exploitation of a core of wealthy countries.
The attitudinal or psychological approaches to development,
which will be examined in detail here, view underdevelop-
ment, in good part, as a state of mind. Some mental and
psychic orientations therefore, can act as key barriers to
national deve10pment.

In his work The Achieving Society (1961), McClelland

 

explains the rise and fall of empires in terms of a
personality trait which he called the achievement motive (g
Achievement). McClelland's central thesis is that there is
a strong positive association between the culture's degree
of achievement motivation and its rate of economic
development. To prove the point, McClelland and his
associates developed a method by which they sought to
identify and measure the achievement motive. They found the
occurrence rate of achievement themes in children's readers
and fantasy stories to be a good indicator for the level of
need for achievement. Using this measure, McClelland found
that the n Achievement level in the children's readers
during a specified period correlated prominently with the
level of economic growth of the country's subsequent
generation. He attributed the economic development of the
West to the need for achievement--a desire to do well. It
should be noted that McClelland argued that achievement
motivation is the single most fundamental variable

determining the rate of economic growth, in a causative

37
manner, in a given society. It therefore produces economic
growth rather than being produced by it.

A more recent line of thought, and perhaps more
accepted among scholars, is the theory of individual
modernity. Theorists of individual modernity acknowledge
that the acquisition of those qualities identified as
"modern" is both a precondition for social and economic
development and as a major consequence of it. In Lerner's
words, "modernizing individuals and institutions, like the
chicken and egg, reproduce these traits in each other"
(1958:78).

Inkeles and Smith (197A) who contribute most to the
realm of individual modernity, view development as largely
as outcome of a set of interrelated variables, namely,
modernizing institutions, modernized individuals, and modern

institutions. This interplay is illustrated in Figure 1.

Modernizing Modernized Modern Economic

 

Institutions Individuals Institutions Development
Figure l. The process of modernization (based on Inkeles and
Smith, 197A).
Inkeles and Smith, and others who share their perspectives,
argue that the linkage between institutional and individual
modernity is not a chicken or egg proposition. Rather the
process is cyclical and one of mutual interaction. The
structural and individual elements of a society are such

that under most conditions, high rates of societal

38
modernization will lead to high levels of individual
modernity and the reverse is also true (Holsinger and
Theisen, 1977:330).

Inkeles and Smith and their supporters; however, do not
totally dismiss the effects of other social forces which may
facilitate or hinder the process of development. To quote
them:

We are not unaware that a modern psychology
cannot alone make a nation modern. We fully
understand that to be modern, a nation must have
modern institutions, effective government,
efficient production, and adequate social
services. And we recognize full well that there
may be structural obstacles to such development,
stemming not only from nature, but from social,
political, and economic causes as well. Narrow
class interests, colonial. oppression, rapacious
great powers, international cartels, domestic
monopolies, archaic and corrupted governments,
tribal antagonisms, and religious and ethnic
prejudices, to name but a few, are among the many
objective forces which we know may act to impede
modernization.

Nevertheless, we believe a change in atti-
tudes and values to be one of the most essential
preconditions for substantial and effective
functioning of those modern institutions (Inkeles
and Smith, 197A:313).

Going beyond the theoretical argument, Sack (1972)
finds there is a positive and significant relationship
between modernity and worker productivity. Such findings
have been supported by a more recent study. Sadan and
Nachmias (1977) found modernity was correlated with economic
performance. Farm operators who were classified as modern
prove more effective.

Although the individual modernity theory has been

important on thinking about development, there have been

39

several criticisms. One of these concerns the causal
linkage between attitudes and actual behavior, a matter of
controversy in social psychology. A second criticism
focuses on some of the dysfunctional aspects of modernity
regarding the attainment of developmental goals for society
as a whole. For example, Portes (1973) argues that certain
modern orientations (i.e., individualism and achievement)
may create behavior patterns which are not in the best
interests of the country in question. The "brain drain" of
professionals and highly trained manpower from developing
countries is a good example.

In the light of the above discussion, it is suggested
that the modernity-development theory hardly tells the full
development story, but it undeniably tells a significant
part. Hypothetically, one could imagine a society with a
large segment of modern men without a high degree of
national development. On the other hand, it is highly
unlikely that national development could proceed very far
without a large number of modern individuals staffing
social, political, and economic institutions necessary to

the process of development.

Summary

This chapter covers considerable ground of the related
literature to this study with historical, theoretical and
empirical reviews. It began with a brief presentation on
the education in Saudi Arabia and its main general charac-

teristics, followed with a description on the distribution

A0
and status of Saudi students studying abroad, and a

discussion about the determinants of their flows to the

United States. There followed a close examination of the
meaning of the construct of individual modernity and its
theoretical and empirical basis was presented. After
finishing this, an exploration of the relationship between
education and individual modernity was undertaken, followed
with an investigation on how school modernizes the
perspectives of individuals. Lastly, the relationship
between individual modernity and national develOpment was
examined. The next chapter, Chapter III, will be a
presentation of the procedure and methodology used in this

study.

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The objective of this chapter is to describe the
procedure and methods used in planning, conducting, and
analyzing the study. The following topics are presented in
this chapter: 1) variables involved in the study;
2) development of the instrument; 3) translating and
pretesting the research instrument; A) target population;
5) sample, sampling procedure and setting of the study;
6) data collection procedure; and, 7) the statistical

methods used for data analysis.

Variables Involved

 

This study was developed to investigate the relation-
ship and impact of formal education on the individual
modernity of Saudi students in the United States and in
Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the principal variables at issue
are: first, individual or attitudinal modernity, treated as
the dependent variable. The second variable is formal
education, treated as an independent variable. The third
variable is the experience of studying in a developed
nation, it is treated as an independent variable.

In addition to the above variable, there are a number

of independent variables, suggested by previous studies,

41

A2
having an independent impact on individual modernity. The
variables controlled in this study are: mass media exposure,

father's level of education, urban experience, and age.

Development of the Instrument

 

To measure the variables for this study, an instrument
was constructed. Development of a scale of the dependent
variable, individual modernity, was initiated through
examination of previous literature and in the effort to
identify major theoretical dimensions of modernity that may
be affected by schooling. The following dimensions are
identified: Activism or Efficacy; Present-Future Orienta-
tion; Rejection of the White Collar Syndrome; Sense of
Interpersonal Trust; Family Modernism; Rejection of Nepotism
and Favoritism; Rejection of Authoritarian Orientation;
Urban Preference; and Occupation Risk Taking. These
dimensions are, therefore, identified as effective
indicators of modernity (i.e. Kahl, 1968; Inkeles, 1969;
Inkeles and Smith, 197A; Sack, 1972; Armer and Youtz, 1971;
Portes, 1973).

Items designed to measure these nine dimensions or
indicators are borrowed directly, or in modified form, from
questionnaire materials employed by Kahl, Inkeles and Smith,
and others. Several were developed by the researcher for
specific Saudi context. Selection of particular items is
dependent upon the researcher's judgment of item
applicability concerning Saudi context. Two or more items

are employed to measure each indicator of modernity.

A3

All the dependent variable items are of the Likert
format: a respondent could choose between "Strongly Agree,"
"Agree," "Disagree," or "Strongly Disagree." Like Kahl's
study (1968), the researcher deliberately omitted neutral
responses to encourage choice. An "agree" response will not
necessarily indicate either "modernism" or "traditionalism."
This is done to minimize response set behavior.

The procedure employed to measure the independent
variables follows. The educational level is measured by
single item asking respondents to identify their levels of
educationm Possible responses include: secondary, college
undergraduate, and graduate.

The experience of studying abroad is measured as a
dichotomy variable: yes or no. Length of study is measured
by a single item asking how long the respondent has studied
abroad. Possible responses included: 1) one year or less;
2) between two to three years; 3) between four and five
years; and, A) more than six years.

Mass media exposure is measured by three items.
Individuals are asked how often they 1) watch television, 2)
listen to the radio, and 3) read the newspaper and/or
magazine. The given response choices are: every day, a few
times a week, rarely, and never.

Father's education is measured by a single item asking
respondents how much education their fathers achieved.
Possiblexresponses include: no education, some elementary

education, elementary school certificate, intermediate

AA
school certificate or some education, high school certifi-
cate or some education, college degree or some education,
and graduate degree.

Urban experience is measured by a single item asking
individuals to identify school locations where they obtained
part or all of their general education. Places are
classified as: large city (population of more than 100,000
people), medium city (population of less than 100,000 and
more than 20,000 people), and small city or town (population
of less than 20,000 people). Although the criteria used for
classification is arbitrary, it seems to differentiate
places in Saudi Arabia quite well.

Finally, age is the last independent variable
discussed. This is measured by a single item asking
respondents to mark an appropriate age group. They are
given a category ranging from 1A to 15 to 36 or more.

The questionnaire consists of two sections. The first
section encompasses ten questions obtaining personal
information relevant to the independent variables of the
study.

The second section of the questionnaire involves 3A
items exploring the respondents' values and attitudes
relevant to the dimensions of the construct of modernity,
the dependent variable. The items of this section are
randomly spread to avoid contaminating some responses by the

content of previous items.

A5
A cover letter is attached to the questionnaire and
explains the purpose and nature of the study, as well as the
importance of respondents' contributions. When mailing
questionnaires, a self-addressed stamped return envelope is
enclosed for the return of the completed questionnaire.

Translation and Pre-Test
of the Research Instrument

 

The native language of respondents is Arabic. Hence,
the questionnaire was translated into Arabic. The initial
translation was made by the researcher. A group of five
Saudi doctoral students at Michigan State University was
given these two versions of the questionnaire for comparison
and commentary. .A week later, this group gathered in the
researcher's home and discussed the questionnaire and its
translation. In light of this discussion, which proved to
be very helpful, several items and words were modified and
revised. Having established these changes, another group of
eight Saudi graduate and undergraduate students at Michigan
State University and Lansing Community College was given the
revised questionnaire and asked to respond, as well as
identify confusing and difficult items. Their responses
indicate the questionnaire is clear. Some of them, however,
made observations of minor importance which were taken into
consideration when the final draft was constructed.

When the researcher traveled to Saudi Arabia for data
collection, a final test of the questionnaire was conducted,

this time by a group of ten secondary students and a group

A6

of ten college students at King Abdulaziz University. Many
of the secondary students expressed their confusion with the
second part of the questionnaire which contains the Likert
format. Therefore, it was decided to give a brief
presentation for each secondary school class sampled to
explain the nature of the second section and how to respond.

The final revised version of the Arabic form was given
to a colleague, with a Master's degree in Arabic language,
for evaluation of grammar and readability. This and the
above procedures were designed to enhance the reliability
and the face-validity of the measure of this study: the
questionnaire. Ambiguity and lack of clarity in the
questionnaire items would deteriorate reliability and

face-validity. (See Appendix A for the full questionnaire.)

Target Population

 

There are three target populations for this study. The
first target population is composed of Saudi students in the
general secondary boys schools in Saudi Arabia. The second
target population consists of male Saudi students in
colleges of Saudi Arabia. The third target population is
composed of Saudi male students studying in colleges in the

United States (during the 1985-86 school year).

Sample, Sampling Procedure, and Setting

 

The sampling procedure used to draw a representative
sample of Saudi students studying in the United States is

the stratified random sampling technique. Based on the

I47

educational level and field of study, three strata are
established. The first stratum consists of undergraduate
male students studying engineering. The second stratum
consists of undergraduate male students studying business
and/or public administration. The third stratum consists of
graduate male students studying education. The establish-
ment of these strata was guided by the study's main
objective: to compare the individual modernity among Saudi
students studying in the United States and Saudi Arabia.
Hence, the criteria required that similar levels and fields
of study should be available and popular among Saudi
students in both the United States and Saudi Arabia (to get
more information about what is available and popular in this
regard, see Chapter II).

The next decision involved the size of the sample drawn
from each stratum. Borg and Gail (1979) mentioned that for
survey research, it is desirable to have at least 100
subjects in each major subgroup. This researcher decided
that 160 subjects would be randomly drawn from each stratum
in the hope that at least 100 or more subjects in each
stratum will respond and return the questionnaire. This
technique worked as demonstrated under the heading of Data
Collection.

Drawing direct representative samples for this study's
other two broadly defined target populations, secondary and
college population could become quite complicated and

involve a tremendous amount of work and expense. In view

A8

of these probable complications, a viable alternative was
considered (Borg and Gail, 1979:180). The researcher
selected King Abdulaziz University students as a readily
accessible population of college students in Saudi Arabia.
This selection is based on the following criteria. First,
it is one of the typical secular modern universities in the
country (see Chapter II). Second, it hosts typical major
colleges. Third, its student population is one of the
largest.

Having selected the accessible population of college
students in Saudi Arabia, the next step was to decide which
students, what level and field of study or college, should
be included in the study. Based on previous criterion, the
selection included: undergraduate students at the Colleges
of Engineering, Administration, and Education, and graduate
students at the College of Education. However, the
criterion was violated by including undergraduate students
in Education, which were not included in the comparative
sampling of Saudi students studying in the United States.
The researcher desired to include undergraduate students
studying Education in the United States, however, unfortu-
nately there were not enough male subjects to draw at the
time of the study. The researcher felt that including
students studying in Saudi Arabia is essential because most
of them will choose teaching as their career. Hence, their

attitudes and values would greatly influence students.

A9

The sampling procedure used to draw subjects from the
above colleges was stratified, and clustered randomly using
a sampling technique. In clustering sampling the unit of
sampling is not individual, but rather of a group of
individualse-such as the classroom. However, the researcher
initially planned to use individuals as units of sampling,
but the researcher discovered that addresses were not
available. Hence, the classroom is used as the unit of
sampling. Before drawing any classroom data, four strata
were established. The first stratum is composed of
undergraduate students at the College of Engineering. The
second stratum consists of undergraduate students of the
College of Administration. The third stratum includes
undergraduate students at the College of Education. The
fourth stratum consists of graduate students at the College
of Education. Furthermore, each of the first three strata
is divided into four subgroups or strata. This was
determined by the class standing of the student--freshman,
sophomore, junior or senior. One classroom represents each
of the subgroups and was drawn using course number as an
indication of student standing.

The researcher utilizes 12 classrooms, including an
average of 27 students. In the fourth stratum, Education
graduate students, the researcher obtained 90 students, out
of the total of 93 students enrolled in the school year of

1985-86 to respond to the questionnaire. In addition, 16

50
individuals, with Master's degrees from the College of
Education, are included in the sample.

To obtain a sample from the target population of the
secondary school students, the educational district of the
city of Medina and the city of Tabuk was selected as the
accessible population. Given the nature of the educational
system of Saudi Arabia (see Chapter II), the researcher had
no reason to believe that the general secondary schools in
these two districts are significantly different from other
Saudi Arabia schools. Out of the five general secondary
schools in the city of Medina, one school was randomly
selected to represent the urban setting secondary schools.
Two small secondary schools around the city of Tabuk were
randomly selected to represent the rural setting secondary
schools. In obtaining the sample from the selected urban
secondary school, the classroom was used as the unit of
sampling. In this school, all the classrooms are stratified
according to the grade and section of study. Then five
classrooms were randomly selected, with an average of 22
students in each class. In drawing the sample from the
selected two rural schools, the whole student population was

utilized since there were only 113 students.

Data Collection Procedure
To collect the data from Saudi students in the United
States, a copy of the approved research proposal accompanied
a letter from the researcher's advisor and was sent to the

main office of the Saudi Arabian Educational Mission in

51

Washington, D.C. After obtaining the Mission's permission
to collect data, the researcher contacted an official in
Academic Affairs at the Mission to arrange the procedure of
distributing the research questionnaire. Four hundred and
eighty copies of the questionnaire, accompanied by a cover
letter and self-addressed return envelope, were sent to the
Mission to be mailed and distributed to 160 randomly
selected undergraduate engineering students, 160 under-
graduate administration students, and 160 graduate education
students. The researcher asked the Mission to keep the
names and addresses of the selected subjects so they could
be reached for a follow-up letter.

Two weeks later, A6 completed questionnaires were
received. To obtain more responses, the researcher decided
to send another A80 copies of the questionnaire, accompanied
by a self-addressed return envelope and follow-up letter
(see Appendix B), to the Mission and repeated the original
request. Moreover, several phone calls were made to
students the researcher knew with a personal request to
cooperate with the study. By following this procedure, the
percentage of returned questionnaires went from A6 to
approximately 68 which meant that 329 subjects out of the
total A80 selected sample subjects returned the question-
naire. Of the 329 returned questionnaires, 300 were used.
The other 29 were eliminated either because they were

incomplete or because the students were female.

52

To collect data from Saudi students at the selected
colleges in Saudi Arabia, the researcher received permission
to travel to Saudi Arabia at the expense of his sponsor.
Upon arrival in Saudi Arabia, the researcher met with his
sponsoring agency, the King Abdulaziz University College of
Education in Medina, and obtained three letters from the
Dean of the College of Education. One of them allowed the
researcher to administer the questionnaire in the College of
Education and the other two letters, addressed to the Dean
of the Engineering College and the Dean of the Administra-
tion College, requested assistance with the data collection.
In all the colleges, the researcher succeeded in getting the
permission of all teachers, whose courses were selected, to
allow him to administer the questionnaire at the beginning
of the class period. Thus, nearly all the questionnaires
distributed were returned. Out of the A33 received ques-
tionnaires, A00 were used. The other 33 were eliminated
either because they were incomplete.

To collect the data from the selected secondary
schools, the researcher obtained a letter from the Dean of
the College of Education to the Educational Directorate of
the General Education in Medina and Tabuk, who subsequently
forwarded a letter to the principals of the selected secon-
dary schools. This letter requested their cooperation and
help in administration of the questionnaire (copies of these
letters are included in Appendix C). The researcher visited

each of the selected schools to personally distribute the

53

questionnaire. The researcher succeeded in obtaining
permission of the principals, and the teachers whose classes
were randomly selected, to distribute the questionnaire at
the beginning of the class period. Hence, all the distri-
buted questionnaires were received. Out of the 217
distributed, 200 were used. The other 17 questionnaires
were discarded because they were incomplete.

Table A shows the number and percentage of distributed
and usable returned questionnaire forms. The total percen-
tage of usable returned forms of the sampling of Saudi
students in the United States was 62.5; while the total
percentage of Saudi students in Saudi Arabia was 90.0. It
should be noted that the difference between the two percen-
tages are mainly due to methods of collection. In the case
of Saudi students in the United States, the method of
collection was through mailing, while the method of
collection in the case of students in Saudi Arabia was
conducted by the researcher. The overall percentage of
usable returned forms was 78.9. The overall response rate
is one indicator of the representativeness of the sample
respondents. :A high response rate decreases significantly
the change of response bias. By conventional measure, the
overall rate response of this study is deemed to be well

beyond the standard (Babbie, 1986:221).

Data Analysis Procedure

 

Data collected for this study was first coded for

computer handling then card punched and verified. Analysis

5A

TABLE A

The Number and Percent of Distributed and
Usable Returned Questionnaire Forms

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questionnaire
Subjects Distributed Usable Return Percent
In the U.S.A.
Undergraduate
Engineering 160 100 62.5
Undergraduate
Administration 160 100 62.5
Graduate Education 160 100 62.5
Sub-Total A80 300 62.5
In Saudi Arabia
Undergraduate
Engineering 109 100 91.7
Undergraduate
Administration 105 100 95.2
Undergraduate
Education ' 112 100 89.2
Graduate Education 107 100 8 93.A
Secondary School 227 200 88.1
Sub-Total 660 600 90.9
TOTAL llAO 900 78.9

 

 

 

 

 

55
of the data was carried through the Michigan State
University Computer Center through the utilization of the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).

The statistical analysis of the data utilized
frequencies, percentages, factor analyses, and multiple
regression. Frequencies and percentages were used to
describe the background or the demographic characteristics
of the sampled subjects.

Factor analysis was employed to arrive at the final
form of the dependent variable measuring individual
modernity as well as to help extract the character, or the
profile, of the "modern" Saudi students.

Multiple regression analysis is used extensively in
this study. This method permits the user to ascertain the
changing relationship and the degree of association of a
number of independent variables to a dependent variable.
A significant level of 0.05 was set for rejection or retain

the null hypotheses.

Summary
This chapter, Chapter III, provides a description of

the procedure and methodology used in defining the variables
involved, defining the target and accessible populations,
sampling, constructing the instrument, collecting the data,
and analyzing the data of this study. The next chapter,

Chapter IV, is a presentation of the data analysis.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA

'Phe purpose of this chapter is to present the results
of data analysis and to interpret the findings. This
chapter is divided into six sections. The first section
provides a descriptive analysis of background and demo-
graphic characteristics of the study subjects. The second
section consists of a detailed analysis of the steps and
procedures used to construct the study's final scale of its
dependent variable: modernity. The third section presents
the profile of individual modernity of Saudi students. The
fourth section deals with the issue of reliability and
validity of the study instrument. The fifth section
concerns the Operationalization of the study's independent
variables. The last section is a presentation of the
results of the study's hypothetical testing followed by a
detailed discussion of these results and findings.

This chapter is undertaken mainly to profile the
individual modernity of Saudi students and to evaluate the
following questions and statements regarding the concerns
and impacts of factors on individual modernity.

1. What is the relationship between level of

education and individual modernity among Saudi

students in the United States and Saudi
Arabia?

56

57

2. What is the relationship and impact of under—
graduate college education in Saudi Arabia on
individual modernity of students in comparison
with secondary education?

3. What is the relationship and impact of college
education in Saudi Arabia upon modernity of
Saudi students in comparison with college
education in the United States?

A. To what extent does the experience of studying
and length of stay in a developed country
(i.e. U.S.A.) affect individual modernity of
students coming from a developing country
(i.e. Saudi Arabia)?

5. To ascertain the effects of other variables,

that influence modernity (i.e. mass media
exposure, father's education, urban experi-
ence, age).

Characteristics of Participants

 

The usable responses of 900 Saudi students who
responded to the questionnaire of this study revealed they
had different major characteristics in level of education,
age, study abroad, length of stay, father's education, place
of general education, and exposure to mass media. These
independent variables are important to this study because of
their suggested relationship and impact upon the study
dependent variable: individual modernity.

Table 5.1 shows the levels of education of the parti-
cipating students. It indicates 55.6% of the students were
undergraduate, 22.2% were graduate, and 22.2% were at the
secondary school level.

Table 5.2 shows the age distribution of all parti-
cipants. It indicates that 27.1% of the students were

between 21-23 years of age, 18.6% were between 18-20 years

58

Table 5.1
Frequency and Percentage of the

Levels of Education of the Research Sample

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level of Education Frequency Percentage
Secondary School 200 22.2
Undergraduate 500 55.6
Graduate 200 22.2

Total 900 100.0
Table 5.2
Frequency and Percentage of the
Ages of the Research Sample
Age Frequency Percentage

lA-15 years 11 1.2

16-17 years 102 11.3

18-20 years 167 18.6

21-23 years 2AA 27.1

2A-26 years 167 18.6

27-29 years 83 9.2

30-32 years 57 6.3

33-35 years A7 5.2

Over 36 years 22 2.A

Total 900 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

59
of age, 18.6% between 2A-26 years of age. The majority of
the students (6A.3%) were between 18-26 years of age.
About 12% of the students were younger than 18 years, and
about 23% were older than 26 years.

Table 5.3 illustrates the, students' experience of
studying in a developed country or countries. It indicates
that 37.A% of the students have such experience. While the
rest (62.6%) have not been through the experience of
studying in any developed country. It should be noted that
the country where the majority of the students studied
abroad was the United States. This is due mainly to the
fact that a substantial part of the sample was drawn from
Saudi students were are studying in the United States.

Table 5.A shows the students' length of stay when
studying abroad. It indicates that over 6A% of the students
who studied abroad had a length of stay between two and five
years. While over 20% stayed one year or less, and over 1A%
stayed six years or more.

Table 5.5 illustrates the locations where students
received all or most of their general education in terms of
urban or rural settings. It indicates that the majority of
the students (80%) received their general education in urban
areas, and only 20% obtained their education in rural areas.

Table 5.6 demonstrates the distribution of fathers'
levels of education for surveyed students. It reveals that
2A% of the fathers were illiterate; 76% had formal education

at some level. The mean of fathers' levels of education was

60

Table 5.3
Frequency and Percentage of the
Students Experienced Studying Abroad
(In a Developing Country or Countries)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Experience of
Studying Abroad Frequency Percentage
J
I
Had no experience 563 62.6
Had experience 337 37.A
Total 900 100.0
Table 5.A
Frequency and Percentage of the
Students' Length of Stay Abroad
Length of Stay Frequency Percentage
One year or less 70 20.7
Two to three years 12A 36.7
Four to five years 95 28.1
Six years or more A9 1A.5
Total 337 100.0

 

 

 

 

61

Table 5.5

Frequency and Percentage of the
Students' Place of General Education

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Place of General Education Frequency Percentage
Urban Areas 72A 80.A
Rural Areas 176 19.6
Total 900 100.0
Table 5.6

Frequency and Percentage of the Students'
Fathers' Level of Education

 

 

 

 

Fathers' Level of Education Frequency Percentage
No Education 217 2A.l
Some Elementary Education 2AA 27.1
Elementary Certificate 158 17.6
Some Intermediate Education

of Its Certificate 75 8.3
Some Secondary Education or

Its Certificate 113 12.6
Some College Education or

College Degree 66 7.3
Some Graduate Education or

Graduate Degree 27 3.0

Total 900 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

62
2.92, which falls between the "some elementary education"
level and "elementary certificate." The standard deviation
was 1.72.

Table 5.7 indicates the distribution of the students'
exposure tx> mass media, television, newspapers and
magazines, and radio. It indicates that 67.2% of the
respondents watch television on daily basis, while only 1%
do not. Close to 50% read newspaper and/or magazines daily;
whereas 36% listen daily to the radio.

Table 5.7

Distribution of the Students'
Exposure to Mass Media

 

 

 

 

Percentage
Exposure To Newspaper
Mass Media Television & Magazine Radio
Nearly Every Day 67.2 A8.1 36.0
Several Times
A Week 22.9 A0.2 31.9
Rarely 8.9 11.3 28.3
None at All 1.0 0.3 3.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale Construction
"Factorial Structure of Modernity Scale"

 

 

Since the modernity scale (discussed in Chapter II) of
this study is not identical to those used in previous

modernity research, it is important to take the following

63

step. The objective of this step is to assess the quality
of the modernity scale used in this study as well as to
arrive at the final form of this scale and its components
(subscales), which will be used in subsequent analysis. The
following procedure will be done through the utilization of
the principal component method of factor analysis. This
step follows methodology used by Kahl, Klineberg, Sack,
Weis, and Ports.

The key feature of the principal component method is
that it operates to extract a maximum amount of variance as
each factor is calculated. The first factor extracts the
most variance; the second factor extracts the next most
variance, and so CHM. Hence, this method reveals which set
of items or measures belong together. In other words, it
determines which measures will virtually measure the same
thing (see Kerlinger). This method is usually combined with
the use of the varimax rotational method to detect the
possibility of identifying dimensions of the principal
factor.

The particular advantage of this method to test
modernity in this study is threefold. First, it will assess
the internal consistency of the measure and the extent to
which the items in the measure are cohesive. In other
words, it will give a more precise idea about the dimen-
sionality of the measure. Second, it will suggest the
possibility of grouping items into subscale through the

rotation of the axes, i.e. via varimax. Third, it will help

6A
to extract the characteristics or the profile of a "modern"
Saudi student.

To evaluate the results of the principal component
analysis, three conventional criteria are used: if a basic
underlying dimension of modernity exists in this study data,
this would be manifested in; 1) "high" loadings of items on
the first factor (factor loadings are interpreted like
correlation coefficients) and, 2) the loadings should be
consistent with the theory, the explained proportion of the
common variance by the first factor should be: 3) "large"
and substantially larger than that explained by the enusing
extracted factors (see Ports, 1973; Klineberg, 197A; Chiu,
1979).

The criterion for "high" factor loading varies
according to topics and preferences of the researchers. It
usually ranges between .25 and .A5 (Chiu, 1979:66). In
accordance with previous studies (Schnaiberg, 1970; Armer
and Youtz, 1979; Ports, 1973; Klineberg, 1973; Chiu, 1979),
a criterion of 0.30 was chosen as a cutting point. That is
an item with loading of 0.30 or above on the first factor
and its loading direction is consistent with the theory of
modernity and will be retained.

Table 6 shows the results of the factor analysis. In
this table, the items are grouped within the subscales they
eventually come to form (after analysis). In the first
column are the loadings of each item on the first principal

axis factor of a principal component factor analysis. When

65

the direction of item loadings on the first principal factor
(first column in Table 6) is considered, 27 item loadings
out of the total of 3A run in the theoretically predicted
direction. The remaining seven item loadings, those with
negative loadings, contradicted the theoretically predicted
direction. Of these seven items, only four are smaller than
-.23, and the remaining are close to zero. These seven
items come from the scale of urban preference (two out of
two), activism (one (nu: of six), interpersonal trust (two
out of four), family modernism (one out of four), and
occupational risk taking (one out of four). All these seven
items are eliminated from the subsequent analysis because of
their direction as well as of their size of loading (as will
be seen next).

When the size of loadings is considered, 22 items out
of the total of 3A met the cutting point (i.e. 65%). That
is, their loadings on the first principal factor were .30 or
above. From the remaining 12 items, two had loadings close
to the cutting point, three had loadings between .2A and
.18, and the remaining seven had loadings ranging from -.23
to -.03. The first two items, which had loadings close to
the cutting point were kept in the final analysis in order
to preserve a balance in the type of items on the scale,
while the remaining ten (of which seven turned out to be the
same eliminated earlier) were discarded because of their

size of loadings. The numbers of these ten items in Table 6

66
Table 6

Modernity Items Grouped by Subscale
with Loadings on First Principal Axis Factor

(Unrotated Solution) and Rotated Axis Factors
and Where Similar Items Are Found

 

Loading Loading
On Principal On Rotated
Item Factor Factors

 

I. SCALE OF ACTIVISM OR SOCIAL EFFICACY

1. Making plans only brings
unhappiness because they
are difficult to realize
(Kahl, 1968:30) .A7 .AA

2. One should not bother himself
by trying to change the course
of events because everything
is pre-determined (Researcher) .A6 .50

3. Prevention of accidents depends
mainly on luck (Inkels and
Smith, 197A:328). .38 .3A

A. I feel that my determination
is not strong enough to sus-
tain me until my career goal
is achieved (Zeigler, 83:85). .3A .26

5. To be happy, one must conform
to the wishes of others, even
if that sometimes means not
expressing one's own ideas
(Sack, 1972:72) .20 .07

6. The most important qualities
of a real man are determina-
tion and driving ambition
(Kahl, 1968:30). -.20 .05

II. SCALE OF INTERPERSONAL TRUST

A. For Friends and Relatives
7. It is not good for your
friends to know all about
what you are doing for
they might take advantage
of you (Kahl, 1968:32). .A0 .80

67

 

Item

Loading
On Principal
Factor

Loading
On Rotated
Factors

 

8. It is not good for your

relatives to know all about
what you ar doing for they
might take advantage of

you (Kahl, 1968:32; Inkeles
and Smith, 197A:322).

B. For Other People

9. Most people are honest and

don't try to fool others
(Kahl, 1968:32).

10. Most people are thankful

III. SCALE OF REJECTION OF WHITE

11.

12.

13.

1)".

IV.
15.

16.

for your help (Kahl,
1968:32).

The best jobs are the ones
where you don't dirty your
hands (Kahl, 68:33).

Members of original Arab
tribes are not supposed to
engage in manual and voca-
tional work (Researcher).

Manual laborers represent
an inferior class (Researcher)

Manual work is not as good
as office work (Kahl, 68:33).

SCALE OF FAMILY MODERNISM

A married woman should stay
at home and not work even

if she wants to work (Kahl,
68:33; Inkeles and Smith, 7A:
3A0).

A wife should always obey
her husband, even if he is
wrong (Kahl, 68:33).

.37

-.08

-.03

COLLAR SYNDROME

.A5

.A1

.37

.35

.AA

.35

.78

.6A

.73

.55

.15

.28

.7A

.52

.19

68

 

Item

Loading
On Principal
Factor

Loading
On Rotated
Factors

 

17.

18.

When one looks for a job, it
is better to find one near
one's parents even if that
means loosing a better job
elsewhere (Kahl, 68:A3).

Parents should limit the
number of their children
(Kahl, 68:33; Inkeles and
Smith, 7A:330).

.25

-.0A

V. SCALE OF REJECTION OF PAST ORIENTATION

19.

20.

21.

22.

VI.
23.

2A.

25.

It is better to live from
day-to-day without thinking
too much about the future
(Inkeles and Smith, 7A:335).

One should learn more about
the past and less about the
future (Researcher).

Most of today's problems can
be solved by past solutions
(Researcher).

PeOple were happier in the
past than they are today
(Sack, 1972:72).

.A2

.33

030

.29

SCALE OF REJECTION NEPOTISM AND FAVORITISM

Favoring relatives and friends,

in public matters, is a social
duty (Researcher).

If one should hire an assistant
it would be better to take a
relative rather than a stranger
to the family (Kahl, 68:31).

Kinship and friendship are the
first qualities one should
consider if he is in a position
to select public employees
(Researcher).

.A8

9

.36

.A7

072

.68

.5A

.1A

.50

.22

.A3

.65

69

 

Loading

On Principal

Item

Factor

Loading

On Rotated
Factors

 

VII. SCALE REJECTION OF AUTHORITARIAN ORIENTATION

26. Children should be taught that
there is only one way to do

things correctly (Waisanen,
71:187).

27. Obedience and respect for
authority at all times
are the most important things
for children to learn (Kahl,
68:33).

28. On occasion, children should
be allowed to disagree with
their parents (Waisanen,
71:187).

VIII. SCALE OF OCCUPATIONAL RISK TAKING

29. Whatever we do, it is necessary
that our leaders outline care-
fully what is to be done and
exactly how to go about doing
it (Waisanen, 71:188).

30. One should look for a job where
there is always someone .
available to help him with
problems that he does not
know (Kahl, 68:3A).

31. One should look for a job
where there is nearly always
a person or procedure that
will catch his mistakes
(Kahl, 68:3A).

32. One should look for a job
where one has to make many
decisions by himself (Kahl,
68:3A; Inkeles and Smith,
7A:328).

.A7

.A3

.2A

.A3

.33

.18

-020

.32

.63

.71

.A2

.63

.71

.02

70

 

 

Loading Loading
On Principal On Rotated
Item Factor Factors

IX. SCALE OF URBAN PREFERENCE
33. In general, it is better to

live in villages than in big

cities (Kahl, 68:33; Inkeles

and Smith, 7A:335). -.23 .79
3A. I prefer to live most of my

life in a big city (Kahl,

68:33; Inkeles and Smith,

7A:335). -.23 .79

71
are 5, 6, 9, 10, 18, 28, 31, 32, 33, and 3A. (See Appendix
C for the complete unrotated principal factors).

When the size of the amount of variance is considered,
the first principal factor will explain 12.2% of the total
items variance. .A check of_the significance and power of
the first principal factor indicates the percentage of
explained variance by the first factor is more than twice
that of the second factor.

Compared to previous studies the size of item loadings
(Hi the first principal factor, and percentage of variance
explained by the first principal factor of this study are
rather encouraging. For example, Chiu stated that "from 57%
to 90% of reported factor loadings for various modernity
scales are higher than .30." He also added that "in
previous studies the first factor can explain 11% to 25% of
the total variance" (1979:70).

In the light of the above research, it can be concluded
that there is a basic modernity dimension. Identifiability
of this dimension is indicated by the fair degree of
coherence among the majority of items which are manifested
by their positive "high" leadings on the first principal
factor (see the first column of Table 6).

It seemed advisable, however, to determine whether
above and beyond a basic modernity dimension it is possible
to identify meaningful subdimensions of modernity. The
varimax rotation method was employed to accomplish this part

of the analysis. The second column of Table 6 shows the

72

loadings of items cum 11 separate rotated factors. Whereas
the loadings on the first principal component factor (first
column in Table 6) indicate the internal consistency of the
measure, that is the degree of cohesion of items between
themselves, the rotation of factors (second column in Table
6) indicates the possible subgroups of items which may
exist. It should be noted there were several items in the
second column of Table 6 that were not grouped with the
factors on which they had higher loadings. Such measures
were taken because of theoretical implausibility. For
instance, item #25 had a loading of .60 on Factor 3 and also
had a loading of .15 on Factor A. Theoretically, it would
have been difficult to defend the grouping of that item on
the scale of rejection nepotism, whereas it seems to agree
with the scale of rejection white collar syndrome. (See
Appendix C for the complete rotated factors.)

In general, the rotation of the axes yielded meaningful
results largely consistent with the theoretical expectation
and was easily interpreted. That in turn, helped the
researcher regroup some of the items from initial cate-
gories. For instance, before the rotation, the researcher
grouped item #17 with the scale of occupational risk taking.
But the results of the rotation suggested this item could be
included in the scale of family modernism. It should be
noted that the rotated axis factor solution was used here as
an exploratory device. The final decision in the construc-
tion of the subscales was made on the basis of theoretical

and rational judgment.

73

To examine the impact and relationship between
modernity, as dependent variables 'of this study, and the
independent variables (see Chapter II), two types of scores
of modernity are calculated. In the first type, a composite
weighted average score was assigned to each individual based
on their responses to all items. Each item was weighted by
its factor loading (”1 the first principal factor. In
effect, the weighted average score of each individual, as
calculated above, defined the overall modernity score for
this individual.

In the second type, separate weighted average scores
for each dimension of modernity were calculated. Whereas
the score of the first type indicates the score of indivi-
duals on all the components (dimensions) of modernity
combined, the scores of the second type reveal the score of'
individuals on each of these components separately.

Here is a simplified example. Suppose we want to
calculate the score of an individual on the modernity
dimension number VI in Table 6. The raw scores of this
individual might be 2, 3, A. We multiply these scores by
the related factor loadings, as follows:

(.A8)(2) + (.A3%(3) + (.35)(“) ‘= 1.23

Profile of the Modern Saudi Student

 

Examination of the results of factor analysis shown in
Table 6 indicates that the modern Saudi student is similar

in many respects to the modern man of a variety of

countries.

7A

characteristics:

1)

2)

3)

A)

5)

6)

7)

8)

However,

He reports a sense of social efficacy or some
control over his environment, and he sees
value in planning ahead rather than letting
things depend on luck or fate;

He admits to trusting his relatives and
friends;

He tends to reject the traditional idea that
white collar"workers are :necessarily better
and superior to blue collar workers. He shows
respect to manual laborers and rejects the old
notion that members of original Arab tribes
are not supposed to seek jobs in manual and
vocational sectors;

He tends to reject the traditional belief that
one should hire an assistant or recruit
employees on the basis of kinship or friend-
ship without much regard to the job responsi-
bilities;

He tends to reject the traditional ideas of
the family as they relate to independence from
family, work for women, and woman's obedience
to the husband or guardian male;

He tends to be present/future oriented rather
than being past oriented;

He tends to devalue authoritarian orientations
as they relate to child learning and to
absolute obedience and respect for authority;
and,

He tends to be relatively an occupational risk
taker.

countries, the modern Saudi student reports to:

9)

This can be inferred from the responses to the two items

which comprise the subscale of Urban Preference.

Prefer the lifestyle in villages or small
towns, rather than those in large towns or
cities.

The modern Saudi student has the following

unlike most of his counterparts in other

These two

75
items load negatively on the first principal unrotated
factor (see Table 6, Column 1). This means that the
subscale of Urban Preference is negatively related to the
other subscales. And, finally:

10) The modern Saudi student tends to be less
inclined to trust people other than his
friends and relatives.

Although the results of Urban Preference research is
not consistent with most previous studies, it makes sense in
the Saudi context. In: begin with, most Saudi people come
from Arab tribes, where most of their members have just
recently settled in big cities or towns and the rest still
live in rural or nomadic areas. Thus, most of them have a
chance to compare the simpler life in rural and nomadic
areas with the complexity of city life. Furthermore, Arabic
literature and poetry as well as Islamic religion glorify
the simple and non-materialized life. So, it would not be
surprising to discover that the modern Saudi prefers rural
life over urban life.

With respect to the findings regarding trusting people
other than relatives and friends, the researcher is somewhat
surprised. However, this result may be partially explained
by the. social structure of Saudi society. Given the
strength of existing tribal and extended family traditions,
one would expect a Saudi to trust his relatives and friends.

This is usually an encouraged attitude from his relatives.

76
Reliability and Validity

 

Reliability and validity are extremely important
characteristics of measures or scales. The question of
validity is concerned with the degree to which a test
measures what it claims to measure. The concern of
reliability raises a question somewhat different from
validity. It addresses the issue of the level of internal
consistency of the test or measure. Hence, knowing the
reliability and validity of one's data determines the extent
of faith one holds in the results and conclusions based on
these data (Kerlinger, 1973; Borg and Gall, 1979).

After arriving at the final form of the modernity scale
of this study, this is not identical to those in previous
modernity research, it is important to see how this study's
modernity scale meets the conventional criteria of reliabi-

lity and validity used in previous major studies.

Reliability of the Modernity Scale

 

The reliability coefficient (Cronbach's alpha) was
computed. This coefficient and average inter-item
correlations were .7A and .26, respectively.

Two criteria were used as reference standards in
discussing the reliability of the present study's modernity
scale. First, according to Guilford (1958), .70 and .10 are
satisfactory for reliability level and average inter—item
correlation, respectively. Compared to these standards, the
reliability level and inter-item average correlation of this

study are therefore satisfactory.

77
Second, another reference could be to use the reliabi-
lity of other modernity scales as a comparison. Compared to
the mean reliability of short forms of Inkeles' OM scale (as
calculated by Chiu, 1979), which have similar scale lengths,
the present scale has somewhat higher reliability (.7A
versus .725) and also higher average inter-item correlation
(.26 versus .098). Also, compared to Armer's scale (Armer
and Schnaiberg, 1975), the present scale has similar
reliability (.7A versus .75) and higher average inter-item

correlation (.26 versus .12).
Based on these criteria, it may be concluded that the
overall quality of the present modernity scale is a reliable

measure 0

Validity of the Modernity Scale

 

Since modernity is considered to be a hypothetical
construct, a test for construct validity for the modernity
scale of this study is relevant. That is, to see the extent
to which this scale measures modernity and not something
else.

Theoretically, the positive relationship between
individual modernity and variables measuring modernizing
influences can be utilized as criteria of construct validity
of individual modernity (Chiu, 1979:70). Levels of
education, and mass media exposure are generally regarded as
a valid approximation in this respect, because nearly all
the major previous studies in this area documented the

positive association of individual modernity with these

78
two variables (Kahl, 1968; Inkeles and Smith, 197A; Armer
and Youtz, 1971).

Zero-order correlation coefficients were calculated to
show the relationships of modernity with the validity
criteria. Table 7 shows the information regarding associa-
tion of modernity with all the validity criteria. As shown
in this table, the relationships are in the theoretically
predicted direction and are all statistically significant at
.001. Therefore, it can be seen that the modernity scale of
this study has satisfactory construct validity.

Table 7
Zero-Order Correlations Between Individual

Modernity and the Two Independent
(Criteria) Variables

 

 

I

Independent Individual Level of
Variables Modernity Significance
Level of Education .31 .001 ‘
Mass Media Exposure .11 .001 ’

 

 

 

 

Operationalization of the Study's
Independent Variables

 

 

Having established the content of the modernity scale,
and its reliability and validity, the remainder of this
chapter explores the impact and relationship between
modernity and its dimensions and a number of independent
variables described in Chapter 11. They are repeated below
for the reader's convenience. Independent variables

included were level of education, experience of studying

79
abroad and length of stay, mass media exposure, urban
experience, father's education, and age. These variables
have been suggested by previous researchers as potential
contributors to modernity.

The method of statistical analysis used in testing the
study hypotheses is multiple regression. Suffice it to say,
the method of multiple regression allows the user to assess
the effect and relationship between a dependent variable and
a number of independent variables (taking into account the
interassociations among the independent variables
themselves).

To recapitulate, Table 8 provides a list of all
independent variables used in the regression analysis and a
brief description of their content., It should be noted that
all the independent variables involved in the regression,
except the length of stay, are not continuous variables, but
rather’ dummy variables created for the purpose» of
regression. Dummy variables are dichotomous variables that
demonstrate whether or not a given character or state of
affairs is true, i.e. they are variables which assume the
value of zero or 1. Dummy variables are useful in
transforming categorical, or nominal variables, into
interval forms for use with regression. These variables are
also useful in allowing one to ascertain the discrete
contribution of, for example, a given level of age relative

to another, whereas with a continuous variable it would be

80
impossible to identify the contribution of twenty years of
age as opposed to A0 years of age.

Mass media exposure, on the original questionnaire, was
measured by three questions. Subjects were asked how often
they 1) watch television, 2) listen to the radio, and 3)
read newspapers and/or magazines. Since initial regression
analysis indicated that the separate effect of these three
means of media on modernity was negligible, these variables
were combined into one variable called "mass media
exposure." Initial runs also suggest that out of the
original response choices (every day, several times a week,
rarely, never), only the fact of exposure to the media every
day or several times a week demonstrated any relationship to
modernity. For this reason, the three media variables were
input as one dummy variable into the final analysis of
regression, where 1 indicated media participation "every
day" or "several times a week," and zero indicated "rarely"
and "never."

Urban experience, on the original questionnaire, was
measured by the question, "Can the location of the school
where you received your general education, or part of it, be
described as a: 1) large city (population 100,000 or more)
or, 2) medium city (less than 100,000 and larger than
20,000) or, 3) village or small town (less than 20,000)."
Initial regression runs indicated that only where a general
education was received in a big city or a medium city, as

opposed to village and small town, was there any impact on

81
Table 8

A Description of the Independent Variables
Used in Regression Estimates of Modernity

 

Variable Name

Description of the Variable

 

Education Level I

Education Level II

College of Education
in the U.S.A. and S.A.

Experience in Studying
in a Developed Country
and Length of Stay

Urban Experience

Mass Media Exposure

Father's Education

Age

Dummy variable indicating
whether the individual is a
secondary school student or a
college student.

Dummy variable indicating
whether the individual is a
graduate student or not.

Dummy variable indicating
whether or not the student
studying in college in U.S.A.
or S.A.

Continuous variable as follow:

0 = No experience, 1 = One year
or less, 2 8 Two to three years,
3 = Four to five, and A = six
years or more of experience.

Dummy variable indicating
whether or not the individual
recieved his general education
or part of it in a big city or
big town.

Dummy variable indicating
whether or not the individual
watches T.V., reads newspapers
or magazines, and listens to
radio nearly every day or
several times a week.

Dummy variable indicating
whether or not the individual's
father had more than secondary
school education.

Dummy variable indicating
whether or not the individual is
27 years old or older.

 

82
modernity. Thus, urban experience was input as one dummy
variable into the final regression, where 1 indicated "big
or medium city" and zero indicated "village or small town."

The original nine categories of age which ranged from
1A-15 to 36 or more were dichotomized. Initial regression
runs or analysis indicated that only the fact of being 27
years old or older would have measurable effect on
modernity. For this reason, age was input as a dummy
variable into the final regression analyses, whereas 1
indicated 27 years of age or older, and zero indicated 26
years of age or younger.

The original seven categories of father's education
which included: no education, some elementary education,
elementary school certificate, intermediate school
certificate or some education, high school certificate or
some education, college degree or some education, and
graduate degree were dichotomized. Initial regression runs
suggested that only the fact of having a father who had
education beyond high school had any effect on modernity.
Thus, father's education was input into the final analysis
of regression as a dummy variable, whereas zero indicated
"high school education or less" and 1 indicated "college
education or graduate education."

Level of education was also input into regression
equations as two dummy variables. In the first variable, 1
indicated secondary education and zero indicated graduate

and undergraduate education, whereas in the second variable

83
zero indicated secondary education and/or undergraduate
education and 1 indicated graduate education.
College education was input into regression equations
as a dummy variable whereas 1 indicated college education in
the United States and zero indicated college education in

Saudi Arabia.

Results of Testing the Hypotheses

The results of testing the research hypotheses are
arranged under five headings; namely, modernity and level of
education, modernity and college and secondary education in
Saudi Arabia, modernity and college education in Saudi
Arabia and the United States, modernity and the experience
of studying abroad and length of stay, and modernity and
other influencing variables. In effect, each of these

headings corresponds to one of the study's five hypotheses.

Modernity and Level of Education

To verify the study's first substantive* or working
hypothesis, which is: "There will be a positive significant
relationship between the level of education and individual
modernity (i.e. overall modernity and each dimension of

modernity) among Saudi students in Saudi Arabia and the

 

*A substantive hypothesis is a conjectural statement of the
relation between two or more variables. It is itself,
strictly speaking, not verifiable. It first needed to be
translated into a statistical hypothesis, usually in the
null form and set up to make testing of the working or
substantive hypothesis statistically verifiable (see
Kerling, 1973:201; Borg and Gall, 1979:60).

8A
United States," this null hypothesis was established. That
is;

Null Hypothesis 1: There is no positive and signi-

ficant relationship between level of education and

individual modernity among Saudi students in Saudi

Arabia and the United States.

A multiple regression analysis was used to test this
hypothesis, utilizing a significant level of 0.05. Tables 9
anui 10 show positive significant relationships between the
levels of education and overall modernity of Saudi students
in Saudi Arabia and the United States. Therefore, in terms
of overall modernity the above null hypothesis was rejected
in favor of the working hypothesis. This means that the
level of education is believed to be a significant predictor
of overall modernity.

In terms of dimensions of modernity, the impact of the
levels of education (as Tables 9 and 10 indicate) is not
uniform and complete. This means the levels of education
have a positive significant impact upon some, but not all of
the modernity dimensions. Affected dimensions by the level
of education in both the United States and Saudi Arabia
are: Efficacy; Inter-Personal Trust; Past Orientation;
Favoritism; and Authoritarianism. Whereas, the level of
education in the United States positively affected the
dimension of Occupational Risk Taking, the level of
education in Saudi Arabia affected positively the dimension
of Manual Work. In both countries, the level of education
had no impact on Family Modernism. It should be noted that

the level of education, in the case of the United States,

85

Table 9

Standardized Regression Coefficient* (beta values)
for the Regression Estimates of Modernity
(Overall Modernity and Its Dimensions)
of Saudi Students in Saudi Arabia

 

Dimensions of Modernity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E
U)
«A «A
m n
c m
o n -a m
n O E H G
>1 H a -A m m .A
u >1 o m u m1 u x
FhH o m .A m u -H m
at: m I ---l a: .u «A H B
m:4 o MAJ m pin a u o
:33: mates“: :3 :5
Independent Variable 5g :3 5g gg r320: as g g .52
Level of Education
Dummy I -018 -018 -018 -017 -009 -018
Level of Education
Dummy II .24 .10 .15 .19 .21
Studying Abroad and
Length of Stay
Mass Media Exposure .09 .08 .09 .10 .07
Father's Education
Urban Experience
Age .15 .15 .14
32 " .14 .06 .03 .07 .08 .07 .ll .02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Only those that are significant at the 0.05 level, or
better, are reported in the above table.

 

86

Table 10

Standardized Regression Coefficient* (beta values)
for the Regression Estimates of Modernity
(Overall Modernity and Its Dimensions)
of Saudi Students in the United States

 

Dimensions of Modernity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E
m
H ...q
m c
8 2 .3 o
8 o e u c:
>1 H E W! m m .A
9 >1 o m +1-A u x
Fun-1 o n. «A «u +1 -.-I to
AI: m I A: >1G u A: :4 B
M14 0 MAJ m Ann n :4 o
H<D -H era 5:: mum +Jo <3 .c .2
are m u:: G34 Ex: mqq > u m
Independent Variable 5201 :3 .36..“ gg fig as g 2 32
Level of Education
Dummy I
Level of Education
Dummy II .24 .19 .10 .13 .18 .22 .21
Studying Abroad and
Length of Stay .15 .10 .10 .11
Mass Media Exposure .15 .15 .11
Father's Education _.11
Urban Experience
Age -.22 .24
32 =
.08 .02 .01 .06 .03 .03 .04 .04

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.07

 

 

 

*Only those that are significant at the 0.05 level, or
better, are reported in the above table.

87
refers to graduate versus undergraduate, whereas, in the
case of Saudi Arabia, it consists of secondary, graduate,
and undergraduate.

Modernity and College and
Secondary Education in Saudi Arabia

 

 

To test the study's second substantive hypothesis,
which is: "The impact of undergraduate education in Saudi
Arabia on individual modernity of Saudi students will be
higher than the impact of secondary education," this null
hypothesis was established.

Null Hypothesis 2: The impact of undergraduate

education in Saudi Arabia on individual modernity

of students will not be significantly higher than

the impact of secondary education.

A multiple regression analysis was employed to test the
above hypothesis, using a significant level of 0.05. Table
9 shows that the scores of overall modernity for secondary
students were lower by .18 in comparison with undergraduate
student scores (this can be inferred by looking at the
variable named Level of Education, Dummy I in Table 9).
Since this regression coefficient of overall modernity,
-.18, was significant at 0.05, the second null hypothesis is
rejected in favor of the substantive one. This means that
undergraduate college education in Saudi Arabia has a higher
positive impact on the overall modernity in comparison with
secondary education.

In terms of 1dimensions, undergraduate education

affected significantly all the dimensions of modernity

except three. These significantly unaffected dimensions are

88
Inter-Personal Trust, Family Modernism, and Occupational
Risk Taking. That is, in regard to these three dimensions,
undergraduate college and secondary students in Saudi Arabia
are similar.

Modernity and College Education
in the United States and Saudi Arabia

 

 

To verify the study's third substantive hypothesis,
which is: "College education relationship and impact on
individual modernity (i.e. overall modernity and each
dimension of modernity) of Saudi students in the United
States will be significantly different from college
education in Saudi Arabia," this null hypothesis was set up.

Null Hypothesis 3: College education relationship

and impact upon individual modernity of Saudi

students in the United States will not be

significantly different from college education in

Saudi Arabia.

This hypothesis was tested by means of multiple
regression, using a significant level of 0.05. Table 11
shows that college education in the United States results in
no significant impact on the overall modernity of Saudi
students in comparison with college education in Saudi
Arabia. However, American college education has a positive
significant impact on the modernity dimension of Family
Modernism (regression coefficient of .1A).

Experience of Studying
Abroad and Length of Stay

 

 

To test the study's fourth substantive hypothesis,

which is: "There will be a significant positive relationship

89

Table 11

Standardized Regression Coefficient* (beta values)
for the Regression Estimates of Modernity (Overall
Modernity and Its Dimensions) of Saudi College
Students in the United States and Saudi Arabia

 

Dimensions of Modernity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E
m
H H
m a
5 2 .3 a
8 o e H 2
>1 H E «4 m (U or!
4-) >1 a) m 4-! «4 +1 ,2
Ana 0 m .A m u -H m
Aac m n H >1: .u .A H a
msq ~o H44 m Aau n H o
a: z: smegma 2 a a
Inde endent Variable s -
" SEEAAAPHEESAAE
College Education in
U.S.A. vs Saudi Arabia .14
Studying Abroad and
Length of Stay .21 .17 .19 .14
Mass Media Exposure .06 .10
Father's Education
Age .22 .10 .22 .15 .18 .23 .18
32 = .12 .03 .01 .04 .11 .03 .07 .05 .03

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Only those that are significant at the 0.05

better, are reported in the above table.

 

90
between the experience of studying and length of stay in a
developed country (i.e. the United States) and individual
modernity (i.e. overall modernity and each dimension of
modernity) of students coming from a developing country
(i.e. Saudi Arabia)," this null hypothesis was established.

Null Hypothesis A: There will be no positive
significant relationship between the experience of
studying and length of stay in the United States
and individual modernity of Saudi students in the
U.S.A.

This hypothesis was tested by multiple regression,
utilizing a significant level of 0.05. Table 12 indicates
there is a positive significant relationship between the
experience of studying and length of stay in a developed
country (i.e. the United States) and the overall modernity
of students coming from a developed country (i.e. Saudi
Arabia). This relationship is manifested by the regression
coefficient of .22.

With respect to modernity dimensions Table 12 indicates
that the experience of study and length of stay have a
positive significant impact on all the modernity dimensions
- except one. This is the dimension of Manual Work.
Although the relationship between this dimension and length
of stay is statistically nonsignificant, it is in the
expected direction. The most affected dimension by such
experience and length of stay is Family Modernism.

Modernity and Other
Influencing Variables

 

 

To verify the study's fifth working hypothesis, which

is: "There will be significant relationships between

91
Table 12

Standardized Regression Coefficient* (beta values)
for the Regression Estimates of Modernity
(Overall Modernity and Its Dimensions)
of Saudi Students in the United States
and in Saudi Arabia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dimensions of Modernity
E
m
H «4
m a
a m
0 G «-| O‘
3 a .3 5 S .5
5) >, a) m .u oA u x
Aha o m -H m u -H m
Ac: m u A: >HC -u 1H H a
msq o HJJ m Ann c H o
H<D -H otn 9A£-H<D u<u o .c .2
I de endent Variable ”'8 3'... :3 53 58 3.: g ‘3 3
n p 52 a: He 23 cu: no a. a: a:
Level of Education
Dummy I -.16 -.18 v.15 -.15 -.09 -.15
Level of Education
Dummy II .22 .14 .13 .13 .18 .21 .18
Studying Abroad and
Length of Stay .21 .16 .09 .31 .06 .16 .14 .08
Mass Media Exposure 09 06 10 08
Father's Education -06
Urban Experience
A89 r-09 .19
R2 -
.20 .09 .03 .08 010 .08 .11 .13 .04

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Only those that are significant at the 0.05 level, or
better, are reported in the above table.

 

92
modernity of Saudi students and mass media exposure,
father's education, urban experience, and age," this null
hypothesis was set up.

Null Hypothesis 5: There will be no significant

relationships between modernity of Saudi students

and mass media exposure, father's education, urban

experience, and age.

Multiple analyses of regression were employed to test
this hypothesis, at a significant level of 0.05. Whereas
Table 9 shows that mass media exposure has a positive
significant impact on the student's overall modernity in
Saudi Arabia, Table 10 reveals that mass media exposure has
no significant impact on the Saudi student's overall
modernity in the United States.

In the case of Saudi Arabia, mass media exposure has a
positive significant impact on half of the modernity
dimensions. These affected dimensions were: Inter-Personal
Trust (regression coefficient of .08), Past Orientation
(.09), Favoritism (.10), and Authoritarianism (.07), while
the other dimensions were significantly unaffected by mass
media exposure. In the case of the United States, mass
media exposure has significant positive influences on three
dimensions: Manual Work, Family Modernism, and Past
Orientation.

Age has no significant impact upon the overall
modernity of Saudi students both in Saudi Arabia and United
States, as is demonstrated on Table 9 and 10, respectively.

With respect to students in Saudi Arabia, age has

positive significant impact upon three dimensions of

93

modernity. The effected dimensions are: Manual Work
(regression coefficient of .15), Past Orientation (.15), and
Occupational Risk Taking (.1A). In regard to Saudi students
in the United States, age emerges as a significant predictor
on only two dimensions, and the impact on one of these two
is negative. These two affected dimensions, by age, are:
Efficacy (regression coefficient -.22) and Manual Work
(.2A).

Father's education has no significant influence upon
Saudi students' overall modernity both in the United States
and Saudi Arabia, as indicated in Table 10 and 9,
respectively.

Whereas father's education, in the case of students in
Saudi Arabia, has no significant impact on any dimension of

modernity, it has a significant negative impact on one

 

dimension of modernity in the case of the United States.
This dimensions is Occupational Risk Taking (regression
coefficient of -.ll).

Urban experience, as Tables 9 and 10 reveal, has no
significant impact on either the overall modernity of Saudi
students nor any dimension of modernity in both the United
States and in Saudi Arabia.

Interpretation of
Results and Discussion

 

 

Based on the above results of hypothetical testing
(through the utilization of the statistical tool of multiple

regression) the independent variables which consistently

9A

show a significant effect on the overall modernity of Saudi
students are: level of education, the experience of studying
and length of stay in a developed country, and to a lesser
degree, mass medial exposure. The variables concerning
urban experience, father's education, and age appear to have
no significant impact upon the overall modernity of Saudi
students either in Saudi Arabia nor in the United States.
At this point the author will evaluate the results of each
of these independent variables, as well as how they are
related to the theoretical assumptions and empirical
findings of the previous studies, in the realm of modernity.

The results obtained on the relationship and impact of
the level of education upon the overall modernity are
consistent with previous studies. That is, almost all the
research in this field supports the hypothesis that level of
education, or the amount of formal education, is not only
positively associated with individual modernity, but is also
the most important factor in promoting modernity.

As shown earlier, however, the impact of the level of

education upon the dimensions of modernity is not consistent

 

or complete. That is, there is a variation in the degree of
the impact and association that the level of education has
on the eight dimensions of modernity. Furthermore, there is
a variation between the affected dimensions regarding the
level of education in Saudi Arabia and the United States.
(It should be noted that the level of education in the case

of Saudi Arabia consists of secondary, undergraduate, and

95
graduate whereas in the case of the United States it
consists of graduate versus undergraduate.)

It is not surprising to see that the dimension of
Occupational Risk Taking is affected positively by Saudi
students' level of education in the United States. This is
observed in view of the fact that most of the Saudi graduate
students in the United States have had the experience and
opportunity in: be employees, whereas other Saudi students,
either in the United States or in Saudi Arabia, have no such
experience. Hence, Saudi graduate students in the United
States have a better chance to evaluate the benefits of
occupational risk taking, which is manifested in their
decisions to leave their parents, relatives, and jobs in
Saudi Arabia and travel to the United States.

It is interesting to note that neither the level of
education in the United States or in Saudi Arabia has
significant effect upon the dimension of Family Modernism.
This means, all other things being equal, that being a
graduate or undergraduate student in the United States, or
being a secondary, graduate or undergraduate student in
Saudi Arabia, would not affect one's attitude regarding
Family Modernism (as it relates to independence from family,
women's position, and work). It is suggested that this
dimension may be affected by factors other than the level of
education.

This study attempts to investigate empirically, the

impact of studying and length of stay in a developed country

96

upon each dimension of individual modernity. It is based on
individuals coming from a developing country and is, to the
best of our knowledge, a unique project among research in
the field of modernity. There has been, however, one such
available study (i.e. Sack, 1972) which examined the impact
of similar experience, but it examined overall modernity
(not on each dimension of it and the study subjects were
mostly workers.) Whereas, this study examines the impact of
such experience among students (overall modernity and each
dimension of it) and because this researcher argues that the
impact of such experience will not be the same for all
dimensions.

The findings here that the experience of studying and
length of stay in a developed country (the United States,
for most cases) positively and significantly influences the
overall modernity of Saudi students, is in accord with
Sack's research in Tunisia (1972). The proposition that
cross-cultural contacts may have a positive effect on the
process of modernization is not by any means unique to
Sack's study (1972) or this study. Advocates of the human
capital theory have long argued that overseas or foreign
education can be a powerful influence in the process of
developing human capital and in fostering social change
(Harbison and Myers, 196A).

The results here indicate the most affected dimensions
of modernity, by the experience of studying and length of

stay in the United States, is the dimension of Family

97

Modernism (regression coefficient of .31). Since we have
seen that level of education in the United States has no
significant impact upon this dimension, this suggests that
the dimension of time (length of stay) is crucial. That is,
the experience of studying in the United States by itself is
not a decisive factor in changing a Saudi student's tradi-
tional attitudes about family, unless he stays "long
enough." Therefore, the longer a student stays in the
United States, the more likely he will change his tradi-
tional cultural attitudes, regarding family, in favor of
modern attitudes. This conclusion can be interpreted in two
interrelated ways. First, given the strong family
traditions in Saudi Arabia, students will not detach
themselves of long held views overnight. Second, the longer
a student's stay in the United States, the greater the
opportunity for them to appreciate some of the norms and
attitudes of that country, particularly regarding family
planning, women's position, women's rights, and work. This
finding conforms with a conclusion reached by a Saudi
educator. In his study, "Cross-Culture Education and
Attitude Change: A Study of Saudi Students in the United
States," El-Banyan makes the point that Saudi students,
during their stay in the United States, developed favorable
attitudes toward the emancipation of women (197A:96).

Since this study is primarily concerned with the impact
of education, the remaining independent or predictor

variables of modernity will be discussed more briefly.

98

Although the findings concerning the impact of mass media
exposure upon the overall modernity of students in Saudi
Arabia is consistent with most of the findings of previous
studies, this impact is not strong (regression coefficient
of .09). Whereas, for example, the regression coefficient
in the study of Inkeles and Smith (197A) is .28 and in the
Sack study (1972), it is .17 (for the white collar workers).
Also, the results of this study indicate, in terms of
dimension, mass media exposure only has a positive effect on
four dimensions of modernity (and the regression coeffi-
cients are uniformly low ranged from .07 to .10). This lack
of association, assuming the measure of this is study is
valid and reliable, is possibly due to: l) the messages
conveyed in the mass media in Saudi Arabia are not
pro-modernity, or at least in some of its dimensions, and/or
2) restrictions on the study subjects' level of education.
That is, mass media exposure is not a good predictor of the
level of modernity among individuals where their level of
education is secondary school or beyond. It is interesting
that mass media exposure in the United States has no
significant effect on the overall modernity of Saudi
students and only modestly affected three dimensions of
modernity. This is more likely due to the same reason given
above, 2) in measuring the low association between modernity
and mass media exposure in Saudi Arabia.

The study conclusion that age has no significant impact

on overall modernity of Saudi students, both in the United

99

States and Saudi Arabia, is consistent with some of the
previous research. It should be noted that the majority of
earlier studies in this field ignored the affect of age on
modernity. At any rate, Ports (1973) and Klineberg (197A)
discovered there is not a direct impact of age on modernity,
while Grasmick (1973) and Chiu (1979) in studying Chinese
communities, found a direct effect on age on overall
modernity. It could be possible to contribute the failure
of this study to show the effect of age on overall
modernity, if it does exist, to a lack of wide age variation
in the study sample (since approximately 77% of that study's
respondents ranged in age from 15 to 26 years of age). This
factor may also explain the lack of age effect on modernity
in Klineberg's study, since respondent ages range from 13 to
19.

It is interesting to see age related positively (and
significantly) to the modernity dimension of Manual Work,
both in Saudi Arabia and the United States. That is, the
older the student, the more likely he will be pro-manual
work. This could be explained by the fact that as students
grow older they tend to see the value and importance of
manual and vocational work in the process of development.
Also, they come to realize the importance of capital in
societies and how manual and vocational workers contribute
to economic growth.

This study's findings that urban experience has no

direct and significant affect on overall modernity as well

100

as on its dimensions confirms the conclusions of Kahl
(1968), Sack (1972), Weis (1978), and Inkeles and Smith
(197A). Kahl and Inkeles and Smith indicate that urban
experience, by itself, makes no significant contribution to
modernity. However, they pointed out, urban experience is a
powerful indirect contributor to modernity. That is, being
in an urban environment will enhance one's opportunity to
expose himself to modernizing variables--such as education,
mass media exposure, etc.

Similar to the findings of previous studies (Inkeles
and Smith, 197A; Perts, 1973; Grasmick, 1973; Weis, 1978;
Chiu, 1979), the results of this study indicate that a
father's education has no significant direct impact on the
overall modernity of Saudi students, both in the United
States and Saudi Arabia. That is, whether an individual's
father received education beyond secondary school level or
not, is by itself unimportant in predicting one's modernity
(with exception of minor effect on the dimension of Risk
Taking in the case of Saudi students in the United States).
It is also interesting to note that there is inverse
association between the father's level of education for
Saudi students in the United States and the student scores
on the dimension of Risk Taking. This may be explained, in
part, by the fact that the fathers with low levels of
education are more likely not to succeed occupationally and
came to realize the importance of risk taking in promoting

one's career. Hence, they might encourage risk taking

101
attitudes in their sons.

Before closing this discussion, a brief explanation on
the proportion of variance explained, R2, in the dependent
variable, modernity, by independent variables will be
presented here. To begin with, the overall regression
model, as presented in Table 12, explains .20% of the
variance in modernity among all the study subjects (both in
the United States and Saudi Arabia). Although the
percentage is somewhat low, it is not unusual in this field.
Sack (1972), for instance, is only able to explain 11% and
19% of the variance for blue collar Tunisian workers and for
white collar Tunisian worker, respectively.

There are, possibly, three reasons for the low
proportion of variance explained by the overall model of
this study: 1) large error variance, 2) exclusion of some
important independent variables, and 3) the variance in the
independent variables used in the estimates may be low.
These will be discussed individually.

First the possibility of error variance. This can be
defined as "the sum effect of the chance differences between
persons that arise from factors associated with a particular
measurement" (Borg and Gall, 1979: 219). These factors
include the wording of the test, lack of clarity in the
instructions, guessing, ordering the test items, the
person's mood on the day the test was administered. That
is, the more reliable the measure, the freer the measure

from error variance. Since the reliability of this study

102
measure was evaluated and found to be satisfactory, and
comparable with other similar studies which have explained a
significant amount of variance, it is unlikely that error of
variance, in and of itself, will account for the low R2.

The second possible reason for low variance may be that
some of the important independent variables were excluded.
That is, the variance on the dependent variable, modernity
(in this study case) depends upon some other independent
variables which were not included in this study. Although
this might be a likely reason, it is not convincing. Since
other studies used nearly the same independent variables and
most of them were able to explain a significant amount of
variance on the dependent variable, modernity, this makes us
doubt the reason is crucial in explaining the low R2 in this
study, unless modernity in the Saudi case is dependent upon
variables that are unimportant in other national contexts.

The third possible reason is that the variance in the
dependent variables used in the estimates could be low.
This is the most likely explanation for the low proportion
of variance explained in this study. The independent
variable used in measuring the level of education was, in
fact, limited in its range and therefore, its variance.
This study's samples included only individuals whose
educations are at the secondary levels and above. This
means that the lower level of education, as well as those
with no education, were excluded from the sample of this

study. This may explain the variance on the independent

103
variable (i.e. level (M? education) and makes the greatest
contribution to the variance in the dependent variable (that
was limited or depressed in this study). Again, this
indicates that there is a strong reason to believe that if
the study sample had included individuals with lower levels
of education, as well as those with no education, there
would have likely resulted an R2 appreciably higher than

what was obtained.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study is to profile the individual
modernity of Saudi students as well as to investigate the
relationships between the dependent variable of individual
modernity (of Saudi students both in the U.S.A. and Saudi
Arabia) and a set of independent variables; these include
level of education, experience of studying and length of
stay in the developed country (i.e. the U.S.A.), mass media
exposure, urban experience, father's education, and age.
Unlike most previous major studies on the realm of
individual modernity (Kahl, 1968; Inkeles and Smith, 197A),
this study attempts to evaluate the impact of formal
education on modernity of the students themselves, rather
than those of adults. Furthermore, this study covers a
wider range of levels of education than most of the similar
previous research. This study examines the impact of the
levels of secondary school, undergraduate, and graduate on
modernity» ‘Whereas previous studies limited themselves to
either the secondary levels or elementary levels and rarely
combined more than one level of education. Additionally,
the present study investigated the impact of a variable

seldom examined empirically, that is, the impact of studying

104

105
in a developed country (i.e. the U.S.A.) on the modernity of
individuals coming from a developing country (Saudi Arabia).

To collect the data for this study a survey question-
naire was developed. The questionnaire consists of two
sections. The first section encompasses ten questions
regarding personal information relevant to the independent
variables of the study. The second section involves 3A
items relevant to the dimensions of modernity, the dependent
variable, which are: Activism or Efficacy; Present-Future
Orientation; Rejection of the White Collar Syndrome; Sense
of Interpersonal Trust; Family Modernism; Rejection of
Nepotism; Rejection of Authoritarian Orientation; Urban
Preference; and Occupational Risk Taking.

This study is based on a cross-sectional sample. Of
the 11A0 questionnaires distributed, 900 (78.9%) usable
returns were obtained (300 from Saudi college students in
the United States, A00 from college students in Saudi
Arabia, and 200 from secondary students in Saudi Arabia).

After the data was obtained, the dependent variable of
modernity was factor analyzed to arrive at final form of the
scale of modernity for use in subsequent analysis (see
Chapter IV) as well as to help extract the characteristics
of the modern Saudi students. Then reliability and
construct validity of the study's modernity scale was
evaluated. Compared to major scales of individual modernity
in previous studies, the factor analysis, reliability, and

validity of the study scale is quite satisfactory.

Based on the results of factor analysis,
Saudi student is similar in many respects to the modern man

of a variety of countries.

106

following characteristics:

1.

8.

However,

He reports a sense of social efficacy and sees
value in planning ahead rather than letting
things depend on luck or fate;

He tends to trust his relatives and friends;

He tends to value manual and vocational work;
he shows respect for manual laborers;

He tends to reject favoritism as it relates to
recruiting employees on the basis of kinship,
friendship or regard to job responsibilities;

He tends to reject the traditional ideas of
the family as they relate to independence from
family, work for women, and woman's obedience
to the husband or guardian male;

He tends to be present/future oriented rather
than being past oriented;

He tends to devalue authoritarian orientations
as they relate to child learning and absolute
obedience and respect for authority; and,

He tends to be relatively an occupational risk
taker.

countries, the modern Saudi student:

9.

10.

Regression analysis was employed in hypothesis testing
related to the relationships between the dependent variable

of individual modernity and the independent variables of

Prefers the lifestyle in villages or small
towns, rather than those in large towns or
cities;

Tends to be less inclined to trust people
other than his friends and relatives.

the modern

The modern Saudi student has the

unlike most of his counterparts in other

107
level of education, experience of studying and length of
stay in a developed country, mass media exposure, father's
education, urban experience, and age.

The results indicate that in the case of Saudi students
in the U.S.A., two variables stand out as having a major
affect on both the overall modernity and almost all its
dimensions. These variables are level of education and
length of stay of study. In the case of students in Saudi
Arabia, the results also suggest that level of education
appears to have the greatest affect on modernity as well as
the mass media exposure (but to lesser extent). The
variables of father's education and age seem to have no
significant impact on the overall modernity of Saudi
students both in the United States and Saudi Arabia, it
appears they only affect very limited dimensions of
modernity. The variable of urban experience appears to have
no significant impact on modernity (i.e. overall modernity
and its dimensions) of Saudi students in both countries.

The findings regarding the positive significant impact
of level of education (i.e. the amount of schooling) is
similar to studies on individual modernity conducted in
other countries. Theoretically, nearly all the students in
the field of modernity propose that formal education has the
most important affect on promoting modernity. Empirically,
virtually all research supports this proposition; although
some researchers emphasize the importance of the social

structure of schools (Inkeles, 1969; Inkeles and Smith,

108
197A; Sack, 1972), others stress the importance of
curriculum content (Armer and Youtz, 1971).

The findings of this study indicate that the exposure
to and contact with Western culture (i.e. the United States)
may have a significant impact upon the individual modernity
of individuals coming from developing countries, such as
Saudi Arabia. The longer a student stays in the United
States, the more likely he.will turn from some of his
traditional values and attitudes toward "modern" ones. The
influence that studying in a developed country has on
modernity may be a combination of the influences of social
organizational structures, such as colleges, as well as of
informal influences.

The conclusion that mass media exposure has limited
impact on modernity of Saudi students, both in the United
States and Saudi Arabia, suggests that level of education or
amount of schooling is an issue here. That is, mass media
exposure is no longer a strong predictor of individuals
whose level of education is secondary school or beyond.
This can be supported by previous similar research where
samples include individuals with limited education, or who
are illiterate, and where the result indicated that mass
media exposure was a strong predictor of modernity.

The conclusion that urban experience and father's
education have no direct impact on the overall modernity of
Saudi students, both in the United States and Saudi Arabia,

is in accord with previous studies. However, that does not

109
rule out the possible indirect affect of these two variables
on modernity.

This study's results indicate that the explained
variance of the regression overall model on the dependent
variable, overall modernity, is somewhat low, but not
unusual in this area of research. This might be due to the
limited or low variance in one or more of the independent
variables used in the estimates which would consequently,
depress the size of R2 of the regression estimate. Using
this interpretation, it is suggested that limiting the study
variable of level of education, which excluded the lower
levels as well as those with no education, would, again,
depress the size of the R2 of the regression estimate of

this research.

Theoretical Implications

 

The findings of this study provide empirical support to
the theory that there is a wide range of values and atti-
tudes which cohere and create a basic syndrome of individual
modernity and appear to have cross-cultural validity.

The results of this study also confirm the widely held
belief that formal education operates as a powerful and
independent agent in promoting modernity.

Furthermore, the conclusions of this research call
attention to the importance of the experience of studying
and length of stay in a developed country, such as the
United States, on the individual modernity of students

coming from developing countries, such as Saudi Arabia. It

110

should be noted, however, that from the results of this
study there is no means of absolute confirmation regarding
whether the experience of studying and length of stay in a
developed country has a causal affect on modernity or if
those individuals who are more modern in their values and
attitudes from the outset are more likely to go abroad for
studying than others.

It should be noted that the theoretical conclusions
drawn from this study must be considered in the context of
the available literature on the topic of individual
modernity, especially the studies of Kahl (1968) and Inkeles

and Smith (197A).

Practical Implications

Since the adaptation of the policy of sending young
Saudi students to a variety of countries, especially to the
United States (which hosts approximately two-thirds of Saudi
students studying abroad), the government of Saudi Arabia
has registered concern regarding the overall benefit of such
policies to the socioeconomic development of the country.

The significant positive association observed in this
study between the Saudi students' overall modernity, and
almost each dimension of it, and the experience of studying
and length of stay in the United States could be an
indication of a promising contribution to the process of
modernization in Saudi Arabia. For instance, the most
affected dimensions of modernity by such experience is the

dimension of Family Modernism. That is, Saudi students in

111

the United States have shown a significant shift from their
traditional values and attitudes as they relate to
independence from family, women's positions, and work for
women; such a shift has not been observed among Saudi
students who have not had foreign study experience.
Needless to say, such a trend is of crucial importance to
the process of modernization of the country.

Furthermore, upon their completion of study, these
students will be more likely to become part of the future
elite class in Saudi Arabia. The academic credentials
obtained from overseas study provides these students with an
entrance to many positions of influence. Hence, modern
values and attitudes adopted while studying in the United
States, or other Western countries, may filter down to the

rest of the Saudi society.

Implications for Further Research

Based on the insights generated through this study, the
following implications for further research are suggested.

1. As this study calls attention to the importance of
the experience of studying in a developed country (i.e. the
U.S.A.) upon modernity, it would be worthy of further
research effort to ascertain, more precisely, which aspects
of this experience contribute to modernity.

2. As Saudi students are studying in other Western
countries, as well as developing countries, a comparative
study of the impact of different environments on individual

modernity would be of great help to policy makers regarding

112
the discovery of possible advantages in each environment as
they relate to the needs of the country.

3. To ascertain the true impact of the experience of
studying abroad on Saudi students' individual modernity, it
is recommended that a replication of this study, employing a
longitudinal design, should be conducted. This could be
executed by asking students to respond to a modernity
questionnaire, such as the one used in this study, pgigg to
their arrival at a host country and again at the end of
their sojourn.

A. The sample of this study was drawn from students at
the upper three educational levels (i.e. secondary, under-
graduate, graduate). Therefore, further studies could be
conducted to measure the impact of lower levels of formal
education (i.e. intermediate and elementary) on Saudi
students' individual modernity.

5. This study, like the majority of the previous
studies, has shown in general terms the affect of level of
education, or the amount of schooling, on modernity without
examining how such variables affect modernity. Hence, it
would be a worthwhile effort to conduct further research to
identify dimensions and elements within the school
environment which may be closely related to individual
modernity. Such an investigation could consider teachers'
pedagogical styles, teachers' quality, teachers' modernity
level, the reward structure of the school, school physical

characteristics, and the like.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

ARABIC AND ENGLISH VERSIONS
OF THE STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE

113

Dear Colleague:

I am a graduate student at Michigan State University,
and am currently conducting doctoral research as part of my
degree program in comparative education. I am interested in
investigating the impact of formal and cross-cultural
education on modernizing the values and attitudes of Saudi
students in the United States and Saudi Arabia.

Dear colleague, the attached questionnaire is designed
to collect general background information about you and your
attitudes and feelings. ?I realize that your time is very
valuable and limited. Your help, however, and contribution
to this study is needed and would be very much appreciated.
Please respond to each item of the questionnaire objectively
and honestly.

Dear colleague, it will be appreciated if you will
complete and return the questionnaire promptly in the self-
addressed, stamped envelope enclosed. All information you
give and opinions you express will be kept confidential.
Please do not write your name on the questionnaire.

Thank you very much for your consideration and coopera-
tion.

Your colleague,

Mahroos A. Ghaban

114

MODERNITY QUESTIONNAIRE
SECTION ONE (Students in the U.S.A.)

Please mark by crossing (X) for each question below.

1. Your sex? 2. Your age?
___1. Male ___1. 18-20
___2. Female ___2. 21-23

___3. 2A-26
___A. 27-29
___5. 30-32
.___6. 33-35

7. 36 or Over

3. How long have you been studying in the United States?
‘___1. Two years or less
___2. Three years
___3. Four years
___A. Five years
___5. Six years or over

A. What is your academic level?

___1. Undergraduate
___2. Graduate
5. Your major college?

1. Education

Engineering

2.
3. Business Administration

A.

Other

 

(specify)

115

MODERNITY QUESTIONNAIRE
SECTION ONE (Secondary Students in Saudi Arabia

Please mark by crossing (X) for each question below.

1. Name of School:

 

2. Your class standing?
___1. Tenth grade
___2. Eleventh grade
___3. Twelfth grade

3. Your age?

Have you ever studied outside the country?

1.

If your answer to question #A was yes, then answer this

1A-15
16-17
18-20
21-23
2A-26

27 or more

Yes

2. No

question.

1. Name of the country or countries:

 

2. Length of stay

 

116

MODERNITY QUESTIONNAIRE
SECTION ONE (College Student in Saudi Arabia)

Please mark by crossing (X) for each question below.

1. Your academic level?
___1. Undergraduate
___2. Graduate

2. Your age?

2. 21-23

_3. 2A-26
a. 27-29

___5. 30-32
'___6. 33-35
___7. 36 or over
3. Your major or college?
___1. Education

2. Engineering

3. Business Administration

 

A. Other
——— (specifyT—_—__
A. Have you studied outside the country?
___1. Yes
___2. No

5. If your answer to question #A was yes, then answer this
question.

1. Name the country or countries:

 

2. Length of stay

 

10.

117

The place of schools in which you obtained your general
education (elementary, intermediate, secondary) or a
greater portion of it, can be described as a: (Choose
one answer.)

1. Big city (population over 100,000)

2. Medium city (population over 20,000 but less than
100,000)

3. Small city or town (population less than 20,000)

What is your father's level of education?

 

___1. Illiterate ‘___5. Some secondary
education or its
2. Some elementary certificate
-—_ education
‘___6. Some college educa-
3. Elementary certificate tion or its certi-
__— ficate
A. Some intermediate
—_- education or its 7. Graduate degree or
certificate ___ some of its educa-
tion
___8. Other
(specify)

In general, how often do you do the following:
Watch television:

___1. Every day

___2. A few times a week
___3. Rarely

___A. Never

Listen to the radio:

___1. Every day

___2. A few times a week
___3. Rarely

___A. Never

Read a newspaper and/or a magazine:

___1. Every day

___2. A few times a week
___3. Rarely

___A. Never

118

SECTION TWO

Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the
following statements. Enter the number corresponding to one
of the four scales on the line next to each item.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
4 3 2 l
1. Manual work is not as good as office work.

11.

12.

13.

When you look for a job, it is better to find one near
your parents even if that means losing a better job
elsewhere.

If one could hire an assistant, it would be better to
take a relative, rather than a stranger, to the family.

Prevention of accidents depends mainly on luck.

To be happy, one must conform to the wishes of others,
even if that sometimes means not expressing one's own
ideas.

The best jobs are the ones where you won't dirty your
hands.

Making plans only brings unhappiness because they are
difficult to realize.

A married woman should stay at home and not work even
if she wants to work.

The most important qualities of a real man are deter-
mination and a driving ambition.

It is not good for your relatives to know all about
what you are doing for they might take advantage of
you.

Most people are honest and don't try to fool others.

It is not good for your friends to know all about what
you are doing for they might take advantage of you.

Manual laborers represent an inferior class.

 

119

Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the
following statements. Enter the number corresponding to one
of the four scales on the line next to each item.

 

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

 

 

 

 

 

 

14.

__15.
__16.

17.
_18.

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

26.

27.

With things as they are in the world today, it is
better to live from day to day without thinking too
much about the future.

People were happier in the past than they are today.
Most people are thankful for your help.

Parents should limit the number of their children.

One should not bother himself by trying to change the
course of events since everything is pre-determined.

I feel that my determination is not strong enough to
sustain me until my career goal is achieved.

Members of original Arab tribes are not supposed to
engage in manual and vocational work.

Most of today's problems can be solved by past
solutions.

Children should be taught that there is only one way
to do things correctly.

Favoring relatives and friends in public matters is a
social duty.

One should learn more about the past and less about
the future.

In general, it's better to live in villages than in
big cities.

One should look for a job where there is always
someone available to help him on problems that he
does not know.

Obedience and respect for authority at all times are
the most important things for children to learn.

120

Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the
following statements. Enter the number corresponding to one
of the four scales on the line next to each item.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
4 3 2 l
28. Kinship and friendship are the first qualities one

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

should consider if he is in a position to select public
employees.

One should look for a job where one has to make many
decisions by himself.

On occasion, children should be allowed to disagree
with their parents.

Whatever we do, it is necessary that our leaders out-
line carefully what is to be done and exactly how to
go about doing it.

A wife should always obey her husband, even if he is
wrong.

One should look for a job where there is nearly always
a person or procedure that will catch his mistakes.

I prefer to live most of my life in a big city.

121
”JJIWJJI a4." 9...,

 

.. . ..N I '3
a c Hufl’w' “firs-#9“!
-°.J—_._~J

2‘1, hat... ,1 uJuaJu 2."):4: vi “”3441 LIL...) sun... 1..."; ”.31

. . I.“
._,'.._-., w,q.u..:.su u.» Fri-31,31 1:91.19 1.14.1,» 9.1.3: 0.5,...)
@L—q’”" 15.1...." @Lr’s ‘1’" Q’s-J" any“. aflé’h-H w. wéuw"

5.1,...“ WI 0%.: 9.1; Luau 0.01.2541 4.1 Q’s-'5 919.33.... o, 951

”_J! Emvaal :1 0.4, aimw’oldxl «av-'5" 0.91,.“ ,1. 3951 .
H’LfiulauflfigfifihSQYLHJ'nq—iwu1wfil’ gunman...
¢L__.,.,:..xt mg... ”5:.“ ..9-—?.)‘ «1.1.1.! IkfiarJ-‘U’I (menus-1‘,
awneuyu at... 1.an ...b 3.141,.“ 3.4:." 3.9.4- Lnxu 51).."

.LDWIJIJAY 9“er

cost: “31“; e. 95:40th 95.3me PSJ 1;”

fl.)
6 r‘ a»! my”

MY - r-ov - (ow) _

~~//cr

 

p:

y. u."
W u-N
n u-H
H u-A
r: u-H
Yo uJI
$.51 J:

1.)—‘0‘”
150-0"—
I‘M‘I—
ISO-O’T—
Iva-0°!—
v.0...o_
"0‘01—
V1W°V—

Olifi‘*

122

 

LHH

'

 

J)" ’3

9|

4 pm...“ 3);...“ anl 1.5." ”.1: (nuke-5414330-

?thldIfin-ayu 0“
.oWQH-H'b°1—
’. Lg-l‘GwLu'Jéhr-Ju o'—

...-w .(r
J—JJ 0‘ —

”.71-3' 0'—

fiJ-UI aiming-119953.“ VJWJAJG'AJIJd-J ”I 03.3,." 0... 95 o((

.JJIJIL..\_
oesqulogsaWu-T—
fir-‘50:" eu‘O-HL‘W—

oJSSI ’19.;—

? LHMJ,JIWJS;9;JI 1,491,,- L. -(o

. HAJSJI q—

. K‘s..." q...

.JLuI ZJIJI Mr...

. ,5... Lid”) .1...
. Haas-1.15.50.-

 

123

..,._,.___. Hm

JJNI ’39-"

 

..au 2.....I_.;....u zJL-f-IJ' f“. 1.5..” ,1. (x) L1; aid-Wan

.‘__________- fl—thhJIf-I“.
Y v.1..." dljs... J. L. (V

. gyU JJUI dun." ot-

. VH4." dull ‘9'-

0.3-"$.11;th cc.»—

:x-I-J' (1'
.oul ”wot...-
°IYu-"1‘lofi~.v-—-
.Ycu." 1A0-nae...
071'," Hon-c..—
°Y1uJthoi°g_
.JASIJI wry-.3-

9251.41 @ou4¢IJ5,.JI-(g
'¥( ) P-‘( )
. 9.3544: JISAJlglneL‘qupl “L5 91 953: 413.4194...» (0

‘ —— —

——-— “
I

124

1:41;; H'H

JJ’I ’JpJI

m

 

 

94.1th I)“: fulwlul-(x) blagbd-lfloa

‘2 V‘J‘J‘ Al’s... J. Lo (\
'. gawk—J“ I—-—-
. 4,915“: .I—
. vat—‘2." .55....“ cu..—
ouwl 15%| 0:—
. 3"” QMI o.)—
o *bahiJJsA-JLB n..—
? WI which-Jo QIJJ-yudb (Y
. s( ) H‘( )
. 9...: ,5...qu 4134' ”.1. angel eat: .;,I 9:?! .JIS-JI u-bs—e' 3"“ ("

.. __ __ ._ ._ ——-..J,...n,u 11,44: Pu...
-, 3...:qu 2.19.4:

.—
fl
”

—

<.' Lawfisguu 22,49: 9- L. (t
o QfiJ' ot—
o W' ‘9'.
o JLLGI 3J1." 0:—
o 5.... L0”: 0.3—-

 

.___ -.UJȢLLAJQA
..J_....u(o
“qu \AO-‘fl—
YTu-J‘I)O‘°I"
flu-“Yin?"—
Hu-J' Wes-'1—
rtuJIroo-ow—
YouJ‘YTO‘"—
3.51,: via-nov—

(I)

125

{.53.}; . hp.9:.14.1.,l ) PI..." We,” WabfiJIleaJl Q‘s-0J0 .(1
.(w 2.1.1, '5—-.-|-?' 3:51 ) -, .31.. Ages.” uhufi
.(JJI ugh-”J35: 1.5.1.5..) 3,...5 3;...» q—
-(—i-11 cums-313w Swami-“Hau- )“93- 2...... 4-—
.(cuig 1,3ij 1.915.)“,13H2H1. .7.—

 

.<: «41,; 134*" Wu ,4». .(y
.,,__'.u:..xu ...,.Jauufl .y _ Luau ,I in)“: .19.! q .—
.Wfiflmyl 3.304;.“ .1 _. L__,.'.I.\:..,YI 34143.11 .r...
.wwvlzguwu 3.114;.“ .1 _W@ :1 1.931.213..qu .o ..-
.WAJI ( “A055" JIML.) Lyle 341...? .v H...

 

oooooo 0.00000 0.).» 1 LP“)? 0* —

a? .31—“:4. ADI-23.). 0(A

'9‘”) ‘3'}. C“ '7 — °L—~J-i3 '1‘” 0) -—

olh—JU‘ N 0f — O'JJL——-——' 'V —
.9 1.1.0.1! cola-11.34..." 1,1st .(1

«Ax-lau- a. a — .o.._,..,,.:; 1..., A —-

01"- j‘ x 0‘ — O‘JJ_ 0' —

-H‘:—.~1¢v'x all-.- -Y — ~L—w-35 Len.” oi —

o: A...‘ x 0‘ _ O‘JJ! #3 of .—

 

 

(Y)

126

 

 

H8¢1¢LthLfiJU c mfiém’fi-ASQIJL’DQ‘ ’39." “ADJ-"43.,
555—." hi.“ tr“ EJOLpd-IJ.’ EJVJSuJDMI’o 9.15:1 «1:33.51, 3?.)ng
.a;_'..:1 t‘)‘ ,- u5&p%|ué~§U1 9.3,." c.9111

 

f

whyufii 5.41,]! 541,. LoL-oSJJIy

 

I Y T i

 

 

 

 

 

 

as.“ ”.1; 3.3g! E‘J-“J' wdAUoIJHnJI ,5»: u.» mu; unreal-S (,1 3.1.4
.11—.9, g 93,4! 14.1..1 gut —

og’heJlMIwJéJ‘ wfiSfi—HMI o(“ _

HJQWAJIJJI “V’s-IL? 4,145.; (,1 JAB?! My: yw bod-ED .(u _

Q’SgQ1JLiUIUAJLaJABVJ‘JIAflL-auflbfluI’JQJIQLSoLygi-SIJI o(\f _-
OQJU‘ ”I

. ha.” ,1. 1_.,Ju i.e., fUJszgealfll ”a, e:- on: —

Qh_5 )JwafUIQL—‘JJ @Jdugc‘,‘ 45a! Dbl—“U; 'J-AJ‘ “95.3w o(\o _
”Just, #,u¢991quxgws

.HaeJI (“...,-,3 ,1 Qfigfléi 9:." $456,419.»! ~(H _

.mwlwus :59un 9.13.4... 3.1.33.4! hh’aJIJ‘c .(w ..

“AIM-soul ,J, ”Hajj-.41 abut“; 11 M 3.33th 21,...“ .(M _

...,—3.93,.“ 3...," Hag—.1. PM CL._.?..'.JI ,1. JIJAI, ”A..." ~(H _.

Miwuiugyug 9461*Ygl'flw910. .(y. .—
...,—4533.,1 9.1 $1,...aggi

..._..Jl.l.i.:...l',1 9+...» 339:. waauvan ,3... ~(n _

.11—4,15:qu wsgpuuhwu»! 93,310“! ,3st .(fi _
“NJ.“ 1:11—15 I)“; :1

.Lnaéd 23...!» M 3...:in 0‘...“ ,JL.‘ o(T" ...—

(T)

127

 

L‘LlhoéJL’IU 5—JIJ1U 5——M.’fi Bat-.35.“);

 

1 Y T i

 

 

 

 

 

’HJuMgl JJJYIOAQU. "g.“ “Jug”?! ”.11).an
°J¥n-‘J'vb‘JE;SAJ‘J¥CHPJW‘-‘fl

.J_H'u..n 9.3,." 9.5qu 9.. m... ,151 9.51..." govt..."
,‘. 4:1 H.333 9;." 3.545.“ wflgu-UJI '3...-
.__.‘Q.Jl_ib‘ 4-D I)” (,1 bJJJ‘J ”£19.10 ng 0..

 

Md)- u¢9a1»91,5,~ma; 1.1,wa “A xgl 9.41,,»
06—9“? J5

 

.k ‘L‘]' :‘
Lugs—.9." 3......“ Dub»: 11,93,1410. 3...»?! Law...“ 4.39541 ¢u..,.1
o1 .iLl‘

 

.Hum gigaahl 133-“ erdgvimt 05..., ...,..JI Jsu... J35! v.1:

33H ‘93?! J‘AJL'D 1.9!, LJAJEJUD g1 Jabs! 9.1.2.01 M

c-
.‘ ‘M

°9_——H.~';.?I ‘95“) LL...“ ”.9: 9". ‘lJ-HYIJ HUI-39! I ....

P—dWIJJJLQIJHUJ1yJEJéJIé—2JIFJK-501’J‘JIUJ‘
‘ .J...i.:.....H

.L-EAJU grUIVJMIUnJu13J_~__.SJIQA‘J|HJJ-QAJI

”__I‘Jya.“ QLSAI L034 0., UtUgJfig‘WQI ‘x—UWI a...
.Lebfi’ 92.” em: Jag—Ia bah-Afi:

.L :-1--. JJhJ! View 9:41 Jr?! 911 13.1.4: “for, 2:11..“

 

H01 wfiufifiyufiw AQSAS'ALL-Oéysgul ’J‘JIUJJ
.WI arm?) 1,1,3.“ ,1 2.31m: JAB 1,1

.LA-LIqGIJIJUIwJQESJI waywkfi ’JAJOMIQ.‘
A :QIJJJLA... JIJJWQI Jib—UPQI LEI—”91 MI on

 

(i)

~(Yt

~(To
~(Yl
-(YV

~(YA

4“

-(H

0(T'Y

.m-

oh"!

~(Tc

.(n

0(T’V

~(1’A

~(T’Q

.(g.

 

128

 

L ‘ V r t

 

 

 

 

 

 

.1__.h.'»._,.|.sol.s 3.1,? he” any: final MIAMI 0* ~(u' _

4.)-——-’J mugutugwwsymgl ‘J‘JJM‘QJ .(gr _.
.Ja‘JI S?" QLB‘ tr“ nL-i‘élaLngg-an’lfll "’53

.o‘; ’fi;5 meF—Shg P585?“ 91 JAM .(gg .—

 

”Ht:

(0)

APPENDIX B
FOLLOW-UP LETTER

129

Dear Colleague:

If you have not returned my questionnaire, another copy
of the same questionnaire is enclosed. My brother, I am
sure you have a firm desire to help me by responding to the
questionnaire, but perhaps, due to conditions out of your
control, you did not complete it.

, Dear colleague, you know the completion of my doctoral
dissertation depends on your cooperation. Please, if it has
happened that you did not send my questionnaire, I urge you
to take a few minutes of your valuable time to respond and

return it promptly with the enclosed self-addressed stamped
envelope.

Thank you for your help.

Your colleague,

Mahroos A. Ghaban

13o
Hg: 9...," .441 9......

 

1.)-z)" «Hr-'4'
-1 an,” 0.36” LL" in” M fin-II

#5}! Ta...) LIL-J." 0:» 3.5.5,. MU GyL-J‘ gL’pS-il Gal-)1 4.3.35: Hg! 3 95"
~oufiz-8!

4.".qu Q; anuayu QSJ, QLFQ-fl M 1.1,”! 1,1,1: alga u! .aSL'h 9.2.195!
'4-‘4-r9339-J

9.4.1 'xygéJl $9.3m 'MJHDJUUM 3.94.3: v3.1: 3.3.1191 9145-" 95!
Had... us." ”Jim .wpmfiuams “1).! auflwqug.
"L—sJ—H ”Jul: LIL-J!) 5))...“ g'qHS-il 1.2-J ”Jo 35.93.! M. waébLJJ as,
”say: 9.31,..." aim...

° 953:“ a» 954 'JJ-i-J '45“

 

° ér/o

APPENDIX C

LETTERS FROM THE DEAN OF THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
TO OTHER AGENCIES ASKING THEM TO HELP
THE RESEARCHER IN HIS STUDY

KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA
Ministry oI Higher Education
IIIIG ABDULAZIZ UNIVERSITY

(allege oI Eluuflon
MADIIIAII HIIIIAWAIAII

22,34! "W
JLJIILQJI»
AMIagEéUflal;

3JJAIZQJthjJIw

 

Ref. , . ‘L‘u-I‘eflX-IVR‘N ,ng
Date .. . ., 9\L$\\x\\‘\ 3,1le
3).." q”; as... ”4.; jun.“ ”An/fidu-

1.3.6,) A.U| I»); rsq—l‘ '1...”

aw." 0.3L." cnq ”Y. f-r.‘ O'JJ-ZS-L" bJ-LJ M A’S‘J"| 04,-..."

0 MM fi-g-IJAJ “)3..."

’L'a." Uqu—‘T’I cf'h" uj Q-UL—ay Jog-ZN 1.le rsa-H—I- LP" r435! WU‘ 1.1.."

- “:2”. Law) viva-3046' r-J-‘U‘ ”1‘ uN-r‘ x: “4.2%
.rSI-JL‘; a.» wJ-LLJ WJSU

3J_,'...JI Amt... ivy—2n 9.15-er

lwlr

 

 

31,2“ w- \A" :4,“ _SL' AYaYY/H / Menu / AYGY/U‘I / AYDH’AA : 0,3,1: a,,_;II 3._;..III - ru 2.. . ;
Tclm: 4700:: K.-\l.'!\IAD SJ Phones: 8252384 / 8252548 / 8252816 / 8252388 P. 0. Box: Ju-Madmah Munavaarzh

KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA
Mmmvy ol Hiyhu Education
KING ABUULAZIZ UNIVERSITY

College .oI “Italian
MDIIIAII MIIIIAWAIAII

QM? 'Q/f'lm'
JLilék—JJILL‘»:
Ajfllaicélollhol;
;,,_-.u Lag-LII: 3925-“ L15

 

=c s» ELF-3.x 11.2w .3,”

-... ~ \ =. ‘ . .

3...; Q \L.—\\ V‘I\'\ :Jk—I‘
Joy! .1... fifJI-LJ cu.” “L... sbun; '._,I.m ...Js “pal—a.

‘6’) 5.1.." guy's-uh PE.”

uL——¢1)JH Qg-VJ-JI Ayn-Just.” gI—‘i “I ”J,- /Jy—J| 91- (5;!th 41-.-
_JAJI LIL-J! C..- ”7| (3.... “WI 3.)-UM #5.).- il 3A.—3.."
Ml— h—lJ-LJ hfi‘

9|) i—fn—LZLQJI W. 99.") uua. 0"" FLA-LII ”La-"n.” ”J5 L1);
«Pwl Uw‘ll 6....5: w: h“.*. MI ...,.le (5.3-IL.— ".H (“I u'——'-LD~ Lh—II
. {/32- ‘3] g mléfll(p(v aura . ---' F—LI-‘Jl Lil! gI-H- y) fi-IJ-L—
.rséJLA; G". wJ-LLI’ “)5;
‘6’: ..L" “J; N P34!)
OJPA." Win-”w ‘f’ -

‘ .V/D

(“gag—Dow’s...)

 

luv—Vt

 

‘-._— -‘ “' A—ph' '9: _r -.v

Irln 17"‘3‘ k-\I'\II\|) SJ l'lnmn 3232)!“ / IISISJX RISINM KISIJIIN I' 0. “t“, 344- Madam-II Mnnmnualuh

..i; mum: .-.!:v::A,’u.~v.-.‘i 1......“ ..‘H‘ 3.

 

KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

Mumslvy oI Right! Educalnon

KING ABDULAZIZ UNIVERSITY

12);»? 'Léz’l/‘fill

;>‘L2~’l‘.'~.L—x-' "‘53-:

imagining
329-‘1‘ 32.418233.“ :45

(alley: .9I [dualion
mnmu Runwmn

 

1A.“. 27'“ '5__'\\. «I. \A, .3le

In)..." ”DJ—L..." WI cal—.FJ‘; bl." fihll'aal...
QLSJ-pJ 5L" no); (Sq—Ii f-L—JI

uh’fih 3.1,." 1.459)....- QL... ...,: ,4)... ,4...» ‘J1... (Saab... a...
'.___....L..u ”a.“ £4.98: ”.3. “4,25..." -JuM ..sudl “.24:
. MI... BI)“ had—II
an; '.__.-._L-.-..._u WI at...” I_-.-.i...v.. a... ran." was.“ ,1. Lg...
’LAJI QWYI H I," A—JL—g: JILL-LN L.ol.J PS..JI_.. VJI (“LI—1| ”.U- ngJl
" I
..-> HAIuIt'Lwlwaziwur—J “ch“ r—h-J' H)" ”I4..- )‘J ‘-J""

.rS-LJLA; 0‘. O'J-LZAJ wJ-SU

$6,) LA." in)” (son-n“ A—JIJ

"JJ'I‘J' fi-‘tth-V Hr

 

/u-'-'~/r

 

.__.._- :‘-~\I\" ...,; .1. mum: , AY: nu] .ua'n‘. lam-"ma :.~.a,l. 3,,_J'

Itlm J‘IIIZI A\|'.\I.~\I) SI Phone“ 3152]“ / 325254! / 8252‘“: / R2525)“

3, ..I_r.=

_l
P‘ 0 Bus. JJ-I- Maduuh \luuauumzh

xmcnom or SAUDI ARABIA
Ministry oI Higher {dilution
mm ABDULAZIZ umvsnsm

College I {dunno-
NADIIAII NUIIAWAIIAII

:Jfi—i’ l' ,_.//;./.’l,.@l
JuMUIé
Amnagwima

=,,_-.ua_-.,..u,-._.,j.ilz_b

 

Re{., .,

Date

_,.i_,...ir 2H1 WI. 2...,” 2.4.9,..er u..._,.~.. /'e.AI-A.
n.5,, ..ur L...» rag: ,2."

.:.I_..i_,.JI.. ...,-2." 1.45;,“ gl—i a»! ...,)..- /-I.—JI 0L. (5.1-H... ...,..a.
Q—r-J‘JI OJLgJI cut—r 9" f” I'W' deJ J‘an—JJ ‘fNI ‘.\—Ln."
ASA..."— d—IJAJ LAJI
UIJ L-LL'J..." MI OWIJ L—L—IQL. 9" Phi." “Ll-3." ”J0 H4.)
fL‘D—II ”Ln—.2! Guru” "’1 $45an MI LrlJ (Sn-ed“ u." PEI WU. WI
- ail). Qwé9 gem-5.?» r-J‘-" ' “WON-r r: ‘44-‘-
.rS.'v-,LA'- on. O'JduioJ “J56

5115,) LL” 3.» '5’.» fLJIJ
1))..." WI... 1...}:Jl'
fl

(h'd-ioLs‘Jg-waaI-J)

lw~lr

 

3__,;" 1V \Ar :4," __SI: Marni/AY°YntA/MerA\1/ArerrM :Jyu: 3,,_.II
Tcln: 47am KMWMD SJ Phones:

i_.-..m - ru : .9 .’
8252.1" / [252548 / 825an / 8252.!!! P. O. Box: JIM-Median Mummnh

13S

’If‘tfi

M” -,w

KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA
Hungary 0! MW Education

KING ABDULAZIZ UNIVERSITY

(allege. [I Educalien
HIDIIIAII NUNAWWIHN

2).»JI/ M,»Lflm
QLAHMM

Aisling—4.1mm;

a...“ Lag-all: 2554‘ L1:-

 

I \ .
~a xsflisxx; RA J;

*4"? punk '; m ._.._,:n

,5...» .4.— _,_.J~...J|...... .11..“ ...L. wr' 1....15 ...,... par...

‘6’) LL" I.» (3..“ 'LJ'

shyly» ~._,.~.Jr 1.4.5-)...— on... ...u a»... ,..._n ,1. ,s;..r... ...,...
. 64...“... ..-.1,...: ..in

at.) ‘._....u.'....n ...JAJI ...er mu“. u... ...qu was." UJ. H);

’I—LJI UL...‘—Yl “’.F—L; rr‘ A—JL-gr ‘ka—JI L¢IJ (8.3—“...,," tub-Lil u—S-Loo '2..th
1' alpLgyI 9"“, WW '. .F—LA—JI I315 Ola... ”J "—IJ-‘-

' '.- ”11*

.44.:me U'J‘H‘J ”...,—(DU

‘6’...) LJJI he); (Sq-J! ch—IIJ

ufid|::::;:zfiflghé¢.
A
«av/7k

(wuhfi—‘o—ba—flwl

 

/v"""/r

 

L... :v.\Ar v4... .51.: AYHY'A: .'.Y:?::A/AY:V.\“. /Ar:rrM :.,-,.._.I; a,___l' '«_..9I - ':: _. ..v
hm 47mm k-\I'\I,-\I) SI I'Imnn- 8:52li / R2530 xzszrub / 8252188 P, 0. lim: w-Madman Mulhmuuruh

APPENDIX D

PRINCIPAL FACTOR AND ROTATED FACTOR SOLUTIONS
FOR THE MODERNITY ITEMS

136

 

 

.Aoo .av o o_nop cp omgaoe=c ago mozu no m:o_umo=c on» o» mgmyog co_umo=a an» be gma53: och.
mNamg. NmogN. coNoo. mudcc.- moNvo.- "mmod. oeNvo. macaw. oNoom. NmNmN.- em
«NNmm. Nsmoo.- ~m~m~.u omcsm. mmomo.- veao¢. mmomo.- “swam. codem.- mNmmH. Hm
mmqoo. mmmec. Nommo. omNma. ooNNN.- “NmN~.- NmmNN. com«o.- HmoNo. maemm. om
masco. mcmso.- memvg. «mmmm. “can“. momma. aommc.u mmm~_. moc~m.- “mmmc. mN
mam~c.- Nmmmo. mmmme. moo-. N~N-. mommm.- mceeN. moNNN. NmmmH.- mmocN. mN
Ngmoo.- Nmmmc. NgmmN. cmmNm. mmocc.- omNen. NNHNm. omsmo.- momNH. NmmoN.- Nm
NNNmH. msoom.- mNmNN. agNNN.- mommN.- mmooo.- mmHVN. mNNmo.u msmmg. NNNom. mN
acmoo. emmmo.- momma. cammN. Hound. Nauom. emNeN.- NflNo~.- Naomd. memom.- ocmmq. NN
ceNmN.u “NeNo. mam~o.- ”mafia. Nmmmc. momma. vomom. mmmmo. momco. memNm.- mmNmm. om
cNmmo. cage“. momNd. mmceo. o~N-.- cmNNo.- mmmmo. smomo.- smceo. «swam. «momN.- mm
aNmNH. mnNmm.- ofimmo. momma. mmNNo.- NmN¢_. emNmN. mamoo.n seem“. cmoo¢.- mmmmm. ON
summo.a assoc. «memo. mmmoc.- wommo.- mNewH. mm~¢~.- Noam“. mmogo. m~oc~.- mvae. mN
mNmoo. “mesa. moomN. “mNNo. NNmm~.- comma. Ncsmc.- mmmmo.- oeNmo. «coco.- scone. oN
ammvo. NNNm~.u omsNN. manna. demc.- ~oemo.- mamas. ammo“. maNmm. mNmNo.u camom. HN
cm~eo.- mmmNN. csmo~.- "came. «NNQN.- Nucmo.- memoo.- «NmNN. momN~.- moms". oeofic. NH
odomc. mmmdd. o~¢-.- conga. vomaN. comma. mNmoo. Nmmmo. «mmN~.- mouom. ”macm. e
«omNo.- usamo.- NomNm.- mNNmN. on-o.- mmogd. cameo. onN~.- Nomoo.- mmumN. Nance. N
ch_=.- moqwo.- «wmvN.- oeNoN.- momma. cNNNo.- mmNoc.- mummm. «NcmN. comma. o~m¢c.- NH
mood". mNmoN. ccmmN. NmomN.- cmomN. N¢mmm. Nmmm~.u oNofio. mmHNo.u omNNe. «womo.- cm
mono”. mmomo.- cc:m~.- ~mwm~.- «msgo. camom. osmmm. mgnom.u mmmmN. omen“. HNNmN. NN
Ncmo~.u mmmmN.u H~o¢~.- mvNoo. mmemm.u NNmam. memNm. mmsoN.u mmmNH. memmm. wasmc. on
Amoco.- mmmmfi. ammNN. omch. Nmflmm.u mNomc.u mnmmc. ooNNo. omoao. mnmcm. ocon. ma
memmo.- _como.u mmmom. mmmoo.u mmdoN. ONemm.u «mmmN.- cmom¢.- mmmmc.u mNmou. mccoe. N
mmama. msocg. mmemm. N_NN~. comefi. acmoe. och~.- ammod. modem.- smemm. omNmo.u m
mmmhc.- _mndo.n vmmmm. dvfloc. «mmoN. cocNN.u aNmm~.- AmNN¢.- ~m-o.- mmHoN. eNNNm. m
«Nsco. ~om-.u vagc.- oeosc. ovooo. Nweoo. mNmmg. ~N_mN. o~o-.u Nummm. mNmON.- o
edema. ammmo.u mcvoN.- cummm.- ¢oouo. ome¢o.- mc-m.- cogoo.u Nomad. mammo. wquv. mg
Nmnmo.- mmmmo. mNNmo.- mmN-.- chNo.- NNNvN. ocmoo. o~moo.- mszo. someN. mmNNv. fl
QNmmo. NN¢c~.- NNmoN. cemNN.- mom-.- mNeeo.u amsdo. oNcmo. NeNoN.- «Hmoo.- ammme. AH
mmon. vvodo. Nwmmc. «NNNo.- Hamec. mmomm.- aoNvm. mmmflm. oc~mo.- NQNON. mmmoN. m
Nnmom.- mm¢o~.- ma~mo.- oNceo. mmcmu. mm~m~.- Neemfi. NmmNo. o~mNc.- mquN. mhsmm. m
~c¢w~.- dmcmm. ocNoo. oomm:.- -omo.- ammoo.u mmcoc. «whoa. mcmso. moomm.u e¢mmv. eN
mmmdo.u NmNmN.- omNog. ecmmN.- magma. ~m~N~.- mom~.- ocsmm. osmmN. ~m~N~.- chmN. Na
m¢cm~.- mmmma.u ommmm. ooocN.- momm~.- meNom. moNo. NmmdN. mcomN.- ecoN~.- ”comm. «H
HA om m m N c m c m N u «hogan:
gouuum gouuom gouuum Louuuu .cuuou gcuuom gouuum gouuuu gouuuu goauom Louuom :o.umm:o

 

Am «_nup ommv :o_u=_om gouge» —oq_ucwgmuuxwguoz gouuou
m2~u~ auvcgmuox mg» no» mco_u:_om Louuum couuuom new gouuou _oqwucwga

 

a x—o2mma<

137

 

 

.Aoo .av o m_nah cw ambassac mgm mm:» mm mcowumoao oz» o» mgmvmg co_umm=c on» No Logan: «ch:
“mumo. mmmNo. cmmmo. HemNo.a msmmm. NmmNc.- mo-o.- vosco.- mvomo.u ”mooc. cm
emNH~.- onuo.n ¢¢wo~.- mNmms. ooAmo. mmmuo.u mmooc.- Nmmmo.u NNmeo.u oNNNo.o gm
mmcmo. oNcau. mmmNo. omscc. mvoc~.u NmNNH. mNomc. ommNN. oNNNN. chso.- om
commo.- mammo.- cmooo.a oNHNc. oonH.a mummo. mmm—c.n moo~c.- osemq. mmmNN. mN
msmam. momNH. mvao. ~memo.- momNo. ommmo.o mNomo.u mssum. mmmgm. ommmo.- mN
NNNmN. moNoo. snocm. cmHNc. o~veo. mswmo.- mmsmo.- mfloco.- omuoo. Nomo~.u Nm
oummo. emsmo. con~.n ommmo.- ~ce~o.- NmNNo. somNo.- mmNmo. Nmmmo. Nmmom. mN
ONNmo.u Naeo_.u mm~¢c.- cmo~o.- Nuomfl. omom~.- mcsmm. mono. ommNo.- «memo. ommom. NN
commo.u omocm. NNNHo.- ~m¢oo.- cosmo. ~cmo~.- omgmo. uNmmc. Hecao.- mNNmH. mmocm. om
comma. oemoo.- mmmco. mmNoo. mamcc.u «Nmmm. cm-o.- «NmoN.- cameo.- “Nemo.u msmeo. mm
ommNN. NmNoo. mNoAH.- ommHN.- Heooc.- mNmmo.- moomo.u "gmHN. mmHoN.a NmmNN. ocmem. oN
NmN-.- m~oc~.n cacao. cameo. mNomH. mNoc~.- Nmmoo. emmmm. NmNNN. mNmmm. mommg. mN
Ndmdc. «mmm~.- omNm~.- «mNcc. gamma. mmeog. osumd. cmHmN. mmvoa. onNm. comma. oN
mNmNH. ooNgo.- momma. smsmn.- «mmcc. uwmmN. m~m~o.- agmmN. ONmoo.u oeoom. named. HN
mmNoo. mooso.- mmeeo. omvmo. «moNo.- mameo.u omega. Nmmmg. momoo. «Name. oNcNa. Na
mNmmu. mocha. mosmo. memum. coco“. m~c~o.: mNmmm. emmmo. «cmmN. mmNoo. NomeN. e
ocomc.u momNo. NmNmo.u QNNNc. emaco. Nmm-.- omsmg. omoN~.- mmomm. “comm. mNcom. N
“memo.- NcNmo. mchN. OQNoo. N¢~N~.- msmoo. Naomo.- mo~mo.- NmNmo. mmNmo. cmo~o.- mm
ammoo.- NANNc. emNmo. mmoms. momo=.u mmmmm. magma. memmo. mmNN~.- Nono.- Nommc. om
msmoc.n mmmON.- «mmmn. momou. Nmumm. ommmc. NNNNo.- Nesoc.u Nmmmc.- mmmoo. Noomm. NN
oHNoc.a ommNo. moono.u museo.u smN«~.- NNNNH. “memo. ~¢omm. mNNmN. ooeNo. NNeoo. mm
mNmmo. mnemo. mest.- "Neco. oo~vo.- mNoao. monH. NonN. mmsom. chooN. ”memo. ma
cocoa. Namec.u mammo. onmo.u mwcco. o~o~o.- emsom. oemso. mammo. masoc. ”mace. n
«sacs. vmmoo. oomm~.- mmmqe. mmooN.u wmoo~.a mmmo—.- momec.u «ammo. mmcmo. «mmoc. m
maomo. cacao. mo~¢¢.- mucus. momoo.u chNc.u ommmm. mecca. quNo. o—ooo. oond. m
Neme. medmm. ovsoc. each. vomNN.- memco. ac~o~.- oeomo.u mmeac.- NmNON.- “game. m
momNo. mNmON.- anon. mmNoo. mmmso. mocmo.u eNNmN. Ammmm. comma. mnmmc. mcmeN. m"
«Ncmo.- Nmmmo.- Nmoec. coNNN. aemgm. mNNNo. mmmmo. mmNNN. ommHN. oom¢c. Nccce. m
ommmm. mNoNo.u havoc. NeeNo. osmmo. emeoN.u Nmmmm. moomm. NmoN—. oomNo.- vamNg. NH
Nmmms. Nmmoo.- vmmom.- «code. Ncho. Nemmo. NmNmo. mgmmo. Nmmmo. mNeNH.u mseuo. m
madmo.n desoe. mmwoc. mmm-.- mmmoo. Ammoo. mmomN. edema. ammNN. Hammo.- oomcm. m
mNeNo.- momec.- wmdmo. memoc. NNNoe. Noose. ommoo.- ooomN. vame. ammo". m-ca.- «N
mocmu. meow“. mmasc. came—.u cmmmm. mummo. mcaNo.- mmNem. mmewo.- NmONm. demos. Nd
NmmNo.- mono. mmmmo.- NNmNo. mmmmo. mNNc~.- meeNo.- oech. mmmeo. "cone. ommmo. om
am am a m N o m e m N m «guess:
Louuou gouuom gouuuu gouuou Louuum gouuom Louuuu Louumm Louuau Leuuom Louunm cowumoao

 

xrguo: Layout umuouoa xus_go>

Ag
9 x—azmaa<

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abernathy, D. TheJPolitical Dilemma of Popular Education.
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1966.

 

 

Abraham, M.F. Pers ectives on Modernization: Toward a
General Theory 0% Third World Development. washington,
D.C.: University PressAS? Afierica,’l980.

Abu-Laban, Baha and Sharon Abu-Laban. "Education and
Development in the Arab World." The Journal of

 

Developing Areas, 10:3, 1976.

 

Agarwal, V. and D. Winkler. "Migration of Foreign Students
to the United States." The Journal of Higher Educa-

 

tion. Vol. 56, No. 5, (Sept./Oct. 19357, pp- 509-522.

Ajzen, I. and M. Fishben. Beliefs, Attitudes, Intention and
Behavior. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1975.

 

 

Alaki, M. "Industrial-Vocational Education in Saudi Arabia:
Problems and Prospects." Ph.D. Dissertation, University
of Arizona, 1972. .

Al-Turky, Mansour. "Some Aspects of the Saudi Arabian
Economy: Past, Present, and Future." The Monthly

 

Newsletter of the Royal Embassy of S.A., Washington,
Vol.43, No. h., (April 1986).

Al-Zaid, Abdulla, M. Education in Saudi Arabia: A Model
with Difference. Jeddah: Nasar Printers, 1982.

 

 

Armer, Michael. "Education and Social Change: An Examina-
tion of the Modernity Thesis." Studies on Comparative

 

International Development, XII:3, 1977.

 

and Robert Youtz. "Formal Education and Individual
Modernity in an African Society." American Journal of
Sociology, 76:“, 1971.

 

and Isaac. "Determinants and Behavioral Conse-
quences of Psychological Modernity Emperrical Evidence
frog Costa Rica." American Sociological Review, 43:3,
197 .

 

 

138

139

Attir, Mustafa; B. Holzner and Z. Sada, Edited. Directions
of Change: Modernization Theory, Research, and Reali-
ties. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1981.

 

 

Babbie, Earl. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont,
California:‘Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1986.

 

Barber, Elinor; P. Altbach, and R. Myers, ed. Bridges to
Knowledge: Foreign Students in Comparative Perspective.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1983}

 

Borg, Walter and Meredith Gall. Educational Research: An
Introduction. Longman, Inc., New York, 1979.

 

Chiu, Hei-Yuan. "A Test of Unidimensionality and Univer-
sality of Individual Modernity in Ten Taiwanese
Communities." Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University,

1979.

Cummings, William K. "Going Overseas for Higher Education:
The Asian Experience." In Bridges to Knowled e.
Edited by E. Barber, et al., pp. l30-1h6. Chicago: e
University of Chicago Press, 198A.

and Wing-Cheung So. "The Preference of Asian
Overseas Students for the United States: An Examination
of the Context." Hi her Education, Vol. 1“, No. A,
(August 1985), pp. - 23.

 

 

Cunningham, Ineke. WThe Relationship between Modernity of
Students in a PMerto Rican High School and Their
Academic Performance, Peers and Parents." In Education
and Individual Modernity in Developing Countries, pp.
57-63. Editediby A. Inkelés and D. Holsinger. Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 197A.

 

Delacroix, J. and Ragin, C. "Modernizing Institutions,
Mobilization, and Third ‘World Development: A Cross-
National Study." American Journal of Sociology, 8A:l,
1978.

El-Banyan, Abdullah S. "Cross-Cultural Education and
Attitude Change: A Study of Saudi Students in the
United States." Ph.D. Dissertation, North Carolina
State University, 197A.

 

Faheem, Mohammed E. "Higher Education and Nation Building."
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois at
Champaign-Urbana, 1982.

Fry, Gerald W. "The Economic and Political Impact of Study
Abroad." In Bridges to Knowledge. Edited by E.
Barber, et al., pp. 55-72. Chicago:'The University of
Chicago Press, 1984.

 

140

Grasmick, H.G. "Social Change and Modernism in the American
South." American Behavioral Scientist, 16, 6:913-33,

1973.

Guilford, J.P. Psychometric Methods. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 195a.

 

 

Hammad, Mohammad. "The Educational System and Planning for
Manpower Development in Saudi Arabia." Ph.D. Disser-
tation, Indiana University, 1973.

Harbison, F. and C. Myers. Education, Manpower and Economic
Growth, New York, 196A.

 

Holsinger, Donald. "The Elementary School as Modernizer: A
Brazilian Study." Inn Education and Individual Moder-

 

nity in Developing Countries, pp. 29%36. ’Edited by A.
Inkeles and”D. HOlsinger. *Leiden: E.J. Brill, 197A.

 

and Gary Theisen. "Education, Individual Moder-
nity, and National Development: A Critical Appraisal."
The Journal of Developing Areas, 11:3, 1977.

 

Inkeles, Alex. "The Modernization of Man." In Moderni-
zation: The Dynamics of Growth. Edited by M. WeIner.
*New YSrk: Basic Books, 19661

 

. "Making Men Modern."- American Journal of Socio-

Iogy, 75 (September):208-225.

 

and David Smith. Becoming Modern. Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 197A.

 

and Donald Holsinger (Eds.). Education and Indivi-
dual Modernity in Developing Countries. Leiden: The
Netherlands, E.J. Brill, 197A.

 

Kahl, J.A. The Measurement of Modernism: A Study of Values
in Brazil and Mexico. Austin: University of Texas
Press, 1968.

 

 

Kerlinger, Fred. Foundations of Behavioral Research. Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973.

 

Klineberg, S. "Parents, Schools and Modernity: An Explora—
tory Investigation of Sex Differences in the Atti-
tudinal Development of Tunisian Adolescents." In
Education and Individual Modernity in Developing
Countries. Edited by A. Inkeles and D. Holsinger.
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 197A, pp. 65-88.

 

Kumar, Krishna. "Education, Innovative Behavior and Indivi-
dual Modernity in a Developing Society: An Attempt in
Model Construction." Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1972.

141

Lerner, Daniel. The Passing of Traditional Society.
Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1958.

McClelland, D.C. The Achievirg Society. Princeton, New
York: Van Nostrand Company, 1961.

Ministry of Higher Education. The Educational Policy in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Riyadh, 3.A}, 1978.

. Statistics of Saudi Students Abroad, 1982/83, 5th
ISsue. Riyadh, S.A., 1982/83.

 

. Statistics of Higher Education in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia. Riyadh, S.A., 1982/83.

 

. Statistics of Saudi Students Abroad, 1983/8“, 6th
ISsue. Riyadh, S.A., 1983/852

 

. Higher Education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Riyadh, S.A., 198R.

. Statistical Index on Pro ress of Hi her Education
from 1969776 to 1983783. 2nd Issue, giyadh, S.AT}
1985.

Ministry of Egucation. Summary Statistics, 198A/85. Riyadh,
S.A., 19 5.

 

 

 

Ministry of Planning. Third Development Plan, 1980—1985.
Riyadh: Ministry of Planning, 1980.

Moore, W. "World Modernization: The Limits of Convergence."
New York: Elsevier Press, 1979. Quoted in L. Saha and
L. Fagerlind. In Education and National Development,

 

1983.

Nachmias, Chava and Ezra Sadan. "Individual Modernity,
Schooling and Economic Performance of Family Farm
Operation 1J1 Israel." International Journal of

 

Comparative Sociology, XVIII:3-u, 1977.

Open Doors: 1982-83. (Report on International Educational
Exchange.) ’New York: Institute of International
Education, 1983.

 

Portes, A” "On the Sociology of National Development:
Theories and Issues." American Journal of Sociology,
82:1, 1976.

 

"Modernity and Development: A Critique. Studies
in Comparative International Development, 8:3, 1973.

 

142

Sack, Richard. "Education and Modernization in Tunisia: A
Study on the Relationship between Education and Other
Variables. and Attitudinal Modernity." Ph.D. Disser-
tation, Stanford University, 1972.

. "The Impact of Education on Individual Modernity
In Tunisia." In Education and Individual Modernity in

 

Developing Countries, pp. 89-116. Edited by A. Inkeles
and D. Holsinger. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 197A.

 

Saha, L. and L. Fagerlind. Education and National Develop:
ment: Comparative Perspective. Pergamon7Press, 1983.

 

 

Schnaiberg, Allan. "Measuring Modernism: Theoretical and
Empirical Explorations." American Journal of Socio-

 

logy, 76:3, 1970.

Smith, B.M. "A Perspective for Further Research on Cross-
Cuhfural Education." J. Soc. Issues, 12(1):56-58,
195 .

Stephenson, thnt "Is Everyone Going Modern? .A Critique
and A Suggestion for Measuring Modernism." American

 

Journal of Sociology, 7A (Nov.) 1968.

Suzman, Richard. "Psychological Modernity." Inn Education
and Individual Modernity in Emveloping Countries, pp.
117-131. Edited by A. Inkeles and D. Holsinger.
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 197A.

 

 

Szyliowicz, Joseph. Education and Modernization in the
Middle East. London: Cornell University Press, 1973.

 

 

Tipps, Dean. "Modernization Theory and the Comparative
Study of Societies: A Critical Perspective." Compara-

 

tive Studies in Society and History, 15:2, 1973.

 

Waisanen, F.B. "Education and Participation in Develop-
ment." Acta Sociologica, 1A, 1971.

 

and Krishna Kumar. "Education, Adaptation of
Innovations and Individual Modernity." International

 

 

Journal of Comparative Sociology, XX, 3-h, 1972.

 

Weis, Lois. "The Impact of Secondary Education on Atti-
tudinal Modernism: A Ghanain Case Study." Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1978.

Ziegler, Ronald. "Individual Modernity Among International
Students: A Comparative Study Based on the Inkeles and
Smith OM Scale." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Maryland, 1983.

"7'7111'11'1111111111“