DOCTORAL DISSERTATION SERIES t i t l e r#£ as 7#£ A4/er-r/*f£ STV6EMT ASf/STAVT /A ££S fD £A (C £ //A LLS 7 # £ MEA/iS a£ S /S T £ /V VA/W££S/r/ES MAX author UNIVERSITY. ££/£} &A//YSS /W Ctf S rA T £ c o t t . DEGREE _ / y . . d DATE _ PUBLICATION NO. 'I'l'MI'I'l^'I'I'I'I'I'I'I'^'I'IM'I'I'l'^ r r -p j! UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS I— I— ANN M ARBOR . MICHIGAN THE ROLE OB' THE PART-TIME STUD EM* AS SI START IN THE MEN'S RESIDENCE HALLS OF THE BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES BY MAX REID RAINES Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In the School of Education Michigan State College July, 1952 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his grateful consideration to Dr. Walter P. Johnson whose kindness and assistance were of great encouragement in the completion of this study* He is also greatly indebted to Dr. Clifford E. Erickson, who so patiently aided him in defining the topic and who served as a source of inspiration in the early stages of the investigation. Grateful acknowledgment is also due to the directors of theresidence hall guidance programs throughout the univer­ sities included in this study. These men who devoted con­ siderable time in distributing, collecting, and returning the questionnaire are listed as follows: Mr. Arnold Dammen, Assistant Director of Residence Halls, University of Wisconsin Mr. Robb Gardiner, Coordinator of Social Activities in the Men’s Residence Halls, Michigan State College Mr. Thomas Huit, Counselor of Men, University of Iowa Mr. E. R. Parks, Assistant Director of Residence Halls, Purdue University Mr. S. G. Chris Savage, Director of Counseling, Men’s Residence Halls, Indiana University Mr. Calvin S. Sifferd, Supervisor of Counseling, Residence Halls, University of Illinois Mr. James Schroeder, Director of Pioneer Hall, University of Minnesota Mr. R. P. McGuigan, Counselor to Men, Northwestern University Without the cooperation of these men this investigation would not have been possible. The writer also wishes to thank the typists, Mrs. E. P. Wright and Mrs. Beth Nanney who so patiently and diligently devoted their efforts in the preparation of the manuscript. The patience of the writer’s wife and her helpful suggestions were invaluable throughout this undertaking. M. R. R. i Max Reid. Raines candidate for tne degree of Doctor of Philosophy Final examination, July 17, 1952, Is30 P. M., Counseling and Guidance Conference Room Dissertation: The Role of the Part-time Student Assistant in the Men's Residence Halls of the Big Ten Universities Outline of Studies Major subjects: Education, Counseling and Guidance Minor subject: Sociology Biographical Items Born, September 17, 1923, Sullivan, Indiana Undergraduate Studies, DePauw University, 1o)|1 J|); Graduate Studies, Indiana University, I9I4.6 —l+P, Michigan State College, 191+9-52 Experience: Head Counselor, Men's Residence Halls, Indiana University, 19lf.6-I(.8, Counselor of Men, University of Tulsa, 19U8-U9, Supervisor of Student Teachers, Director of Student Personnel, Appalachian State Teachers College, 1951-52 I THE ROLE OF THE PART-TIME STUDENT ASSISTANT IN THE MEN’S RESIDENCE HALLS OF THE BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES By Max Reid Raines An Abstract Submitted to the School of Education of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling and Guidance Year Approved 1952 THE THESIS ABSTRACT Statement of the problem. It was the purpose of this study (1 ) to define the role of the part-time student assist­ ant as it pertained to his functions in the men’s residencehall personnel programs of the Big Ten Conference of Univer­ sities; (2) to determine the attitudes of the personnel staff members (including the part-time student assistant) toward the functioning role of the student assistant; and (3 ) to evaluate his role as an agent for extending the personnel services of these universities. Methodology. A questionnaire listing thirty-six tentative functions of the part-time student assistant were mailed to eight of the men’s residence hall programs in the Big Ten, A sample of responses was obtained from the admin­ istrative and student assistant staff members. They were asked to make judgments of the practice in their programs and to express their attitudes toward the practice. A two-thirds majority consensus from administrators and student assistants was considered to be ind3cative of the practice and of the attitudes toward the practice. Conclusions and recommendations. It was concluded that (1 ) the student assistant performed a wide variety of custodial, special staff, proctoral, counseling, group guidance, resource, and group morale functions, (2 ) contra­ dictory functions frequently caused inconsistencies in his role as a personnel agent, (3 ) the demands of too many functions frequently abused the part-time concept thus resulting in an inadequate performance, (1|.) insufficient training reduced potential effectiveness, and (5 ) there was a need for clarification of many functions within these programs. On the basis of the results and conclusions of the study standards of evaluation were proposed and an organiza­ tional plan to meet these standards was suggested. The plan called for graduate counselors who would participate in these programs as a part of their internship in the fields of psychology or of counseling and guidance. Under this plan the student assistant would emphasize his role as a group ”stimulator” and would be relieved of counseling functions for which he is doubtfully prepared. Conflicts in the roles now played by the student assistant would be reduced and the functions performed would be more in keep­ ing with his qualifications. TABLE OP CONTENTS CHAPTER I. PAGE INTRODUCTION ................................ The problem .............................. Statement of the p r o b l e m .............. .. Significance of the problem ............ Background and orientation of the study . Basic assumptions of the study . . . . . . Limitations of the study . . . . . . . . . Definition of terms used .................. General approach to the problem Organization of the study II. .......... ................ A REVIEW OP THE RELATED LITERATURE .......... The development of housing in American . . . universities........ .................... Review of the related literature . . . . . . Implications for education .............. . Suggested objectives, standards, and . . . . evaluative criteria for residence hall . . Role of residence halls in student ........ personnel programs ...................... Internal structure of residence hall . . . . personnel programs ........ Research and evaluation studies of . . . . residence hall programs . . ................ CHAPTER PAGE A summary of the literattare reviewed . . . . in each category III. ........ . ........... ORGANIZATION OP THE DATA . . ................ Development of the questionnaire .......... The Response Symbols ...................... Identification of the Respondents The Pilot Study . . • • .................... Selection of the sample . . . . . . . Organisation of the data ............ IV. ANALYSIS OP THE RESPONSES OP PROGRAM C . Introduction . .................... Custodial items . . .................. Special staff Items Proctoral items « • ............ ... . . .............. Counseling items .................... Group guidance i t e m s .......... . Resource and liaison items .......... Public relations and group morale . . Summary of the responses to the freeresponse questions ................ V. ANALYSIS OF THE RESPONSES OP PROGRAM 0 . Introduction ........................ Custodial items .................... Special staff items Proctoral items ................ .............. • • CHAPTER Counseling items ........................ Group guidance items .................... Resource and liaison items . . . ........ Public relations and group morale . Summary of the responses to the free- VI. .. . . . response questions .............. . . . ANALYSIS OP THE RESPONSES OPPROGRAM M .. . Introduction ............................ Custodial items ........................ Special staff items Proctoral items .................... ........................ Counseling items . . .................... Group guidance items . . . . ............ Resource and liaison items .............. Public relations and group morale . . . . Summary of the responses to the freeresponse questions .......... VII. ..... ANALYSIS OF THE RESPONSES OP PROGRAM B Introduction Custodial items Counseling items .. . .......... ........................ Special staff I t e m s ........... Proctoral Items . . . . . . ........................ ...................... Group guidance items .................... Resource and liaison items .............. CHAPTER Public relations and group morale . . . . Summary of the responses to the free- . . response questions .................... VIII. ANALYSIS OF THE RESPONSES OF PROGRAM I . . . Introduction Custodial items .........«,........... ........................ Special staff items Proctoral Items .................... ........................ Counseling items ........................ Group guidance items .................... Resource and liaison items .............. Public relations and group morale . . . . Summary of the responses to the free- . . response questions .................... IX. ANALYSIS OF THE RESPONSES OF PROGRAM N . . . Introduction ............................ Custodial items ........................ Special staff items Proctoral Items .................... ....................... Counseling items ........................ Group guidance i t e m s ............ .. . . . *s Resource and liaison items .............. Public relations and group morale • . . . Summary of the responses to the free- . . response questions .................... CHAPTER X. ANALYSIS OP THE RESPONSES OP PROGRAM E . • • Introduction . . . . . . ............ Custodial items ................... Special staff items Proctoral Items . ................ ................ . . Counseling items ..................... Group guidance items ................ Resource and liaison items .......... Public relations and group morale . . Summary of the responses to the freeresponse questions .............. XI. • • • ... . ANALYSIS OP THE RESPONSES OF PROGRAM D . . . . Introduction . ........................... Custodial items ........................... Special staff items Proctoral items . . ..................... ......................... . Counseling items ................... Group guidance items .............. Resource and liaison items ........ Public relations and group morale • * Summary of the responses to the free- • • response questions ....................... XII. A SUMMARY ANALYSIS OP THERESPONSESFROM . . . EACH PROGRAM .............................. Introduction ....................... .... PAGE CHAPTER Accepted items .................... Differentiating items . • ................ Rejected items ........................ Indecisive i t e m s ............... . . . . C o n c l u s i o n s .............. ........... Indications of trends XIII. ................ EVALUATION.................... ......... Introduction . ........................ Suggested standards of evaluation . . . Proposed organizational plan .......... Suggested areas for additional research LIST OP TABLES PAGE TABLE 1. Number of Questionnaires Sent and . . . Percentage of Return 2. . . . . . . . . The Sample of the Population at Each . of the Functioning Levels Within Each rrogram 3. Responses of Program £ to Custodial and . Special Staff Items . k. Responses of Program £ to Proctoral . . . Items . 5. Responses of Program £ to Counseling . . Items . 6. Responses of Program £ to Gr oup Gu id anc e . Items . 7. Responses of Program £ to Resource and . Liaison Items . . . . 8. Responses of Program £ to Public . . . . Relations and Group Morale Items 9. • . • Responses of Program 0 to Custodial and . H O • Special Staff Items . Responses of Program £ to Proctoral . . . Items . 11. Responses of Program 0 to Counseling Items . . • PAGE TABLE 12 . Responses of Program 0 to Group Guidance Items ............................... 13. Responses of Program 0 to Resource and Liaison I t e m s .......... ............ ill-. Responses of Program 0 to Public . • . Relations and Group Morale Items 1$. . . Responses of Program M to Custodial and Special Staff Items . . . . Responses 16 .......... of Program M to Proctoral . . Items ............................... 17. Responses of Program M to Counseling Items ............................... 18. Responses of Program M to Group Guidance Items ............................... 19. Responses of Program M to Resource and Liaison Items ............ 20 . . . . . . Responses of Program M to Public ... Relations and Group Morale Items 21 . Responses • , of Program B to Custodial and Special Staff Items ................. 22 . Responses of Program B to Proctoral . . Items ................ 23. . . . . . . . Responses of Program B to Counseling I t e m s ............................... . A PAGE TABLE 21;. Responses of Program B to Group Guidance. I t e m s ....................... .. 25. Responses of Program B to Resource and Liaison Items .......... 26 . . . . . . . . Responses of Program B to Public . . . . Relations and Group Morale Items 27. . . • • Responses of Program I to Custodial and . Special Staff Items . . . . 28 • .......... Responses of Program _I to Proctoral . . . Items .................................. 29. Responses of Program _I to Counseling ......................... Items 30. . • . Responses of Program _I to Group Guidance. I t e m s ......................... .. 31. Responses of Program I to Resource and Liaison Items ....................... 32. Responses of Program I to Public . . . . Relations and Group Morale Items 33. ............ Responses of Program N to Proctoral • . • Items . . . . 35. ... Responses of Program N to Custodial and • Special Staff Items . . . 3b> • ......................... Responses of Program N to Counseling Items . . • • ............................. PAGE TABLE 36. Responses of Program N to Group Guidance Items .............................. 37. Responses of Program If to Resource and Liaison Items ...................... 38. Responses of Program N to Public . Relations and Group Morale Items 39. Responses of Program E ., .• to Custodialand Special Staff Items ................ 1|0 . Responses of Program E toProctoral .. I t e m s .................. ........... ill. Responses of Program E toCounseling . Items .............................. 1|2 . Responses of Program E to Group Guidance Items .............................. Responses of Program E to Resource and Liaison Items .................. ljlf- Responses of Program E toPublic . Relations and Group Morale Items 1+5. Responses of Program D . . .. •• to Custodialand Special Staff Items ................ I4.6 . Responses of Program D to Proctoral .. I t e m s .......... ......... .. 1+7. Responses of Program D Items . . . . . . . . to Counseling • .............. I PAGE TABLE I4.8. Responses of Program D to Group Guidance Items I|9. ............ ............... Responses of Program D to Resource and Liaison Items ...................... 50. Responses of Program D to Public Relations and Group Morale Items 5>1. , . . . . A Summary of All Responses to the . . . Que stionna ire........................ CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION I. THE PROBLEM Statement of the problem. It was the purpose of this study (1 ) to define the role of the part-time student assist­ ant as it pertained to his functions in the m e n ’s residencehall personnel programs of the Big Ten Conference of Univer­ sities; (2 ) to determine the attitudes of the personnel staff members (including tiie part-time student assistant) toward the functioning role of the student assistant; and (3 ) to evaluate his role as an agent for extending the personnel ser­ vices of these universities. Significance of the Problem. The demand for university- housing increased following World War I and many of the state universities In the mid-west constructed large dormitories to meet this pressing need. As a measure of protection for these costly Investments, It became the practice to employ house­ mothers, faculty members, and graduate students whose primary function was to control the behavior of the residents. Donald Halverson of Wisconsin was among the first of the Big Ten residence hall administrators to suggest a more posi­ tive approach In handling the personnel problems of the resi­ dence halls. As director of residence halls at Wisconsin, 2 he instituted the House Fellow System in 1926. This pro­ gram has since gained much recognition in the field of resi­ dence hall management. During this period Joseph A. Bursely, Dean of Students at the University of Michigan, and his associate Robert C. Angell proposed the idea for the Michigan House Plan. This plan which was similar to the residential programs of Harvard and Yale was eventually put into effect at Michigan. Although there were some differences in the philosophies of Wisconsin and Michigan housing programs, both of them exerted considerable influence on the thinking of residence hall administrators in most of the Big Ten universities. This influence resulted in a general shift from the negative approach which had emphasized control of behavior to the more positive approach of creating a social-educative atmosphere within the residence halls. Furthermore, this shift in approach resulted in a differ­ ent emphasis upon the selection of student proctors. To meet the demands of the new concept, proctors were selected on the basis of outstanding leadership characteristics and experi­ ences. The title in most cases was changed from "proctor* to one more in keeping with the personnel point of view. After World War II the demands upon housing facilities were tremendous. It was during this period that these upper­ classmen and graduate students who functioned under various 3 titles, came to be considered by administrators as indispensable to the adequate operation of these expanded programs* Because the staffs were so busy ’’getting the job done” and dealing with these "growing pains," there was little time to evaluate the role of this student assistant in many of the programs* As these programs have crystallized and have leveled off to some extent, several questions have arisen which need consideration* 1. How much responsibility in the counseling and guidance area is the student assistant capable of assuming and how much training is needed for him to attain this capacity? 2. How can the student assistant function as a partial agent for the control of resident behavior without jeopardi­ zing the rapport needed to serve them in a counseling or group leader capacity? 3* How much initiative can a student assistant safely assume in the organization of desirable activities among residents without weakening the structure of their own student self-government by fostering dependence? k.* What are the most satisfactory and successful methods which can be employed by the student assistant to strengthen the student self-government within his assigned living unit? These questions and many more need to be answered* Before they can adequately be discussed, however, the role of the student assistant in these programs needs to be defined* If this is true, then the significance of this study lay in the extent to which it was able to define this functioning role# Background and Orientation of the Study 1 In the fall of 19^1-7 a personal survey was made of the men’s residence hall counseling and activity programs to deter­ mine the nature and extent of these programs within the universities of the Big Nine Conference of Schools# 2 This previous study included descriptions and discussions of the following aspects of the m e n ’s residence hall programsi 1. Physical plant facilities 2. Administrative design 3. Selection, training and duties of staff members I4.. Problems confronting the staff 5>* Functional objectives of the programs 6. Student government structure and activities Each program was described in successive chapters but no attempt was made to compare the programs or to evaluate them. * Max Reid Raines, WA Survey of the Counseling and Acti­ vity Programs within the Men’s Residence Halls of the Big Nine Universities,” (Indiana: Master’s Thesis), 19^9. Unpublished. 398 pp. 2 This conference of universities again became the Big Ten Conference in 193>0 with the acceptance of Michigan State College as a replacement for the University of Chicago which resigned in the late thirties. 5 The following conclusions were drawn by the writer in the previous study and they operated in formulation of this dissertation: 1. In the area of physical facilities and structure (a) an attempt was at that time being made to divide large dormitories into smaller living units which would accommodate thirty to seventy men per unit; (b) there was a trend toward centralized dining facilities to reduce operational cost; (c) physical facilities were overcrowded due to the post-war influx in enrollment; and (d) food and rental costs seemed to vary according to the amount of the building deficit, the geographical location of the school, the standards main­ tained by the management, and the amount of yearly appropri­ ations, 2. It was indicated by the structure of these personnel programs that (a) such programs were the chief means of attain­ ing the objective of social education; (b) staff members func­ tioned at either an executive, supervisory, or operational level; (c) student counselors or assistants functioning at the operative level were graduate or upper class students chosen for their leadership experience and ability; and that (d) they performed duties classifiable as proctoral, clerical, counseling, or staff, 3* In consideration of the various problems confronting the staffs, (a) quiet hours presented the most universal 6 difficulty in the disciplinary area, and (b) poor study habits and general "griping” of residents were considered the most critical problems in the counseling area, ij.. Of the various functional objectives, developing social intelligence, promoting capable leadership, fostering a sense of belonginess, and the referral of problem cases were considered of primary importance; while orienting new students, providing academic, educational and vocational guidance, and maintaining personnel records were considered of secondary importance. 5* The attainment of objectives seemed to bear a rela­ tionship (a) to the general living conditions and physical facilities of the halls; (b) to the adequacy of screening and selection of staff members; (c) to the extent of inservice training of staff members; and (d) to the ratio of residents per student assistant, 6. There were varying degrees of emphasis on the role of student government in planning activities and handling student misconduct, 7* There was a definite need for a formal evaluation plan within these programs, Basic Assumptions of the Study The following basic assumptions were made in the con­ struction of this study: 1. There would be sufficient commonality in these 7 programs to make it possible to determine the general role of the part-time student assistant by the formulation of a questionnaire which listed tentative functions. 2. Acceptance or rejection of these tentative functions by two-thirds of the respondents sampled in each program would serve as a general indication of the practice within a program and would further serve as a basis for deriving the function­ ing role of the student assistant throughout these programs. 3. An expression of approval or disapproval of these accepted or rejected functions would serve as a possible indication of trends within these programs if this approval or disapproval occurred at a level of at least a two-thirds consensus among the respondents in a particular program. Limitations of the Study Perhaps the greatest limitation of this study lay in its inability to identify the manner in which these functions were performed by the part-time student assistants. This dynamic aspect is rooted within the personality of each student assistant who attempts to perform the functions outlined for him by the personnel administrators who select him and give him training for this work. The second limitation was one which exists for any study which is conducted from an external rather than an internal frame of reference. This limitation perhaps was reduced by i 8 the fact that the functions listed in the questionnaire were derived from a previous study of these programs, A third limitation resulted from the attempt to make the items of the questionnaire specific enough to be meaningful but also broad enough to be applicable to all of the programs. This attempt was successful on the majority of items; however, it did fail on a few items. These failures were noted in the analysis of the data, A fourth limitation was a result of an inadequate sample from some of the schools* To reduce this limitation, analysis of the data was kept at a descriptive level. The fifth and last limitation resulted from the necessity of keeping the identity of the various programs anonymous. This prevented the use of much interpretative information which by its very nature would have revealed the identity of the programs. The heads of these programs were asked if the writer might be released from the original agreement to keep the analysis of the data anonymous. Pour of them agreed that this might be done but the remaining four did not feel that they could comply with this request. In view of this feeling the writer believed that he should conform to his original agreement. I 9 II. Personnel staff. DEFINITION OF TERMS This term was used to denote those individuals who were directly concerned with the development of a guidance and counseling program within the men’s resi­ dence halls and not to include those who were primarily con­ cerned with management of physical plant operation unless both of these roles were assigned to individual staff members. Part-time student assistants. This term pertained to those personnel staff members in these various programs who were operating at the level nearest to the resident and who were expected to perform certain functions in effectuating the program. Such staff members have been called counselors, proctors, student counselors, resident assistants, staff assistants, assistant resident advisors, and house fellows. The writer has used the term part-time student assistant (or student assistant) because of its descriptive terminology and because it is not used in any of the programs studied. Role of the part-time student assistant. This term was used to denote the configuration of functions performed by the student assistant. It does not include the resulting and dynamic inter-personal relationships with the residents and remaining staff members except as they are reflected in the attitudes expressed toward the functions. Function. This term was used to denote the configuration i 10 of specific and closely related duties performed b y the student assistant. Item. The word item was used w h e n referring to t e n t a ­ tive functions listed b y the writer in the questionnaire. An item was considered as a function in a particular p r o g r a m only after a two-thirds majority of the respondents agreed that the item was a function in their program. In cases vshere the sample was limited the data were interpreted in view of the limitations. Functioning l e v e l s . This term applied to those indi­ viduals who were related to the programs in various adminis­ trative and operative capacities. They were categorized as fol lows: Level I. - Level of Policy F o r m ation. This level Includes those administrative officials who served on the committee which formulates the over-all policy for the residence halls. Level II. - Level of Planning and Initiation. This level Includes the official or officials who are specifically responsible for planning and initiating the counseling p r o g r a m of the m e n ’s residence halls. Level III. - Level of Implementation and Supervision. This leveT includes all those functionaries of the m e n ’s residence halls w h o are responsible for assisting the official or officials at Level II b y supervising the work of the part-time student assistants who are employed in the program. 11 Level IV, - Level of E x e c u t i o n , This level includes the part-time student assistants who function at the level nearest to the resi­ dent. Response p a t t e r n s . Since the respondents were asked to make judgments as to whether an item was or was not a function and further to express their opinions as to whether it should or should not be a function, these responses to each item resulted in response patterns. Respondent. A n y individual who participated in this study by responding to the questionnaire was called a respondent regardless of the level at which he functioned. 12 III. GENERAL APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM After the problem had been defined the previous sur­ vey was examined carefully and all of the stated or implied duties of the student assistants within these programs were extracted and categorized into broader statements which were called tentative functions. ■a listed in questionnaire^ forth. These functions were then The questionnaire and proposal for the study was pre­ sented to the writer’s doctorale committee ^1 for approval. The committee approved the topic and it was their feeling that this should not be ’’just another questionnaire survey*’ but that It should be evaluative as well as descriptive in nature. Following this, letters were written to the heads of the personnel programs In each of the m e n ’s residence hall programs of the respective Big Ten universities. This letter proposed the study and all of the programs accepted the proposal except the one at the University of Michigan. The latter declined because of the previous number of surveys conducted that year. ^ Appendix II. ^ This committee was composed of the following members: Clifford E. Erickson, chairman; C. V. Millard, Milosh Mintyan Clyde Campbell, and Walter F. Johnson. The latter member became chairman upon Dr. Erickson’s resignation from the Michigan State College Institute for Guidance, Counseling, and Testing to become Dean of the Basic College at Michigan State College. 13 Although Ohio State originally agreed to participate in the study, the questionnaires were not returned and no reason was given. In view of the findings of the previous survey, which revealed that Ohio State had not instituted a personnel program including student assistants, it was concluded that student assistants had not been appointed yet. Due to an error in counting,program B received 21+ questionnaires and returned all of them. There did not seem to be any reason as to why this extra questionnaire should not be used since the writer did not attempt in any way to equate the samples. The adequacy of the samples are discussed in Chapter III. The return was considered satisfactory especially in view of the necessity for depending upon the heads of these various programs to distribute, collect,and return the questionnaires• The eight schools represented in this study are listed as follows: 1. The University of Illinois 2. Indiana University 3. The University of Iowa ![.. Michigan State College 5* The University of Minnesota 6. Northwestern University 7. Purdue University 8. The University of Wisconsin As previously mentioned, part of the schools wished to remain anonymous in their participation. It was felt that to reveal the identity of those programs which had no objections to being identified might result in destroy­ ing the anonymity of the remaining schools* For this reason, each school was assigned a code letter. This code letter^ was underlined and used throughout the study to refer to a men's reside nee-hall personnel p r o g r a m in a specific school. The letters were assigned arbitrarily. ^ For example? Program B returned a greater number of questionnaires than p r o g r a m M. The questionnaires were mailed during the early part of May, 1951 and were returned during June and the early part of July* Table I shows the number of questionnaires sent to each school and the percentage of return from each school, NUMBER OP QUESTIONNAIRES SENT AND PERCENTAGE OP RETURN TABLE I, Program* Program G Number sent Number returned Percentage of returns 23 22 .96 Program 0 23 23 1.00 Program M 23 IT .79 Program B 2k 2k Program I 23 8 .35 Program N 23 20 .87 Program E 23 22 .96 Program D 23 21 .91 185 157 .80 TOTAL 1.00 «■ Program refers to the men*s residence personnel program within a particular university included in this study. Code letters were employed to preserve the anonymity of these schools. 16 Organization of the Study The first part of this study is devoted to the following: Chapter I, A statement of the problem, a discussion of its significance and limitations, a definition of terms, and a discussion of the general approach* Chapter II* A brief historical background, a review of the writer*s previous survey, and a review of the related literature* Chapter III. A discussion of the derivation of the questionnaire, an explanation of the sampling technique, and a discussion of the validity and reliability of the data. The second part of the study (Chapters IV. through XII.)is concerned with an analysis of the data obtained from each school and a summary analysis of all of the programs In­ cluded in the study. The third and last part of the study (Chapter XIII) is devoted to conclusions regarding the role of the student assistant and to an evaluation of his functions in terms of the student personnel point of view. CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE A Brief Background of the Residential Housing Movement in American Universities-^In the thirteenth century large numbers of young students sought admission to the few existing colleges. Since medieval cities rarely numbered more than five thou­ sand in population, this influx of students resulted in severe housing shortages. These students, predominately in their early teens, were forced to live in boarding houses and to govern them­ selves. The conditions in these houses were often so unde­ sirable that discontent led to open clashes among the students and occasionally caused conflicts between students and townspeople. In England, Oxford and Cambridge were the first to take action to remedy this undesirable situation. Housing plans and methods of supervision were developed and ultimately led to the formation of residential colleges which have continued without much change to the present day. ^ The material used In this brief historical sketch was taken from the following source: W. H. Cowley, "The History of Student Residential Housing," School and Society, XXXX (December 1 and 8, 193^-)* pp. 7 o f - i 2 T ! 5 E ^ -------- 13 In Paris and Bologna the schools continued their lalsaez faire approach, and as a result the students took the initiative in establishing cooperative houses called hostels. As the various hostels became more firmly established, it was not unusual for them to receive aid from wealthy alumni, a situation not unlike that among our present-day fraternity alumni groups. In this way many students with meager finances found it possible to get an education. Gradually, however, the universities found it ex­ pedient to assert some control over these hostels. They gained their control through insistance upon the right to approve or disapprove the elected head of the hostel. Later the universities insisted on appointing faculty members to manage the hostels. measure of control. This procedure gave them an increased With faculty members serving as the heads of the hostels it was natural that students in certain fields should select their hostels on the basis of the subject matter area of the faculty member. Residential colleges were the result of this trend. During the Reformation, however, the colleges of central Europe abandoned the college plan and returned to the laissez faire procedure. Prance had wished to perpetrate the residential college plan but was forced to give it up during the I 19 Revolution and was never able to re-establish it following the period. The rebellion against church authority led by Luther added impetus to this movement. Faculty members withdrew from the colleges, donned civilian clothes, and frequently married and reared families. The trend from moral training to academic training reduced faculty interest in student behavior outside the classroom. Because of England’s relative isolation from the continent, these trends did not reach her colleges; so her residential plan continued in development. The Development of Housing in American Universities Since early American culture was predominately influenced by England, the attitudes toward higher education favored the residential college system. Deep religious convictions among the colonists also made this approach more appealing, since the young students could more readily be supervised under this tutorial system. The great distances traveled by the young students made such a plan almost imperative. At Oxford and Cambridge the disciplinary functions of faculty members were assigned to proctors and this practice resulted in a greatly improved relationship between students and faculty. Lack of funds, however, prevented American colleges from adopting this plan. As a result friction 20 became severe, and during the first part of the nineteenth century numerous student rebellions resulted in considerable destruction of property and occasionally in bloodshed. By the middle of the century there was a great outcry against the plan from the faculty as well as from the students* Also, during this period many American faculty members were going to Germany for graduate study and as a result of their visits were considerably impressed by the academic philosophy of the Germans. This influence caused Philip Henry Tappan, President of the University of Michigan, to take the lead in abolishing the residaitial plan. His action found considerable favor in the West and Mid-west and resulted in the establishment of the laissez faire approach to housing for the first time in America, As in Paris during the thirteenth century, American students began to rent boarding houses and to establish fraternal groups. These groups were opposed bitterly by the faculty but found considerable favor among the students* Alumni and students alike were quite disturbed about the disappearance of college life* Much to the surprise of the educational world, the University of Chicago took the lead in re-establishing dormitories at the turn of the century. President Woodrow Wilson of Princeton, a great admirer of the English system, encouraged a return to residential colleges but was met with 21 considerable criticism from the alumni of fraternal groups at Princeton. Although he failed in his direct attempt, A. Lawrence Lowell, President of Yale, eventually achieved this same goal by long range planning. Perhaps the most powerful force in this trend of return­ ing to residence halls came from the oo-educationalizing of our universities. For many years women's colleges throughout the East had carried on successful residential plans, and the new deans of women, who came largely from these colleges, insisted repeatedly on the establishment of residence halls for women. Thus, yielding to these forces, the universities of the nation gradually re-instated residence halls for both men and women. Review of the Related Literature Very little documented research was found in the liter­ ature. Most of the material consisted of the observations and reflective thinking of those employed in or related to such programs with a minimum of objective data included in these articles. The writings reviewed seemed to pertain to one or more of the following categories: I. Implications of residential living for the attainment of educational objectives II. Objectives, standards, and evaluative criteria suggested for residence-hall personnel programs III. Role of these programs in the total personnel services of a college or university I 22 IV. V. Internal structure of residence hall personnel programs as related to: A. Organizational and administrative structure B. Role of various types of staff members C. Qualifications, selection, and training of staff members D. Needs and problems of students Methods and techniques of research used in evaluating these programs. A great portion of the writings dealt with descriptions and standards of physical facilities. The vital importance of good food and good housing as a basis for a good personnel program was recognized; however, since these aspects were not the major concern of this study, they were omitted unless they had a direct bearing upon the organizational structure of the personnel programs. Implications for Education In consideration of the implications of residential housing for higher education, Sifferd 2 states that If we are concerned with the education of the whole student, then we must recognize the residence hall’s potentiality for achieving that goal. He believed that democratic living can best be learned through actual experience and that residence halls provide a nature setting for this experience. According 2 Calvin S. Sifferd, Residence Hall Counseling, (Bloom­ ington, Illinois: McKnight and MeKnight, 1950), pp. 181-187. to Sifferd,residence halls must be considered in terms of their potential contribution to education and not in terms of their financial return. He emphasized that they must never be considered separately from the total educational objectives of the college or university. Thompson-^ pointed out that the role of residence halls in education becomes increasingly important as our culture becomes more inter-dependent. She held that residence halls offer a great potential for social education and that social education deserves to be placed among the objectives of higher education. On the basis of her research study she concluded that the process of learning which goes on in residence halls is rooted in the ’’dynamic forces of social interaction.” Lind^" agreed that residence halls represent a concrete socializing experience and that it answers many questions for students left unanswered in the curriculum. She believed that the guidance programs within residence halls were in complete agreement with the organismic concept of education. She cautioned, however, that such programs must be directed by a competent staff if the objective of social education 3 Florence Thompson, ’’The Use of Dormitories for Social Education,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, VII, No. 3, Part II (Autumn,“ l9l£27, pp. 61+8-6£lj.7 ^ Melva Lind, ’’The College Dormitory as an Emerging Force in the New Education,” Association of American Colleges Bulletin, XXXII, (December, 19M>), PP. 5 2 9 - 3 ^ is to b© attained. Student governments must have some free­ dom to experiment if a sense of responsibility, self-reliance, and good citizenship are to be achieved. Lind further suggested that the residence hall can serve as the locus for integrating aca demic and social life, can provide opportunities for creative experiences through self-expression, and can assist in reform­ ing undesirable attitudes through a constructive approach. In another article Lind^ described the success of a small French residential house at Mt. Holyoke College in providing learning experiences for students who were learning French both from the point of view of mastering the language and customs as well as from the social educative point of view, Cheek^ concluded that residence halls can provide the natural place for merging of academic and social life if the halls are adequately equipped, if faculty members and outside speakers are brought in, if the head of the residence halls commands intellectual as well as social respect, and if the house libraries are well equipped. She felt that the general informal atmosphere was conducive to learning and that the future of residence halls lay in the integration of the aca­ demic and non-academic life, ^ Melva Lind, "An Experiment in the Art of Living,” Journal of Higher Education, XVII, (November, lpij-6), pp. i|33-36. ^ Mary Ashley Cheek, ”Re-organIzed Residence Halls,” Journal of Higher Education, VII (October, 1936 )5 PP* 371-376, 25 Chapman? suggested that four* factors have deterred the proper concept of residence halls: 1. Academic intellectualism which is non-student centered* 2. The desire of officials to control behavior of residents in order to protect their investments. 3. The use of proctors who control behavior rather than counselors who attempt to understand it. 1*. The failure to see its potential contribution as a student personnel service. He also 3tated that in residence halls students are more easily and often contacted, that they are more relaxed, that all types of problems can be observed, and that the residents can develop desirable habits through desirable activities. Hayes,® in one of the pioneer studies regarding the physical facilities of dormitories, came to the following conclusions after reviewing the statements of outstanding educators throughout the country. I. Student residence halls are found in threefourths of American institutions of higher education, and may be considered a well-established part of such institutions. ? Max J. Chapman, "Guidance in Student Residence Halls," Journal of Higher Education, XVII (January, 191+6), pp. 26-30. ® Harriet Hayes, Planning Residence Halls. (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1932), pp. 21+7. I 26 II* They have power greatly to further the essential purposes of colleges, which include the develop­ ment of socialized human beings as well as the promotion of scholarship* III* They may become a college’s be3t agency for pro­ motion of a democratic social life among its students— a life which should be rich in experi­ ence and broadening in its influence. IV. They may be economically advantageous both to the students and to the institution.^ G i b b s ^ reported the Columbia, Teachers College experi­ ment of permitting six hundred women graduate students to prepare their own meals within a college-operated dormitory. Each girl brought her own food, cooked her own meals, and cared for her own utensils in specially designed kitchens. Of necessity the women developed their own rules and thus obtained a practical and co-operative experience In demo­ cratic living. The writer felt that the experience more adequately prepared the women for the teaching profession because of its practical socializing aspects. Lipscomb and F e n t o n ^ pointed to the need for Intern training of counseling and guidance candidates and recommended 9 Ibid., p. 13. I® Elizabeth C. Gibbs, "Democratic Living in a College Residence Hall," Journal of Home Economics, XXXI (January, 1939), pp* 365-36F: 11 Lipscomb, Mary Lee and Norman Fenton, "Using University Dormitories in Training Guidance Specialists," School and Society, LVII, No. (February, 19^3), pp.21+8-21+9. 11+70 * 27 the use of the college dormitory as a laboratory because of the variety of experiences it can provide young trainees. Their recommendations were based on a survey which revealed that eighteen out of twenty-nine cooperating institutiones utilized graduate students as dormitory assistants. remainder used both graduate and undergraduate. The Despite the fact that the majority of the graduate assistants were majoring in education or psychology, there were only five schools out of thirty which had obtained assistance from the school of education in recruitment and selection of dormi­ tory assistants. They concluded that there Is a need for greater co­ ordination in this area. Suggested Objectives, Standards, and Evaluative Criteria for Residence Hall Programs Upon examination of the writings pertaining to this area, it became apparent that In the listing of objectives and standards the writers were dealing with desirable out­ comes in student behavior and adjustment as well as with the role of the residence hall in producing these outcomes. 28 Orme,-^ Warren,-*-3 Wilson,^- and Pels ted, 15 all of whom are experienced counselors in women’s residence halls, listed strikingly similar outcomes and conditions for producing them. The general feeling expressed by these writers may be summarized as followst 1, A congenial, well-equipped, and comfortable residence hall will encourage a sense of belonging, 2, A student government with freedom to make its own decisions will encourage social responsibility, self-discipline, leadership ability, self-reliance, and experience in co-operation, 3, A well-planned program of social activity will foster social skills, cultural interests, and self-expression and will stimulate intellectual interests, aesthetic appreciation, ethical values, and social adjustment, I+. An adequately trained and qualified personnel staff is basic to the attainment of these con­ ditions and subsequent outcomes. 12 Rhoda Orme, Counseling in the Residence Halls, (New York* Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1950), ll+3 pp, Katherine Warren, "Education by our Dormitories and Residence Halls," Journal of the National Association of Deans of Women, XII, No, 2~TJanuary, 19I4.9 ) P P • 75-7B• V ^ Margaret Wilson, "A Vital Opportunity for Education Residence Halls for Women," Journal of the National Association of Deans of Women, X, No, 1 (October, 19ij-6, ) p p • 3^“36, Leona Wise Pelsted, "Dormitory Counseling and Social Adjustment," College and University, XXIV, No, 3, (April, 19*4-9), P. 3 7 ^ 29 It was interesting to note in these writings as well as the writings of other women in the field that academic environment was not as frequently mentioned as in the writings of the men in the field* Hayes-^ was primarily concerned with the physical and management aspect as a result of her previous investi­ gation. ^-7 She felt that if colleges are to provide a normal and desirable social life for their students they must: (1) equip them with club rooms, lounges and social rooms for more formal receiptions, (2) develop a management policy which puts students at ease, (3) base social activities on student interests, and (5) provide maximum freedom for student self-government. Harriet Hayes, "College Residence Halls and the Social Needs of Students." Journal of Home Economics, XXI, (October, 1929), PP* 7£6-757* ^ Harriet Hayes, Planning Residence Halls. (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1932), pp. 2ltf» i 30 S. Earl Thompson,1® Director of Residence Halls at Illinois University proposed the following objectives in his doctoral dissertation: 1. Significant contributions to an academic environment favorable to scholastic success through assistance to the individual in main­ taining incentive, purpose and direction in his scholastic efforts. Provision for liaison with other student welfare agencies to whom the student can go for assistance. Help in the establishment of study habits and time scheduling. 2. Provision for the establishment of an parti­ cipation in democratic group government through Insistence upon the rights and responsibilities of the housing group to govern itself* 3. Encouragement of proper habits for health and recreation through participation by residents in sports programs, provision for exercise and recreation in the time schedule, discussions with individuals concerning problems of personal hygiene, and referrals to the health service or psychiatrist. 1|.. Encouragement of group and individual social development through helping each resident to become acquainted with the group. Encouraging the development of a social activity program within the house conceived In the service and intimately geared to the needs, interests, and purposes of the particular body of students in which It is to function. Securing the partici­ pation of each resident in the social program of the house and of the larger all-university group• 5. Promotion of personal adjustment to the problems of everyday life in co-operation with other student welfare agencies by helping Individuals Samuel Earl Thompson, The Place of Housing in the Student Personnnel Program for Institutions of Higher learning. (Bloomington, Illinois: University7 of Illinois: Doctoral Thesis, 194-8)* 306 pp. Typed. I 31 to meet their problems realistically, with sound judgment and constructive action, after investi­ gation of all reliable sources of information bearing upon the problem under consideration,-*-?* Florence T h o m p s o n , ^ Director of Women*s Residence Halls at Indiana State Teachers College, used general areas of student needs proposed by the Progressive Education Association in the summary of her survey of residence hall programs in 179 colleges and universities. After analyzing the responses of the residents in these programs, she con­ cluded that these programs were filling these needs in the following areas f 1. In personal living, by aiding the residents: (a) to build a satisfactory personal philosophy through opportunities for self expression, (b) to develop emotional maturity, (c) to acquire knowledge, (d) to develop wholesome attitudes, interests, and appreciations, and (e) to develop social skills and techniques* 2. In personal-social relationships by enabling the residents: (a) to learn social customs, (b) to formulate and evaluate friendships, and (c) to develop the ability to get along with others* 3* In social-civic relationships by encouraging the residents: (a) to discover techniques for working with groups, (b) to learn the meaning of group responsibility, (c) to develop greater consideration for others, (d) to recognize the need for appropriate regulations, (e) to learn the importance of cooperation, (f) to experience loyalty to the group, (g) to develop tolerance toward others, and (h) to experience freedom of choice* ibid., pp. 159-160. 20 Florence Thompson, "The Use of Dormitories for Social Education," Educational and Psychological Measurement, VII, No. 3, Part II (Autumn, 1914-2), pp. 32 •^n economic relationships she found little mention of actual experience and she attributed this to the lack of financial strain of the period. In her survey of successful practice in the residence halls of w o m e n ’s colleges, co-educational universities, and m e n ’s universities, Stewart2-*- concluded that the goals and aims frequently stated in the literature were generally modified to fit the philosophy of the university. She found considerable variation in academic development and on social development. There was a trend to use student government as a means of behavioral control and regulation. The social programs of residence halls varied on the basis of the extent of fraternity and sorbrity life in the university, upon the requirements pertaining to students living in the dormitory, on the proximity to a city, and on the availability of student unions. Role of Residence Halls in Student Personnel Programs The co-ordination between the business and personnel aspects of residence halls has been stressed by S, Earl Thompson of Illinois more than perhaps by any other official In the Big Ten* He has stated his position regarding this matter rather strongly# 2* Helen Q, Stewart, Some Social Aspects of Residence Halls for College Women. (New York: Professional and Technical Press, 19^2), P. 188, 33 No successful institutional housing p r o g r a m can he hoped for unless there is complete correlation between the physical aspects of the operation, which includes good h o using and good food, and the personnel operation, which includes good morale and good educational p r a c ­ tices including opportunities for social growth . . . This be passed Residents units w h o the total budgeting services, concept of centralized responsibility should down through the organization to the Head in individual university-operated housing should control and carry responsibility for p r o g r a m in that particular unit including and financial control,'housekeeping, food social and educational programs# 2 In keeping with this concept he recommended that the housing director report to the dean of students and the director of the physical plant. In this w a y the two phases are co-ordinated b y one person. He further recommended that the supervisor of the counseling program hold a staff rather than a line office with the remaining staff members of both the management and counseling phases holding line positions in the total residence hall organization. He believed that this type of approach was best suited to a co-ordinated program. Thompson also felt that the housing program functions as a part of the total personnel prog r a m in the following ways: 1# By getting the facts regarding housing to the students prior to his arrival on campus. 22 Samuel Earl Thompson, o p . c l t ., p. ll+7 2. By maintaining accurate records concerning housing accommodations available. 3. By maintaining safe, comfortable, and healthful standards throughout the housing. ij.. By providing maximum physical and educational advantages at a minimum cost to the students. 5. By providing a social and educational guidance program. 6. By assisting the student living off campus to find a desirable residence. G i b b s ^ after interviewing ten dormitory administrators concluded that much co-ordination was needed between personnel and management and urged that each group attempt to gain greater appreciation of the problems of the other group. She felt that one person does not have sufficient time to do botla well, and thus the personnel director in the halls should serve as an assistant to the director of the physical plant. 2k Fe l s t e d ^ - stated that there must be a high degree of integration of the residence hall program with other agencies and services of the campus. She felt that many dormitory 23 Elizabeth C. Gibbs, "Cross-Educationing of the Residence Hall Staff,w Journal of Home Economics, XXXIV (October, I9J4.2 ), pp. 17-21. 2k Felsted, op. clt., p. 378* 35> programs could achieve their potentiality to a greater extent if their role was understood better b y faculty, university administrators, and other counseling agencies. The records kept by staff members in residence halls should provide a valuable source of information for the personnel office, Albright2^ was of the opinion that the entire aspect of dormitory management should be included under t h e university personnel program if the maximum benefits of such programs are to be realized. He recognized that this could not be done in some schools and felt that, if not, was mandatory for effective operation. close co-operation He thought that the size of enrollment, type of school, location, clientele, type of support, and existing personnel were the factors which influenced the type of organization, but that more dynamic than any of these, were the personalities involved. Internal Structure of Residence Hall Personnel Programs Admlnl a trat1ve approach and d e s i g n . of administration design Wi l s o n In consideration suggested a head resident 25 Preston B. Albright, "The Place of Residence Hall Organization in the Student Personnel Program," Educational and Psychological Measurement XI, No. 1+ (Winter, 19^1), pp. 700-703. 26 Margaret Wilson, "Dynamics of a Residence Hall Program," Occupations, XXIX, No. 2 (November, 1950), pp. 116-122. 36 who is well qualified and experienced to di r e c t the over-all program. The head resident should be assisted by one resident counselor in e a c h large dormitory who has her master*s degree in personnel work. These resident counselors should be assisted by assistant counselors who are assigned to the various living units and who are working for a master*s degree in the field of student personnel. 0hlsen^7 reviewed the various types of staff members who hold supervisory positions in residence hall personnel programs and suggested that full-time faculty members had insufficient time to do the job well. In their place he recommended the use of mature doctoral candidates in the field of student personnel because they are receiving the training and they are in need of experience. Ohlsen^® stated that their services can be supplemented by the use of onehalf time graduate assistants and in addition upper class student assistants who w o r k without pay. He further recommended the extensive use of committees composed of staff members to carry out special projects under the 27 Merle M. Ohlsen, "Developments in Residence Hall Counseling," Educational and Psychological Measurement, X, No. 3 ( A u t u m r T 9 £ 0 J 7 P P ^ W 5 - I i H J T -----------------Merle M. Ohlsen, "An In-service Training Program of Dormitory Counselors," Occupations, XXIX, No. 7 (April, 1951), PP. 532-314-. 37 direction of an executive committee. The function of this executive committee was to serve in an advisory capacity to the student personnel officers of the university, to function as a clearing house for successful and unsuccessful ideas, and to air the "gripes” of residents and staff members before university officials* Role of staff members functioning at various lev e l s * Orme has listed the duties of the head of residents as' follows: • * . (1 ) becoming acquainted w i t h all members of the house group, (2 ) being available to students for consultation, (3 ) helping students in various emergen­ cies such as illness and personal difficulties, (1|J co­ ordinating the information about the student on the personnel record, (5 ) acting as a consultant for others concerned with the student, (6 ) helping to train student advisers, (?) working with student government officers and with committees for the maintenance of ood government and harmonious living in the halls, 8 ) helping to direct the freshmen orientation, (9 ) assisting in assigning rooms and in adjusting difficulties w i t h room arrangements, (10) referring students to experts, (11) meeting parents, and (12) reporting student and dormitory problems to the office to w h i c h the counselor is responsible* ° f Q Crossen^® stated that the student assistant plays three roles. In relationship to the residents she is a big 29 Orme, o p . c l t . . p. 132* 3° Marion H* Crossen, "The Student Assistant in the Dormitory," Journal of the National Association of Deans of Women, X, No. 1 (October, I 9I+.6 ), pp. 27-29* ” 38 sister and is expected to provide a good example. this she must know and abide by the regulations, encouraging the others to do so* To do thus She must steer younger residents away from "pitfalls,” To the head of residence she is one who assumes a great deal of responsibility for guidance through the group. She uses the student government, group discussion, and other student activities to further better living among the resi ­ dents • To the dean she serves as ”an avenue of communication, a young p e rson with her ear to the ground who can come to her freely w ith suggestions, interpretations, and requests for a s s i s t a n c e . ^ Plank, 32 O h l s e n , 3 3 and S i f f e r d , 3 U revealed great similarity in their concept of the role of the student assistant. Each of them points to the student a s s i s t a n t s referral, resource, group guidance, advisory, public 31 Ibid,, p. 29. 32 c. C. Plank, ”It*s Not Alone for Knowledge,” Journal of Higher E d u c a t i o n . VIII (May, 1937)* PP* 2lj-5-252. 33 M. M, Ohlsen, "Developments In Residence Counseling," o p . olt., pp. I4.60-I4.6l. 3^- Sifferd, ojo, cit., pp. 69-73* Hall 39 relation, staff, liaison and counseling functions. The one aspect stressed as basic was that the student assistant must become well acquainted with all of his assigned residents* Sifferd cautioned against giving h i m any disciplinary responsibilities, and Ohlsen warned against using h i m as an inspector. All three recognized his importance as a sound­ ing board for student morale* Qualifications, selection, and training of staff members. O r m e ^ described the competent head resident as possessing sympathetic objectivity, warmth of manner, social graces, a reasonable personal adjustment, faith in students* capacity for self-direction, open mindedness, concern about spiritual values, cultural interests, and ability to laugh at herself. She recommends that the head resident be an older w o m a n with training and experience in personnel work and specific training in counseling. She found in her study of resident attitudes that the most important traits from the student point of view were a friendly manner, sincerity and frankness, consistency and fairness, and open-mindedness. The students further indi­ cated their desire for the head resident to treat them as adults, to have patience, to be trustworthy of confidences, to be intelligent, and to have ingenuity. Orme, Oja. clt., pp. 12ip-129 Wilson36 proposed that the head resident should have faculty status, a master*s degree in personnel work, energy and enthusiasm, an open and flexible mind, a democratic philosophy, ability and skill in group guidance, and faith in the importance of her work. SIfferd37 in his discussion of student counselors in the Illinois program pointed out that they should have a genuine interest in the problems of others and should be good natured, relaxed, emotionally stable, tolerant, alert, energetic, and talented if possible. He recommended above average scholastic attainment, broad extra-curricular exper­ ience, and previous residence in the halls. He felt that they should be graduate students who are a few years the senior of the residents* Dammen38 included many of the traits recommended by Sifferd but seemed to differ with the latter regarding the age of student assistants. Dammen, Assistant Director of Residence Halls at the University of Wisconsin, felt that the student assistant should be contemporary in age with 36 Wilson, op. cit., p. 3 6 . 37 Sifferd, op. cit., pp. 5^--65* 38 Arnold Dammen, "Residence Halls for Students," [This paper is Included in the following: E. G. Williamson, Trends in Student Personnel» (Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1949)* PP• ^170, PP* 252-259* the resident. This article further implied that Wisconsin places greater emphasis on the student assistantTs group leadership role than on his personal counseling role, Wilson39 classified the problems of residents con­ fronting the staff members as vocational, scholastic, social, emotional instability, family conflicts, theft, drinking, dishonesty, sex problems, health, financial worries, and social insecurity. Research and Evaluation Studies of Residence Hall Programs As previously mentioned, the number of writings in the literature based on actual research was extremely limited, Moulton,^® Walker,^ Van A1 stine,1*2 and Peterson,1*3 made conq?ared scholastic achievements of students living in various types of housing, Moulton, after studying the 39 Wilson, op, cit,, p, 36. 1*0 Etta Lee Moulton, "Dormitory Values for Students," School and Society, XXIX, No. 71*2, (March 16, 1929), pp.3 6 2 -3 6 3 ^ Earnest T. Walker, "Student Housing and University Suocess," School and Society, XXXXII, (October 26, 1935), PP. 575-577. 1*2 P, L, Van Alstine, "Relation Between Housing and Scholarship," Journal of Higher Education, XIII (March, 19^*2), pp. 158-159. 1*3 Basil H. Peterson, "The Scholarship of Students Housed in Various Living Quarters," School and Society, LVII, (February 20, 19l*3), p. 221. failing or near failing grades of women at Northern State Teachers College, found that those girls living in dormi­ tories had significantly fewer failing grades than those who lived in off—campus housing. On the basis of this study she recommended that administrative officials in that school strongly encourage students to live in the residence halls. Walker found in his study of students living in private homes, rooming houses, fraternities, and residence halls that the students living in the latter remained in school the kahgest number of quarters, made the highest average grades, graduated the largest percentage, and sub­ sequently enrolled the largest number for professional or graduate work. They also ranked first in scholastic honors and in extent of participation in extra-curricular activities. The private home group ranked second, the fraternity group third, and the rooming house group fourth. He felt that the results were made even more significant by the fact that the fraternity group revealed a significantly higher ability on the entrance examination. Peterson reported a three-year study of matched groups (Pall of 1939 to Spring of 191+2) at the California College of Agriculture at Davis. The purpose was to determine the effect of housing on college achievement. The enrollment varied during those years from 800 to 125>0, with never more than 200 women enrolled at one time. He matched the groups on the basis of sex, major, educational background, ! U3 and scholastic aptitude. He concluded that dormitories, co-operatives, rooming houses, and fraternity houses ranked in that order with regard to conduciveness to high scholas­ tic attainment. Van Alstine studied the records of 986 freshmen enrolled at the University of Minnesota in 1942 and found no signifi­ cant relationship between the type of housing and scholastic attainment. B u t t s ^ - made a comparative study at Wisconsin of those students in individual housing and those living in group housing. He concluded that the proximity to campus, finan­ cial economy, and social and aesthetic opportunities affected the choice of a place to live. He found that those living with the group had significantly higher grades, a more diversified and constructive social life, and a more satis­ factory social adjustment. All students expressed a preference for fraternity life if it could be afforded. He felt that residence halls most nearly fulfilled the various criteria that were prevalent in the choices of these students, since the cost was considerably less than the cost of fraternity living. Using the questionnaire survey and personal interview approaches in her study of kb 167 residence hall programs, Porter Butts, ’’Some Implications of Housing,” Journal of Higher Education, VIII, No. 1 (January, 1937 pp. 27-32; 89-94. )$ Thompson^? studied the types of activities and their effectiveness as judged by the directors and students. The interview approach was used for a more intensive study at 12 of these schools. In general she reported that this method yielded information regarding methods, techniques, and agencies used to foster participation, the contributions to social education resulting from participation, and factors which tended to shape the forms of these programs. She reached the following conclusions: 1. The effectiveness of an activity decreased as the amount of student responsibility increased. 2, Learning resulted largely from social inter* action and through experience with certain techniques and procedures for working with others, 3. Analysis of the learning experiences revealed that the place of residence halls is in the realm of human relationships rather than in the realm of academic education, }±, Factors found that were most contributory to these learning experiences were a good program and esprit de corps which went hand In hand. This conditTon reduced the need for regulations, put discipline at a minimum and revealed student acceptance of responsibility. These two aspects seemed largely dependent on the effect­ iveness of the director of the program and the physical facilities provided. Florence M. Thompson, "Residence Halls and the Educational Program,” Educational Record, XXIX (January, I9I4.8 ), pp. 6^ - 71. 5. Both Group loyalties seemed more easily established when the number of residents per living unit was small. Individuals tended to assume more responsibilities in such instances# Sifferd46 and Ohlsen47 were concerned with methods of evaluating the effectiveness of these programs. Sifferd reported that in a survey of five hundred American colleges and university residence halls programs only 76 responded to the questions regarding evaluation of their programs, and of these 76 only 28 reported an attempt at evaluation. Six of the 26 accomplished evaluation through group meetings of counselors. Fifteen used student opinion, l£ used observed affects in student behavior, and 12 used observation of the work of staff members as the basis of evaluation. Sifferd felt that the evaluation sheet used by Illinois residence hall counselors had the advantages of (1) permittirg comparison of resident attitudes in various living units, (2) revealing strong and weak points of counselors, and (3) serving as a safety valve for disgruntled students. The evaluation was based on the following criteria included in a questionnaire given to residents: 1# Knowledge of counselor* s name and room number# 2. Extent of utilization of counselor's services# ^ Calvin S# Sifferd, "Evaluating A Residence Hall Counseling Program," College and University, XXV, No# 3 (April, 1950), pp. 445-1*47. ~ ^7 Merle M. Ohlsen, "Evaluation of Dormitory Counselor's Services," Educational and Psychological Measure­ ment, XI, No. 3 (Autumn, 1951)> PP• 419-i*-26• 3* Area in which services were used. vocational, social, and others^ (Educational, Attitude toward value of service expressed on a five-point scale, 5. Rating of satisfaction or dissatisfaction in the following areas; (a) understanding of the problem, (b) co-operation and desire to be of service, (c) friendliness, enthusiasm or interest in work, and (e) promptness in rendering desired service. ('&) Ohlsen presented the plan for the rating of colleagues used by the University of Washington and the reaction of the staff members toward the plan. Each staff member was asked to rate the remaining staff members, and all were asked to respond to eighteen questions regarding their observations of each of the other staff members. They then elected a staff member to hold interviews with each counselor who desired to talk over his evaluations. Ohlsen found that 38 per cent of the staff were very favorable to the plan, 30 per cent mildly favorable, cent mildly negative, and 2 per cent very unhappy. 30 per Ohlsen emphasized the importance of the staff1s participation in devising the plan. In his summary he reported that (1) the evaluative instrument needed improvement, (2) 90 per cent of the staff wanted it continued, (3) the follow-up interviews contributed to in-service training, and (ij.) a staff should participate in its own evaluation. A Summary of the Literature Reviewed in each Category I. Implications of residential living for the attainment of educational objectives. The residence halls, through provision of social edu­ cative experiences, can contribute to the total education of students in a very realistic way. In these halls the student can actually ,flearn by doing" and thereby gain experience not attainable in the classroom. ences do not just happen. Such experi­ On the contrary, they must be planned and carefully directed by competent staff members. The potentialities of residence halls for training professional guidance workers and teachers have not as yet been fully realized,and this aspect should receive greater emphasis according to several writers. II. Objectives, standards and evaluative criteria suggested for residence-hall personnel programs. There seemed to be a general consensus among the writers that residence halls can be evaluated by the degree to which they (1) provide comfortable and pleasant living quarters, (2) permit the student government to make decisions, (3) encourage and provide a well-planned social program, (!+.) provide favorable study conditions, (5>) promote personal social adjustment, and personnel staff. {$) provide an adequately trained U8 III. Role of these programs in the total personnel services of the univers1ty. The majority of the writings in the area were con­ cerned with the integration of the management or business office with the personnel division. The writers differed to some extent in their proposals,but all of them agreed that maximum coordination between the physical plant staff and the personnel staff of the residence halls was essential for effective operation of any program. IV. Internal structure of residence hall personnel programs. The writings in this area were so varied and extensive that an adequate summary could not be made. In general the feeling was that staff members should be well Indoctralnated In the personnel point of view and that the personalities of staff members are a predominate part In the effectiveness of any program. The latter observation emphasized great need for careful selection and adequate training. V. Methods and techniques of research used in evaluating residenee-hall personnel programs. A greater portion of the evaluative studies have been based on a comparison of the achievements of students living In various types of housing. The general conclusions indi­ cated that by this standard the residence halls provide the most conducive academic atmosphere* More recent evaluative studies have been concerned with determining the effectiveness of the personnel programs* Surveys are the most common method employed, however, a plan for Individual interviews and staff self-ratings were pre­ sented by one writer* CHAPTER III ORGANIZATION OP THE DATA Development of the Questionnaire Prior to the development of the questionnaire used in this study, the writer carefully examined the previous survey1 and listed all of the stated or implied duties of the part-time student assistants within these various residence hall programs. This recording resulted in a lengthy and detailed list which indicated a need for categorization if it was to be applicable to all of these programs• Examination of this list of duties revealed that the part-time student assistant functioned in two major areas supervisory and guidance. t Although some overlapping was prevalent, these two general areas did yield to further categorization. The duties which were most related to the supervisory area were those pertaining to maintenance and care of physical equipment, control of student conduct, and admin­ istrative detail involving responsibility to the total staff. The guidance area was thought to include those duties more specifically related to individual counseling, to group 1 Max R. Raines, op. cit. guidance, and to rapport-gaining devices. The next step was to subdivide these two major areas into more specific categories. The following categories were developed: I. II. Supervisory area A. Custodial functions B. Special staff functions C. Proctoral functions Guidance area A. Counseling functions B. Resource functions C. Liaison functions D. Group guidance and advisory functions E. Public relations functions P. Morale building functions It was found that all of the duties could be classi­ fied under one of these functions; however, this attempt at classification involved two factors which often seemed to work at odds. The first factor was the problem of making the functions inclusive, and the second factor was the difficulty in making them sufficiently explicit, to preserve their usefulness. To overcome these factors specific examples were listed with many of the derived functions which seemed to warrant specific clarification. The two major areas were divided into sub-areas including the various types of functions* The definition and organization of these sub-areas were listed as follows I. Supervisory area A. Custodial functions— In all of the previous programs studied, student assistants were assigned duties which implied the following responsibilities: 1* Care of physical property and equipment of the dormitory 2. Responsibility in investigating the loss or damage of personal or dormitory property 3* Maintenance of records pertinent to the operation of the physical plant Special staff functions— A study of these du­ ties of the student assistants revealed that in some cases they were assigned responsi­ bilities not specifically related to their own living unit, but duties which were con­ sidered necessary for the effective operation of the total program. This included responsi billties to the management staff as well as to the personnel staff. C. Proctoral functions— Since the prcctoral functions were considered the most important in the early days of many of these programs, it was not surprising to find that many duties were related to this area. An attempt was made to determine how much responsibility was being placed on the student assistant in this area. With this point in mind the various types of misbehavior were defined as follows in the questionnaire, and the respondent was asked to identify the function of the student assistant in handling such problems: 1. Individual or group behavior which in­ fringes on the rights, privileges, or 53 welfare of other members of the living unit* 2. Individual or group behavior which abuses or misuses the property or facilities of the residence halls* 3* Individual or group behavior which violates the moral and ethical standards of the uni­ versity or the policy of the residence halls* It was hoped that the construction of a continuum ranging from complete responsibility in handling misbehav­ ior to a responsibility involving a referral relationship only, would reveal the approach used in each program. It was a secondary purpose to determine how much responsibil­ ity was placed on the residents of the dormitories in handling such problems through their student g overnment,^ 2 The student government as used here does not refer to the student government of the university at large, but rather to the one which exists in the residence halls for the purpose of handling the affairs and activities of resi­ dents within the dormitories. The term student assistant should not be confused with the student government, since the former is a staff member who Is remunerated for his services. In only one program does the student assistant become an active member of the student government by virtue of his appointment as a student assistant. In the majority of programs he serves in an ex-officio relationship to the student government in his assigned dormitory living unit* Analysis of the data revealed that it was frequently necessary to combine two of the stated proctoral items adequately to express the approach used in a particular program. 5U II. Guidance area A. Counseling functions— Identification of the role of the student assistant In regard to the handling of counseling functions was also attempted through the construction of a three-point continuum* The three points were as follows: 1* Counseling all cases at the level of a professional counselor. 2. Referring the more serious problems and handling the less serious. 3. Referring all cases regardless of the degree of seriousness. The second point implied that the student assistant must make a decision regarding the seriousness of the prob­ lem. For this reason, the function of "spotting" problems or potential problems was not Included In the list of functions. The remaining portion of this category was given to identifying some of the more specific counseling functions such as interviewing all residents in his unit, mediating In cases of resident disputes, and assisting residents with their study habits. B. Resource functions— It was apparent from the previous study that the student assistant in some cases served as a resource agent for people outside the residence halls as well as for the staff members and residents. It seemed most logical also to Include the tutor­ ial function under this role. c» Liaison functions— Originally this role was categorized as a supervisory role because It so often seemed to serve the best interests of the management staff. After reconsider­ ing the point the writer decided that it was more closely related to the personnel role because of its potentiality in gaining rapport. Actually its proper categorization depends largely on the way it is used, ■D* Group guidance and group advisory functions— The functions included in this area were those which would identify the types of activities engaged in by the student assist­ ant and which would identify the extent to which he was to assume initiative in his sponsorship, E. Public relations functions— This role, of serving as official host in the residence halls, was included in the personnel roles because of its rapport-building potentialities. Group morale functions— A number of the duties implied that the student assistant served as morale builder in his unit through attending resident activities as well as assisting in a co-ordinated social program with women's halls. This role seemed to be a part of environmental guidance and thus was included among the guidance functions. After examining the responses to the questionnaire it seemed that one function was omitted which should have been included. Several respondents felt that an important func­ tion of the student assistant was to serve as an example to the residents through his personal conduct. If this function had been included it would probably have fallen under the group morale functions. This oversight did not seem serious, since the function was implied in so many other functions of the student assistant. (It is, however, probably one of the most crucial qualities considered In the process of selection.) As a further means of eliciting attitudes, the respon­ dents were asked in special places provided for write-in responses to indicate whether or not certain functions should receive greater or less emphasis than they were receiving. One or more of these spaces were used for such comments and for additional explanatory comments by 7lj. per cent of the respondents. Three additional semi-structured questions were included at the end of the questionnaire on an attached page. These questions were listed as follows.^ (1) If this questionnaire has failed to list functions which pertain to the student assistant in your current programs or which would be a part of his role in the ideal program at your university, please explain what these functions are or would be? (2) If the present functions vary considerably from your concept of the ideal program, please indicate what differences, if any, in training, experience, education, remuneration, etc., would be necessary to execute the ideal program? (3) What do you consider the major factors which are preventing the attainment of your concept of the ideal program if it varies considerably from present practice? Pifty-six per cent of the respondents answered one or more of these questions. the first question, 37 Twenty-five per cent responded to per cent to the second question, per cent to the third question, and questions. 25> per 39 cent to all three A larger response might have been obtained if these questions had not been attached at the end of the questionnaire where they may have been overlooked in some cases The Response Symbols An attempt was made to determine whether an item was judged by the respondent to be a part of the practice in his program and further to determine his attitude toward its inclusion. The following response symbols^were employed: I - is a function II - is not a function Un - undecided A - should be a function B - should not be a function Un - undecided In those instances where a response was omitted it was scored as undecided. (This occurred In only a few instances. In program D three administrators consistently failed to indicate their attitudes toward the items.) Originally It was thought that responses as to what should or should not be would reveal a concept of the Ideal program. After analysis of the data this plan was abandoned because the questionnaire tended to limit the concept of the ideal to the framework of present practice. ^ The response symbols were changed to lower case numerals and letters in the tables to avoid confusion with the Levels (I, II, III, and IV) and the code letters used to denote the various programs. 58 Identification of the Respondents The respondents were asked to identify the university in which they were employed and to indicate the level at which they functioned. (The definitions of these levels were discussed under the definition of terms included in Chapter I.) The Pilot Study Before sending the questionnaire to the various schools it was administered to twelve student assistants and to two administrators in the Michigan State College Residence Halls for Men. These participants felt that the items were reasonably clear and were in most instances applicable to their program. Prior to this study the items and response symbols were discussed in a seminar of doctoral candidates who were writing or planning to write dissertations. This discussion resulted in the revision of a number of items as well as the response symbols* Selection of the Sample Table II presents a summary of the samples obtained from the population of each functioning level within the various programs. Because the heads of these programs were asked to distribute, collect, and return the questionnaires, it was necessary to limit the number of questionnaires. 59 Twenty-three were sent to each school with the exception of program B, which received 2i+ questionnaires because of an error in counting. Since no attempt was made to equate the samples and since the data was treated in a descriptive analysis, this error was not considered to be of any conse­ quence • In order that an adequate response might be obtained from each of the functioning levels, specific directions^ were included in the shipment of questionnaires. Prior to this, the approximate number of staff members at each level was determined from the previous survey. as follows: These averages were Level I, three staff members; Level II, one or two staff members; Level III, three or four staff members, and Level IV, thirty to thirty-five student assistants. Because those staff members who function at Levels I, II, and III are generally employed with greater permanency, it was thought that as many responses should be included as possible from each of these levels. With this in mind, the heads of these programs were instructed to give a questionnaire to each of the administrative staff members. This was done because of the anticipated difficulty of obtaining responses from all of these officials due to the excessive demands on their time. £ Appendix I. S The heads of the various programs were then asked to distribute the remainder of the questionnaires to the stu­ dent assistants at Level IV by random sanpling method. These directions were as follows: (a) Place your finger somewhere near the middle of the roster containing the names of all of your part-time student assistants and record that name. (b) Select every fourth name on each side of this original name until the remaining number of questionnaires has been exhausted. Give a questionnaire to each of these men. This procedure was used because it was the most practical method of obtaining a random sample under the circumstances. The writer believed, in view of his personal acquaintances with the heads of these programs, that they would cooperate in this procedure and that they would be aware of the import­ ance of obtaining an adequate sample. TABLE II THE SAMPLE OP THE POPULATION AT EACH OP THE FUNCTIONING LEVELS WITHIN EACH PROGRAM Functioning Levels _____ ________ IL°JE^.a ______________ C O M B I N E D Total Level I Population Sample Level II Population Sample Level III Population Sample Levels I, II, and III Population Sample Level IV Population Sample Combined Levels Population Sample 3 3 1 1 5 5 1 l 2 2 l 1 1 2 3 6 5 0 i | . 5 0 27 19 1 1 1 1 15 10 1 1 6 1 2 2 2 2 8 - 2 1 7 8 5 2 3 - 2 o l } . 3 5 28 19 6 6 15 10 2 2 k 5 5 1 19 9 15 10 8 6 70 i+8 20 16 29 13 16 15 31 20 13 7 56 11 29 13 50 12 256 106 26 i^l}. 18 23 17 36 18 2l+ 8 75 20 Ml23 58 21 326 157 22 62 Examination of Table II reveals that the sampling process was reasonably successful. Twenty of the twenty- seven possible respondents at Level I were Included, with programs I and D failing to be represented at this level. In the case of Level II, 10 of the possible 1 respondents were included. $ This was thought to be especi­ ally good response since this includes all of the possible respondents at this level with the exception of the five respondents in program N, who were not included. Nineteen of the twenty-eight Level III administrators responded. The most inadequate samples at this level were in programs 0, I, N, and E. Of the 70 possible administrators at Levels I, II, and III, I 4.8 responses were obtained. No attempt was made to combine these respondents from all of the programs, because some programs were more adequately represented than others. At Level IV programs 0, N, and were the most Inade­ quately represented of all the programs. It was felt that by restricting the material to a descriptive analysis, these limitations could best be considered. Organization of the Data Tabulation.— After the questionnaires were returned, the responses from each program and from the various levels within the programs were tabulated. Because the number of 63 responses were well below thirty in allcases, the data were not converted into percentages. Such treatment would have distorted the data unnecessarily. In order that the responses which attained a two-thirds level of consensus might be identified, asterisks were used to denote such agreements. Obviously when the number of respondents was below three at one level within a particular program this method of identification was of limited value. It was still employed in these cases, however, for the sake of consistency throughout the study. The write-in responses were carefully recorded and summarized in order that they might be used for interpre­ tation of the responses to any item. They were used for this purpose throughout the analysis of the data. Presentation. Because the schools which participated were interested in reading the analysis of the responses from their program, and because it was possible to maintain greater continuity In the interpretation of the data, the responses from each program were analyzed separately in eight consecutive chapters. The procedure for presentation of the data in these chapters (IV through XI) was as follows: 1. The chapter was Introduced with a brief summary statement of the adequacy of the sample and with any other pertinent observations which would not reveal the Identity of the school but which would add to a partial understanding of the responses, 2. The categories of functions used in the questionnaire (for example: custodial, proctoral counseling) were used as topical headings through out these eight chapters and the tables which presented the responses of a particular program were captioned to coipcide with these topical headings. 3, To avoid the difficulties of paraphrasing the items, they were stated in full in the context under the category to which they were related. In most cases they were separated and discussed individually; however, they were grouped to­ gether in some cases if the response patterns on successive items were quite similar or if the items were dependant upon one another in content. The latter grouping was used most consistently on items such as (15), (16), and (17)* which were statements of comparative approaches in the handling of counseling problems, ij.. To prevent the use of folding tables, only the number of the item was used in the tables rather than the text of the item. In addition, response symbols were used in the place of descriptive responses as a means of reducing the size of the tables. The key to these response symbols was placed at the bottom of each table. 5. In those cases where the discussion of items under a topical heading continued for several pages a summary was given after the last item included under that heading. 6. The answers to the free response questions were summarized and placed at the end of each chapter. In some cases questions (2) and (3 ) were grouped together because of the similarity of responses. 7. The chapter was concluded with a series of tentative conclusions regarding the program under consideration. A similar procedure was followed in Chapter XII, which contained the analysis of the summarized data 65 obtained f r o m all of the programs and the conclusions. There were a few variations, however, w h i c h were as follows; 1. Because the summary table (Table 51) required one page p e r item and because this chapter was in close proximity to the Appendices, Table 51 was placed in Appendix II. 2. The administrators who functioned at Levels I, II, and III were grouped together because of the similarity of their positions as related to these programs. They were then referred to as the administrative level and they were compared in their responses with the student assistant level (Level IV). 3. The items were categorized according to their value in identifying the functioning role of the student assistant throughout these p r o ­ grams . CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE RESPONSES OF PROGRAM C Introduction Program C returned 22 of the 23 questionnaires sent to them. There were three responses from Level I, one response from Level II, two responses from Level III, and 16 responses from Level IV. It was learned from the write- in responses that several respondents were employed in non­ permanent dormitories where their functions differed at certain points from those in the permanent dormitories. This fact undoubtedly operated in reducing the level of consensus attained on certain items where the functions differed. Custodial Items-*Item (1). To investigate and/or report cases of lost, damaged, or stolen property belonging to the management or to any resident living in his dormitory unit* The responses to this item were interesting in view of the fact that 12 of the 16 student assistants accepted the item as a part of the practice but only two of the six administrative respondents judged that it was a function. The four remaining administrative respondents and two of the -*• See Table 3* 67 student assistants judged that it was not a function. The Level II administrator who serves as the head of the program responded that it was not a function but that it should be. This pattern suggested the possibility that he was displeased with the manner in which the function was being performed. The response patterns indicated a need for clarification through discussion at a staff meeting. Item (2). To prevent and/or report unauthorized per­ sonnel who attempt to utilize without permission any residence hall facility or equipment. EXAMPLES: dining hall, sleeping accomodations, solicitation privileges, lounges, snack bars, etc. The three Level I administrators agreed with 10 of the 16 student-assistant respondents that this item was a function; however, the remaining administrators and student assistants rejected the item as a part of practice. attitude responses were similar to the judgments. The These differences further suggested a need for clarification of the custodial functions of the student assistant in program G if these differences were not the result of variations in interpretation of the item. Item (3)* To establish procedures for the effective utilization of all equipment assigned to his dormitory unit. EXAMPLES: recreational equipment, emergency equipment, auxiliary equipment. 68 The administrators and student assistants were evenly divided in their judgments of item (3). After analyzing the responses of all the programs to this item it was apparent that it was not consistently interpreted among the respondents and therefore was a weak and indecisive item. This obser­ vation is discussed further in Chapter XII. Item (1|.)< To maintain records of information concerning his residents which has been designated by the management as essential for efficient operation of the physical plant. EXAMPLES: Up-to-date roster, room assignment changes, meal ticket assignment. The level of consensus attained among the respondents indicated that this item was generally accepted and approved as a function within the program. Summary. The response patterns indicated that if items (1) and (2) are functions within program C! they perhaps need some clarification. Item (3) was indecisive In determining the practice and item (1|.) was considered the accepted and approved practice. Special Staff I t e m s ^ Item (5>). To actively participate in and contribute to staff meetings devoted to administration of the program and/or to the in-service training of the staff members. 2*See Table 3* 69 The high level of consensus in the responses to this item indicated that it was a function and that the respondents believed it should he a function of the student assistant. Program C attained the highest level of acceptance on this item of any of the programs of the study. Item (6). To assume special staff assignments and respon­ sibilities that are not directly related to his function in his own dormitory unit. EXAMPLES: week-end desk duty, dining hall duty, evaluation committees, administrative detail committees, etc. This item was accepted with an equally high degree of consensus among the student assistants but there was one administrative respondent at each level who judged that it was not the practice. In the expression of attitudes among these latter respondents the Level I respondent thought it should be a function, the Level II respondent thought It should not be, the Level III respondent was undecided, and the one student assistant who rejected the item also disapproved it. In addition there were four students who were undecided in their attitudes. The possibility of a negative feeling toward this function suggested a need for discussion of the matter. 70 TABLE 3 RESPONSES OP PROGRAM C TO CUSTODIAL AND SPECIAL STAFF ITEiiS Judgmen ts^ Item (1) (2) (3) k) ( (5) Function­ ing Level i Level I Level II Level III Level IV 2# 0 0 12# 1 1# 2# 2 0 0 0 2 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3* 0 0 10# 0 1# 2# 6 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 2# 0 1 1 1# 1 8 Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV I II III IV ii Un Attitudes Total a b Un 3 1 2 16 2# 1# 0 13# 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 3 1 2 16 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 16 2# 0 0 10# 1 1# 1 4 0 0 1 2 3 1 2 16 3 1 2 16 2# 0 8 0 0 0 0 1 1# 0 6 0 0 1 1 3 1 2 16 2# 1# 2# 11# 1 0 0 £ 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 3# 2# 15# 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2# 0 1 15* 1 1# 1 1 0 0 0 0 1# 1 9 Total 3* 1# 1 11# 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 4 1 16 2 16 3# 1# 1 15* 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 2 16 3* 0 1 11* 0 1# 0 1 0 16 3 l 3 1 2 16 .. (6) Level Level Level Level 0 1 4 3 1 2 16 Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un)undecided; (a) should be a function; TbJ should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. ■J Proctoral Items Item (8). To obtain all of the facts regarding all such misbehavior and to affix penalties according to his own judgment* Item (9). To obtain the facts and to affix penalties as designated by other authorities. Item (10). To obtain the facts, to affix penalties for the minor infractions, and to refer the more serious cases to designated authorities. These three items were grouped together because the responses indicated that none of them expressed the proctoral approach employed in program C. Furthermore, there were few respondents who thought that they should be used as the approach. Item (11). To obtain the facts, to refer cases of minor infraction to the student government, and to refer more serious cases to designated authorities. Item (lii). To assume no responsibility whatsoever in cases of misbehavior unless they give evidence of a severe personality adjustment problem, in which event they are handled as a counseling case. Items (11) and (14) were placed together because the responses to these Items were similar, and because they were the only two which even approached acceptance and approval in this program. The attitude responses indicated that the student-assistant respondents were slightly partial to item (11) while four of the six administrative respondents favored item (14)• ^ See Table 4» It is known to the writer that program C is making every attempt to remove proctoral functions from the role of the student assistant. These responses indicated that the majority of the student assistants have internalized this concept as was in evidence from their responses. Item (12). To obtain the facts, and to refer all cases io the student government. Item (13). To obtain the facts, and to refer all cases to the designated authorities. In view of the responses to items (11) and (lip) the responses to items (12) and (13) it was not surprising that the latter were rejected and disapproved by a two-thirds majority. Summary. It was apparent from the responses that the student assistant was expected to assupie as little proctoral responsibility as possible. The write-in responses revealed that a Level I respondent believed that there was still too much emphasis on the proctoral, while two student assistants disagreed by stating that the student assistant had in­ sufficient authority in this area. In addition two other student assistants thought that the potentialities of the student government in this area were yet to be realized. One other student assistant believed that the student govern­ ment had been more effective in handling misbehavior than the student government of the non-permanent dormitories. 73 k TABLE RESPONSES OP PROGRAM 6 TO PROCTORAL ITEMS Judgments Item Function­ ing Level i ii Un (8) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 0 2 3# 1* 2# 13* 0 0 0 1 (9) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 0 2 3* !■» 2* li** (10) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 0 1 (11) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 2* 0 1 8 Attitudes Total a b Un 3 1 2 16 0 0 0 2 3* 1* 1 13* 0 0 1 1 3 1 2 16 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 16 0 0 0 1 2# 1* 1 ill* 1 0 1 1 3 1 2 16 3* 1* 2* 15* 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 16 0 0 0 2 3* 1* 1 lij.4* 0 0 1 0 3 1 2 16 i l* l 7 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 16 1 1* 1 6 0 0 1 1 3 1 2 16 2* 0 0 9 Total ^ Key to response symbols: (i) is a functions (ii) is not a functTon! (un) undecided; (a) should be a function; TFT should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. TABLE U (CONTINUED) Judgments * Item Function­ ing Level i ii ! Un Total Attitude;s a b Un | Totcl 1 (12) (13) ULO Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 t 3* 1* 1 13* 0 0 0 1 2* 0 1* 1 15* 0 0 0 2 1 16 0 0 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1# 1 8 2* 0 0 6 2 3 1 2 16 0 0 0 3* 1* 0 0 1 3 12* 1 1 1 2 16 0 0 1 3 3 1 2* 1 0 0 2 1* 1 1 llj.* 2 0 16 2* 0 0 7 0 0 0 2 3 1 2 16 1 1* 2* 7 3 16 1 Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function"! (un) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. Counseling Items^Item (15). To counsel such residents at a level comparable to that of a professional college counselor. Item (16). To counsel those whose problems are judged to be less serious in their implications and to refer to the proper agency those whose problems appear to be more serious. Item (17). To refer all such students regardless of the apparent degree of seriousness of the problem. The response patterns that item (16) expressed the generally acceptable approach in handling counseling functions. A Level I respondent judged that it was and should be the practice for the student assistant to refer all such cases. It may have been that he Interpreted counseling to Imply the need for professional training. If, however, he interpreted the items as the remaining responses his response suggested a need for discussion of the matter. Item (18). To interview all of his residents as a means of establishing friendly relationships, identifying problems, imparting or obtaining information and answering questions. More than two-thirds of the Level IV respondents accepted this item; however, the administrators were evenly divided in their responses. Five of the latter group, believed nevertheless, that this should be a function. The response pattern suggested that two of them did not feel that the function had not received as much emphasis as it should. of them expressed this feeling in a write-in response. One 76 Item (19). To maintain records of all information concerning his designated counseling responsibilities. EXAMPLES: interview records, referral records, anecdotal record, personal data sheets, cumulative records, rating scales, etc. The administrative respondents agreed that item (19) was the practice but five student assistants did not accept the item as a function. The latter may have judged that the examples were too inclusive. This complaint was expressed in several programs toward those Items which listed a rather inclusive list of examples. Since these five student assistants expressed the feeling that item (19) should not be their function, this difference of attitudes from those of the administrators indicated a need for discussion of this function. Item (20). To serve as a mediator, advisor, and if necessary as a referral agent for those residents who have verbal clashes or physical conflicts, etc. EXAMPLES: room-mate clash, etc. Item (21). To assist his residents who seek aid In developing better study habits. The responses to these two items revealed that more than two-thirds of the respondents at both levels considered them to be the practice and felt that they should be functions. 4 77 TABLE 5 RESPONSES OF PROGRAMC TO COUNSELING ITEMS Attitudes Judgments^ Item Function­ ing Level i ii Un Total a b Un Total (15) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 0 0 3* 1# 1 16# 0 0 1 0 3 1 2 16 0 0 0 0 3* 1# 1 15* 0 0 1 1 3 1 2 16 (16) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 2* 1* 2* 16# 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 16 2# 1# 1 15* l 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 2 16 (17) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1 0 0 0 2# 1# 2# 15* 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 16 l 0 0 0 2* 1* 1 15* 0 0 1 1 3 1 2 16 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1 1* 1 li** 2# 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 16 3* i# l i4* 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 1 2 (1«) 16 Key to response symbols: (i) Is a function; (ii) is not a function! (un) undecided; (a) should be a function; TbJ should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 78 TABLE 5 (CONTINUED) Attitud es Judgments Item (19) (20) (21) Function­ ing Level i ii Un Total a b 0 Un Total 3 1 2 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3* 1* 2# 11* 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 16 3* 1* 1 10 0 5 0 0 1 1 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3* 1* 1 15* 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 16 3* 1* 1 lil* 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 16 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3* l* 2* 15* 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 16 3* 1* 1 lU* 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 1 2 16 0 16 3 1 2 Key JL2 response symbols: (i) is a function? (ii) is not a function! (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b } should not be a function; (Un) undecided. Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 4 79 Summary. The student assistant in program C used the approach stated in item (l6) in handling counseling problems and he also performed those functions stated in items (18), (20), and (21). The responses to item (19) suggested a need for clarification of this function of maintaining records. One student assistant expressed the feeling that the counseling functions needed to be more clearly interpreted by the administrators. Another one believed that some of the emphasis on group guidance functions needed to be shifted to an emphasis on counseling functions. Group Guidance Items c Item (25). To study group structure or formation as a means of identifying cliques, clique leaders, and marginal or outer-fringe residents in his living unit. EXAMPLES* directed observation, socio&etrics, etc. The division of response to this Item throughout the programs suggested that this item was not clearly understood or else it was not consistently interpreted; therefore, it was considered to be of little value in determining the practice within these programs. Item (26). To serve as ex-officio advisor to the stu­ dent government officers and committees elected or appointed by the residents within his living unit. Item (27). To serve as an automatically elected offi­ cer in the student government of the residence halls or of his living unit by virtue of his position. ^ See Table 6. Responses to this item revealed that it was the general practice for the student assistant to function as an ex­ officio member of the student government and not as an automatically elected officer. More than two-thirds of the respondents believed that this should be his role in relationship to the student government. Item (28). To assume initiative in organizing and main­ taining special interest groups within the living unit or residence halls. The student-assistant respondents were divided in their judgments of item (28). Five of the six administrative respondents did not consider it to be a function. Three Level I administrators believed it should be the function. Three of the student assistants who accepted the item were undecided as to what should be the practice. The diversity at this point as well as the indecision revealed one of the dilemmas faced by the student assistant who would like to see a special interest program develop but recognizes that initiative on his part might weaken the student government and also would require considerable amounts of time. Item (29)» To assist student government (when asked) in effectuating a special interest program. The responses to this item indicated the willingness of the majority of the student assistants to assist in this respect. Item (30)» To assume initiative in engaging a program of outside speakers to discuss topics designated by the residence halls personnel officials. EXAMPLES: vocational topics, current event topics, general lectures. Item (31)> To assist student government (when requested) in engaging or suggesting a program of outside speakers. These response patterns indicated that the student assistant in program C did not ta±te the initiative in organizing outside speaker programs but that he assisted the student government if and when it revealed an interest in this direction. The nine judgments among student assistants which increased to eleven with favorable attitudes suggested that they were responding on a hypothetical basis. Item (32). To give group instruction or explanation to his residents of those topics designated by the residence hall staff or of those topics which he deems essential to effective operation of the living unit. EXAMPLES: Manners and courtesy; residence hall policy and procedure; requirements of effective group living; definition of his own role; study habits In general; etc. Two Level I administrative respondents did not feel that this could be classified as a function but they agreed with two other administrators that it should be function. A majority of the student assistants accepted and approved this item as a function. Item (33). To authorize expenditure of student govern ment funds in his living unit by signing appropriate requisitions. 82 - TABLE Items 6 RESPONSES OP PROGRAM C TO GROUP GUIDANCE ITEMS. (25) Level Level Level Level (26) Level I Level II Level Level IV (27) (28) (29) (30) Judgments Function­ ing Levels I II III IV Attitudes i ii 2* 1# 1 9 1 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 16 3* 1* 0 7 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 3 3 1 2 16 3* 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 16 3* 1* 1 11* 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 3 1 2 16 0 0 3 1 3* ill* 0 0 1 0 3 1 2 16 0 1* 1 7 0 0 1 k 3 1 2 16 3 1 2 Un Total a b Un Total m 2* 12* 0 0 0 3 I 3* 1* 2* 15* 0 2 0 16 0 0 0 2 2* 1* 2* 7 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 16 3* 0 0 5 0 0 1 3 1 2 16 3* 1* 1 12* 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 3 1 2 16 1 0 0 2 2* 1* 1 12* 0 0 1 2 Level Level Level Level in IV 0 0 0 1 Level Leyel Level Level I II III IV 1 0 0 8 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3# 1* 1 12* k 0 0 0 0 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 1 1 3* 1* 1 13* 0 0 2 ii c 1* 1 16 3 1 2 16 Key to response symbols; (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function'; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least two-thirds consensus. 83 TABLE 6 (CONTINUED) Att;itudes Judgments Item (3D (32) (33) Function­ ing Level i Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3* 1# 1 9 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1 1* 0 11* Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 0 0 ii Un Total a b Un Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 2 16 3* 1* 1 11* 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 3 1 2 16 2* 0 2* k 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 16 3* 1* 0 12* 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 3 1 2 16 3* 1* 2* 16* 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 16 0 0 0 0 3* 1* 1 15* 0 0 1 1 3 1 2 16 k Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function! (un) undecided; (a) should be a function; "(b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. # Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. d One hundred per cent of the respondents rejected this item and only one respondent (Level III) revealed any indecision in his attitudes. Summary. In the group guidance area the responses revealed that the student assistant functions as an ex­ officio member of the student government, that he assists in organizing special interest and outside speakers programs, if and when asked by the student government, and that he gives some form of group instruction to his residents. Resource and Liaison Items Item (22). To serve as a source of Information for those residents who request Information regarding current activities on campus, red-tape of university departments, campus traditions, university policy, etc. Item (23)» To serve as a source of information for those individuals who request legitimate information concerning his assigned residents. Item (?)• To obtain and/or disseminate through Indi­ vidual contact, written notice, general announcement, or bulletin board any information designated by the residence hall administrators as necessary to meet special situations. These items were accepted and approved as functions by a two-thirds majority of the respondents. Ijbemtgi^. To serve as an academic tutor in qualified areas for those residents who request such assistance. 6 See Table 7 8$ TABLE 7 RESPONSES OF PROGRAM0 TO RESOURCE AND LI'ISON ITEM'S Judgments* Item Function­ ing Level i ii Un Total Attitudes a b Un Total (22) Level Level Levol Level I II III IV 3* 1* 2* 15>* 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 16 3* 1* 1 ill* 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 1 2 16 (23) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3* 1* 2* 11* 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 3 1 2 16 3* 1* 1 11* 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 3 1 2 16 (2b) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 2* 0 1 £ 1 1* 1 11* 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 16 2* 0 0 $ 1 1* 1 10 0 0 1 1 3 1 2 16 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3* 1* 1 16* 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 3* l* 1 ill* 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 1 2 16 (7) 16 1 Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (un) undecided; (a) should be a function; TbT should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 86 One half of the administrators and 11 of the 16 student-assistant respondents rejected tutoring as a function of the student assistant. This function was generally disapproved by the respondents. There were two Level I administrators who believed that this was and should be the practice. These differences in attitudes need to be clarified among the administrators if they still exist. Public Relations and Group Morale £ Item (3ll)« To serve as official host of the residence halls for those guests who visit his living unit or who attend social functions of the m e n ’s residence halls• Pour administrative respondents considered the student assistant to be functioning as an official host for the residence halls but 10 of the 16 student-assistant respondents disagreed by responding that it was not their function. There was evidence of indecision in the attitudes of the student assistants as to what should be the practice in this case. The head of the program (Level II) judged that this was not and believed that it should not be a function. Item (35)* To encourage activities which will produce greater unity among residents of his living unit and which will contribute to their sense of belonging. EXAMPLES: attending all activities of his living unit; recognizing individual accomplishment; encouragement of development of scrapbooks for the unit; giving evidence of real enthusiasm for unit activities. 6 See Table 8 d 87 TABLE 8 RESPONSES OP PROGRAM c TO PUBLIC RELATIONS AND GROUP MORALE ITEMS Judgments * Item Attitudes Function­ ing Level i ii Level Level Level Level I II III IV 2* 0 2# 3 1 1* 0 10* 0 0 0 3 (35) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 2* 1& 2* 15* 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 16 (36) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1 1* 2* 5 2# 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 2 16 (3b) 9 Un Total 3 1 2 16 a 2# b Un |Total 0 1* 0 7 1 0 1 5 16 3* 1# l 15* 0 0 0 0 0 0 l i 3 1 2 16 3* 1* 1 11* 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 3 1 2 0 1 k 3 1 2 16 Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; tb) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 88 There seemed to be little doubt but that this item was the accepted and approved practice within program C. Item (36), To cooperate with part-time student assistants of the women*s residence halls in the executive of a co-ordinated program of social activity and dating for the residents. Four of the administrative respondents judged this item to be a function and five of the six felt It should be. Five student assistants accepted the item as a function but eleven thought it should be. These responses Indicated that the student assistants may have had difficulty in carrying out a practice which they approved as well as the administrators. The responses further indicated the possibility of this function becoming more firmly established with proper encouragement* Summary. The role of the student assistant as offical host need clarifying according to the responses and the administrators were overly optimistic in assuming that Item (36) was the established practice. Summary of the Responses to the FreeResponse Questions Question (1). If this questionnaire has failed to list functions which pertain to the student assistant in your current program or which would be a part of your program in the ideal program at your school, please indicate what these functions are or would be. 89 Only three respondents (all at Level IV) responded to this question. One of these believed that a function stressing the importance of keeping in strictest confidence the counseling information obtained from residents should have been included. A second student assistant stated that the questionnaire more adequately applied to the program of the permanent dormitories than to the program of the temporary units. The third respondent criticized that the variations in the spirit and interest of some of the administrative officials resulted in a lack of consistency In the functions of the student assistants working for those administrators. Question (2). If the present functions vary considerably from your concept of the Ideal program please indicate what differences If any in training, experience, education, remuneration, etc., would be necessary to execute the ideal program. Of the four student assistants who responded to this question, two of them revealed a difference in attitude toward the qualifications needed to perform the functions. One believed that interest, leadership ability, and enthusiasm were more important than professional ability, while the second thought psychological training was more important. A third Level IV respondent believed that the student assistant should be more concerned with individual residents than with the group and should emphasize the counseling 90 functions more than the group guidance and group morale functions. The fourth respondent mentioned that achievement of the ideal was more dependent on the personality of the counselor than any other factor# Question (3)« What do you consider the major factors which are preventing the attainment of your concept of the ideal program if it varies considerably from present practice? One administrator stated that there needed to be greater cooperation between the management and the head of the counseling program and he also believed that the head of the program should spend more time with the student assistants. The responses of the student assistants of Program C to this question indicated several factors which they felt were preventing attainment of the ideal. 1. Those comments pertaining to student government: "Administration does not utilize student govern­ ment sufficiently in handling student discipline.’1 ’’Student assistants have shown insufficient interest in student government.” "Too many rules from above styme student interest in student government. Insufficient help from above." 2. Those comments explaining problems in the temporary dormitories: "In temporary housing the counselor is not sufficiently In touch with the students to obtain information that would help other agencies." 91 "Turnover too great in temporary units to permit individual work." "Temporary units make contact with resident difficult.” 3. Those comments pertaining to administrative respons­ ibility: "More instruction needed in administrative procedure." "Higher administrators should make...(student assistants) functions clearer to residents." "More emphasis in handling misbehavior." "Lack of clear cut definition of what is serious discipline cases that would be handled by campus police." "Insufficient in-service training." 92 A Summary of Responses to Program C. Although the sample was relatively adequate, the level of consensus on some items was reduced by the Inclusion of student assistants who were employed in non-permanent dormi­ tories as well as permanent dormitories. The investigation of lost or stolen property was generally accepted as a function by the student assistants but rejected as the practice by two-thirds of the administrators, thus a need for clarification was suggested. Reporting of unauthor­ ized persons was accepted to some extent but not enought to be considered as the general practice. The maintenance of records for the management was accepted and approved as a function. Participation in an in-service training program received a high frequency of acceptance and approval. The practice regarding special staff assignments was not entirely clear; however, the negative feelings of four student assistants toward the item suggested a possible need for discussion. The responses to items (11), (13)> and (li|), all of which took proctoral responsibility out of the student assistant's role, were accepted as the practice and were the ones approved. The counseling approach was for the student assistant to refer the more serious problems and handle the less 93 serious. Maintenance of guidance records was the only function in this area which needed clarification. The student assistant in program £ serves as an ex-officio member of the student government, assists this group in organizing activities, and gives group instruction to his residents when the need is indicated. Tutoring was generally rejected as a function, but the two remaining resource functions and the liaison function were accepted and approved by a two-thirds majority of the respondents. The role of the student assistant as an official host of the residence halls needs to be clarified. Greater emphasis on student government responsibility and a clearer definition of administrative policy were the major suggestions included in the write-in responses. CHAPTER V. ANALYSIS OP THE RESPONSES OP PROGRAM 0 Introduction The sample obtained from program 0 was adequate at the administrative level but considerably less adequate at the student-assistant level. There were five respondents at Level I, two at Level II, three at Level III, and thirteen at Level IV. Custodial Items-*Item (1). To investigate and/or report cases of lost, damaged, or stolen property belonging to the management or to any resident living in his dormitory unit. Item (2). To prevent and/or report unauthorized per­ sonnel who attempt to utilize without permission any residence hall facility or equipment. EXAMPLES: dining hall, sleeping accomodations, solicitation privileges, lounges, snack bars, etc. The first two custodial Items were accepted by the administrative and student-assistant respondents. In addition, item (1) was approved as practice; however, on item (2) there were five student-assistant respondents who were undecided in their attitudes. One student assistant pointed out in a write-in response that such a practice was not practical In a non-boarding dormitory. 1 See Table 9* 9$ Item (3)» To establish procedures for the effective utilization of all equipment assigned to his dormi­ tory unit. EXAMPLES: recreational equipment, emer­ gency equipment, auxiliary equipment* There was considerable diversity in the responses to item (3) which was found to be a weak item because it was not interpreted with any consistency. The weakness of this item was discussed in chapter XII. Item (U)> To maintain records of information concerning his residents which has been designated by the manage­ ment as essential for efficient operation of the physi­ cal plant. EXAMPLES: Up-to-date roster, room assign­ ment changes, meal ticket assignment. Twelve of the thirteen student assistants judged item (i|) to be their function and the three administrators of Level III agreed that it was the practice, but the two administrators at Level II judged that it was not the practice. judgments. The Level I administrators were divided in their Since these response patterns were quite similar to those In the attitude responses, the need for clarifica­ tion of this function was suggested. Special Staff Items^ Item (f>). To actively participate in and contribute to staff meetings devoted to administration of the program and/or to the in-service training of the staff members. ^ See Table 9* TABLE Item 9 RESPONSES OF PROGRAM 0 TO CUSTODIAL AND SPECIAL STAFF ITEffiS ing Level (1) (2) (3) (k) (5) Judgmen tsl p uni/uxun** i Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV 5* 1 Level Level Level Level I II III IV ii Un Attitudes Total a b Un Total 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 13 5* 2* 2* 10* 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 S 2 3 13 £* 2* 2* 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 3 13 3 0 1 2 2* 2* 7 0 0 0 2 5 2 3 13 3 0 1 k 2 2* 1 6 0 0 1 3 S 2 3 13 2 0 3 2* 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 2 0 5 3 2* 0 0 1 13 10* 3 2* 0 0 3 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 13 0 5 2 3 3 2 5 2 3 5 13 1 ij.* 2* 12* 1 1 3 2* 1 9* i 0 0 0 0 0 £ 2* 5* 2* 3* 12* 5* 2* 3* 9* k 3* 12* 3* 8 i|.* 1 2* 8 5 2 3 13 $ 2 2 3 .. (6) 2 3 13 1 0 1 0 0 1 k ■5 2 3 13 Key to response symbols; (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undeci&ecl; (a) should be a function; TbT should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 97 All but one of the administrative respondents judged this item to be the practice, but only 8 of the 13 student assistants accepted it as their function. There were three student assistants who rejected the item, but there were no student assistants who thought it should not be their function. These responses suggested that a few of the student assistants may have considered the item to be an over-statement of the functions. In other words, it was partially correct but not all correct as a statement of the practice. Item (6). To assume special staff assignments and responsibilities that are not directly related to his functions in his own dormitory unit. EXAMPLES? week-end desk duty, dining hall duty, evaluation committees, administrative detail committees, etc. There was a high level of agreement among all of the respondents that item (6) was not a function in their program. Levels II and IV also believed that it should not be a function, while Levels I and II were divided in their attitudes toward the function. Proctoral Items3 Item (8). To obtain all of the facts regarding all such misbehavior and to affix penalties according to his own judgment. 3 See Table 10. d 98 All four functioning levels rejected item (8 ) as a statement of the approach used in their program, although there was one student assistant who judged it to be the approach and there were two student assistants who were undecided in their judgments. The item was also disapproved by at least a two-thirds majority at each level. Item (9). To obtain the facts and to affix penalties as designated by other authorities. There was a considerable difference in the judgments of the respondents regarding this approach and an even more divergence response in the attitudes. A slight tendency to reject the item was observed at Levels I, III, and IV. The diversity of response suggested the possibility that the item was not consistently interpreted, although it was also a possibility that the policy needed clarifying within the program. Item (10). To obtain the facts, to affix penalties for the minor infractions, and to refer the more serious cases to designated authorities. The respondents of Levels I, II, and IV were in general agreement that item (10) was not an expression of the approach employed. Two of the three respondents at Level III judged the item to be an expression of the approach. These two respondents also thought that it should be the approach 99 used, as did two of the student-assistant respondents. A need for some clarification was indicated. Item (11), To obtain the facts, to refer cases of minor infraction to the student government, and to refer more serious cases to designated authorities. This item was rejected by Levels II and III, but Levels I and IV were divided in their responses. Three of the five administrators at Level I judged that it was the approach used and five student assistants also judged the item to be a statement of practice. The differences in the judgments and attitudes was a further Indication of the need to clarify the proctoral role of the student assistant in program j). Item (12). To obtain the facts, and to refer all cases to the student government. Seven of the thirteen student-assistant respondents accepted this item as the approach. This was the highest number of acceptances achieved on any of the proctoral items listed in the questionnaire. There were five student assistants, however, who rejected the Item. Two of the three administrators at Level III also accepted the Item, but all five of the administrators at Level I rejected it. Item (13). To obtain the facts, and to refer all cases to the designated authorities. Item (lit). To assume no responsibility whatsoever in cases of misbehavior unless they give evidence of a severe personality adjustment problem, In which event they are handled as a counseling case. 100 TABLE 10 RESPONSES OP PROGRAM 0 TO PROCTORAL ITEMS Judgments^Item Function­ ing Level i ii Un Total Attitudes a b Un Total (8) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 0 1 5* 2* 3* 10* 0 0 0 2 5 2 3 13 0 0 0 1 5>* 2* 2* 10* 0 0 1 2 5 2 3 13 (9) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 2 1 1 3 1 2* 8 0 0 0 1 5 2 3 13 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 7 1 0 1 3 $ (10) Level I Level II Level III Level IV 5* 0 2* 2# 1 1 10* 0 0 0 2 5 2 3 13 0 0 2* 2 $* 0 0 1 (11) Level I Level II Level III Level IV 3 0 1 2 2* 2* 0 0 0 $ k k 5 2 3 13 3 0 1 6 2 2* 1 It k 0 2* 0 7 k 0 0 1 3 2 3 13 5 2 3 13 '5 2 3 13 ^ Ke* response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided, * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 101 TABLE 10 (CONTINUED) Judgments Item Function­ ing Level i Un 1 1 (12) (13) (lil) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 2# 7 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 2 1 0 3 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 0 0 1 ^ Total Attitudes a 1 5* 1 1 0 S 5 2 3 13 2 1 0 2 3 1 2# 9# 0 0 1 2 5 2 3 13 0 0 0 1 3 1 2# 11# 2 1 1 1 5 0 1 6 3 l 2# 10# 0 0 1 0 2 3 13 3 2 1 2# 9* 1 3 S 2 3 13 k# 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 3 13 1 Un j Totcl 1 1 0 1 5 b 1 5 2 3 13 ^ Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function! (U n ) undecided; (a) should be a function; TbT should not be a function; (Un) undecided. # Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. The responses indicated that neither of these items were acceptable as statements of the approach used in program 0. Summary, The questionnaire failed to identify the approach used in handling proctoral functions in program The writer’s previous survey revealed that part of the discipline cases are handled by a student judiciary board of which some student assistants are members. The more serious cases are referred to the personnel department. It was quite possible that the failure to agree on one or more of the items by a two-thirds majority of respondents was due to variations or interpretations, but it may have also revealed a lack of a clearly defined policy. Counseling Items^Item (15). To counsel such residents at a level compar­ able to that of a professional college counselor. Item (16). To counsel those whose problems are judged to be less serious in their implications and to refer to the proper agency those whose problems appear to be more serious. Item {17). To refer all such students regardless of the apparent degree of seriousness of the problem. The pattern of responses to these three items revealed that item (16) is the accepted and approved approach in handling counseling problems. k See Table 11. Item (18)» To interview all of his residents as a means of establishing friendly relationships, identifying problems, imparting or obtaining information and answer­ ing questions. The degree of consensus attained in the judgments and attitudes indicated that it was an accepted and approved function of the student assistant. Item (19)> To maintain records of all information con­ cerning his designated counseling responsibilities, EXAMPLES: Interview records, referral records, anec­ dotal record, personal data sheets, cumulative records, rating scales, etc. There were variations both in the judgments of and attitudes expressed toward this item, which Indicated that practice varied within the program or that some of the respondents did not accept some of the examples which were intended to clarify the item. Both of these factors may have operated to prevent a clear-cut agreement. Item (20), To serve as a mediator, advisor, and if necessary as a referral agent for those residents who have verbal clashes or physical conflicts, etc. EXAMPLES: room-mate clash, etc. Item (21). To assist his residents who seek aid in developing better study habits. Both of these Items were accepted and approved as counseling functions of the student assistant in program Summary. 0. Item (16) expressed the counseling approach commonly employed by the student assistant in program and ioU TABLE 11 RESPONSES OF PROGRAF 0 TO COUNSELING ITEFS Judgments^ Item Function­ ing Level i ii (15) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 0 0 5* 2* 3* 11* (16) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 5* 1 3* 12* (17) Level Level Level Level I II III IV (1*) Level Level Level Level I II III IV Un Attitudes Total a b Un Total 0 0 0 2 5 2 3 13 0 0 0 0 5* 2* 2* 10* 0 0 1 3 5 2 3 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 3 13 i(.* 1 3* 12* 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 5 2 3 13 0 1 0 1 5* 1 3* 11* 0 0 0 1 5 2 3 13 0 1 0 1 ij.* 1 2* 10* 1 0 1 2 5 2 3 13 5* 2* 3* 11* 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 2 3 13 5* 2* 2* 11* 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 2 3 13 ^ Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided:; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. i 1Q5 TABLE 11 (CONTINUED) in.enAttitudes Judgments Item Function­ ing Level (19) (20) (21) i ii Un 1 0 0 0 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1 3 1 2* 6 1 Level Level Level Level I II III IV u# 1 0 0 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1 7 10* 3 0 0 0 0 k* 2* 3* 0 1 1 3* 0 0 1 12* 1 0 0 Total Total a b Un 1 3 13 2 2* 2* 6 2 0 1 5 k* 1 0 0 0 0 $ 1 3 0 3 13 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 5 2 2 3 13 2* 2* 10* 5 Ij.* 2 1 3 13 2* 9* 0 0 k- 3 k s 2 3 13 2 3 13 R ey to response symbols: (i) is a function: (ii) is not a function! (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; '(b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. -x Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 106 items (18), (20), and (21) apparently expressed his counsel­ ing functions. The responses to item (19) did not reveal the practice in the maintainence of guidance records. There were two administrators who judged that it was not the function but that it should be the function. Group Guidance Items^ Item (25). To study group structure or formation as a means of identifying cliques, clique leaders, and margi­ nal or outer-fringe residents in his living unit. EXAMPLES: directed observation, sociometrics, etc. There was a general indication from the responses that this item was not a function. The nine undecided responses of the student assistants in their expression of attitude suggested that the item was not understood at Level IV. Item (26). To serve as ex-offleio advisor to the stu­ dent government officers and committees elected or appointed by the residents within his living unit. Item (27). To serve as an automatically elected officer in the student government of the residence halls or of his living unit by virtue of his position. The responses of these items were not clear since It was anticipated that a student assistant would not serve in both capacities. The diversity of responses In this case suggested that either the practice varied or that the Item 5 See Table 12 107 was not interpreted consistently among the respondents. Levels II and III Indicated that item (26) was not the practice and that item (27) was the practice. The student assistants tended to accept both items as their functions. These response patterns revealed a possible need for clarifi­ cation of the policy. Item (28). To assume initiative in organizing and maintaining special interest groups within the living unit or residence halls. Item (29). To assist student government (when asked) in effectuating a special interest program. Item (28) was rejected by Levels I, II, and III as being the practice. There did seem to be a tendency to feel that It should be the practice at Levels I and III. The student assistants were divided in their judgments and attitudes. The degree of consensus attained on item (29) revealed that it was the practice and that the respondents felt It should be a function. Item (30. ) To assume initiative in engaging a program of outside speakers to discuss topics designated by the residence halls' personnel officials. EXAMPLES: voca­ tional topics, current event topics, general lectures. Item (31). To assist student government (when requested) in engaging or suggesting a program of outside speakers. The responses to these two items clearly indicated that Item (30) is not the function of the student assistant and that item (31) was considered to be the function. 108 Item (32). To give group instruction or explanation to his residents of those topics designated by the residence hall staff or of those topics which he deems essential to effective operation of the living unit. EXAMPLES: Manners and courtesy; residence hall policy and procedure; require­ ments of effective group living; definition of his own role; study habits in general; etc. It was noted in the responses to this item that the Level I administrators did not consider it to be a function, but that the Level III administrators and one of the Level II administrators did believe it was a function. In view of this difference in the judgments it was not surprising to find that the student assistants were divided in their judg­ ments. Except for Level I, there was a tendency among the respondents in general to feel that item (32) should be a function of the student assistant. a possible trend in program This may have identified 0. Item (33). To authorize expenditure of student govern­ ment funds in his living unit by signing appropriate requisitions. Again the Level I administrators deviated from the judgments and attitudes of the respondents of Levels II, III, and IV. The former judged that item (33) was the function, while the latter judged that it was not. This deviation suggested that the matter needed discussion. Summary. Item (25) was indecisive In identifying a function of the student assistant as were items (26) 109 TABLE 12 RESPONSES OP PROGRAM 0 TO GROUP GUIDANCE ITEMS. Items Function­ ing Levels Judgments ^ i (25) (2 6 ) (27) (28) (29) (30) ii Un Total a b 0 0 1 5 2 3 13 1 0 2* 2 3 1 0 2 1 5 1 2 1 3 9* 13 0 k 0 1 2 5 2 3 13 2 1 1 8 2 1 0 2 1 5 0 2 2* 3 3 13 0 0 0 3 5 2 3 13 1 1 0 5 Ij.* 0 1 h 0 1 2* k 5 2 3 13 1 0 1 5 2 3 13 2 2 0 1 2* 0 k 5 1 1 1 1* 5 2 3 13 i 0 0 5* 0 2* 0 2* 0 9* 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 1 2 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 1 2 5>* 2* 1 7 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 2 0 0 7 3 2* 2* Level Level Level Level I II III IV 2 2* 8 3 0 0 2 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 0 3 k* 2* 2* 6 k * 2* 0 0 0 0 i 5 2 3 13 5* 2* 3* 11* 0 0 0 0 5 2 3 13 Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level I Level II Level III Level IV 3* 3* 12* 0 0 0 2 Attitudes k h k* 2* 1 9* Un Total 1 3 2 13 1 0 1 2 5 2 3 13 Key to response symbols; (i) Is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; TEST should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least two-thirds consensus. i 110 TABLE 12 (CONTINUED) Judgments ^ Item (31) (32) (33) Function­ ing Level i k * 2# ii Un 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 11# Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 it# 1 3# 8 0 0 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3* Total S 2 3 Att;itudes a b Un £* 11# 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2# 2# 2 2# 2# 3 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 2 3 13 9# 1 3 i 1 5 3 0 0 0 2# 0 0 2 3 0 0 1 2* 2# 1 9# 3* 12# 1 13 1 3 1 0 1 3 Total 2 3 13 5 2 3 13 5 2 3 13 Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function! (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. # Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. i Ill and (27). The latter two needed to be clarified. In general it was indicated that the student assistant did not take the initiative in organizing activities but that he did stand by ready to assist when asked. Items (32) and (33) revealed a need for clarification especially at Level I, Resource and Liaison Items^ Item (22). To serve as a source of information for those residents who request information regarding current activities on campus, red-tape of university departments, campus traditions, university policy, etc. This item was accepted and approved as a function by all levels at a high degree of consensus. Item (23). To serve as a source of Information for those individuals who request legitimate information concerning his assigned residents. EXAMPLES: administrative officials, professors, university counselors, parents, potential employers, Levels II and III judged that this was a function but 11 of the function. 13 student assistants agreed that it was not their There were eight student assistants who felt it should not be the practice. This difference between student assistants and their administrators pointed to a need for discussion of the policy. Item (2U). To serve as an academic tutor in qualified areas for those residents who request such assistance. All levels agreed that it was not the function of the 6 gee Table 13• 112 TABLE 13 RESPONSES OP PROGRAM 0 TO RESOURCE AND LIAISON ITEM'S Judgments1 Item Function­ ing Level i ii Un k* 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 5 2 3 13 Total Attitudes a b Un ij.* 2* 2* 11* 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 5 2 3 13 0 3 0 1 2 5 2 3 13 Total Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV 2 2 2* 0 3* 0 2 11* 1 0 0 0 5 2 3 13 2* 3 2 0 0 8 <210 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 0 2 5* 2* 3* 11* 0 0 0 0 5 2 3 13 0 0 0 3 lj.* 1 2* 8 1 1 1 2 5 2 3 13 (7) Level Level Level Level I II III IV •?* 2* 3* 12* 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 2 3 13 5* 2* 2* 11* 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 2 3 13 (22) (23) 2* 3* 12* 2* t 1 Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (un) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. I student assistant to serve as a tutor and most of the respondents felt that it should not be a function. There were three student assistants who expressed positive atti­ tudes toward the function. Apparently two of them had been tutoring and were pleased with the practice. Item (?)• To obtain and/or disseminate through indi­ vidual contact, written notice, general announcement, or bulletin board any information designated by the residence hall administrators as necessary to meet special situations. There was little doubt about the acceptance and approval of item (7 ) in program Summary. 0. The responses revealed that items (22) and (7 ) were functions, that item (2I4.) was not the practice and that item (23) needed clarification within program 0[. Public Relations and Group Morale Items® Item (3h-)> To serve as official host of the residence halls for those guests who visit his living unit or who attend social functions of the men's residence halls. There was a tendency to accept item (3^4-) as a function. There were four student assistants and one administrator at Level I who judged that it was not a function. If the student assistant was expected to serve In this capacity a need for informing the staff was indicated. 8 See Table 1 I4.. Item (35). To encourage activities which will produce greater unity among residents of his living unit and which will contribute to their sense of belonging. EXAMPLES: attending all activities of his living unit; recognizing individual accomplishment; encouragement of development of scrapbooks for the unit; giving evidence of real enthusiasm for unit activities. This item was accepted and approved at a high degree of consensus. Item (36). To cooperate with part-time student assistants of the women1s residence halls In the execution of a co-ordinated program of social activity and dating for the residents. There was no reliable Indication of the practice in this case as a result of considerable division among the respondents in judgments and attitudes. Summary of the Responses to the Free-Response Questions Question (1). If this questionnaire has failed to list functions which pertain to the student assistant in your current program or which would be a part of his role in the ideal program at your university, please indicate what these functions are or would be? One respondent at Level III and three respondents at Level IV stated that the questionnaire had listed adequately all of the functions of the student assistant In program _0. A fourth respondent at Level IV felt that the question­ naire failed to emphasize sufficiently the function of aiding students to adjust to college life and to spot maladjustments as early as possible. TABLE % RESPONSES OF PROGRAM 0 TO PUBLIC RELATIONS AND GROUP MORALE ITEMS Judgments 1 Item Function­ ing Level i ii Un Total Attitudcs a b On jTotal t (3k) (35) (36) Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3 k 1 0 1 2 12* 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 13 2* 2* 10* 2 2 1 1 0 1 0 5 2 6 1 2* 2* 7 k* 2* 3* 6 i 1 0 0 1 3 13 3 2* 2* 7 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 5 5* 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 13 2 7 1 0 1 0 1 2 k 5 2 3 13 5 2 3 13 5 2 3 13 KeT Jto response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (U n ) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. i 116 A fifth respondent at Level IV complained that the questionnaire was worded in a cumbersome manner and that parts of statements applied but not sufficiently in some cases to permit an adequate response. Questions (2) and (3)jf If the present functions vary considerably from your concept of the ideal program, please indicate what differences, if any, In training, experience, education, remuneration, etc., would be necessary to execute the ideal program? What do you consider the major factors which are preventing the attainment of your concept of the ideal program, if it varies considerably from present practice? A Level I respondent stated that remuneration of student assistants (room rent) was too small to expect a large return in services. Also he believed that the number of qualified candidates was small due to inadequate remuneration# Two respondents at Level II mentioned the same handicap and also suggested that the physical plant was too large to permit an adequate physical arrangement. The Level III respondents mentioned these same factors and one respondent at this level felt the time given by student assistants was insufficient to perform an adequate jcb . At Level IV three of the student assistants expressed the feeling that a lack of remuneration seriously handicapped the program and that board should be added to the room rent. Three additional respondents suggested that the university needed a more consistent and enlightened policy toward the The responses to these two questions were grouped together because of their similarity. residents. Another stated that too much emphasis was placed on the proctoral functions and not enough on the counseling functions. Two of the remaining respondents who answered these questions thought that better selection of student assistants and greater recognition for their work would greatly improve the program. One student assistant who seemed particularly adept at expressing himself was quoted as follows: "I would give first priority to counseling, gaining the recognition and friendship of your men, and being ready to help them at all times. By accomplish­ ing this goal you w o n ’t have to be concerned with "keeping the boys in line". That will be a result of your successful completion of primary duties.” A Summary of the Responses of Program 0 There were five respondents at Level I, two at Level II, three at Level III, and thirteen at Level IV. Thus the sample was more adequate among the administrators than the student assistants. Investigation and reporting of lost, damaged or stolen property was accepted and approved as practice, but there was disapproval among some student assistants of the practice of reporting unauthorized persons in the halls* A need for clarification of the function of maintaining administrative records was indicated at Level I. The responses indicated that the student assistants were not entirely satisfied with the in-service training program. Special staff assignments were not the practice, although some of the administrators felt they should be. The proctoral approach needed some clarification in view of the diversity of response patterns. The problem seemed to center on what should be done about disciplinary cases not handled b y the student judiciary board. The counseling approach and functions were clearly definied with the possible exception of maintenance of guidance records. There was an indication of approval of this practice by administrators. The relationship of student assistants to the student government was not clearly indicated and suggested the need for a clearer definition of the policy. The degree of initiative to be taken in establishing desirable activities was in question but it was the accepted and approved practice to assist the student government in this area. The practice of giving group instruction needed clarification among student assistants and administrators. In addition the Level I administrators believed that the student assistant authorized student government, while the student assistants and other administrators rejected the item as being a function. The resource and liaison items were accepted and approved with the exception of tutoring which was rejected as a function. Clearer definition of the official host capacity of the student assistant was suggested b y the response. The practice in cooperating with the women's residence halls in a coordinated social program was diversified. The major criticisms of the program were that room rent was insufficient remuneration for the student assistant, that the physical structure of the residence halls was poorly arranged, that the student assistant was lacking in time to perform functions adequately, that there was too much emphasis on proctoral functions, that the administration needed a more enlightened policy toward the residents, and that better selection of student assistants was needed. CHAPTER VI ANALYSIS OP THE RESPONSES OF PROGRAM M Introduction The sample from program M was the most complete of all of the samples included in the study* In this program responses were obtained from two administrators who are the only two employed in the program and from 1$ of the 16 student assistants employed in program M. Custodial Items^ Item (1), To Investigate and/or report cases of lost, damaged, or stolen property belonging to the manage­ ment or to any resident living in his dormitory unit* Item (2). To prevent and/or report unauthorized per­ sonnel who attempt to utilize without permission any residence hall facility or equipment. EXAMPLES: dining hall, sleeping accomodations, solicitation privileges, lounges, snack bars, etc* Responses to these two Items indicated that both of the administrators and at least two-thirds of the student assistants accepted items (1 ) and (2) as functions in program M. Five of the student assistants seemed to feel, however, that item (2) should not be a function. This response suggested that this function might well be dis­ cussed in the program to clarify the reasons for its dis­ approval by these respondents. ^ See Table 121 Item (3)« To establish procedures for the effective utilization of all equipment assigned to his dormitory unit* EXAMPLES: recreational equipment, emergency equipment, auxiliary equipment. Although item (3) was considered to be a weak item by the waiter because it seemed to be interpreted differently in some of the programs, the student assistants of program M attained a high consensus that this was not their function* The two administrators, however, judged that it was the practice. If there was any consistency in interpretation of the item between these two levels, then the response patterns suggested a need for some clarification of the difference in judgments between the administrators and stu­ dent assistants* Item (li). To maintain records of information concernhis residents which has been designated by the manage­ ment as essential for efficient operation of the physi­ cal plant* EXAMPLES: Up-to-date roster, room assign­ ment changes, meal ticket assignment* The consensus attained by the respondents in their judgments of an attitudes toward this item indicated that it was accepted and approved by them as a function of program M. Special Staff Items** Item (5). To actively participate in and contribute to staff meetings devoted to administration of the program and/or to the in-service training of the staff members* ^ See Table Although the Level I administrator was undecided as to whether or not item (5 ) was and should be a function, the Level II administrator and 12 of the 15 student assistants agreed that it was and felt that it should be a function. The judgments of three student assistants that it was not and their feeling that it should not be, were not clarified by any write-in responses. Item (6). To assume special staff assignments and responsibilities that are not directly related to his functions in his own dormitory unit. EXAMPLES: week-end desk duty, dining hall duty, evaluation committees, administrative detail committees, etc. The degree of consensus attained among the respondents indicated that this item was generally accepted and approved as a function. There were two student assistants who judged that it was a function but should not be, and there was one who judged that it was not a function but that it should be the practice. not clear. The reasons for these response patterns were They did indicate the possibility of differences in interpretation, however it seemed more likely that there was a need for a more even distribution of such assignments within this program. At least a discussion of the reason for such assignments might strengthen the program at this point through a greater acceptance of such assignments. At the same time consideration as to their relative import­ ance might result in some revisions. 123 TABLE 15 RESPONSES OP PROGRAM M TO CUSTODIAL AND SPECIAL STAFF ITgMS Judgmen ts^ Item (1) (2) (3) (h) (9) (6 ) Function­ ing Level i ii Un 1* 1* 0 0 - Attitudes Total a b Un 0 0 1 1 1* 1* 0 0 0 0 - — — - _ mm 11* k 0 15 11* 3 1 1* 1* 0 0 0 0 1 1 1* 1* 0 0 0 0 1 1 mm - • - - - - • 10* 3 2 15 9 5 1 15 1* 1* - 0 0 0 0 1 1 - - mm 1 15 1 1 15 1 1 Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1* 1* 0 0 0 0 1 1 - - - - 3 12* 0 15 k 10* Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1* 1* 0 0 1 1 1* 1* 0 0 - - - - - 13* 0 0 0 — 2 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 0 1* 0 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 15* 0 0 0 0 0 1* 0 0 1* 0 1 1 — — «• — 12* 3 0 1* 1* 0 0 0 0 • — — 12* 3 0 1* Total 1 1 - — — 15 12* 3 0 l£ ** 1 1 — 15 1* 1* 0 0 0 0 1 1 — *• 11* k m 0 15> ^ Key to response symbols 1 (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; TH7 should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. I2h Proctoral Items^ Item (8). To obtain all of the facts regarding all such misbehavior and to affix penalties according to his own judgment. The Level I respondent judged that this was part of the approach being used to handle cases of resident mis­ behavior and felt that it should be part of the approach. The Level II respondent was undecided about the item, while none of the student assistants judged that this was the approach used. (One student assistant who was undecided in his judgment did feel, however, that it should be the approach used.) It seemed quite possible that the difference between the Level I and Level IV judgments and attitudes might have resulted from different interpretations. the agreement of 13 On the other hand, student assistants that it was not and should not be the practice Indicated a possible need for the administrator to Investigate why his response deviated from the pattern. Item (9). To obtain the facts and to affix penalties as designated by other authorities* 3 See Table 16. 125 Tiie administrators and the large majority of the student assistants agreed that this was not and should not be the approach used; nevertheless, there were four student assist­ ants who interpreted the item to be the approach. One of the latter felt that it should not be the approach. Item (10). To obtain the facts, to affix penalties for the minor infractions, and to refer the more serious cases to designated authorities. Although there were two Level IV respondents who judged this item to be the approach, the remaining respondents rejected this item as an expression of the function in program M. The greater majority also felt that this should not be the practice. Item (11). To obtain the facts, to refer cases of minor infraction to the student government, and to refer more serious cases to designated authorities. This item seemed to reveal a possible trend in program M, since the Level I administrator and the three student assist­ ants who judged that it was not the approach being used, felt that it should be the approach. This trend indicated that the respondents may have varied in their interpretation of the item. The question that seemed to be raised here was as follows: How many cases must the student government handle before one can reply that it is a referral source for handling minor infractions? It seemed likely that the student 126 government was more active In some living units than In others In assuming this responsibility. If this was the case, then it probably accounts for the variations in judgment. It did seem, nonetheless, that the six respondents who felt It should not be the approach needed to discuss the matter with the two administrators who felt it should be the practice. Item C12). To obtain the facts, and to refer all cases to the student government. All of the respondents express the approach used. agreed that this Item did not One student assistant felt, however, that it should be the approach. Item (13). To obtain the facts, and to refer all cases to the designated authorities. The trend toward favoring item (11) as the approach was reflected possibly in the responses to this item. The two administrators and nine of the student assistants judged item (13) to be the approach used, while six. felt that it was not the approach generally used. The four response patterns that It was the practice but that it should not be the practice seemed to be linked with the response patterns which favored item (11) as the approach to be used. TABLE 16 RESPONSES OP PROGRAM M TO PROCTORAL ITEMS Judgments^ Item (8) (9) (10) (11) Function­ ing Level Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level I Level II Level III Level IV i ii 1* 0 0 0 - Attitudes Total a b 0 1* 1 1 1* 0 0 0 - _ • Un Un 0 1* Total 1 1 mm 0 13* 2 15 1 13* 1 15 0 0 1* 0 l# Q i i 0 0 1* 1* 0 0 l l — _ • — k 11* 0 15 3 11* 1 15 0 0 1* • 1* 0 0 l l 0 0 1* 1* 0 0 l l - - mm - - • 2 13* 0 15 11* 1 15 0 1* 1* 0 11* 0 0 l i 0 0 l l - - 0 0 2 k 0 15 3 «• 1* 1* - - 7 6 - 15 1 response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a functTon; (un) undecided; (a) should be a function; TFT should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 128 TABLE 1$ (CONTINUED) .......... . Judgments 1 Item (12) (13) Oh) Function­ ing Level i i i ; Un' t I II III IV 0 0 0 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1* 9 6 0 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 1# 1# 0 0 0 2 b On | Totsl 0 0 1 1 0 0 1* 1# 0 0 1 1 15># 0 15 1 13# 1 15 0 0 0 0 l i 0 0 1# 0 0 1# l i 15 6 8 1 15 l l 0 0 1# 1# 0 0 l l _ tm a 1 Level Level Level Level — Total Attitude'S • 12# - _ .. - — - .. • — • - - - 1 15 2 11# 2 - .. 15 1 Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function'; (un) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 129 Item (llj.). To assume no responsibility whatsoever in cases of misbehavior unless they give evidence of a severe personality adjustment problem, in which event they are handled as a counseling case. This poorly worded item was rejected and disapproved as a function by both administrators and the great majority of student assistants. Summary. It seemed from the analysis of the responses to the proctoral items that program D might have been moving away from the practice of referring all disciplinary cases to designated authorities, to the approach of referring at least minor infractions to the student government. Write-in responses regarding this matter are quoted as follows? Level I respondent; "The student government is unwilling to assume the responsibility at the present time." Level IV respondent; "Student government should have a greater part in disciplinary action." Level IV respondent; "Sttident government should have more responsibility when they show their ability to carry the responsibility." Counseling Items^JItem (15). To counsel such residents at a level compar­ able to that of a professional college counselor. Item (16). To counsel those whose problems are judged to be less serious in their implications and to refer to the proper agency those whose problems appear to be more serious. ^ See Table 1,7. 130 Item (17.)• To refer all such students regardless of the apparent degree of seriousness of the problem. The attempt to determine the approach of program M in the handling of counseling problems was apparently successful. The responses indicated that items (15) and (17) were rejected and disapproved, while item (16) was accepted and approved as the approach to be used. One student assistant felt that if the ”should b e ” responses implied an Ideal program then item (15) should be the approach used. Item (18). To interview all of his residents as a means of establishing friendly relationships, identifying problems, imparting or obtaining information and answer­ ing questions. Although the two administrators judged that this item was the general practice, six student assistants did not accept the item as a function. Since three of the latter felt it should be a function, the possibility that they interpreted the Item to imply the professional type of counseling interview seemed feasible. On the other hand; If they were implying in their responses the idea that "we are expected to but we d o n ’t know how or we don’t get around to it,” a discussion of the function might prove of some value to the program. The greater majority of the respondents agreed that it should be a function. 131 Item (19). To maintain records of all information concerning his designated counseling responsibilities, EXAMPLES} interview records, Referral records, anecdotal record, personal data sheets, cumulative records, rating scales, etc. It appeared from the responses that most of the student assistants were keeping guidance records of some sort and felt that they should be. The two who were ostensi­ bly not doing this and did not feel they should, may have revealed some disagreement with the type of records included in the examples which had been placed there for clarification. Item (20), To serve as a mediator, advisor, and If necessary as a referral agent for those residents who have verbal clashes or physical conflicts, etc, EXAMPLES! room-mate clash, etc* Item (21), To assist his residents who seek aid in developing better study habits. It seemed likely from the agreement of the respondents that these two items expressed the accepted and approved practice in program M, Summary, The function of interviewing was the only one which revealed a possible need for clarification in the counseling area of this program. 132 TABLE 17 RESPONSES OF FROGRA?' M TO COUNSELING ITEMS Item Function­ ing Level (15) (16) (17) (1«) Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Judgments^ i 0 0 1 1* 1* 15* 0 0 0 1# 9 ii Un Total 1* 1* 0 0 — Attitudes Un Total a b 1 1 0 0 1* 1* 0 0 1 1 •» • .. _ mm mm Ilf* 0 15 2 13* 0 15 0 0 0 0 1 1 1* 1* 0 0 0 0 1 1 mm _ «• - - mm - 0 0 15 15* 0 0 15 1* 1* 0 0 1 1 0 0 1* 1* 0 0 1 1 • mm _ mm - — 0 15* 0 15 0 0 1 1 15 * 0 15 0 0 0 0 1 1 1* 1# 0 0 - -> - - 15 12* 2 1 6 0 — 15 Key ~b° response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a functionl (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. 5 Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. ■ :- i 133 TABLE I? (C ONTINUED) Item Function­ ing Level (19) (20) (21) Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level ' I II III IV Judgments1 i ii 1* 1* 0 0 - Un Total Attitudes a b 0 0 1 1 1* 1* 0 0 0 0 1 1 - - - - - - 15 12* 2 1 15 0 0 0 l i 12 * 2 1 1* 1* 0 0 0 1 0 i 1* 1* « _ mm .. . 13* ' 1 Un Total 0 - 1 15 13* 1 1 15 l l 1* 1* 0 0 0 0 l i - — - — 0 0 1* 1* 0 0 0 0 .. _ mm mm 13* 1 1 15 1 5>* 15 Ml 1 to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a functTon! (UnJ undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. -:c- Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus Group Guidance and Group Advisory Area^ Item (25»)« To study group structure or formation as a means of identifying cliques, clique leaders, and marginal or outer-fringe residents in his living unit, EXAMPLES! directed observation, sociometrics, etc# This item was undoubtedly interpreted differently by different respondents, since it was geared to a level beyond the experiences of some respondents. This conclu­ sion was indicated by write-in responses and undecided responses throughout the programs studied. Item (26). To serve as ex-officio advisor to the stu­ dent government officers and committees elected or appointed by the residents within his living unit. Item (27). To serve as an automatically elected offi­ cer in the student government of the residence halls or of his living unit by virtue of his position# There seemed to be little doubt but that item (26) was the best expression of the relationship of the student assistant to the student government in program M. Item (28). To assume initiative in organizing and main­ taining special interest groups within the living unit or residence halls# Item (29). To assist student government (when asked) In effectuating a special Interest program. 5 See Table 16. 135 Item (30). To assume initiative in engaging a program of outside speakers to discuss topics designated by the residence halls' personnel officials. EXAMPLES: vocational topics, current event topics, general lectures. Item (31). To assist 3tudent government (when requested) in engaging or suggesting a program of outside speakers. The response patterns to these four items were somewhat revealing. 1. 2 . They seemed to indicate the following: Practice varied with respect to taking the initiative in organizing special interest groups. There was a considerable difference in judgments and attitudes between the two administrators and among the student assistants. Practice was uniform and the feeling was unanimous regarding the student assistant's responsibility in rendering assistance in this case. Such responsibility was accepted and approved. 3. Practice was uniform in not assuming the initia­ tive in organizing an outside speaker program. The feeling of one administrator and three student assistants that this should be the practice suggested a possible trend in the program. k- Practice varied in rendering assistance to the student government In such cases. The great majority felt this should be the practice. The latter responses seemed to be implying that nwe are ready to help if the residents ever show any interest in organizing such a program .n Item (32). To give group Instruction or explanation to his residents of those topics designated by the resi­ dence hall staff or of those topics which he deems essential to effective operation of the living unit. EXAMPLES: Manners and courtesy; residence hall policy and procedure; requirements of effective group living; definition of his own role; study habits In general; etc. Again, the practice seemed to be somdSwhat divided. 136 TABLE 18 RESPONSES OP PROGRAM M TO GROUP GUIDANCE ITEMS. Items Function­ ing Levels Judgments Attitudes i ii Un Total a 0 0 1* 1* b Un Total (25) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1# 1# 8 5 2 15 11* 3 1 15 (2 6 ) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1* 1* 0 0 0 0 l l 1* 1* 0 0 0 0 l l • • 1 15 (27) Level Level Level Level I II III IV l l «a 15 (2 8 ) Level Level Level Level I II III IV (29) Level I Level II Level III Level IV (30) Level I Level II Level III Level IV _ 0 0 1 1 .. 0 0 0 0 «. «. • _ 0 15* 0 0 15 li|.* 0 0 1* 1* i l 0 0 1* 0 1* 0 _ — — — 15 * 0 0 » 0 15 0 lk* i 0 • 1* i# 0 0 0 l l 0 1* 8 6 1 15 9 1* 0 0 0 «» «D 6 0 1* 1* 0 0 0 0 l l 1* 1* 0 0 0 0 _ _ • - - - 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 1* 1# 0 0 l l 0 l* 1* 0 «• — — — «• «• 0 15 * 0 15 3 10 * - 0 15 * m tm 15 * 0 1 1 m l l 15 i l • 15 0 i l 2 i5 • Key to response symbols; (i) is a function? (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; TFT should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least two-thirds consensus. I 137 TABLE 18 (CONTINUED) Judgments Item (31) (32) (33) Function­ ing Level i ii Un Ati;itudes Total a b Un Total Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1* 1# 0 0 0 0 1 1 1* 1* 0 0 0 0 1 1 mm - - - - mm - mm 9 6 0 15 13* 1 1 15 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1# 1# 0 0 0 0 1 1 1* 1* 0 0 i l - — - - - mm 9 6 0 15 11* 3 0 0 1 15 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 1# 1# 0 0 1 1 0 0 1* 1* 0 0 1 l — - - - « 1 13* 1 mm 0 l£* 0 15 - 15 ^ Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function! (un)" undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus The administrators thought that this was the general practice. If the student assistants were consistent in their inter­ pretation, the responses indicated a need for clarification of the practice. There did seem to be some trend toward favoring the inclusion of the item in practice by those who judged that it was not the practice. Item (33). To authorize expenditure of student government funds in his living unit by signing appropriate requisi­ tions* There was little doubt but that this item was rejected as a part of the practice. For some reason, one student assistant thought it should be the practice. Resource Items^ Item (22). To serve as a source of information for those residents who request information regarding current activities on campus, red-tape of university departments, campus traditions, univeral ty policy, etc. Item (23). To serve as a source of information for those individuals who request legitimate Information concerning his assigned residents. EXAMPLES: admin­ istrative officials, professors, university counselors, parents, potential employers, etc. Both of these items were judged to be functions of the student assistant by the greater majority of the respondents. The Level I administrator judged that item (23) was not the practice and he was against the inclusion of the item as a function. 6 See He stated in a write-in response that he Table 19. 139 considered the item as being too inclusive. He felt that the examples should have included only parents and univer­ sity counselors. One student assistant felt that item (23) was the practice but that it should not be, while another student assistant judged that it was not and should not be a function. Perhaps some need for clarification of this item in program M was suggested by these response patterns. Item (2lj). To serve as an academic tutor in qualified areas for those residents who request such assistance. The administrators seemed to feel that tutoring was a function, while two-thirds of the student assistants judged that it was not. Since the administrator at Level II felt it should not be the practice and since the other adminis­ trator as well as four student assistants felt it should b e the practice, there was evidence of a need for clarification of this item within the program. Item (7). To obtain and/or disseminate through indi­ vidual contact, written notice, general announcement, or bulletin board any information designated by the residence hall administrators as necessary to meet special situations. The high degree of consensus in response to this item indicated that it was the accepted and approved practice in program M. TA.BLE 19 RESPONSES OP PROGRAM M TO RESOURCE -\ND L I 'I SON ITEMS Item Function­ ing Level (22) (23) (2k) (7) Level Level Lcvol Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Judgments* i 1* 1* ii 0 0 Attitudes Un Total 0 0 1 1 a b 1* 1* 0 0 Un Total 0 0 1 1 0 2 15 l i _ 0 0 15 13* 0 1* 1* 0 0 0 i l 0 1* 1* 0 0 0 — - .. _ - - . 111.* 1 0 15 13* 1 1 15 1* 1* 0 0 0 0 l l 1* 0 0 1* 0 0 l l mm « _ _ - - - - k 10* 1 15 k 9 2 15 1* 1* 0 0 0 0 i l 1* 1* 0 0 l i mm — — _ - l£* 0 0 0 0 0 l£* 15 13* - 2 15 ^ Key t-° response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (vJn) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. xui Public Relations Item? Item Ok) . To serve as official host of the residence halls for those guests who visit his living unit or who attend social functions of the men’s residence halls. Although the two administrators and eight of the student assistants felt that this item was not the practice, there were five student assistants who judged that it was their function. This variation probably resulted from different interpretations of the item; however, there did seem to be some trend of feeling that it should be included as a function. Item (35>), To encourage activities which will produce greater unity among residents of his living unit and which will contribute to their sense of belonging, EXAMPLES: attending all activities of his living unit; recognizing individual accomplishment; encouragement of development of scrapbooks for the unit; giving evidence of real enthusiasm for unit activities. The degree of acceptance and approval of item (3J?) indicated that the respondents considered it to be a function and that they believed it should be the practice. Item (3 6 ), To cooperate with part-time student-assistants of the women’s residence halls in the execution of a co-ordinated program of social activity and dating for the residents. 7 See Table '2 RESPONSES OP PROGRAM B TO RESOURCE AND LI M SON ITEM'S Judgments^Item Function­ ing Level I ii Un Attitudes Total a b Un Total (22) Level Level Levol Level I II III IV 1# 1* 2# 20# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 20 1# 1# 2# 18# 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 20 (23) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1# 1# 2# 19* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 20 1# 1# 2* 17# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 2 20 (2b) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 2# 8 1# 1# 0 10 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 20 0 0 2# 7 1# 1# 0 10 0 0 0 3 1 1 2 20 (7) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1# 1# 2# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 20 1# 1# 2# 18# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 20 I! 20* * Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; (bj should not bo a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. Public Relations and Group Morale Items^ Item (3k)• To serve as official host of the residence halls for those guests who visit his living unit or who attend social functions of the m e n fs residence halls. If the respondents interpreted this item with a satisfactory degree of consistency, the responses indicated that the student assistant was expected to serve as an official host. Two of the administrative respondents re­ jected this item as a function of the student assistant, while two administrators judged that it was a function. Only two student assistants judged that it was not their function. These response patterns indicated that the differences among the administrative respondents were more likely a result of different interpretation than a variation in policy. If, however, this was not a problem of inter­ pretation the item needs clarification at this functioning level. Item (35). To encourage activities which will produce greater unity among residents of his living unit and which will contribute to their sense of belonging. EXAMPLES: attending all activities of his living unit; recognizing individual accomplishment; encouragement of development of scrapbooks for the unit; giving evidence of real enthusiasm for unit activities. The responses Indicated that all respondents considered this item to be a function and that they believed it should be. ^ See Table 2^. 173 TABLE 26 RESPONSES OP PROGRAM B TO PUBLIC RELATIONS AND GROUP MORALE ITEMS Judgments 1 Item Function­ ing Level i ii Un Attitudes Total a b Un jTotal (3b) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 1* 1 l£* 1* 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 1 1 2 20 0 1* 0 1^* 1* 0 1 1 0 0 1 5 1 1 2 20 (35) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1* 1* 2* 20* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 20 1* 1* 2* 19# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 20 (36) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1* 1* 2* 6 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 3 1* 1* 1 12 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 3 1 1 2 20 1 1 2 20 I & ey response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un)■undecided; (a) should be a function; TbJ should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 17U Item (36). To cooperate with part-time student-assistants of ihe women’s residence halls in the execution of a co-ordinated program of social activities and dating for the residents* It seemed that the administrative Judgment of general practice could have been influenced by what they (the ad­ ministrators) felt should be the practice since this con­ clusion is based on the response of the 11 student assistants who judged that this was not their function and the 12 who thought it should be their function* This indicated a possible breakdown somewhere and suggested a need for clarification. It also served as an indication of the student assistant’s willingness to assume this function. Summary of the Responses to the Free Response Questions Question (1). If this questionnaire has failed to list functions which pertain to the student assistant in your current program or which would be a part of his role in the ideal program at your university, please explain what the functions are or would be, Only one administrator responded to this question, and he stated that there should be greater emphasis on faculty and residence hall staff relationships. He felt that the student assistants should serve as a liaison between the faculty and residents as well as between the administration and the residents. i 175 Of the five s tudent assistants responding to this question, two commented that the questionnaire had covered the functions quite adequately, while one complained that many questions were vague, especially items (5), (6), and (14). The latter believed that the illustrations or examples often made the responses difficult because the examples were dissimilar in nature. Two of the five student assistants proposed the function of setting an example by his behavior as one that should have been in­ cluded in the listing of functions. Question (2). If the present functions vary consider­ ably from your concept of the ideal program, please indicate what differences, if any, in training, ex­ perience, education, and remuneration, etc., would be necessary to execute the ideal program. The one administrator responding to this item felt the need for more full-time staff members, but he stated that funds were not yet available. Of the five student assistants responding to this question, one thought that the program was as close to the ideal as possible, while three others stated that the training, especially in psychology, was insufficient. One of the latter believed that there should be greater emphasis on leadership capacity in the selection of student assistants and that ideally the student assistant should be a full-time employee. The fifth student assistant suggested that an even greater responsibility should be placed on the student government in managing their own affairs. Question (3). What do you consider the major factors which are preventing attainment of your concept of the ideal program if it varies considerably from present practice? The head of program B stated that although selection of student assistants had been generally good, it was, however, sometimes difficult to motivate them to woric to their full capacity. Two of the eight student assistants responding to this item said that resident apathy was a definite handicap to the program. Three also felt that a lacK of time caused some difficulty in carrying out their ideal program. One expressed the feeling that the frequent turnover in student assistant employment hurt the system, and another stated that the functions of counseling and discipline were irreconcilable. The need for more training and better qualified applicants was expressed by two of the eight responding. One stated that each house needed a private wellequipped room for its social functions and that there should be less red tape in connection with social functions. 177 Summary The responses of administrators and the student assistants in this program revealed the desire to give students as much responsibility as they will assume. It did appear, however, that in some instances the responses of student assistants were affected by the failure of their own unit governments to act effectively In handling some of their responsibilities. The questionnaire did seem to reveal the emphasis on the role of the student assistant as a group leader. It further revealed that the student assistants had internalized this group leader selfconcept to a great extent. The variances in consensus between administrators and student assistants seemed to stem largely from the ad­ ministrators* responses to present practice in general, while the student assistants tended to reply in terms of their own specific situations. CHAPTER VIII ANALYSIS OP THE RESPONSES OP PROGRAM I Introduction Program I returned 8 of the 23 questionnaires sent to them. One of these was filled out by the Level II ad­ ministrator who directs the guidance program of the residence halls, and the remaining seven were filled out by student assistants. This was the most inadequate sample of the study. Custodial Items^ Item (1)> To investigate and/or report cases of lost, damaged, or stolen property belonging to the management or to any resident living in his dormitory unit. Item (2)» To prevent and/or report unauthorized personnel who attempt to utilize without permission any residence hall facility or equipment. EXAMPLES: dining hall, sleeping accomodations, solicitation privileges, lounges, snack bars, etc. Both of these Items were judged by all of the respondents from program 1^ to be the functions of the student assistant and they approved their Inclusion in the program. Item (3). To establish procedures for the effective utilization of all equipment assigned to his dormitory unit. EXAMPLES: recreational equipment, emergency equipment, auxiliary equipment. 1 See Table 27. 179 All of the respondents except two student assistants judged this item to be the practice. One of these two student assistants felt that it was not and should not be a function, while the other one was undecided in his judgment and attitude. It was quite possible that this variation in response resulted from different interpretations of the item. Item (U). To maintain records of information con­ cerning his residents which has been designated by the management as essential for efficient operation of the physical plant. EXAMPLES: Up-to-date roster, room assignment changes, meal ticket assignment. The administrator and six of the seven student assistants accepted this item as being a function in their program. Furthermore, the same respondents were of the opinion that it should be a function of the student assistant, with the exception of one student assistant who was undecided in his attitude. The student assistant who rejected the item as a function responded that it should not be a function. His position was not clarified by any write-in response and it suggested a possible need for clarification of his position if he Interpreted the item as did the others. 180 Special Staff Items^ Item (5). To actively participate in and contribute to staff meetings devoted to administration of the program and/or to the in-service training of the staff members. Apparently two of the student assistants did not be­ lieve that item (5) could be classified as a function in their program. As in the case of some of the other programs their responses suggested the possibility that they might have disagreed with the manner in which the item was phrased or that they felt such meetings were not frequent enough to classify their occasional attendance as one of their functions. The division of responses regarding what should be done indicated a possible need for discussion of the function within the program. Item (6)♦ To assume special staff assignments and respon­ sibilities that are not directly related to his functions in his own dormitory unit. EXAMPLES: week-end desk duty, dining hall duty, evaluation committees, ad­ ministrative detail committees, etc. There was a possible need for clarification of this item which was rejected by all respondents as being a function but which called forth a diversity of positive and negative attitudes toward its inclusion in the program. 2 See Table 27. TABLE 27 RESPONSES OP PROGRAM I TO CUSTODIAL AND SPECIAL STAFF ITEMS JutIgments^ Item Function­ ing Level (1) (2) (3 ) (k ) (5) Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level i ii Un Total Attitudes a b Un Total 1* 0 0 1 m■ 1# 0 0 *» 7* 0 1 mm 0 7 am 6* 0 1 7 1* 0 0 1 «• 1* 0 0 1 mm 7* 0 0 7 6» 0 1 7 I II III IV 1* 0 0 1 1* 0 0 1 1 1 7 5 1 1 7 Level Level Level Level I II III IV l* 0 0 1 1* 0 0 1 Level Level Level Level I II III IV _ — 6* 1 0 7 5* 1 1 7 1* 0 0 1 l* 0 0 1 • «» mm 5* 2 0 7 *4- 0 1* 0 1 0 mm _ 7 1 1 2 7 0 1 ■ (6) Level Level Level Level I II III IV mm «. 7* 0 1* Ml 3 3 7 0 Key to response symbols; (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (un) undecided; (a) should be a function; TbT should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 182 Proctoral Items-* Analysis of the responses to the items in this area revealed a slight difference between the judgments of the administrator and those of the student assistants. The difference may have resulted from the administrator’s attempt to select the Item which most nearly expressed the approach used In the program. The student assistants, however, seemed to feel that it required more than one of the items to express the entire approach used. Item ^8). To obtain all of the facts regarding all such misbehavior and to affix penalties according to his own judgment. All of the respondents except one student assistant, who was undecided, rejected this item as the approach used. Apparently there was some difference of opinion among the student assistants as to whether or not it should be the approach. Three felt it should not be, one thought it should be, and three were undecided. These differences of attitude suggested a possible need for clarification through discussion. Item (9). To obtain the facts and to affix penalties as designated by other authorities* 3 See Table 28 183 Only two student assistants agreed with the administrator's judgment that this item was not the approach used, while five of the student assistants believed it to be at least a partial expression of the total approach. None of the student assistants agreed with the administrator’s feeling that it should not be the approach. These response patterns suggested a possible difference in interpretation. If, however, the interpretations were similar, then this item revealed a real need for discussion of the matter within the program. Item (10). To obtain the facts, to affix penalties for the minor Infractions, and to refer the more serious cases to designated authorities. Item (11). To obtain the facts, to refer cases of minor infraction to the student government, and to refer more serious cases to designated authorities. The writer felt that in this case the administrator and student assistants may have Interpreted this item as follows! The administrator may have thought that Item (11) expressed the desirable approach but that the time had not yet arrived when the student government could be considered as an actual referral source for handling minor cases of misbehavior. Therefore, he did not believe that item (10) was the approach that should be used in terms of the more ideal program which he apparently hoped for in the future. 181* The student assistants, however, responded in their attitudes at a level more nearly approaching the actual situation at the time of their response. In other words, they seemed to be saying, "We should handle the minor cases and the student government should not handle them until It reveals Itself to be capable of handling such cases.” The write-in responses seemed to bear out these differences in interpretati on. Item (12). To obtain the facts, and to refer all cases to the student government. This item was rejected as a part of practice, and six of the eight respondents thought it should not be the approach. Item (13)» To obtain the facts, and to refer all cases to the designated authorities. The student assistants again revealed a considerable diversity in their judgments and attitudes. It seemed likely that the variations resulted from different interpretations of the phrase "designated authorities.” There may have been confusion as to who was included by this term, which un­ fortunately was broader In its Implications than originally was intended when the item was constructed. 185 TABLE 28 RESPONSES OP PROGRAM I TO PROCTORAL ITEMS Judgments^Item (8) Function­ ing Level i ii Un Attitudes Total a 1 0 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 6* 1 7 1 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 1* 0 1 0 (10) Level Level Level Level I II III IV ( I D Level Level Level Level I II III IV (9) b Un Total mm 1* 0 _ 1* 0 1 3 3 7 1* 0 1 _ — mm .. _ 5* 2 0 7 5* 0 2 l* 0 0 1 0 1* 0 1 _ . 1 7 mm mm w 6# 1 0 _ 7 6* 0 • mm 7 0 1* 0 1 i» 0 0 1 -o - - - _ — - — 0 7* 0 7 0 k 3 7 ^ Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) unilecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. TABLE 28 (CONTINUED) Judgments Item (12) (13) (ik) Function­ ing Level Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV i Ii 1 Un 1 Attitudes Total a b J Un Total 1 0 1* 0 1 0 1* 0 - - - 0 7* 0 7 0 5* 2 7 0 1* 0 1 0 i* 0 1 3 2 7 as mm 2 1+ 1 7 2 tm 0 1* — mm 0 6* m 0 1 0 1* 0 l 1 7 0 6# 1 7 ^ Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a functionj (un) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. i 187 Item (lk). To assume no responsibility whatsoever in cases ofmisbehavior unless they give evidence of a severe personality adjustment problem, in which event they are handled as a counseling case. There was considerable agreement in judgments and attitudes that this item was not and should not be the approach used. Summary. It would seem from the response patterns that in general the student assistants favored the approaches stated in items (9) and (10) as being statements of the practice which existed and should exist, while the ad­ ministrator thought that item (10) most nearly expressed the approach used and that item (11) expressed the approach that should be used. Counseling Items^" Item (l£). To counsel such residents at a level comparable to that of a professional college counselor. Item (16). To counsel those whose problems are judged to t>e less serious in their implications and to refer to the proper agency those whose problems appear to be more serious. Item (17). To refer all such students regardless of the apparent degree of seriousness of the problem. The response patterns of these three items indicated that the majority of the student assistants and the See Table 29* 188 administrator as well believed item (16) to be the most adequate expression of the counseling approach used in program I. Although the attitudes expressed tended to follow the pattern of the judgments, there was one student assistant who felt that item (15) should be the approach used instead of item (l6). Another student assistant believed that item (17) was the approach that was being employed and should be employed* Item (18)* To interview all of his residents as a means establishing friendly relationships, identifying problems, imparting or obtaining information and answering questions* ot Although one student assistant judged that item (18) was not and should not be the practice, it appeared from his write-in response that he interpreted the word "interview” to mean the professional counseling interview. This was not the implication Intended by the writer, and it did not seem likely that the remaining respondents who felt that it was and should be a function interpreted the Item to imply professionalized interviewing* Item (19)* To maintain records of all information concerning his designated counseling responsibilities. EXAMPLES: interview records, referral records, anecdotal record, personal data sheets, cumulative records, rating scales, etc. 189 TABLE 29 RESPONSES OF PROGRAM I TO COUNSELING ITENS Judgments*" Item (15) (16) (17) (16) Function­ ing Level Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV i ii Un Attitudes Total _ 0 1* 0 - — _ 0 7* 0 a b Un Total mm mm 1 0 1* 0 1 7 1 5* 1 7 0 0 1 2 7 mm mm 1* 0 0 1 1# _ — 1 1 7 « k _ 1 mm 0 1* 0 1 • • _ _ 1 5* 1 7 0 1* 0 1 k 1 .. mm 2 7 m 1* 0 0 _ - - 6* 1 0 1 7 1* 0 0 1 • - - «• 1 0 7 6# ^ Key to response symbols; (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function! (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. -x- Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. I 190 TABLE 29 (CONTINUED) Judgments* Item (19) (20) (21) Function­ ing Level Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV i ii Un Total 1* 0 0 1 Attitudes a 1# — b 0 Un Total 0 1 2 0 7 0 0 1 1 7 1 mm 2 1 7 0 1 5* mm 1* 0 « « 7* 0 0 7 1* 0 0 1 _ _ _ 7* 0 0 1* mm 7 0 1# 0 0 _ mm «. 6* 0 1 7 Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided* Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 191 Despite the fact that five of the student assistants agreed with the administrator that this item should be a function, only two student assistants agreed with him that it was the practice. This discrepancy indicated a possible need for discussion of this function within the program. Item (20), To serve as a mediator, advisor, and if necessary as a referral agent for those residents who have verbal clashes or physical conflicts, etc. Item (21). To assist his residents who seek aid In developing better study habits. There seemed to be little doubt that items (20) and (21) were accepted and approved functions in program Summary, I, Of the items listed in the counseling area it appeared that item (18) was the one in greatest need of clarification within the program. Group Guidance and Group Advisory Items q Item (25>). To study group structure or formation as a means of identifying cliques, clique leaders, and marginal or outer-fringe residents in his living unit. EXAMPLES: directed observation, sociometrics, etc. The extent of the variations in interpretation of this item was not known; however, there seemed to be little doubt but that the item was interpreted differently. In view of this probability It was difficult to determine adequately the ^ See Table 30. 192 actual p r a c t i c e pertaining to the item. The administrator judged that it could not be considered as a function but that it should be. Since h e is a professional m a n in the field of student personnel it seemed li k e l y that he u n d e r ­ stood the t erminology employed and that he favored the use of sociometrics i n residence halls. I t e m (26). T o serve as ex-officio advisor to the student government officers and committees elected or a p p o i n t e d b y the residents within his living unit. I t e m (27). T o serve as an automatically elected offi­ cer i n the student government of the residence halls or of his living unit by virtue of his position. T h e r e was not a clear differentiation between these two possible relationships student government. of the student assistant to the In the construction of the items it was a n t i c i p a t e d that acceptance of one functioning relation­ ship w o u l d result in rejection of the other as a part of the practice. There were two student assistants in program _I, however, w h o judged that both Items were the practice. basis f o r their Interpretations was not known. The It seemed likely f r o m the responses of others that practice was not clearly d e f ined i n this respect and perhaps called for some cl a rification w i t h i n the program. 193 Item (28). To assume Initiative in organizing and main­ taining special interest groups within the living unit or residence halls. Item (29). To assist student government (when asked) in effectuating a special interest program. The administrator judged that item (29) was the approach used in connection with special interest groups and that it was not and should not be the responsibility of the student assistant to take the initiative in organizing such activities. The respondents at the student assistant level were divided considerably in their judgments and attitudes pertaining to these t w o items. The practice employed seemed to vary with the student assistant as did the attitude toward the practice. Item (30). To assume initiative in engaging a program of outside speakers to discuss topics designated b y the residence halls personnel officials. EXAMPLES: vocational topics, current event topics, general lectures. Item (31). To assist student government (when requested) in engaging or suggesting a program of outside speakers. Although the majority of the student assistants agreed with the administrator that item (30) was not the practice, four of them disagreed with him in their opinions as to what should be done In this case. These four seemed to think that it should be their responsibility to take the initiative in organizing an outside speaker program, while the administrator judged that this should not be their responsibility. The administrator possibly considered the assumption of this responsibility by the student assistant as a deterrent to student government initiative, while the student assistants may have been expressing the attitude that if the residents won’t take this responsibility the student assistants should assume it because such activities are highly desirable. The administrator judged that it was the function of the student assistant to assist (when asked) in engaging outside speakers and that this should be the approach employed. The judgments of six student assistants, in view of their previous responses to item (30), implied that it could not be considered their function to assist in engaging outside speakers, because the student government had never Instigated such a program. It did not seem likely that they were shirking this responsibility, but instead that they were merely trying to point out that such a program was not yet in existence. This interpretation of their responses also seemed to account for the differences in attitudes expressed toward this item. Item (32). To give group instruction or explanation to his residents of those topics designated b y the residence hall staff or of those topics which he deems essential to effective operation of the living unit. EXAMPLES: Manners and courtesy; residence hall policy and procedure; requirements of effective group living; definition of his own role; study habits in general; etc. 195 TABLE 30 Items RESPONSES OP PROGRAM I TO THE GROUP GUIDANCE AND GROUP ADVISORY ITEMS Function­ ing Levels Judgments ^ i (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II . Ill IV ii Un Attitudes Total a b Total Un w 0 1* 0 a* _ — 5* 2 0 • — _ 1* 0 0 mm - - 6* 1 0 •• mm 0 1* 0 1 k 7 0 1* <_ _ 3 k 0 • » a* 0 0 • m • 1 5* 1 1 7 1 1* 0 0 1 - - • .. 7 k 1 2 7 1 0 1* 0 1 mm «• 3 2 2 7 m mm mm mm 0 1# 0 1 » mm 3 3 1 7 «. mm mm 1 mm 0 0 0 3 0 mm 7 mm 1* 0 «. _ 3 1# • 1 7 X 0 0 - mm 1 2 7 k» • m mm 0 1* 0 1 - - 3 •» 0 1* 0 1 mm tm - 0 6* 1 7 0 7 • 7 Key to response symbols; (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (UnT undecided; (a) should be a function; T57 should not be a function; (Un) undecided. Denotes attainment of at least two-thirds consensus. t TABLE 30 (CONTINUED) Judgments ^ Item (3D (32) (33) Function­ ing Level Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV i 1# ii 0 Un At1situdes Total mm mm 0 1 a b Un 1* 0 0 mm 1 mm 1 6* 0 7 3 1* 0 0 1 1* _ _ 1 0 6* Total 6* 2 2 0 0 1 _ • mm 0 1 7 _ 0 1* 0 _ — mm 1 5* 1 1 7 7 . 0 1* 0 1 • - - mm 2 3 2 7 KeV response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (un) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 197 The responses to item (32) suggested that it was generally considered to be a function and that it wqs approved as well. Item (33). To authorize expenditure of student government funds in his living unit by signing appropriate requisitions. Although there was some indication that this item did not express the general practice, there was some diversity of opinion among the student assistants as to whether or not it should be their function. These differences here were again possibly Indicative of a need for discussion of the role of thes tudent assistant in relationship to the student government in program Summary. I. The responses to items in the group-guidance area suggested that the student assistants were divided In their opinions of their relationships to the student government. Resource and Liaison Items^ Item (22). To serve as a source of information for those residents who request information regarding current activities on campus, red-tape of university departments, campus traditions, university policy, etc* Item (23). To serve as a source of information for those individuals who request legitimate information concerning his assigned residents. 6 see Table 31 There seemed to be a general consensus that these two Items expressed the practice in program I and that they should be functions in the program. Item (g^)» To serve as an academic tutor in qualified areas for those residents who request such assistance. In view of the fact that this program has been considered as one that emphasized the tutorial concept of the student assistant in the past, it was surprising that six of the seven student assistants judged that it was not their function to tutor the residents, and that five of them felt it should not be their function. The administrator, however, considered that it was and should be a function. These response patterns indicated a definite need for discussion of the matter within the program, especially If it was desired to perpetuate the tutorial concept. Item (7)» To obtain and/or disseminate through indi­ vidual contact, written notice, general announcement, or bulletin board any information designated by the residence hall administrators as necessary to meet special situations. The responses revealed that this liaison function was the generally accepted and approved practice. T\BLE 31 RESPONSES OF PROGRAM I TO RESOTJRCE AND LI ^I SON ITEMS Judgments^ Item Function­ ing Level (22) (23) (2k) (7) Level Level Levol Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV i Attitudes ii Un Total a b 0 0 1 1* _ 1* Un Total 0 0 I mm mm mm 6* 1 0 7 5# 1 1 7 1* 0 0 1 1* 0 0 1 — » 1 0 7 5* 1 1 mm 6* mm 1* 0 «. _ 1 6# 0 1 1* 0 5* 0 7 0 mm 1* 7* 0 1 2 7 mm 0 0 _ mm 0 0 1 7 mm 1* 0 0 m mm mm 6* 0 1 1 7 ^ Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not function; (un) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. a Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 200 Public Relations and Group Morale Items^ Item (3i4-)« To serve as official host of the residence halls for those guests who visit his living unit or who attend social functions of the m e n ’s residence halls. Two of the student assistants did not believe that they were the official hosts for the residence halls, while the remaining five as well as the administrator believed that the student assistant did function in this capacity and that he should serve as an official host. Item (35). To encourage activities which will produce greater unity among residents of his living unit and which will contribute to their sense of belonging. EXAMPLES: attending all activities of his living unit; recognizing individual accomplishment; encouragement of development of scrapbooks for the unit; giving evidence of real enthusiasm for unit activities. All of the respondents judged that Item (35) was the function of the student assistant, and none of them felt it should not be his function; however, one student assistant was undecided as to whether or not It should be his function. Item (36). To cooperate with part-time student-assistants of the women's residence halls In the execution of a co-ordinated program of social activity and dating for the residents. In view of the fact that three student assistants judged that this item was not the function but that it should be, there was some indication of a trend toward the inclusion of the function as a part of the practice. 7 See Table 32. 201 TABLE 32 RESPONSES OF PROGRAM I TO PUBLIC RELATIONS AND GROUP MORALE ITEMS Judgments*Item Function­ ing Level (3*4-) (35) (36) Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV i ii 0 - - 5# 2 0 Un 0 1 - » mm 1* 0 - - - 0 7 «■» Total 1 mm 1 7 1 0 0 0 1 mm «. 1* 0 0 1 - «» - - - 7 5* 2 0 7 0 0 1 - - - 7* 0 0 7 mm «E» 0 0 1 - • 5* 0 2 b 1 - - a - mm 1* Total m m 1* Un Attitudes 1* 6* •* 7 1 1 to response s y m b o l s : (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; T F T should not be a function; (Un) undecided. % Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 202 Summary of the Responses to the FreeResponse Questions Question (1). If this questionnaire has failed to list functions which pertain to the student assistant in your current program or which would be a part of his role in the ideal program at your university, please explain what the functions are or would be. The head of program JE felt that the major responsibilities of student assistants were well covered in the questionnaire. Two of the student assistants expressed a similar opinion. Question (2), If the present functions vary considerably from your concept of the ideal program please indicate what differences, if any, in training, experience, education, and remuneration, etc., would be necessary to execute the ideal program. Question (3). What do you consider the major factors which are preventing attainment of your concept of the ideal program if it varies considerably from present practice? The administrator remarked that the need for a larger staff was the main factor in preventing the realization of a more ideal program. One student assistant stated that the ideal program would include a highly professionalized counselor who was also a ”jack of all trades” to serve in the place of student assistants. Another expressed the need for a vocational guidance agency on the campus, and a third student assistant believed that there was a lack of coordination in handling conflicts which arose between residential living units. A Summary of Responses from Program JE The sample which included one administrative respondent and seven student-assistant respondents was the most inade­ quate sample obtained from any of the programs; therefore, the responses to the items cannot be considered as anything more than tentative indications of the practice in program _I. Item (5) which pertained to special staff assignments was the only one of the Custodial and Special Staff Items rejected by the respondents of program _I. The remaining items in that area were generally accepted as functions. In the proctoral area It was generally indicated that the student assistant handled the minor disciplinary pro­ blems when the student government failed to assume the responsibility and that increased student government responsibility in this area was hoped for in the future. The responses to the counseling items revealed that the student assistant handled the less serious counseling problems and referred the more serious ones. Interviewing all residents, mediating in resident conflicts, and assisting with study habits were accepted as functions. Maintaining guidance records was rejected as a practice but the respondents believed it should be the practice. In the group guidance area the respondents revealed some diversity in their judgments of the student assistant's relationship to the student government. The practice of „ assuming the initiative and of assisting in the organization of special interest groups varied according to the respondents. The student assistant differed with the administrator in that they believed they should be taking the initiative in organ­ izing an outside speaker program. Group instruction by the student assistant was considered to be the practice. There was some feeling among the student assistants that they should authorize student government expenditures. Serving as a resoure and liaison agent was accepted as the practice; however, this did not include the tutoring function. The student assistants disagreed with the judgment of the administrator that this was their function® The student assistants generally accepted the official host function and unanimously accepted and approved the group morale function. Furthermore they seemed to be in favor of working out a coordinated social program with the women's residence halls. Major suggestions for improvement of the program were that the student assistant needed more specialized training, and that more adequate referral sources were needed on the campus. CHAPTER IX ANALYSIS OP THE RESPONSES OP PROGRAM N INTRODUCTION In view of the highly decentralized system employed in program N, the small number of respondents at the student assistant level prevented any conclusions as to the practice throughout the program on a large portion of the state items. The sample in this case included four administrators at Level I, one administrator at Level II, four administrators at Level III, and eleven student assistants at Level IV. Custodial Items-*Item (1). To investigate and/or report cases of lost, damaged, or stolen property belonging to the management or to any resident living in his dormitory unit. The Level II respondent, one of the four Level I respondents, and one of the eleven student assistants rejected this item as a function; however, the remaining respondents accepted this item as a statement of the practice. Despite these variations, it seemed that in general item (l) could be regarded as a function of the student assistant in program N. There were two respondents at Level I who were undecided in their attitudes toward this function. 1 See Table 33* Item (2)« To prevent and/or report unauthorized personnel who attempt to utilize without permission any residence hall facility or equipment. EXAMPLES: dining hall, sleeping accomodations, solicitation privileges, lounges, snack bars, etc. Although the Level II respondent who serves as coordinator for this program was undecided in his judgment of practice at this point, the remaining respondents judged item (2) to be a function. Two of the four Level I respon­ dents were undecided as to whether or not it should be as were three student assistants undecided in their attitudes. A Level III respondent who considered Item (2) to be the practice, thought it should not be^and the Level II administrator who was undecided in his judgment felt it should be a function. These response patterns suggested that the item might be tentatively considered as a statement of practice In this program and that the majority of the administrators and student assistants seemingly favored its inclusion. In the write-in responses a Level I respondent pointed out that student assistants were required to report unauthorized persons because of a state law requiring written records of people using all sleeping accomodations and because the use of the dining halls by unauthorized students increased the cost of board for the residents. 207 On© student assistant objected to the duty of reporting unauthorized persons because he felt this made him a police­ man in the eyes of the residents, and another student assistant thought that the residents should have more freedom in entertaining guests. The Level II respondent commented that custodial functions were largely handled by the custodial staff. A Level III administrator believed that more of these custodial duties should be performed by the management rather than by student assistants who receive extra money beyond their room rent for performing these duties. A third student assistant thought that these duties were essential and had no objections to them. I tern (3) ♦ To establish procedures for the effective utilization of all equipment assigned to his dormitory unit. EXAMPLES: recreational equipment, emergency equipment, auxiliary equipment* The responses at the various levels made it difficult to determine any satisfactory consensus in judgments or attitudes. Either practice varied throughout the program or the item was interpreted differently by the various respondents. Both of these factors may have operated in reducing the consensus. One student assistant remarked that the management should handle the equipment which belonged to the halls and that the residents should handle equipment which belonged to 208 the student government. A second student assistant thought that the student government was not taking its job seriously enough in this area. Item (ij.). To maintain records of information concerning his residents which has been designated by the manage­ ment as essential for efficient operation of the physical plant* EXAMPLES: Up-to-date roster, room assignment changes, meal ticket assignment. Despite the fact that two of the four administrators at Level I rejected this item, the responses of the remain­ ing administrators as well as those of the student assistants suggested that they believed this item to be an expression of the practice. The consensus in the positive attitudes expressed toward the item was not as high as the consensus of acceptance, but in general the responses implied that the item was accepted and approved as a function. Summary. There was a general acceptance and approval of items (1), (2), and (i+) and considerable divergence In judgments of and attitudes toward the position of item (3) in this program* Special Staff Items (%)• 2 Item To actively participate in and contribute to sta£f meetings devoted to administration of the program and/or to the in-service training of the staff members. ^ See Table 3ij- 209 All of the administrative respondents regarded this item to be a statement of the practice, but the student assistants revealed considerable variation in their acceptance and rejection. Since none of the student assistants expressed the feeling that it should not be the practice, there was some indication that they may have considered the item to be an overstatement of their function in this area. Either they judged that such meetings were so infrequent that attending them could not be classified as a function or they believed that there was a difference between attendance and active participation. These possibilities suggested a need for further investigation. Item (6). To assume special staff assignments and respon­ sibilities that are not directly related to his functions in his own dormitory unit. EXAMPLES; week-end desk duty, dining hall duty, evaluation committees, administrative detail committees, etc. The divided judgments and attitudes pertaining to this item prevented the attainment of any conclusions as to whether or not the item could be considered a function. It was pointed out by two respondents that extra money was paid to the student assistant when he performed some of these extra duties. TABLE 33 RESPONSES OP PROGRAM N TO CUSTODIAL AND SPECIAL STAFF ITEiMS Judgmen ts^ Item (1) (2) (3) (k) (S) (6) Function­ ing Level i ii Attitudes Un Total a b 0 0 0 0 it 1 0 It* 10* 1 1* 0 1 2 0 0 0 It 1 lj11 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 it 1 it 11 | Un Total Level Level Level Level I II III IV IQ* 1 1* 0 1 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3* 0 it* 11* 1 0 0 0 0 1* 0 0 it n 2 1* 3* 8* Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1 0 2 2 1* 2 3 1 0 0 3 k 1 k 11 0 0 2 £ 2 1* 2 2 2 0 0 k it 1 It 11 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1 1* 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 it 1 11 2 1* it* 8* 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 it 1 It 11 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3* 1* it* 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 2 k 1 k 11 3* i* |* 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 h r 1 k 11 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1 1* 2 l 0 2 2 0 0 1 k 1 k 11 2 1* 2 3 2 0 0 6 0 0 2 2 k 3* 0 k* 10* k k i k 11 it i k i ti­ ll 6 Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a functTon; (un) undecided; (a) should be a function; TFT should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 211 Proctoral Items 3 Item (8). To obtain all of the facts regarding all such misbehavior and to affix penalties according to his own judgment* Responses to this item indicated that it was not the approach used and that its use was disapproved by more than two-thirds of the respondents at each functioning level. Item (9). To obtain the facts and to affix penalties as designated by other authorities. One administrator considered this item to be the approach used as did two student assistants, but the remaining respondents did not consider this to be the general practice. Seven of the nine administrators held negative attitudes toward the use of this approach, while two were undecided as to whether or not this should be the practice. Item (10). To obtain the facts, to affix penalties for the minor infractions, and to refer the more serious cases to designated authorities. A Level I administrator and three student assistants accepted this item as most nearly stating the approach used in program N, but the remaining respondents judged that this Item did not express the practice. The majority of the administrators responded that this should not be the practice; 3 See Table 35* 212 however, the student assistants did not reveal such a clear pattern of disapproval as did the administrators. Item (11). To obtain the facts, to refer cases of minor infraction to the student government, and to refer more serious cases- to designated authorities. The responses to item (11) indicated that it was not the general approach employed but that several respondents believed It to be the most desirable manner of handling cases of misbehavior. The response patterns as well as the write- in responses suggested that this was the approach which the program hoped to adopt as soon as the student government revealed a willingness to assume the responsibility. Item (12), To obtain the facts, and to refer all cases to the student government. This item was rejected by a large majority. There was a considerable amount of indecision as to whether or not such a policy would be wise. Item (13). To obtain the facts, and to refer all cases to the designated authorities. Of all the proctoral items it appeared that item (12) most nearly expressed the practice employed in this program. The number approving the item at Level IV was somewhat less than the number who accepted the item as a statement of 213 the practice. This drop resulted from the four undecided responses of student assistants who had accepted the item as an expression of the practice. Item (l4)« To assume no responsibility whatsoever in cases dr misbehavior unless they give evidence of a severe personality adjustment problem, in which event they are handled as a counseling case. This item was rejected as the practice and it was approved by only one Level IV respondent. Summary. The responses indicated that item (13) was the approach being used but that there was some hope among staff members that item (11) could become the approach eventually. The Level II respondent commented that greater student participation in handling disciplinary cases was hoped for. An apparently disgruntled student assistant complained that minor cases are usually ignored and that the serious ones are referred to the personnel department. Another student assistant suggested that the student assistant should have the authority to impose penalties for minor infractions with provisions for appeal by the resident involved. A third student assistant thought he should at least have the right to make recommendations regarding in­ fractions which occurred in his unit. A fourth called for a clearer definition of penalties, and a fifth student 2lh TABLE 3U- RESPONSES OF PROGRAM N TO PROCTORAL ITEMS Judgments Function­ ing Level i Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 0 0 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1 0 0 2 2 1* 8* 1 0 0 1 (10) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1 0 0 3 2 1* ft* 8* 1 0 0 0 (11) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 0 2 3* 1* 1 0 0 0 Item (6) (9) ii 3* 1* 11* ft* 9* Un 1 0 0 0 Attitudes Total a b Un Total ft 0 0 0 0 3* 1* 4* 9* 1 0 0 2 ft 0 0 0 2 3# I# 3* 1 0 1 ft $ 0 0 0 3 3* 1* 3* 5 1 0 1 3 1 1* 2 2 0 1 3 1 0 1 ft ft 11 1 ft 11 ft 1 ft 11 ft 1 ft 11 ft 1 ft 11 ft 1 ft 11 ft 1 ft 11 ft 1 ft 11 ft 1 ^ Key to response symbols: (i) Is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; TFJ should not be a function; (Un) undecided. •35- Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus 215 TABLE 3k (CONTINUED) .... ! ' Judgments1 Item Function­ ing Level i ii 1 Un Total Attitudes a b Un j Totnl 1 (12) (13 ) (lU Level Level Level Level I Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level II III II III IV I IV 0 0 0 0 2 1* 11* 0 k 1 k 11 1 1 0 0 1 k 1 k 11 1 0 2 0 k 1 k 11 3# 3* k* 0 o 8* 2 0 0 0 0 1 3* l* 2 11* 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 3* 3* k 0 0 0 1 2 1* 1 2 6 if 0 1* 0 2 1 0 1 5 2 1* 2 7 2 0 2 3 0 2 k 1 k 11 k 1 k 11 k 1 i | - 11 1 Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function! (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 2X6 assistant felt that any involvement in such cases caused the student assistant to be considered a policeman by the residents. The diversity of these opinions suggested a strong need for discussion and clarification of the role of the student assistant in the proctoral area. Counseling Items Item (l5)> To counsel such residents at a level comparable to that of a professional college counselor. Item (16). To counsel those whose problems are judged to be less serious in their implications and to refer to the proper agency those whose problems appear to be more serious. Item (17)» To refer all such students regardless of the apparent degree of seriousness of the problem. It was evident that item (15) was not the approach used in this program and that most of the respondents opposed the use of such an approach. Responses to items (16) and (17) revealed considerable variations in judgments and attitudes. Ten of the eleven student assistants judged that item (16) most nearly expressed the practice, but five of the seven administrators indicated that this was not the practice. Furthermore, six of the administrators were of the opinion that item (16) should not be the approach, while eight student assistants £ See Table 3 6 . disagreed with these administrators by responding that it should be the approach in program N. The administrators were very much divided in their judgments of and attitudes toward the approach stated in item (17)» while the student assistants tended to reject and disapprove this approach. If there was any consistency in the interpretations of these items, then a definite need for clarification of the position of the student assistant as a counseling agent was indicated by these responses. A number of write-in responses from administrators at the various levels suggested considerable emphasis on the point that the student assistant was to function only in a semi-advisory capacity and definitely not in a counseling capacity. Perhaps this point had been over­ emphasized. Item (18). To interview all of his residents as a means o establishing friendly relationships, Identifying problems, imparting or obtaining information and answering questions. £ At least a two-thirds majority of the respondents at Levels II, III, and IV agreed that this Item was the function of the student assistant. Pour student assistants agreed that it should not be their function, but none of the administrators responded negatively toward this function. 218 Item (19)* To maintain records of all information concerning his designated counseling responsibilities, EXAMPLES: interview records, referral records, anecdotal record, personal data sheets, cumulative records, rating scales, etc. Responses from Levels II, III, and IV Indicated that it was the general practice for the student assistant to maintain some guidance records, but apparently three of the four Level I respondents were unaware of such records being kept. Two of these Level I administrators did feel that such records should be kept. Their responses indicated that perhaps they needed to be informed of the practice in order that greater utilization of the records might be made. Item (20). To serve as a mediator, advisor, and if necessary as a referral agent for those residents who have verbal clashes or physical conflicts, etc. EXAMPLES: room-mate clash, etc. This item was generally accepted and approved by the majority of respondents; however, the reasoning of the Level I respondent and the Level II respondent who rejected and disapproved this function was not known. Item (21). To assist his residents who seek aid in developing better study habits. The responses to item (21) revealed that it was the general practice for the student assistants to help residents with their study habits and that this practice was approved* TABLE 35 RESPONSES OF FROGRAN N TO COUNSELING ITENS Attitudes Judgments^ I tern (15) (16) (17) (16) Function­ ing Level i ii Un Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 0 0 3* 1* 1** 11* 1 0 0 0 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 2 0 1 10* 1 l* 3* 1 1 0 0 0 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1 1* 1 1 2 0 2 8* 1 0 1 2 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3* 0 3* 8* 0 o 1 3 1 1* 0 0 Total a b Un Total k1 k 11 0 0 0 0 3* 1* k* 9* 1 0 0 2 k 1 k k 1 k 1 0 1 8* 2 1* 3* 1 1 0 0 2 k 2 1* 1 1 1 0 2 6 1 0 1 3* 1* 3* 5 0 0 0 11 1 it11 k 1 Jj. 11 k k 1 0 1 2 11 k 1 Ji­ ll Ij. 1 h n ki H - ii Key to response symbols; (i ) is a function; (ii) is not a function! (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; (£>) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 220 TABLE 35 (CONTINUED) Attitud es Judgments Item (19) (20) (21) Function­ ing Level i Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 1* 3* 8* 3# 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 2 0 t|* 10* 1 1* 0 0 1 0 0 1 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3* 1* lj* 10* 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 ii Un Total a b Un Total h 2 1* 3* 8* 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 k 1 k 11 11 2 0 ij.* 9* 1 1* 0 0 1 0 0 2 k 1 Ij11 k 1 k 11 3* 1* ij.* 9* 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 fc 1 ij. 11 1 k 1 k 11 ^ Key to response symbols: (I) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 221 Summary. The responses of program N indicated that there was considerable caution in making any response that might suggest that their student assistants were anything more than semi-advisors. Items (18), (20), and (21) were generally accepted and approved as functions. The Level I respondents seemed to be uniformed about the function of maintaining guidance records at the student assistant level. Group Guidance and Group Advisory Items^" Item (25?). study group structure or formation as a means or identifying cliques, clique leaders, and marginal or outer-fringe residents in his living unit. EXAMPLES: directed observation, sociometrics, etc. Since this item probably received different interpre­ tations it was considered to be of doubtful significance in identifying a function of the student assistant. The large number of undecided responses were a further indi­ cation of its weakness. Item (26). To serve as ex-officio advisor to the student government officers and committees elected or appointed by the residents within his living unit. Item (27). To serve as an automatically elected officer In the student government of the residence halls or of his living unit by virtue of his position. It was very difficult to determine from the responses whether the student assistant served as an ex-officio member b See Table 36. 222 of the student government or as an automatically elected officer, because the responses to these two items were considerably divided* Either the practice varied or the interpretations of the item varied. Both of these factors may have operated in the response patterns. There seemed to be a tendency among the administrators as well as the student assistants to feel that the student assistant should serve as an automatically elected member of the student government. Item (28). To assume initiative in organizing and main­ taining special interest groups within the living unit or residence halls. Item (29)• To assist student government (when asked) in effectuating a special interest program. The Level I administrators were divided in their judgments of the practice regarding these two items, but their responses indicated they were of the opinion that student assistants should assist but not take the initiative in organizing special interest groups among the residents. The Level II respondent did not believe that the student assistants were or should be functioning in either capacity. The majority of the four respondents at Level III judged that it was and should be the function of the student assistant to serve in both capacities. The student assistants themselves were very much divided in their judgments of i 223 and attitudes toward the function of assuming the initiative but agreed that it was their function to assist the residents when asked. Item (30). To assume Initiative in engaging a program of outside speakers to discuss topics designated by the residence halls personnel officials. EXAMPLES: vocational topics, current event topics, general lectures. Item (31). To assist student government (when requested) in engaging or suggesting a program of outside speakers. All but two of the respondents from Program N agreed that item (30) was not the function, but there was some division in opinion as to whether or not it should be. Two of the administrators and four student assistants were undecided as to what should be done in this case. The responses to item (31) indicated that rendering assistance to the student government in organizing an outside speaker program was not the general practice but that it would likely become the practice as soon as the residents revealed an interest in organizing such a program. Item (32). To give group Instruction or explanation to his residents of those topics designated by the residence hall staff or of those topics which he deems essential to effective operation of the living unit. EXAMPLES: Manners and courtesy; residence hall policy and procedure; requirements of effective group living; definition of his own role; study habits in general; etc. TABLE 36 RESPONSES OP PROGRAM N TO GROUP GUIDANCE ITEMS Items Function• . « XI1& ✓VC?XCl Judgments XJK i (25) (26) (27) (2 8 ) (29) (30) il Un Attitudes Total a ll- 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 1* 1 1 1* 11 3* 0 Il-k7* b 1 k 11 0 0 3* 3 It* k 1 3* 0 3* 1 b 1 3* 1 b Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1 Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1 2 1* 1 2 1 0 3* 8 1 11 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1 1* 2 1|# 1 0 0 b i b 1* b& 0 0 9* 2 ii 7 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 3* b 1 0 1 2 0 3* 6 1 0 t 0 1 2 1* 2 5 2 0 1 k l l# l 5 2 l l# 0 5 2 1# k* 10» 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 k 11 ■ k 1 ll. Ij. i ii ii 0 1 1* 1 ll0 1* Un 7 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 ll1 0 0 6 Total b 1 b n lii liii b i lin lii b n 1 0 0 0 3 ii i 2 1# 2 1 0 1 i 6 b i b Ij. b i b ii Key to response symbols; (i) Is a function; (ii) is not a functlonl (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; TBT should not be a function; (Un) undecided. Denotes attainment of at least two-thirds consensus. 22$ TABLE 36 (CONTINUED) At1situdes Judgments ^ Item (3D (32) (33) Function­ ing Level i Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1 1* 1 1 1 0 3* 7 2 0 0 3 11 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1 1* 3* 10* 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 k 1 b 11 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 0 0 3* l* 1 0 0 0 b 1 b 11 ii ll# 11* Un Total I* 1 k Total a b Un 2 1* 3* 5 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 3 b 1 b ii 1 1* 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 b l b ii 3* 1* 1 0 0 3 b l b ii k» 7 0 0 0 1 k* 7 Key to response symbols; (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function! (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; TFT should not be a function; (Un) undecided. Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 226 There were two Level I administrators who judged that it was not and should not be the function of the student assistant to give group instruction. This feeling may have reflected the policy of the program that a student assistant should not perform any instructional counseling, or disciplinary function, but merely serve as a spotter of potential problems. Most of the remaining respondents judged that this item was and should be a function of the student assistant* Item (33)» To authorize expenditure of student government funds In his living unit by signing appropriate requisitions* A general agreement was attained by administrators and student assistants that Item (33) was not and should not be the practice. q Resource and Liaison Items^ Item (22)* To serve as a source of information for those residents who request information regarding current activities on campus, red-tape of university departments, campus traditions, university policy, etc. Item (23). To serve as a source of information for those individuals who request legitimate information concerning his assigned residents. Item (7). To obtain and/or disseminate through indi­ vidual contact, written notice, general announcement, or bulletin board any information designated by the residence hall administrators as necessary to meet special situations. ^ See Table 37* 227 TABLE 37 Item (22) (23) (2U) (7) RESPONSES OP PROGRAM N TO RESOURCE AND LIAISON ITEMS Attitudes Judgments1 Function­ ing Level i ii Un 3* 1* 1 0 0 0 Total b Un k 1 k 11 3* 1* ij.* 9* 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 k 1 k 11 ll1 3* 1* 3* 6 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 Ii1 3* 1* 3* 6 0 0 0 0 Level Level Levol Level I II III IV 11* k# 0 0 0 0 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1 0 3* 5 1 0 1 3 2 1* 0 3 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 3* 1* 3* 8* l 0 0 1 ip 11 0 0 1 1 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3» 1* ip* 11* 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Ij. 1 1* 11 3* 1* k* o* 0 1 2 Total a k 11 k 1 k k 11 1 0 0 k k 1 k 11 1 0 0 3 k 1 k 11 Ml 1 to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 228 Item (22) was generally accepted and approved by the respondents, but Item (23) revealed differences in the judgments of practice. There was a slight trend of approval toward the inclusion of item (23) as a part of practice. Responses to item (7) revealed an acceptance and approval of this item as a function by administrators and student assistants. Public Relations and Group Morale Items Item (34)* To serve as official host of the residence halls for those guests who visit his living unit or who attend social functions of the men’s residence halls. Five of the nine administrative respondents judged item (34) to be the practice, and seven of the nine felt that the student assistant should be an official host of the residence halls. Seven of the eleven student assistant respondents judged this item to be their function, while only five of them were of the opinion that it should be their function. There was some indication of a need for clarification of the student assistant’s position at this point. Item (35), To encourage activities which will produce greater unity among residents of his living unit and which will contribute to their sense of belonging, EXAMPLES: attending all activities of his living unit; recognizing individual accomplishment; encouragement of 6 See Table 3 8 . 4 229 TABLE 38 RESPONSES OP PROGRAM N TO PUBLIC RELATIONS AND GROUP MOlULE ITEMS Judgments ^ Item (3k) (35) (36) Function­ ing Level i ii Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1 14* 1 2* 9* 1 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 2 0 !}.•» 0 0 0 3 6 1 0 1 1* 7 0 3 k* 0 0 Un Attitudes Total a b Un 0 0 1* 1 1 k 1 k 11 3 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 k 1 k 11 k» 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1* 0 2 k 1 k 11 3* 1# k# 6 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 3* 5 k& 1* Total if. 1 k 11 k 1 ll. 11 k 1 k 11 I to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should bo a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 230 development of scrapbooks for the unit; giving evidence of real enthusiasm for unit activities. This item was generally accepted and approved as the practice. Two administrators were apparently dissatisfied with the efforts of some student assistants in this direction. Item (36). To cooperate with part-time student assistants of the women’s residence halls in the execution of a co-ordinated program of social activity and dating for the residents. The administrators of program N apparently permitted their judgments of item (36) as being the general practice, to be influenced by their feelings that it should be the practice. This appeared to be the case in several other programs as well. This conclusion was based on the fact that the student assistants of program N did not agree with the administrators that the item was a statement of the practice, but at the same time these students did agree with the administrators it should be the practice. Summarization of the Responses to the Free-Response Questions Question (1). If this questionnaire has failed to list functions Which pertain to the student assistant in your current program or which would be a part of his role in the ideal program at your university, please explain what the functions are or would be. 231 There were no administrative responses to this question. Two of the responses of student assistants indicated that the questionnaire had covered the functions adequately in Program N. One student assistant thought the function of maintaining quiet hours should have been expressed more explicitly. Another suggested that the questionnaire failed to be explicit about the student assistant’s responsibility for representing the wishes of his men before higher administrative officials. Question (2), If the present functions vary considerably from your concept of the ideal program, please indicate what differences, if any, in training, experience, education, remuneration, etc., would be necessary to execute the ideal program, A Level I respondent remarked that board and room instead of just room rent should be the remuneration. He added that more graduate students should be used. A Level II respondent expressed the opinion that if the emphasis were greater on the positive aspects of the program much of the need for the control of behavior would disappear. Three respondents at Level III answered this question. One of these pointed out that smaller living units and remuneration of $ 15> per month in addition to board and room would enable development of a more adequate program. A second Level III respondent also expressed the need for at 232 least room and board remuneration as well as increased authority for the student assistant to impose penalties. A third respondent at this level called for better training of the student assistant* At Level XV one respondent considered the present program as satisfactory, and another commented that the questionnaire had presented the functions of an ideal program quite well. A third respondent at Level IV suggested that the student assistant should be conceived as one of the residents and not as a policeman. He believed this would increase the assistant's capacity to assist, coordinate, and recommend* Question (3). What do you consider the major factors which are preventing the attainment of your concept of the ideal program if it varies considerably from present practice? In answer to this question a Level I respondent stated that the living units were too large and that the physical structure was not designed for a good program. There were five respondents at Level IV who answered this question. training. One pointed to the need of more adequate Two of these respondents thought the residents were particularly obstinate and unreasonable and thus prevented the attainment of the ideal. assistant suggested that A fourth student as long as the residents were treated as adolescents they would act as adolescents, and that they would continue to rebel against inconsistent treat­ ment. The fifth respondent advocated that the students run the dormitories, with the student assistant serving as a resource agent* A Summary of the Responses of Program N In view of the decentralized system In program N, tne random sample of student assistants whicn included eleven responses was not considered sufficient to be a reliable Indication of the practice as judged by that level; however, the administrative response of nine presented a more adequate indication of administrative judgments since the population was considerably smaller at this level. In the custodial area items (1) and (2) were accepted, item (3) w&s indecisive, and item (4) which was generally accepted elicited several negative write-in attitudes toward this function. Responses to the in-service training and administrative meetings suggested that the student assistants were critical of either the content or frequency of the meetings. The responses to special staff assignments as a function were too divergent to reveal the practice. In the proctorai area it appeared from the responses that the practice was to refer all cases to designated authorities, but that it was hoped that the student govern­ ment would eventually assume greater responsibility In that area. There was a minority group who believed that until the latter situation prevailed the student assistant should be given more authority. 23$ The counseling approach varied between referral of all cases and referral of the more serious ones. There was considerable emphasis among the administrators that the student assistant’s role at this point was to refer all cases. Interviewing all residents was accepted by two-thirds of the respondents as a function. Three Level I administrators were apparently unaware that many student assistants were maintaining some guidance records. Mediating in cases of resident conflicts and assisting In study habits were accepted and approved as functions* The relationship of the student assistant to the student government was not clear. The approach used in working with resident-sponsored activities indicated that there had not been much opportunity to establish practice in this area since such activities were limited. The majority of the respondents accepted the group instructional function but rejected the function of authorizing student government expenditures. Serving as a resource agent for the residents was accepted as a function, but there was a division In the judgments pertaining to the function of serving as a resource agent for authorized persons outside the residence halls. Although tutoring was not generally accepted as a function, there was a positive attitude among a few of the respondents toward its inclusion. approved. The liaison function was accepted and 236 The role of the student assistant as an official host needed clarification if this was the intended practice. Even though two administrators evidenced some dissatisfaction with the failure of student assistants to function as group morale builders, the majority of respondents indicated that it was accepted and approved as practice. Cooperation with the women's residence halls in planning a social program apparently had not attained the expectations of the administrators. The need for helping the student assistant in this area was indicated by the willingness of student assistants to assume this function. The major complaint in the write-in responses was that student assistants should be paid more than room rent for their services. Many respondents felt that this lack of remuneration reduced the effectiveness of the program. There was also a feeling among student assistants that the in-service training was insufficient. | CHAPTER X ANALYSIS OF THE RESPONSES OF PROGRAM E Introduction The sairg>le of three Level I respondents, two Level II respondents, and five Level III respondents presented in all probability an adequate reflection of the judgments and attitudes of the administrators of program E; however, the sample of twelve respondents at the student-assistant level was considerably less adequate* Custodial Items^Item (1)* To investigate and/or report cases of lost, damaged, or stolen property belonging to the management or to any resident living in his dormitory unit. Item (2). To prevent and/or report unauthorized per­ sonnel who attempt to utilize without permission any residence hall facility or equipment, EXAMPLES: dining hall, sleeping accomodations, solicitation privileges, lounges, snack bars, etc. Item (It), To maintain records of information con­ cerning his residents which has been designated by the management as essential for efficient operation of the physical plant, EXAMPLES: Up-to-date roster, room assignment changes, meal ticket assignment. These items were grouped together because there was sufficient evidence that all three of them were the generally accepted and approved functions of the student assistant in program E, 1 See Table 39 238 Item (3)« To establish procedures for the effective utilization of all equipment assigned to his dormitory unit. EXAMPLES: recreational equipment, emergency equipment, auxiliary equipment. The problem of interpretation of this item presented itself in program E and resulted in a diversity of responses especially at the student-assistant level. Eight of the ten administrators and seven of the twelve student assist­ ants considered this item to be a function in the program. A similar response pattern was found in the expression of attitudes toward this function. In the write-in responses a Level I administrator suggested that the student assist­ ant's function was to encourage the residents to handle their own equipment, but he did not state how this desirable approach was to be attained. The head of the program (one of the Level II respondents) thought that publication of Increased cost of living to the residents resulting from damage had aided the staff in the encouragement of careful use of equipment among the residents. He further stated that the attempt to make the residents feel they were "business partners" of the management had aleviated the problem to a great extent. Four student assistants were of the opinion that Increased student government responsibil­ ity was desirable in this case and that the amount of responsi­ bility shown thus far was not sufficient to reduce the need for student assistants to assume this responsibility. 239 Special Staff Items^ Item (5>)« To actively participate in and contribute to staff meetings devoted to administration of the program and/or to the in-service training of the staff members. Item (6). To assume special staff assignments and respon­ sibilities that are not directly related to his functions in his own dormitory unit. EXAMPLES: weekend desk duty, dining hall duty, evaluation committees, administrative detail committees, etc. Prom all indications participation in staff meetings was considered a function of the student assistant by nearly all but one of the respondents, and the latter was undecided in his judgment. All of the respondents except this student assistant thought that item (5) should be the function in this case. One hundred per cent of the respondents of program E considered item (6) to be a function of the student assist­ ant; however, there was less approval of the function than might have been expected. The reasons for the reduction in the number of respondents approving the function were revealed perhaps in the complaints of three student assist­ ants who objected to their policing role In the dining rooms. Another student assistant criticized the administrators for not capitalizing sufficiently on the experience of some student assistants in making these special staff assignments. ^ See Table 39* I 2U0 TABLE 39 RESPONSES OP PROGRAM E TO CUSTODIAL AND SPECIAL STAFF ITElMS Judgments^ Attitudes Item (1) (2) (3) (k) (5) (6) ing Level i Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3* 2* Level Level Level Level ' I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV ii Un Total a b Un |Total 12* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 5 12 3* 2* i;.* 9* 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 3 2 £ 12 3* 2* £* 11* 0 0 o 1 0 0 o 0 3 2 £ 12 3* 2* 0 0 0 0 3 2 2* 0 1 1 1 0 5* 0 0 7 3 2 3 2 5 12 4* 7 3 3* 0 0 1 0 1 5* o o 0 1 0 o 3 0 0 0 0 2 3* 0 1 0 5* 0 12* 0 3* 2* 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 2 £ 12 3 2 £ £* 10* 2* 1 11* 3* 2* 0 0 5 0 2 12 0 1 1 3 1 3 2 0 5* o o 11* 0 1 12 3* 2* 0 0 0 0 3* 2* 0 0 2 5* o o £ 12* 0 0 k* 8* 0 0 1 0 1 3 3 12 £ * 11* 5 0 2 0 12 3 2 5 12 5 1 12 3 2 5 12 1 Key to response symbols: (i) Is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; TbT should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. Proctoral Functions3 Item (8). To obtain all of the facts regarding all such mis-behavior and to affix penalties according to his own judgment* The approach to handling cases of misbehavior as pro­ posed by this item was rejected by all of the administrators as a part of the general practice; however, three student assistants interpreted this item to be a statement of the practice. In view of the responses to the remaining items in this area it seemed likely that the respondents of program N found it difficult to select any one item as the approach employed, and therefore, the problem of selecting more than one item to express adequately the approach presented itself. This situation undoubtedly resulted in individual interpretations of the items which operated against the reliability of the responses* Item (9)* To obtain the facts and to affix penalties as designated by other authorities* Six of the ten administrators rejected this item as the approach used in handling disciplinary cases, while the student assistants were evenly divided In their acceptance and rejection. The variations in attitude respon­ ses did not clarify the trend of thinking about this item* 3 See Table 1+0* I 21*2 Item (10)* To obtain the facts, to affix penalties for the minor infractions, and to refer the more serious cases to designated authorities* The responses to item (10) were perhaps the nearest thing to an indication of the generally accepted practice in program N, since six of the ten administrators and eight of the twelve student assistants judged this to be the approach utilized in the program* Write-in responses clari­ fied to some extent the fedlings and judgments at this point. The head of the program expressed the opinion that this item was the approach used because the residents were satis­ fied with the manner in which the staff had handled such problems and therefore they (the residents) did not care to assume the responsibility. He further stated that student leaders avoided the responsibility for fear that it might jeopardize their standing with the residents* Although one student assistant believed that greater consistency in the treatment resulted when the staff handled all disciplinary problems, there were six of the student assistants who agreed that greater student government participation would reduce the policing role of the student assistant which so often resulted in a loss of rapport with the residents* Item (11). To obtain the facts, to refer cases of m inor* in-PT»flft~bion to the student government, and to refer more serious cases to designated authorities* The write-in responses just cited apparently were reflected In the responses of six of the ten administrators 2U3 that item (11) was the desirable approach. There were two administrators and three student assistants who judged that item (11) was not the approach being used but that it should be employed in program E. Item (12). To obtain the facts, and to refer all cases to the student government. Item (13), To obtain the facts, and to refer all cases to the designated authorities. Item (lit). To assume no responsibility whatsoever in cases of misbehavior unless they give evidence of a severe personality adjustment problems, In which event they are handled as a counseling case. Although there were a few deviations from the majority In judgments and attitudes pertaining to these three items, the responses indicated that in general these items were not the accepted and approved practice. Two respondents thought that item (llj.) was difficult to respond to because It was poorly worded. Summary. The responses to proctoral Items by the respondents of program E indicated that the student assistants were handling minor infractions in a manner sugges ted by the administrators, that they were attempting to get a reluctant student government to assume some of the respon­ sibility, and that they hoped for the day when the student government could handle all of the minor problems with the more serious problems being referred to higher authorities. 2UU TABLE RESPONSES OF PROGRAM E TO PROCTORAL ITEMS Judgments Item <8> (9) Function­ ing Level i Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 0 3 2« 2« 3 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 2 2# 2# 2 6 6 1 0 1 0 1 1 4* 8* 1 1 1 3 1 0 0 1 2# 1 2 2 1 1 2 8* 0 0 1 2 (10) Level I Level II Level III Level IV (11) Level I Level II Level III Level IV ii 7 Attitudes Un Total a b 1 0 2 2 3 2 0 0 1 2 2* 2# 3 0 0 3 4 2* 2# 2 0 6 2 12 1 1 k« 1 1 0 4 1 0 1 2 3 2 0 1 1 4 0 0 2 3 5 12 3 2 5 12 3 2 5 12 6 3 2 3* 5 12 1 2 $ 6 Un |Total \ 1 0 1 4 i 3 2 5 12 3 2 5 12 3 2 5 12 Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; TET should not be a function; (Un) undecided, * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus 2li£ TABLE 40 (G ONTINUED) j Judgments Item (12) (13) UU) Function­ ing Level i ii ! Un \ Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 0 0 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1 1 0 1 0 1 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 1 0 1 2* Total attitudes b J Un } Total a 1 2 0 1 2 3 2 5 12 0 0 0 1 1 2* 4* 10* 2 0 1 1 3 2 5 0 1 0 2 1 9* 2* 0 0 2 2* 0 0 1 12 2* 2* I4* 10* 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 3 2 5 12 10* 12 3 2 5 0 0 0 2 1 5* 9* 2* 2* k* 3* 3 2 s 12 3 2 12 ^ Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function! (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; TF) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 2i|6 Counseling Items^ Item (1$). To counsel such residents at a level com­ parable to that of a professional college counselor* Item (16)* To counsel those whose problems are judged to be less serious in their implications and to refer to the proper agency those whose problems appear to be more serious* Item (17)* To refer all such students regardless of the apparent degree of seriousness of the problem. Responses of administrators and student assistants suggested that item (16) was the accepted and approved practice in handling counseling problems. It was a bit surprising that a Level II administrator as well as an administrator at Level III judged the student assistant to be functioning in a professionalized counseling capacity. There was some indication of a need for their enlightenment as to the accepted practice. Item (l8). To Interview all of his residents as a means ofestablishing friendly relationships, identi­ fying problems, Imparting or obtaining information and answering questions* Item (19)• To maintain records of all information con­ cerning his designated counseling responsibilities* EXAMPLES? Interview records, referral records, anec­ dotal record, personal data sheets, cumulative records, rating scales, etc* Item (20)* To serve as a mediator, advisor, and if necessary as a referral agent for those residents who have verbal clashes or physical conflicts, etc. EXAMPLES: room-mate clash, etc. See Table lj.1. TABLE lj-1 RESPONSES OF PROGRAN E TO COUNSELING ITENS Judgments^ Item (15) (1 6 ) (17) (1*) Function­ ing Level i ii Un Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 1 1 0 2* 1 3 11* 1 0 1 1 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3* 2* 11* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 0 0 2* 2* 10* 1 0 0 2 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3* 2* 5* 11* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5* 5* Attitudes Total a b 3 2 12 0 1 1 0 1 1 3 10* 3 2 3* 2* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2* 2* 9* 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 5 12 3 2 5 12 3 2 5* 10* 0 0 0 0 3* 2* 5 5* 12 10* 5* Un 2* 0 1 2 Total 3 2 5 12 3 2 £ 12 3 2 5 12 3 2 5 12 ^ Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function! (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; TbT should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 2U8 TABLE 1*1 (CONTINUED) Judgments-^ Item Function­ ing Level i ii Un Total Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1 2* S* 12* 2* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 5 12 (20) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3* 2* 5* 12* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (21) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3* 2* £* 12* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (19) Attitudes a 2* 2* b Un Total 11* 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 2 5 12 3 2 5 12 3* 2* 5* n* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 12 3 2 3* 2* 5* li* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 5 * 12 12 k* ^ KeV to response symbols: (I) is a function; (ii) is not a function! (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; TbT should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 21# Item (21), To assist his residents who seek aid in developing better study habits. There were no respondents from program E who either rejected or disapproved any of the items as functions. The slight reduction from a 100 per cent consensus resulted from the few cases of undecided responses. One student assistant made an observation that record keeping should be "a year round job” instead of a ’’last minute job.” Summary. Item (16) seemed to express the accepted and approved practice in handling counseling problems in program E, and items (18), (19)» (20), and (21) were accepted and approved as counseling functions at a high level of consensus by both the administrators and student assistants. Group Guidance and Group Advisory Items-’ Item (25). To study group structure or formation as a means of identifying cliques, clique leaders, and marginal or outer-fringe residents in his living unit. EXAMPLES: directed observation, sociometrics, etc. All of the administrative respondents except a Level III administrator accepted this Item as being a statement of the function of the student assistant. Since only seven of the twelve student assistants agreed with the adminis­ trators that this was their function, there was some indi— £ See Table if2. 2$0 cation of a need for them to be informed that they were expected to perform the function, especially in view of their generally favorable attitudes toward the item. The writer suspected at this point that administrative judg­ ments were influenced somewhat by administrators’ attitudes as to what should be the practice. Item (26), To serve as ex-officio advisor to the stu­ dent government officers and committees elected or appointed by the residents within his living unit. Item (27), To serve as an automatically elected officer in the student government of the residence halls or of his living unit by virtue of his position. The responses to these two items indicated that the student assistant in program E functions in an ex-officio capacity with the student arovernment rather than as an active member. The administrator at Level II who deviated from the remaining respondents in his judgment item (26) needed to be Informed of the general policy in this case. Item (28), To assume initiative In organizing and main­ taining special interest groups within the living unit or residence halls. Eight of the ten administrators believed that it was the practice for student assistants to assume the initia­ tive in organizing special interest groups in the program. Since four student assistants did not concur In their judgments, a need for clarification and discussion of the matter was suggested by the responses. t 251 Item (29). To assist student government (when a 3ked) in effectuating a special interest program. The administrators and student assistants were in general agreement that this item was the function and should be the function of the student assistant. Item (30). To assume initiative in engaging a program outside speakers to discuss topics designated by the residence halls personnel officials. EXAMPLES: vocational topics, current event topics, general lectures. of Responses to this item were possibly a greater indica­ tion that an outside speaker program had not yet been established, than an Indication of the function of the student assistant in this case. Obviously It was difficult to make an adequate response on a hypothetical basis. Item (31). To assist student government (when requested) in engaging or suggesting a program of outside speakers. The large majority of responses indicated that it was the responsibility of the student assistant to assist (when asked) the student government in the establishment of a program once the student government was disposed to move in this direction. The responses to both of these items suggested that the staff was certainly willing to help, but that there was some doubt as to whether the staff members should take the initiative in this direction until there was some interest shown on the part of the residents. , 2$2 Item (32). To give group instruction or explanation to his residents of those topics designated by the residence hall staff or of those topics which he deems essential to effective operation of the living unit* EXAMPLES! Manners and courtesy; residence hall policy and procedure; requirements of effec­ tive group living; definition of his own role; study habits in general; etc. The administrators and student assistants generally agreed that this item was and should be the function of the student assistants. There were two student assistants who believed^ however, that this was not their function and one student assistant who felt it should not be a function. Item (33). To authorize expenditure of student government funds in his living unit by signing appropriate requisitions. The responses of administrators and especially student assistants from program E to this item, differen­ tiated their program from most of the other programs in this function of authorizing student government expenditures. This policy was the result of an effort to prevent the residents from spending their student government funds for ”beer busts.11 There was an indication that the adminis­ trators were not aware of the student assistants* function in this area or else an implication that they did not want to accept this item as a function. Only one student assistant positively stated that he did not perform this function and that it should not be a function. TABLE i|2 RESPONSES OP PROGRAM E TO GROUP GUIDANCE ITEMS. Items Function­ ing Levels i (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) Attitudes Judgments 1 Total Un Total 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 3 2 5 12 3* 1 5* 11* 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 3 2 £ 12 0 0 0 1 2* 2* 3 10* 1 0 2 1 12 ii Un 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 2 5 12 3* 2* 5* 8* 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 5 12 2* 2* 4* 10* 1 0 1 2 a b Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3* 2* II* 7* Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3* 1 5* 12* Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 0 0 Level Level Level Level I II 2* 1 5* 7 0 1 0 k 1 0 0 1 3 2 s 12 2* 1 ii* 7 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 3 3 2 S 12 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3* 2* Ii* 11* 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 2 5 12 3* 2* 5* 10* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 5 12 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 2* 1 0 1 1 1 3 9* 0 0 2 2 3 2 5 12 2* 1 2 3 1 1 1 Y 0 0 2 2 3 2 5 12 III IV k 0 $ 12 3 2 5 Kev to response symbols; (i) is a function} (it) ts not a function; (Un) undecided} (a) should be a function, TFT should not be a function} (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least two-thirds consensus. 2$h TABLE 1*2 (CONTINUED) j Judgments * Item (31) (32) (33) Function­ ing Level Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV i ii Un Att;itudes Total a b Un Total 3 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 2 5 12 3* 1 5* 10* 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 12 10* 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 2 5 12 3* 2* i|* 10* 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 2 5 12 0 1 I;.* 10* 2* 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 3 2 5 12 0 1 2* 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 3 2 5 12 3* 1 10* 3* 2* 10* $ ^ Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 255 Summary. The variations in the responses of adminis­ trators and student assistants on items (25) and (33) suggested a need for clarification of these functions within the program. Resource and Liaison Items^ Item 22. To serve as a source of information for those residents who request information regarding current activities on campus, red-tape of university departments, campus traditions, university policy, etc. Item 23. To serve as a source of information for those individuals who request legitimate information con­ cerning his assigned residents. EXAMPLES: administrative officials, professors, university counselors, parents, etc. The function of serving as a resource agent was accepted and approved by almost 100 per cent of the respondents as the practice in program E. Item 2 k . To serve as an academic tutor in qualified areas for those residents who request such assistance* The administrators were divided in their judgments as to whether or not it was the function of the student assist­ ant to serve as a tutor. Eleven of the twelve student assistants agreed that it was not their function. There were only two student assistants who believed it should be their function. The administrators were considerably divided in their attitudes toward tutoring by the student assistant. ^ See Table k3 T;\BLE 1*3 RESPONSES OF PROGRAM E TO RESOURCE \ND LI*'ISON ITEM'S Judgmental Item (22) (23) (21*) (7) Function­ ing Level i ii Un Total Attitudes a b Un Total 3* 2* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 Level Level Levol Level I II III IV 3* 2* 5* 12* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 5 12 11* Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3* 2* 0 0 0 0 3 2 3* 2* 12* 0 0 0 0 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1 0 1 0 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 5* 3* 2* 5* 12* 2* 0 2* 0 1 11* 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S* 5 5* 12 11* 3 2 5 12 0 3 2 3 2 5 12 l 3* 2* 5* n* 9* 5 12 3 2 5 12 1 2 1 3 2 5 12 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 12 Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; (bj should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 257 The responses to this item revealed a definite need for discussion of the matter within the program* Item (7) * To obtain and/or disseminate through indi­ vidual contact, written notice, general announcement, or bulletin board any information designated by the residence hall administrators as necessary to meet special situations. All respondents of Program E agreed that the student assistant was a liaison agent, and all but one respondent believed that the student assistant should function in this capacity. Public Relations and Group Morale7 3k. Item To serve as official host of the residence halls for those guests who visit his living unit or who attend social functions of the men’s residence halls. There was no clear-cut evidence that this item was the practice in the judgments of administrators or student assistants. Nine of the student assistants did believe, however, that they di ould function as official hosts for the residence halls. It appeared from the administrative responses that this group needed to arrive at a general policy regarding the matter. y See Table ijlw 258 Item (36), To cooperate with part-time studentassistants of the women's residence halls In the execution of a co-ordinated program of social activity and dating for the residents* Once again the administrative feeling as to what should be the practice seemed to influence judgments of the general practice. The responses of the administrators may have indicated that there was a breakdown in what they intended to be the practice. This breakdown was indicated by the number of student assistant write-in responses which indicated that they wanted to establish such a program but that the staff members In the women's dormitories would not cooperate and in many cases were unapproachable. Nine of the twelve student assistants responded that this cooperative endeavor should be the practice. 2# TABLE I4J4. RESPONSES OP PROGRAM E TO PUBLIC RELATIONS AND GROUP MORALE ITEMS Jud gments^Item (3k) (35) (36) Attitudes Function­ ing Level i Level Level Level Level I II III IV 1 1 5* 7 2* 1 0 3 0 0 0 2 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3* 2* 5>-» 12» 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 5 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3* 2* 2 0 0 2 8* 0 0 1 0 k ii Un Total a b 1 1 L* 9* 2* 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 12 12 3* 2# 5* 11* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 5 12 3 2 5 12 3* 2* il* 9* 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 3 2 5 3 2 5 12 Un Total 3 2 5 12 i to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; TBT should not be a function; (Un) undecided. Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 260 Summary of the Responses to the FreeResponse Questions Question (1), If this questionnaire has failed to list functions which pertain to the student assistant in your current program or which would be a part of his role in the ideal program at your university, please explain what the functions are or would be. Only one administrator responded to this question and he expressed the opinion that the questionnaire had ade­ quately covered the actual and potential functions of the student assistant in Program E. He believed that any additional functions beyond those accepted as a part of this program might destroy the concept of part-time employ­ ment. Nearly half of the student assistant respondents stated that the questionnaire had adequately covered the functions in their program. One student assistant suggested that the function of developing leadership might have been more clearly emphasized in the questionnaire. Question (2), If the present functions vary considerably from your concept of the Ideal program please indicate what differences, if any, in training, experience, education, and remuneration, etc,, would be necessary to execute the ideal program. One administrator stated that the cost of the program was well justified in view of the efficient results obtained through the efforts of the head of the program. Another administrator suggested that the program could be strengthened 261 by limiting the academic load of student assistants to 13 academic hours* At Level IV one student assistant complained that there was a lack of time to do all the things that should be done, and another believed that the head of the program should not have teaching assignments in addition to his administrative responsibilities. The latter also believed that student assistants should be graduate students who are given more extensive in-service training. A third student assistant proposed that in an ideal arrangement the student assistant would be replaced by full-time pro­ fessional counselors, but he stated that the cost of such a program would be prohibitive* Question (3)* What do you consider the major factors whicii are preventing attainment of your concept of the ideal program if it varies considerably from present practice? The greatest number of responses was made to this question* It was generally agreed by administrators that more student assistants were needed to strengthen the program. Two administrators stated that the administrators in other areas as well a s faculty membews needed to be better Informed about the program. They also suggested better coordination within the program. They were of the opinion that salaries in the men's and women's halls should be 262 standardized. One of the two criticized the double stan­ dard in the treatment of fraternity men and dormitory residents• Another administrator suggested that the in-service training program needed to be more elaborate. One student assistant was quite pleased with the program in general but rebelled against the tendency to use the student assistant as a scapegoat in carrying out "flimsy decrees" of the administration. He is quoted as follows: There*s a reason for everything, men, is the slogan. By heavens, no matter how far we must look for it M I Another student assistant believed that student assistants should have more authority, especially in the enforcement of quiet hours, and would forbid radios except in the lounges. This viewpoint was held in disagreement by another who believed that the student government should have increased responsibility in the handling of discipline. One student assistant warned that the program had become too dependent on the leadership of the head of the program and implied that the departure of this administrator might seriously handicap the program. 263 A Summary of the Responses of Program E The sample of three Level I respondents, two Level II respondents, and five Level III respondents was considered to be relatively adequate response from the administrative level. There were twelve responses from Level IV which was considered less adequate than the administrative sample. The custodial functions were accepted and approved with the exception of item (3) which was considered to be of little value because of its unreliability. There was an acceptance and approval of the staff meeting function. The special staff assignments were accepted as a part of the practice but a few student assist­ ants objected to the assignment of policing the dining rooms. The proctoral approach was for the student assistant to handle the minor cases which he was unable to get the student government to handle, and to refer the more serious ones to designated authorities. The counseling approach was for the student assistant to handle minor cases and to refer the more serious ones. The remaining counseling functions were accepted and approved. The student assistant served as an ex-officio member of the student government but approved their expenditures. The Level I administrators were apparently not aware of i 26U this latter practice. The administrators believed that it was the function of the student assistant to assume the initiative in organizing special interest groups, but this function was not entirely accepted by student assistants. They did agree, however, that they should assist the student government in these activities. Tne resource and liaison functions were clearly accepted and approved with the exception of tutoring which need clarification. The official host capacity of the student assistant needed to be clarified. There was an eagerness among administrators to include the coordinated social program with the women's residence halls as a part of practice. Student assistant responses indicated a sharing of this desire but also indicated that such cooperation had frequently failed. Major suggestions for improvement of the program were to limit the academic load of the student assistant, to provide more time f o r him to perform the functions, to increase the number of student assistants, to coordinate all phases of the program, to strengthen the in-service training program, and to have greater appreciation among administrators for the problems of the student assistant. 1 CHAPTER XI. ANALYSIS OP THE RESPONSES OP PROGRAM D. Introduction Of the 23 questionnaires sent to program D, 21 of them were returned. There were no responses from Level I, five responses from Level II, four responses from Level III, and twelve responses from the student assistants at Level IV. One of the Level II administrators, and two of the Level III administrators did not indicate their attitudes on any of the structured responses in that area; thus it was difficult to derive a satisfactory consensus in the expression of attitudes at the administrative level* Custodial Items-*Item (1). To investigate and/or report cases of lost, damaged, or stolen property belonging to the management or to any resident living in his dormitory unit* Item (2)» To prevent and/or report unauthorized per­ sonnel who attempt to utilize without permission any residence hall facility or equipment, EXAMPLES: dining hall, sleeping accomodations, solicitation privileges, lounges, snaak bars, etc. There was a high degree of acceptance of items (1) and (2) as functions of the student assistant in program D. was also an indication that these functions were approved as the practice, especially at Levels II and IV. 1 See Table )+£. There 266 Item (3). To establish procedures for the effective utilization of all equipment assigned to his dormi­ tory unit* EXAMPLES? recreational equipment, emer­ gency equipment, auxiliary equipment. Once again there was a diversity of responses to item (3) and it was evident that these differences were due to the weakness of the item* Item (Jj). To maintain records of information concerning his residents which has been designated by the manage­ ment as essential for efficient operation of the physi­ cal plant. EXAMPLES: Up-to-date roster, room assign­ ment changes, meal ticket assignment. There was no reliable indication of the practice regarding this item in the responses. All four of the Level III administrators judged the item to be a function of the student assistant. Eight of the twelve student assist­ ants believed that the item should be their function. In general there was a slight trend toward acceptance and approval but not a sufficient one as to consider it to be the accepted and approved practice in program D. Special Staff Items2 Item (£>)• To actively participate in and contribute to staff meetings devoted to administration of the program and/or to the in-service training of the staff members. 2 See Table 267 TABLE $ li RESPONSES OF PROGRAM D TO CUSTODIAL AND SPECIAL STAFF ITEiMS Judgment s^Item (1) (2) (3) (1+) (5) Function­ ing Level Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV (6 ) Level I Level II Level III Level IV ii Un 0 0 0 0 I f * 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 o 0 2 2 11* 2 0 Total 0 5 k 12 0 5 ii 12 0 2 5 li I 12 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 2 If* 7 0 5 0 0 1 1 3 2 7 ii 0 0 3 2 l li 8* 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 if* 2 12* I f * k 0 Un 0 h 2 Attitudes li 12 0 $ 2 12* 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ii 12 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 5 k 12 0 0 1 0 3 3 3 li 3 2 0 1 0 0 1 3* li 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 5 0 I f * li 12 2 11* 0 0 5 3 li 12 Total l 5 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 6 1 0 5 li 12 I $ li 12 0 5 li 12 Key to response symbols; (I) Is a function; not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; TBT should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. Non© of the levels attained a two—thirds acceptance of item (5); however, four of the five Level II respondents thought it should be a function as did 11 of the 12 Level IV respondents. This pattern of responses revealed that some of the respondents who judged that item ($) was not the practice either because such meetings were too infrequent or because they considered it to be an over-statement of the practice, believed that it should be a part of practice. These responses suggested a possible need for such meetings within program D. Item (6). To assume special staff assignments and responsibilities that are not directly related to his functions in his own dormitory unit. EXAMPLES: week-end desk duty, d. ining hall duty, evaluation committees, administrative detail committees, etc. This Item was rejected as a statement of practice by Levels III and IVj however, three of the five Level II administrators believed that it was the practice. The responses did not clearly indicate the practice In this case, Proctoral Items^ Item (8). To obtain all of the facts regarding all such misbehavior and to affix penalties according to his own judgment. Item 09). To obtain the facts and to affix penalties as designated by other authorities. The responses to these two Items indicated that they were not the practice in program D. There were five respondents 269 who judged item (9) to be the practice and four who thought it should be. The majority, however, disapproved the two items. Item (10.) To obtain the facts, to affix penalties for the minor infractions, and to refer the more serious cases to designated authorities. Item (11). To obtain the facts, to refer cases of minor infraction to the student government, and to refer more serious cases to designated authorities. The practice in the case of item (10) was not clearly differentiated. The divergence in this case was a result of different interpretations since item (11) was identified as the practice. The problem here seemed to be an interpre­ tation of the words "minor infractions." This phrase could be interpreted to include those behaviors which are infractions but not sufficiently so to warrant referral to the student government. For example: loudly during quiet hours. a resident may play his radio too This could be interpreted as an infraction of the quiet hours regulations, but such an inci­ dent would hardly be worthy of the attention of the student government if the resident was willing to turn the volume down at the suggestion of the student assistant. Some of the respondents may have interpreted the phrase in that manner and therefore would respond that the student assistant handles minor infractions, while still others would consider minor infractions to include only those which were referred to the student government. This illustration demonstrates the 270 semantic difficulties involved in such, a questionnaire as used in this study. Item (12). To obtain the facts, and to refer all cases to the student government. This item was rejected as the practice by all three levels and it was disapproved by eight of the twelve student assistants. The failure to attain a consensus at Levels II and III was affected by the failure of the three administrators to express their attitudes. Item (13). To obtain the facts, and to refer all cases to the designated authorities. There were three administrative respondents and three student-assistant respondents who judged this item to be the practice; however, eight of the twelve student assistants rejected the item as did four administrative respondents. Therefore the practice was differentiated to a greater degree at Level IV than at the remaining levels. Attitudes expressed toward the item revealed an increase to five student assistants who favored the practice. Item (lit). To assume no responsibility whatsoever In cases of misbehavior unless they give evidence of a severe personality adjustment problem, in which event they are handled as a counseling case. This item was rejected by all but two respondents as the approach used. 271 TABLE lj.6 RESPONSES OF PROGRAM D TO PROCTORAL ITEMS Judgments Item Function­ ing Level i Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 0 1 0 k* Level Level Level Level I II III IV (10) Level I Level II Level III Level IV (8) (9) (11) Level Level Level Level -- —— -■ I II III IV Un Total a b 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 9# 0 1 0 2 2 9# 0 1 2 2 0 0 2 3 0 ij.# 2 8* 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 2 1 8# 0 2 3 1 0 2 2 0 3 2 7 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 5 0 1 1 7 0 2 2 0 12 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 11# 0 1 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 5 Ij12 k 0 k# 3* 9* li Attitudes k 12 0 5 k 12 0 5 h 12 0 5 h 12 Un |Total 1 0 * k 12 0 5 k 12 0 1 Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; TbT should not be a function; (Un) undecided. # Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus 272 TABLE I4.6 (CONTINUED) 6 Judgments1 Item Function­ ing Level i ii s Un Total Attitudes Un | Totcl a 1 (12) (13) (Ik) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 1 2 k* 3* 9* Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 1 2 3 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 b 1 ii12 0 1 1 k 0 2 2 8* 0 2 1 0 0 3 1 8* 0 1 1 1 0 5 Ii12 0 0 0 $ 0 2 2 7 0 3 2 0 0 k* 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 3 2 10* 0 1 2 2 11* 0 $ h 12 0 $ k 12 0 5 k 12 0 5 k 12 J 1 Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function! (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; fb) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 273 Summary* The pattern of responses indicated that item (11) most nearly approached the statement of practice. If items (10) and (11) had been combined into one it would likely have resulted in a very high consensus of acceptance* Counseling Items^Item (15). To counsel such residents at a level compar­ ableto that of a professional college counselor* Item (16). To counsel those whose problems are judged to be less serious in their implications and to refer to the proper agency those whose problems appear to be more serious* Item (17)* To refer all such students regardless of the apparent degree of seriousness of the problem. Of these three items there was little doubt but that item (16) expressed the accepted approach in handling counseling problems. Item (l8). To interview all of his residents as a means of establishing friendly relationships, identifying problems, imparting or obtaining information and answer­ ing questions* Item (19). To maintain records of all information con­ cerning his designated counseling responsibilities* EXAMPLES: Interview records, referral records, anec­ dotal record, personal data sheets, cumulative records, rating scales, etc* Item (20). To serve as a mediator, advisor, and if necessary as a referral agent for those residents who have verbal clashes or physical conflicts, etc* EXAMPLES: room-mate clash, etc. b See Table k-7 i TABLE JU-7 RESPONSES OF FROGRAI' D TO COUNSELING ITEf'S Judgments^ Item (15) (16) (l?) (l*) Function­ ing Level i Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 0 1 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 5* 3* 11* Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 0 0 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 ii* lj* 10* ii Attitudes Un Total a b 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 b* n* 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 5* 0 0 0 1 0 5* ii* n* 0 l 0 1 b 12 0 $ b 12 0 5 b 12 0 5 0 0 0 1 12 £ 0 ii* 2 11* k * 1 11* Un 0 1 3* 1 0 0 0 0 0 i 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 11* 0 1 2 1 0 3 2 10* 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 ii* Total 0 5 b 12 0 5 b 12 0 5 b 12 0 5 b 12 ^ Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function! (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 275 Ij.7 TABLE (CONTINUED) Judgments1 Item Function­ ing Level (19) (20) (21) Attitudes i ii Un Total a b Un Total 0 5 0 Ij.* 2 9* 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 1 0 5 0 il* 1 11* 0 0 0 1 0 1 3* 0 0 1}.* 2 12* 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 k* 3* 8* 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 If.* 3* 12* 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 5# 1*.* 12* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 k 12 0 5 h 12 0 5 k 12 k 12 0 5 k 12 0 5 k 12 i ^ Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function! tUn) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 276 Item (21). To assist his residents who seek aid in developing better study habits. The responses indicated that all of the items expressed the counseling functions of student assistants in program D. Furthermore, the functions received the approval of the majority of respondents. Summary. The clarity of the acceptance of counseling items in program D indicated that such functions are well defined within the program. Group Guidance Items^ Item (25). To study group structure or formation as a means of identifying cliques, clique leaders, and margi­ nal or outer-fringe residents in his living unit. EXAMPLES: directed observation, sociometrics, etc. The diversity of responses to this item served as an indication of the weakness of the item as was apparent throughout the study. The student assistants were generally favorable toward inclusion of the item as a function. Item (26). To serve as ex-officio advisor to the stu­ dent government officers and committees elected or appointed by the residents within his living unit. Item (27). To serve as an automatically elected officer in the student government of the residence halls or of his living unit by virtue of his position. £ See Table 14-8 . 277 The response patterns to these two items revealed that the student assistant serves in an ex-officio capacity to the student government rather than as an automatically elected member. This practice was approved by the majority. Item (28). To assume initiative in organizing and main­ taining special interest groups within the living unit or residence halls. Item (29), To assist student government (when asked) in effectuating a special interest program. The respondents from program D were divided in their judgments of and attitudes toward item (28); however, their responses indicated that the student assistant aided the student government (when asked) in effectuating a special interest program. This practice was alscf approved. Item (30), To assume initiative in engaging a program of outside speakers to discuss topics designated by the residence halls* personnel officials. EXAMPLES: voca­ tional topics, current event topics, general lectures. Item (31), To assist student government (when requested) in engaging or suggesting a program of outside speakers. There were variations in practice regarding item (30) as revealed by the diversity of administrative and studentassistant judgments. The attitude responses did not reveal any particular trendsince the respondents tended to follow the pattern of their judgments of the Item. Item (31) was accepted and approved at Levels II and IV, while Level III respondents were divided in their responses. There was sufficient agreement, nevertheless to consider item (31) as a general function in program D. The responses of rejection may have indicated no opportunity to perform this function. This conclusion was based on the fact that only one student assistant disapproved the function. Item (32). To give group instruction or explanation to his residents of those topics designated by the residence hall staff or of those topics which he deems essential to effective operation of the living unit. EXAMPLES: Manners and courtesy; residence hall policy and procedure; require­ ments of effective group living; definition of his own role; study habits in general; etc. Although there was not quite enough agreement among the respondents to consider item (32) as a function, there was some indication that the item met with the approval of Level II and Level IV respondents. The Increase in favorable attitudes suggested that the function might be more generally established in the future. Item (33). To authorize expenditureof student govern­ ment funds in his living unit by signing appropriate requisitions. The responses, with the exception of Level II and Level III respondents, revealed that this item was not the practice and was not approved especially at Level IV. TABLE I4.8 Items (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) RESPONSES OP PROGRAM D TO GROUP GUIDANCE ITEMS Attitudes Judgments Function­ ing Levels i ii Un 0 0 0 Total a 0 0 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3 0 5 5 2 12 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 5* 3* 12* 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 Level Level Level Level 1 1 3* 0 l 0 k 12 1 0 0 It* 1 ij.* 0 11* 0 I II III IV 0 0 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 0 2 2 7 0 1 2 5 0 3 5 l 0 0 it* 2 12* It 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 5 it 12 0 3 1 1 3* 0 ( 12 0 3 2 7 0 1 0 5 0 1 2 0 0 5 it 12 0 it* 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 5 it 0 0 £ 0 0 it 12 2 12* 1 2 1 0 6 3 0 5 It 12 0 32 3 5 2 0 5 it 12 1 1 2 3* 0 0 it* 1 11* 0 0 0 1 2 1 3* 11* 0 1 0 8* ?* 0 0 Total 0 0 0 ? 0 0 Un 0 5 it 12 0 2 b 5 12 0 0 0 10 i2 fit 5 2 12 ^ Key to response symbols; (1) is a function; (ii? is not a function; (Un)undecided; (a) should be a function; TbJ should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least two-thirds consensus. TABLE lj.8 (CONTINUED) Att:itudes Judgments1 Item (31) (32) (33) Function­ ing Level i Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 5# 2 9* Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 II* 6 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 1 1 0 3 ii Un 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 Total a b Un Total 0 0 1|* 2 11* 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 $ h 12 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 0 5 ij12 0 0 1 2 2 0 s 1|. 12 0 S 0 1 0 2 k 12 0 0 3 3# 1 0 2 0 5 10* k k 12 h ■* 2 9* 0 1 1 0 3 1 10* k 12 Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; TbT should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 281 Resource and Liaison Items^ Item (22). To serve as a source of information for those residents who request Information regarding current activities on campus, red-tape of university departments, campus traditions, university policy, etc. Item (23), To serve as a source of information for those individuals who request legitimate information concerning his assigned residents, EXAMPLES: administrative officials, professors, university counselors, parents, potential employers, etc. Item (7), To obtain and/or disseminate through indi­ vidual contact, written notice, general announcement, or bulletin board any information designated by the residence hall administrators as necessary to meet special situations. Level II and IV respondents accepted and approved all three of these items by at least the required two-thirds consensus. Level III accepted items (23) and (7) but were equally divided In their acceptance and rejection of item (23), One of these administrators stated that the student assistant should only give Information to parents and to university counselors. Item (2l|.)• To serve as an academic tutor In qualified areas for those residents who request such assistance. The administrative respondents were almost evenly divided in their judgments but eight of the twelve student assistants accepted tutoring as one of their functions. ^ See Table i 282 TABLE 1+9 RESPONSES OP PROGRAM D TO RESOURCE AND LIAISON ITEM'S Judgments1 Item (22) (23) Function­ ing Level Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I II III IV I ii Un 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 0 5# 3 11* 0 1).* 2 9* Attitudes Total a b Un 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 P & 12 0 1 2 1 0 5? 1+ 12 $ k 12 11* 0 0 k 2 11* 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 2 1 7 0 2 0 3 0 1 3* 2 0 i].* 2 12* 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 12 k » 2 Total 0 A (2i|) (7) Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 2 2 8* 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 2 Level Level Level Level I II III IV 0 U* 1+* 12* 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 . , k 12 0 P k 12 0 5 k 12 0 P k 12 ! 1 Key to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; tun) undecided; (a) should be a function; TbJ should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. These respondents possibly indicated a need for clarifica­ tion at the administrative level. Public Relations and Group Morale? (3k)* Item To serve as official host of the residence halls for those guests who visit his living unit or who attend social functions of the m e n ’s residence halls. Item (35)* To encourage activities which will produce greater unity among residents of his living unit and which will contribute to their sense of belonging. EXAMPLES; attending all activities of his living unit; recognizing Individual accomplishment; encouragement of development of scrapbooks for the unit; giving evidence of real enthusiasm for unit activities. Both of these items were accepted and approved by the respondents as the practice in program D. Item (36). To cooperate with part-time student assistants of the women’s residence halls in the execution of a co-ordinated program of social activity and dating for the residents. Responses to this item indicated that practice was not uniform in the case of item (36). It was noted that three of the Level III respondents were undecided in their judgments and attitudes. Three student assistants were the only ones who responded that it should not be the practice. This fact in addition to the slight increase in favorable attitudes suggested that the function might become more general in the future. This indicated a need for clarification of practice ? See Table 5>0. 281* TABLE 50 RESPONSES OF PROGRAM D TO PUBLIC RELATIONS AND GROUP MORALE ITEMS Judgments * Item Function­ ing Level (3U) (35) (36) 1 ii Un 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 Level Level Level Level I II III IV Level Level Level Level I 0 II III IV 5* li* n* Level Level Level Level I II III IV 3 5* 3 11* 0 0 S Ur 3* 3 Total Attitudes a b Un Total 0 0 0 0 0 5 I].* 0 12 11* 0 1 1 2 0 1k 2 0 1k 2 k* 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 3* 7 3 2 & 5 0 5 k 12 2 0 2 11* 0 3 5 0 < k 12 0 5 ij. 12 K£7 to response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (tin) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 28$ at this point. One student assistant felt that there was a danger of forming a !!lonely hearts club” in the case of item (36). Summary of the Responses to the Free-Response Items Question (1)» If this questionnaire has failed to list functions which pertain to the student assistant in your current program or which would be a part of his role in the ideal program at your university, please indicate what these functions are or would be? In answer to this question two administrators and three student assistants stated that the questionnaire had adequately covered the functions of Program D. One student assistant felt the function of informing parents about residents who are about to be dismissed because of poor grades should have been included. Questions (2) and (3)*- If the present functions vary considerably from your concept of the ideal program, please indicate what differences, if any, in training, experience, education, remuneration, etc., would be necessary to execute the ideal program? What do you consider the major factors which are preventing the attainment of your concept of the ideal program, if it varies considerably from present practice? In answer to these two questions a Level II respondent believed that a national apathetic attitude had reduced individual efforts of staff members and had created more student problems. * The responses to these two questions were grouped together because of their similarity. 286 A Level III respondent thought that the student assist­ ants should be graduate students who were not too well known by the residents. He concluded that this would prevent the unfortunate situations arising from the use of under-graduate students who frequently become too familiar with residents to retain their respect. Another respondent at Level III stated that the program could be strengthened by the employment of sincerely interested counselors. A respondent of Level IV thought an improved in-service training program was the key to better staff-management relationships, better staff spirit, and better communication about mutual problems. A second respondent at Level IV believed that there needed to be greater differentiation between student government responsibility and management responsibility. He also complained that the administrative policy which existed was not enforced. A third respondent suggested that the draft situation in the country had resulted in apathy and a fourth attributed the cause of apathy on the part of the student government to the failure of the administrators to make the students feel that they will stand behind decisions of the student government# 287 A Summary of the Responses of Program D Level I was not represented in the sample from program D; however, there were five responses from Level II, four from Level III and twelve from Level IV. The first two custodial items were accepted and approved; however, there was no clearly established practice in the maintenance of administrative records. The respondents favored active participation in and contribution to in-service training and administrative meetings although the practice was not firmly established in this form. The special staff assignments revealed variations in practice. There was an indication that the accepted proctoral approach was for the student assistant to handle minor cases which the student government failed to handle and to refer the more serious ones to designated authorities. The responses to the counseling items revealed considerable clarity in the practice as related to the counseling functions. In his group functions the student assistant served as an ex-officio member of the student government, assisted it in its activities, and favored the establishment of the group instructional function which was not clearly accepted as practice. The function of tutoring varied with different respondents and suggested a need for clarification if a consistent policy was desired. There was an indication of increased acceptance of cooperation with the women's residence hails in a coordinated social program. Suggestions for improvement of the program included (1) greater use of graduate students, process, (2) better selective (3) improvement of the in-service training program, and (if) greater support of the student government. t CHAPTER XII A SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF THE RESPONSES FROM EACH PROGRAM Introduction A number of difficulties were encountered in the attempt to devise a suitable plan for presentation of the data in a summarized form* A system of categorization of the various items according to response patterns was finally devised. I. The derived categories were as follows} Accepted Items. To be classified under this category, an item had to be accepted as a function by at least a two-thirds consensus of both administrative and student-assistant respondents within six or more of the programs. Exceptions were made only In those cases when five schools accepted the Item at both levels and one or more of the remaining schools almost attained a two-thirds acceptance at both functioning levels. This exception seemed warranted In view of the descriptive approach which was employed. II. Differentiating Items. An Item was classified in this category when It fulfilled all of the following conditions: 290 A* The item was clearly accepted within one or more of the programs by at least a two-thirds consensus of administrative and student-assistant respondents, B. The item was clearly rejected within one or more of these programs by a two-thirds majority of both functioning levels. C. There was reasonable evidence to indicate that the meaning of the item was consistently interpreted by the programs which accepted or rejected it as a function. III. Rejected Items. The same criteria were used to identify these items as were used in the first category, with the exception that the two-thirds consensus fell in response areas which denoted rejection of the item as a function. IV. Indecisive Items. This category included those items which failed to yield an indication of any trend. On some items this was because of semantic difficulties or because of poor construction. The weak items were identified from the write-in responses, from unusually high frequencies of undecided judgments, and from the failure of the majority of the programs to attain a sufficiently high degree of acceptance or rejection. The various items have been discussed under these various categories. Because Table 51 which includes a summary of the responses of all the programs to each Item was so long, and because this chapter was not many pages from the appendices, this table was placed in Appendix III. 291 The various items have been discussed under the various categories ifl. th careful attention to the attitudes expressed toward them. I. ACCEPTED ITEMS Custodial Area Item (1). To investigate and/or report cases of lost, damaged7 or stolen property belonging to the manage­ ment or to any resident living in his dormitory unit. Itegi (2). To prevent and/or report unauthorized personnel "who attempt to utilize without permission any residence hall facility or equipment. EXAMPLES: dining hall, sleeping accomodations, solicitation privileges, lounges, snack bars, etc. Item (ij.). To maintain records of information con­ cerning his residents which has been designated by the management as essential for efficient operation of the physical plant. EXAMPLES: Up-to-date roster, room assignment changes, meal ticket assignment. All of the student assistant respondents within the various programs attained at least a two-thirds majority acceptance of item (1), and furthermore they approved the inclusion of this Item In their respective programs. The administrators of program C were the only ones who rejected item (1) as a part of the practice in their program. Four of these six administrators responded that the item was not a function of the student assistant In their program. One of these four believed that it should be and the other one was undecided In his attitude. 4 292 Item (2) was accepted by every program except program C. The student assistants in this case almost attained the required level of consensus, but the six administrators were evenly divided in their judgments. The function was generally approved throughout these programs. The administrative respondents of program 0 were evenly divided in their acceptance and rejection of item (ij.) as a function, while seven of the twelve student-assistant respondents of program D accepted the item as their function. Eight of these student assistants thought, however, that it should be their function. Counseling Area Item (16). To counsel those whose problems are judged to be less serious in their implications and to refer to the proper agency those whose problems appear to be more serious. The only Indication of non-acceptance of the counseling approach to be utilized by student assistants came from the administrative respondents of program N. Five of these nine administrators rejected the Item as a part of practice and six of them were of the opinion that it should not be a function. This response was especially interesting in view of the student-assistant acceptance and approval of this approach in program N. Item (18). To interview all of his residents as a means of establishing friendly relationships, identifying problems, imparting or obtaining information and answering questions. Item (20), To serve as a mediator, advisor, and if necessary as a referral agent for those residents who have verbal clashes or physical conflicts, etc, EXAMPLES: room-mate clash, etc. Item (21). To assist his residents who seek aid in developing better study habits. The acceptance and approval of these items by all of these programs left little doubt that they could be considered the accepted practice for the student assistant in his counseling role. Group Guidance Area Item (26), To serve as ex-officio advisor to the stu­ dent government officers and committees elected or appointed by the residents within his living unit. Item (29). To assist student government (when asked) in effectuating a special interest program. Item (31), To assist student government (when requested) in engaging or suggesting a program of outside speakers. Of the nine items listed in the group guidance area items (26), (29), and (31) were the only ones which generally expressed the functions of the student assistant in this area. I The practice in the cases of programs N and 0 differed to some extent from the remaining programs. Seven of the ten administrators from program 0 judged that item (26) was not the practice. This judgment was based on the policy in that program of having the student assistant serve as an automatically elected officer of the student government. The failure of the student assistants to have concurred with an equally high consensus in this case seemed to have been possibly a matter of interpretation of the item. In the case of program N seven of the nine administrators agreed that this function should be a part of practice in their program. The responses of these two programs were interesting In view of the fact that the student assistant in both ot these programs receives only his room rent as remuneration rather than room and board as is the case of the remaining programs. These two factors were possibly indicative of a slightly different concept of the role of the student assistant in these programs. Item (29) was the only other group guidance function accepted by six or more programs. The student-assistant respondents of program 3! were the only ones who deviated from the pattern of acceptance. Pour of them rejected the item, and three accepted It as a function. 4 295 Although item (31) was classified as a differentiating item, it did gain general acceptance in all of the programs but two. These latter responses were discussed in the differentiating category. Resource and Liaison Area Item (22). To serve as a source of information for those residents who request information regarding current activities on campus, red-tape of university departments, campus traditions, university policy, etc. Item (23). To serve as a source of information for those individuals who request legitimate information concerning his assigned residents. Item (7). To obtain and/or disseminate through indi­ vidual contact, written notice, general announcement, or bulletin board any information designated by the residence hall administrators as necessary to meet special situations. All three of the items were accepted, with items (?) and (22) receiving the highest degree of acceptance and approval of any Items in the questionnaire* Item (23) was not completely accepted by program N; in fact, there was a considerable difference in judgment at both levels. Seven of the nine administrators in this program did feel that it should be a function, and there was only one student-assistant respondent who thought it should not be a function. In program 0 eleven of the thirteen student-assistant respondents rejected the item, while seven of the ten . I 296 administrative respondents accepted the item, revealing a need for clarification within this program. There seemed to be a considerable amount of division among these administrators in their feeling as to what should be the practice. Again it was noted that programs 0 and N were the ones deviating from the remaining programs. Public Relations and Group Morale Area Item (36). To cooperate with part-time student assistants the women’s residence halls in the execution of a co-ordinated program of social activity and dating for the residents. oi Although the administrative respondents of program 0 were the only group of respondents who failed to agree on acceptance of this function in their program, they did approve the item, as did the respondents at both levels in all of the programs. II. DIFFERENTIATING ITEMS Special Staff Area Item (6). To assume special staff assignments and responsibilities that are not directly related to his functions in his own dormitory unit, EXAMPLESs week-end desk duty, dining hall duty, evaluation committees, administrative detail committees, etc. 297 Programs M, B, and E accepted this item at the twothirds consensus point at both functioning levels, while programs 0 and I rejected the item as a part of practice. Fifteen of the sixteen student-assistant respondents of program C also accepted the item, while eight of the twelve student-assistant respondents rejected the item in program D. On the basis of these responses it was indicated that the item served to differentiate practice in these programs. Proctoral Area Item (10). To obtain the facts, to affix penalties for the minor infractions,and to refer the more serious cases to designated authorities. Item (11). To obtain the facts, to refer cases of minor infraction to the student government, and to refer more serious cases to designated authorities. These two items served to differentiate the accepted approach in these programs. Programs C, _0, M, and N rejected item (10) as the approach used, while programs B and I accepted item (10) as the approach in their program. In addition eight of the twelve student assistants and six of the ten administrators responding for program E accepted this item as the approach employed. Item (10) therefore was successful in partially differentiating the general role of the student assistant in handling cases of misbehavior. Furthermore, there was a tendency for the i 2?8 judgments to coincide with the attitudes expressed toward item (10) in these programs. The administrative and student-assistant respondents of programs B and D agreed that item (11) was an expression of the approach employed In their respective programs. Programs I and N revealed a definite rejection of this practice at both functioning levels, and the student-assistant respondents of programs M and 0 rejected the item b y more than a two-thirds consensus. The attitude responses did not follow the judgment responses as closely in the case of item (11) as in the case of item (10), There was a tendency among some programs to reveal indecision in their attitudes, a n d in other programs the attitudes tended to be positive toward item (11). After analysis of all these programs It seemed that this approach would be considered a desirable one, once the student governments revealed themselves to be interested in participating in this proctoral area. Item (13). To obtain the facts, and to refer all cases to the designated authorities. Programs B and C rejected this itemand program N accepted the item as being a proctoral approach in their program. Program M accepted it at the administrative level and almost attained a two-thirds acceptance at the student-assistant i level. There was almost a sufficient consensus of rejection in programs E, 0, and D to consider the item as not being the practice in those programs. This item was perhaps weakened by the term "designated authorities" since some respondents apparently judged the term to include the student government if it handled discipline cases. This interpretation was not anticipated. Resource Area Item (2U)« To serve as an academic tutor in qualified areas for those residents who request such assistance. The respondents at both levels in programs 0 and N rejected tutoring as a function of the student assistant in their programs. The administrators of programs M and I judged that this item was a function, while the studentassistant respondents of these programs rejected the item as a part of practice. The respondents at the student- assistant level in programs Q and E rejected the item, while eight of the twelve student assistants from program D agreed that it was their function. There was less agreement in the attitudes expressed than in the judgments as a result of many undecided responses. 300 Group Guidance Area Item (31)« To assist student government (when requested) in engaging or suggesting a program of outside speakers. The pattern of responses to item (31) indicated that it was the general practice in all of the programs with the exception of programs I and N. The student-assistant respondents in these two programs rejected this item as their function. The item was approved in the other programs, and there seemed to be a trend I and toward approval in programs N--eapecially in program N. Group Morale Area Item (36). To cooperate with part-time student assistants of the women’s residence halls in the execution of a co-ordinated program of social activity and dating for the residents. Program M was differentiated from the other programs by this item in that both administrative and student-assistant respondents from this program accepted item (36) as the practice. In programs £, B, I, N, and E, the administrative respondents judged or tended to judge this item to be the practice, while the student-assistant programs rejected or tended to ment of the practice. respondents in these reject this item as a state­ Since both groups agreed that it 301 should be the practice, it indicated the possibility that administrators let their enthusiasm for this practice influence their judgments of practice. III. REJECTED ITEMS Proctoral Area Item (8). To obtain all of the facts regarding all such misbehavior and to affix penalties according to his own judgment. The student-assistant respondents of program E and the two administrative respondents of program M did not reject item (8) by a two-thirds consensus as did both of these functioning levels in all other programs. The seven rejections at the student-assistant level of program E did represent a simple majority. In the case of program M, one administrator judged item (8) to be part of the proctoral approach, while the other administrator remained undecided. There were no significant changes in the attitudes expressed toward item (8) by these programs. Item (9). To obtain the facts and to affix penalties as designated by other authorities. Programs 0 and E did not attain a two-thirds consensus of rejection of this item at either functioning level, although there was a slight trend of rejection in both programs. Five of the seven student-assistant respondents of program I accepted item (9) as a proctoral approach and thereby disagreed in their judgments with the two remaining studentassistant respondents and their administrator who rejected item (9). Item (12), To obtain the facts, and to refer all cases to the student government. This item failed to be rejected at the two-thirds majority level by only the student-assistant respondents of program 0. In this program seven of the thirteen student- assistant respondents judged the item to be the proctoral approach, and five of the remaining respondents agreed with seven of the ten administrative respondents in their program that it was not the practice. Program N revealed some indecision in their attitudes toward this approach which they had rejected as a part of their program. This situation also applied at the administrative level of program D. Item (lit)* To assume no responsibility whatsoever in cases of misbehavior unless they give evidence of a severe personality adjustment problem, in which event they are handled as a counseling case. One half of the student-assistant and administrative respondents of program accepted item (ill) as a statement 303 of the approach in their program, while less than half of the respondents at both of these functioning levels rejected the item. Furthermore, four of the six administrative respondents believed that item (U 4.) should be the approach used in program C, The remaining programs rejected this approach at both levels, with the exception of the program 0 administrative respondents. The latter group was one response short of a two-thirds consensus of rejection. Counseling Area Item (15). To counsel such residents at a level comparable to that of a professional college counselor. Item (17). To refer all such students regardless of the apparent degree of seriousness of the problem. Item (15) was rejected by both functioning levels in all of the programs except program E, and In this case six of the ten administrative respondents rejected the item. Two of these administrative respondents judged that the student assistant was serving and should serve as a professional counselor. The administrative respondents of Program N were the only respondents of either level in these programs which did not reject item (17) as the approach employed. These respondents were considerably divided in their judgments and attitudes, with perhaps a slight trend toward approval of the item. .. fl 30U Group Guidance Area Item (2?). To serve as an automatically elected offi­ cer in the student government of the residence halls or of his living unit by virtue of his position. Programs C, M, B, E, and D rejected this item at both functioning levels, a nd in addition the one administrative respondent of program of a function. I rejected the item as a statement There was a tendency for programs 0 and N to accept this item as a function, which was not considered unusual in view of the fact that they tended to accept item (26) which described the student assistant’s function in student government as being an ex-officio function. The administrative respondent in these two programs tended to be negative in their attitudes toward the practice of having the student assistant serve as an automatically elected officer In the student government. The student-assistant respondents of program I were divided In their judgments, a n d there seemed to be a slight tendency for them to feel that item (27) should be their relationship to the student government. Item (33). To authorize expenditure of student government funds in his living unit by signing appropriate requisitions. 305 Program E was the only program which did not reject this item as a function. In their case, eleven of the twelver student-assistant respondents accepted the item as a function, and five of the ten administrative respondents of program E accepted the item. These response patterns differentiated program E from the remaining programs, I?. INDECISIVE ITEMS Custodial Area Item (3)» To establish procedures for the effective utilization of all equipment assigned to his dormitory unit, EXAMPLES: recreational equipment, emergency equipment, auxiliary equipment. The weakness of this item lay In the lack of consistency in its interpretations. To some respondents this item contained two responsibilities neither of which belonged to the student assistant. One of these belonged to the management staff and the other to the student government, depending on which party owned the equipment. Other respondents believed that only part of the responsibility belonged to the student assistant, while still others judged that all of this responsibility belonged to the student assistants. These variations of interpretation were derived from the write-in responses* 306 Special Staff Area Item (5). To actively participate in and contribute to staff meetings devoted to administration of the program and/or to the in-service training of the staff members. Although there was an acceptance of this item as a function in several programs (C, B, E, and I), this acceptance was reduced to some extent by the wording of the item. Increased acceptance might have resulted from a substitution of the words "to attend" for the words "to actively participate in or contribute to"; furthermore, acceptance might have been greater if attendance at administrative meetings and attendance at in-service training meetings had been constructed as two separate items. The item was not considered to be as weak as some other items, however. Counseling Area Item (19). To maintain records of all Information concerning his designated counseling responsibilities. EXAMPLES: interview records, referral records, anecdotal record, personal data sheets, cumulative records, rating scaled, Etc. Four programs (C, M, E, and D) accepted this item as a function of the student assistant. The weakness of the item seemed to have stemmed from the number of examples included in the Item, since some of the respondents, as previously mentioned, rejected an Item if one or two examples did not apply to their program. This item was approved at 4 307 both function levels by five of the programs and at one of the levels by two additional programs. These response patterns indicated that this function may eventually be included in all of the programs. Group Guidance Area Item (25). To study group structure or formation as a means of identifying cliques, clique leaders, and marginal or outer-fringe residents in his living unit. EXAMPLES: directed observation, sociometrics, etc. It was apparent from the write-in responses and from the unusually large frequency of undecided responses in both judgments and attitudes that the terminology employed in the item was not clearly understood or consistently interpreted among many of the respondents. For this reason it was considered as of little value to the study except that it did reveal a trend of positive attitudes toward Its inclusion as a part of practice. Item (28). To assume Initiative in organizing and maintaining special interest groups within the living unit or residence halls. Item (30). To assume initiative In engaging a program of outsfde speakers to discuss topics designated by the residence halls personnel officials. EXAMPLES: vocational topics, current event topics, general lectures. 308 The weaknesses of these items were not clearly under­ stood. Both of them concerned the problem as to whether it should be the function of the student assistant to take the initiative in organizing desirable resident activities. The responses indicated that practice varied with the individual student assistant, especially in the case of item (28). None of the programs achieved the required two-thirds consensus at both of the functioning levels on this item. This seemed to reveal rather pointedly the problem of having the staff institute desirable activities which the residents fail to establish because of a lack of interest or because of inadequate leadership from the student govern­ ment and at the same time not pushing activities for which there is no felt need among the residents or which demand an evolutionary leadership within the student government. This problem is discussed in the concluding chapter. Item (30) could almost be considered as a rejected item within these programs, since five of them rejected it. Had not there been the extent of indecision and division of attitudes which existed, it would have been considered a rejected item rather than an indecisive item. Program B revealed the strongest tendency to accept the item, and the head of that program frankly stated that the item represented a problem in program B. He said that the staff had concluded that the only way in which outside speakers would be brought in was for the staff members to take the initiative. It was his hope that in the future the residents would demand that their student-government leaders provide such a program once the desirability of such a program became recognized by the residents. Item (32). To give group instruction or explanation to his residents of those topics designated by the residence hall staff or of those topics which he deems essential to effective operation of the living unit. EXAMPLES: manners and courtesy; residence hall policy and procedure; requirements of effective group living; definition of his own role; study habits in general; etc. Only programs _I and E accepted this item as a function, while several others approached acceptance. The administrative respondents (four out of six) of program _C were the only group to reject the item as a part of practice. The reliability of the item was probably lessened to some extent by its length and by the number of examples included. The write-in responses revealed that some respondents rejected an item if one of the several examples did not apply to their program. This item was approved by all of the programs at the student assistant level and by every program except 0 and B at the administrative level. This degree of approval indicated a trend toward inclusion of the function in these programs. 310 Public Relations Area Item (3lj-). To serve as official host of the residence halls for those guests who visit his living unit or who attend social functions of the m e n ’s residence halls. The failure of this item to be more revealing of practice may have resulted from semantic difficulties with the term "official host." Programs D and I were the only ones indicating that this item was the accepted and approved practice within their programs. Summary of the Responses of All of the Programs to the Free Response Questions As previously mentioned in Chapter III, fifty-six per cent of the respondents answered one or more of these questions. Twenty-five per cent answered the first question, thirty-nine per cent responded to the second question, and twenty-five per cent to all three questions. It was felt that the length of the questionnaire reduced to some extent the number of responses to these questions which might otherwise have been obtained. In summarizing the responses to these questions, the responses to questions two and three have been grouped together because of their similarity in content. Question (1). If this questionnaire has failed to list functionswhich pertain to the student assistant in your current program or which would be a part of his role in the ideal program at your university, please explain what the functions are or would be. Sixty-five per cent of the respondents who answered this question expressed the feeling that it had covered the functions adequately. Three respondents felt that some of the Items were vague and overlapped. There were no additional functions suggested with any consistency. The following includes those mentioned by respondents! (1). A function stressing the importance of facultyresidence staff relationships. (2). A function which emphasized the importance of exemplary behavior on the part of the student assistant. (3)* Emphasis on the strict confidence which must be placed on counseling information. (ij.). The (5). The function of aiding residents to adjust to college life. (6). The (7). The function of the student assistant in representing the wishes of his men before the administration. (8). The function of orienting freshmen to college and residence hall life. function of developing capable leadership. function of maintaining quiet hours. Number (2) was the only one suggested by more than one respondent. i 312 Question (2). If the present functions vary considerably from your concept of the ideal program please indicate what differences, if any, in training, experience, education, and remuneration, etc*, would be necessary to execute the ideal program. Question (3)« ^Vhat do you consider the major factors which are preventing attainment of your concept of the ideal program if it varies considerably from present practice? The most frequently mentioned factors which were mentioned in connection with the improvement of these programs are listed as follows! (1). The need for improved and more extended inservice training. (2). A lack of time on the part of the student assistant to carry out his functions. (3). The need for a larger staff including additional full-time staff members. (4). A clarification of administrative policy with greater consideration for the needs of the residents. (£)• An increased budget as well as increased remuneration for staff members. (6). A more careful selection of student assistants who are interested and who possess leadership ability. (7). Resident apathy resulting from the prospect of draft hinders the promotion of resident interest. (8). Greater emphasis on student government responsibility in managing their own affairs. (9). Smaller living units and fewer residents assigned to each student assistant. Some of the less frequently mentioned factors were listed as follows! (1). Turnover of student assistants too great for desired development of a program# (2). Need for more graduate students who are majoring in counseling and guidance. (3). Need for increased number of contacts with individual residents. (i+). Need for a solution to the conflict of counseling and disciplinary functions being performed by the student assistants. (5>). Need of greater authority for the student assistant. These factors seemed to have revealed a number of points that might bear consideration by those who are in charge of these programs. Conclusions 1. It was found in this summary analysis that the following fourteen items were part of the general functioning role of the part-time student assistant throughout the programs included in this study* Custodial Functions Item (1). To investigate and/or report cases of lost, damaged, or stolen property belonging to the management or to any resident living in his dormitory unit. 4 3Ui Item (2), To prevent and/or report unauthorized per­ sonnel who attempt to utilize without permission any residence hall facility or equipment. EXAMPLES: dining hall, sleeping accomodations, solicitation privileges, lounges, snack bars, etc. Item (li). To maintain records of information concerning his residents which has been designated by the manage­ ment as essential for efficient operation of the physical plant. EXAMPLES: Up-to-date roster, room assignment changes, meal ticket assignment. Counseling Functions Item (l To maintain records of all information concerning his designated counseling responsibilities. EXAMPLES: interview records, referral records, anecdotal record, personal data sheets, cumulative records, rating scales, etc. Item (20). To serve as a mediator, advisor, and if necessary as a referral agent for those residents who have verbal clashes or physical conflicts, etc. EXAMPLES: room-mate clash, etc. Item (21). To assist his residents who seek aid In developing better study habits. Group Guidance Functions Item (26). To serve as ex-officio advisor to the student government officers and committees elected or appointed by the residents within his living unit. Item (29). To assist student government (when asked) In effectuating a special interest program. 315 Resource Functions Item (22). To serve as a source of information for those residents who request information regarding current activities on campus, red-tape of university departments, campus traditions, university policy, etc. Item (23) • To serve as a source of information for those individuals who request legitimate information concerning his assigned residents. Liaison Function Item (7). To obtain and/or disseminate through indi­ vidual contact, written notice, general announcement, or bulletin board any information designated by the residence hall administrators as necessary to meet special situations. Group Morale Function Item (35). To encourage activities which will produce greater unity among residents of his living unit and which will contribute to their sense of belonging. EXAMPLES: attending all activities of his living unit; recognizing individual accomplishment; encourage­ ment of development of scrapbooks for the unit; giving evidence of real enthusiasm for unit activities. 2. Furthermore it was found that the following seven items were accepted as functions in some programs and rejected as functions in other programs: Special Staff Function Item (6). To assume special staff assignments and responsibilities that are not directly related to his functions in his own dormitory unit. EXAMPLES: week-end desk duty, dining hall duty, evaluation committees, administrative detail committees, etc. i Proctoral Functions Item (10). To obtain the facts, to affix penalties for the minor infractions, a n d to r ef er the more serious cases to designated authorities. Item (11). To obtain the facts, to refer cases of minor infraction to the student government, and to refer more serious cases to designated authorities. Item (13)» To obtain the facts, and to refer all cases to the designated authorities. Resource Function Item (21+). To serve as an academic tutor in qualified areas for those residents who request such assistance. Group Guidance Function Item (31)» To assist student government (when requested) in effectuating a special interest program. Group Morale Function Item (36). To cooperate with part-time student assistants of the women’s residence halls in the execution of a co-ordinated program of social activity and dating for the residents. 4 317 Indications of Trends By all careful examination of the response patterns of the programs there were several possible trends In evidence. These trends are listed as follows: 1. A trend of feeling that active participation in and contribution to in-service training programs should play a more Important part in the functions of the student assistant* 2. A trend of feeling that every encouragement needs to be given to the student government in handling minor disciplinary cases which are now generally handled by the student assistant. 3* A trend of feeling that the guidance records kept by student assistants should be more Inclusive. J+. A trend of feeling among some administrators that greater emphasis is needed on the group instruc­ tional function. 5* A trend of feeling that cooperation with the women’s residence halls in a coordinated social program should be more firmly established. CHAPTER XIII EVALUATION Introduction It is not the purpose of this chapter to determine whether or not the part-time student assistant should be employed in the men's residence halls, but rather it is the purpose to discuss how he can be employed most effectively. The discussion is based upon the assumption that his two major responsibilities should be to serve as an agent for the extension of personnel services within the university in which he is employed, and to serve as an agent of the dormitory management staff in the effective operation of the physical plant. It is further assumed that any con­ flicts between these two responsibilities should be resolved in favor of the personnel role. This does not imply that such conflicts are inherent in the total role, but it does recognize that such conflicts do exist. This conclusion is based on the results of this study. The study identified certain weaknesses which are prevalent in his present employment and which operate against his potential effectiveness. These weaknesses are listed and defined as follows: 1, Conflicts within his functioning role. The study 319 revealed that the student assistant functions both in a supervisory and in a guidance capacity. Some of the functions of these two capacities present certain potential or real conflicts in his total role. In most of these programs he is expected to function In a proctoral capacity as well as In a counseling and group guidance capacity. The degree of responsibility which he must assume in the proctoral area would seemingly bear some relationship to his effectiveness In the counseling and group guidance area. It is again recognized that the variable pertaining to the manner in which all of the functions are performed exists, but It is also recognized that this study is dealing with a relatively untrained and inexperienced guidance worker. Evidence of the tensions resulting from conflicts between these two capacities was apparent in a large portion of student-assistant writein responses. Two remedies have been proposed for these conflicts. One is to keep the residents so well occupied with constructive activities that the need for control of behavior is consid­ erably diminished and the other is to encourage the residents to handle these problems through their own self-government. Both approaches have been relatively, but not entirely successful. 2. Abuse of the part-time concept. Although a student assistant Is employed on a part-time basis, the demands of an 320 active program frequently abuse this concept. In some programs he is permitted to carry a full academic load, and such a practice is unfortunate if the program is quite active. It is difficult to find qualified upperclassmen who are willing to retard their academic progress by reducing their academic hours for the sake of this experience. As a consequence administrators are forced to yidld on this point to get the "cream of the crop1' among the upperclassmen to accept the position. This limited amount of available time frequently results in the necessity of performing the ’’expedient” supervisory functions first and of U 3ing the time that Is left for the less ’’expedient” guidance functions. In other words, there is a natural tendency for the more urgent administrative detail assignments to reduce considerably the already limited time of the student assistant; consequently the guidance and counseling functions are often neglected necessarily. 3* Lack of adequate in-service training. Item (5) of the questionnaire revealed a reluctance on the part of many student assistants to agree that It was a function. This item called for ”active participation in and contribution to staff meetings devoted to administration of the program and/ or to in-service training of staff members.” Since meetings of some type are held in most of these programs, it was 321 apparent that this reluctance to accept the item as a function resulted from a possible disagreement with the phrasing of the item. This reluctance as well as write-in responses suggested that in-service training meetings frequently yield to the more pressing administrative demands, and just as frequently the student assistants do not have the opportun­ ity actively to participate in the meetings. This weakness is accentuated when it is realized that the majority of the student assistants possess very little or no previous acquain­ tance with the guidance field. Ij-. Insufficient number of staff members. To effectively serve as a personnel agent who has at least one interview with each of his residents, who maintains some guidance records on each student, who assists them in their study habits, who attends all of their activities, who encourages and works closely with student government officers, who holds certain special staff assignments, and who performs many other functions, the part-time student assistant obviously cannot adequately serve a large number of residents. The number with whom he can adequately deal will depend, of course, upon the number of functions he Is expected to per­ form and the amount of time he has available to perform them. The number of functions accepted by these programs emphasized the fact that either he must be provided with a considerable amount of time or he must be assigned very few residents if he is to perforin these functions adequately. One possible answer to the problem is to increase considerably the number of student assistants, thereby reducing the number of resi­ dents assigned to each student assistant. This point will be discussed later in this chapter. Excessive turn-over in staff members. Considering the number and various types of functions which the student assistant performs, it is apparent that adequate performance requires considerable orientation and on-the-job experience. The average tenure of the student assistants within these programs is not known, but the employment of upperclassmen suggests that the average length would be a year or slightly more. This problem is reduced in some instances through the employment of student-government leaders in the residence halls who are previously familiar with the guidance program of the residence halls. In view of the short tenure, the latter practice would seem to deserve enphasis. 6. Failure of administrators to agree on their functioning role. The failure of administrators within a program to agree on some of the items in their judgments of practice could not be interpreted to mean that the practice was not known in every case. was at fault in some cases. The questionnaire There were, however, indications that the administrative judgments and attitudes differed between and within the levels. Such variations frequently suggested an urgent need for the administrators to define and evaluate the role of the student assistants in their programs• Suggested Standards of Evaluation Consideration of the weaknesses and their implications suggested a need for certain standards t o reduce or abolish these weaknesses. The following standards of evaluation are proposed as the result of this study; 1. The student assistant should not be expected to perform functions which are contradictory. 2. The number of the student assistant’s functions should not abuse the part-time concept. 3. The student assistant should have an active part in defining and evaluating his functions as well as the objectives of the program. 1+. Administrative functions should not supersede his guidance functions. 5. The student assistant should not be assigned too many residents. 6. The in-service training program should be designed to meet the needs of the student assistant. 7. The process of selection of student assistants should be evaluated carefully. 8. The student assistant should be given sufficient recognition and remuneration for his services. 9* The student assistant should not be permitted to carry excessive academic hours or extra­ curricular activities* 4 32k As these standards and their subsequent ramifications were considered it was evident that only a portion of them were likely to be met under the existing organizational structure of these programs. There are two major reasons for these conclusions. 1. The number of functions accepted in these programs require a considerable amount of time if they are to be adequately performed, especially when it is known that there are an average of approximately fifty or more residents assigned to each part-time student assistant. 2. Some of these functions tend to be conflicting in their content, and in addition some of the more expedient ones take precedence over some of the less expedient but equally or more important ones. If these reasons are valid, then they suggest that either the student assistant should be assigned fewer functions or he should be assigned fewer residents. Further­ more, he should not be expected to perform functions that are in conflict. Since most of his functions are considered as essential in these programs, it appears that one solution would be to reduce the ratio of residents per student assistant. Even if the budget would permit this change, the problem of con­ flicting functions within the role of the student assistant has not been remedied, nor has the problem of his inadequate preparation to perform counseling functions been resolved. Immediately the problem of the budget comes into consideration and the aspect of conflicting functions has still not been reduced. For these reasons an organizational plan is proposed which would include the use of two types of student assistants at Level XV, on of which would handle primarily the supervisory functions and another who would handle pri­ marily the guidance functions. Proposed Organizational Plan The organizational plan as proposed herein would call for one graduate student per 100 residents to serve as a graduate counselor and one upperclassman per 5>0 residents to serve as a student assistant. The qualifications, responsibilities, and remuneration of each are listed as follows: 1. The graduate counselor. This staff member would be employed on a part-time basis and would be a graduate student in the field of psychology or counseling and guidance. His employment would serve as a part of his academic internship requirements in these fields, and he would be paid in the form of room and board. load would be limited to nine semester hours. His academic His worK would be done under the supervision of the university’s counselor-training department or under a professional counselor employed by the residence halls. His primary responsibilities would fall in the area of counseling and group guidance, with emphasis upon edu­ cational and vocational counseling. He would also handle minor emotional and social adjustment problems. He would be qualified to administer and interpret the various counseling tools and would be expected to maintain adequate guidance records. He would be trained to conduct study- habit clinics within his unit and would maintain a close relationship with the university counseling and psychiatric service. 2. The student assistant. This staff member would also be employed on a part-time basis, but he would be permitted to carry a normal academic load. He would be expected to have demonstrated previous leadership capabil­ ities preferably in residence hall activities. He would be remunerated in the form of room rent and additional money if possible. He would function primarily as a group stimulator and in an ex-officio capacity to the student government leaders. He would serve in a liaison capacity between the management and the residents. He would perform in addition custodial, special staff, and proctoral functions as deemed essential by the management. He would be given special training by the personnel administrators of the residence halls. These two functionaires would hold a staff relationship to each other, and the student assistant would hold a line 327 position to those who are in an administrative capacity at Level III. The graduate counselor would hold a staff relationship to all of the residence hall administrators. The advantages in employing graduate counselors would be as follows: 1. They would be able to handle many counseling problems which are not Identified by untrained student assistants at the present time, and their availability would eliminate many of the breakdowns In the referral process. 2. They would be able to Interview all of the residents and would be able to hold addi­ tional interviews with those residents who need special assistance. 3. Their background and training would enable them to utilize tests, Inventories, socio­ metrics, case studies, and other counseling tools. Ij.. They would not be forced to perform rapport reducing functions nor would they perform administrative functions which would detract from their main purpose. The advantages of employing student assistants in this manner are as follows: 1. The student assistant could concentrate much of his efforts on assisting the student government leaders and encouraging group activities. 2. He would have more time to devote to the liaison function between the management and the residents. 3. He would receive valuable training and experience through his relationship with the graduate counselor. Those who qualify for the position of graduate counselor and who have had previous experience as student assistants would be especl ally valuable to theprogram. 328 There are certain limitations which need to be con­ sidered. 1, Such a program would increase the budget which is already over-burdened in many cases, 2, The possibility of personality conflicts and jealousies between student assistants and between graduate counselors is prevalent* 3, The student assistants would still be forced to perform some custodial and proctoral functions, (Under this plan the consequences would be less serious, however,) ij., The assignment of additional staff members to each unit could reduce resident initiative if the staff were to be overly dominate in its leadership, 5. There might be an insufficient number of qualified candidates for the position of graduate counselor. The administrative structure of such a plan has not been discussed because in most cases these structures are rigidly fixed and because this study is primarily concerned with the role of the part-time student assistant. The plan does not appear to be overly idealistic, since it could be instituted in any of these programs. 329 Suggested Areas for Additional Research Since these programs affect so many residents it seems that the attitudes of the residents toward the student assistant need to be determined. several difficulties. This problem presents The resident attitudes are apt to be largely a reflection of their feelings about the person­ ality of their assigned student assistant. The use of the Critical Incident Technique as employed by John Flannagan 2 might be of some value in attacking the problem. There is also a need to determine successful practices employed by student assistants in performing their various functions. As previously stated,the manner in which these functions are performed is more dynamic than the functions themselves and is closely related to the personality and training of the student assistant. Evaluation is an ever-existing need and techniques for evaluation of residence hall programs are in their infancy stage. The student assistant has become an integral part of the m e n ’s residence halls in the Big Ten. If he Is to be used effectively in attaining the social-educative goals 2 John Flannagan, Critical Requirements for Research Personnel, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: American Institute for Research, March, 19k-9» 330 which have been set for residence halls by most of the writers, serious consideration needs to be given to his capabilities and limitations in performing the functions. The tendency to expect too much of h i m was evident in this study and therefore it suggests that these programs need to give his role serious consideration and to consider the possibility of supplementary assistance to relieve the strain. If residence halls hold potentialities for the develop­ ment of democratic and self-understanding individuals, then every effort should be made to foster the attainment of those potentialities in these critical days when freedom is being challenged throughout the world. BIBLIOGRAPHY A. Angell, R. C., The Campus. 1928 . BOOKS New York: Appleton and Company. 3JL1.O p p . Augustine, Grace M . , Some Aspects of Management of College Residence Halls for Women. New York: P. S. Crofts and Company, 19357“ 2I4.2 pp. Gardner, Donfred H., The Evaluation of Higher Institutions. Vol. V, Student Personnel Service, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1931. 307 pp. Hayes, Harriet, Planning Residence Halls. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1932. 2l*7 PP. t _______ College Operated Residence Halls for Women Students in 125 Colleges and Universities. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1932. 39 pp. Leonard, Maria, The Chaperon and the House Mother, Builders of Youth. Menasha, Wisconsin: George Banta Publish­ ing Company, 1939. 77 PP. Lloyd-Jones, Esther McD., and Margaret R. Smith, A Student Personnel Program for Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1 9 3 ^ 35o pp. Lyford, Carrie Alberta, The School Dormitory. M. Barrows Company, 1932. 232 pp. Boston: Orme, Rhoda, Counseling in the Residence Halls. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1950. lij-3 pp. Sifferd, Calvin S., Residence Hall Counseling. Bloomington, Illinois: McKnight and MeKnight, 1950. 238 pp. Stewart, Helen Q . , Some Social Aspects of Residence Halls for College Women. New York: Professional and Technical Press, 19i+2. 188 pp. Strang, Ruth, Group Activities in College and Secondary School. Revised Edition; New York: Harper and Brothers, I 9I+6 . 361 pp. 332 Student Personnel Work, Series VI, No, 13, The Student Personnel Point of View, American Council on Education Studies. "Washington, D. C, 20 pp. Williamson, E. G., Editor, Trends in Student Personnel, Minneapolis; The University of Minnesota Press, 1949* Ul7 PP. B. PERIODICAL ARTICLES Albright, Preston B., "The Place of Residence Hall Organiza­ tion in the Student Personnel Program," Educational and Psychological Measurement, XI (Winter, j,139-4E>7"^ 19$1 Alstine, F. L., "Relation Between Housing and Scholarship," Journal of Higher E d u c a t i o n , XIII (March, 19I4.2 }, 1^8-59. Butts, Porter, "Some Implications of Housing," Journal of Higher E d u c a t i o n , VIII, No. 1 and No. 2 (January ancT February, 1937), 27-38; 89-94* Chapman, M a x J . , "Guidance In Student Residence Halls," Journal of Higher Education, XVII (January, 1946), 26- 30. Cheek, Mary Ashley, "Re-organized Residence Halls," Journal of Higher E d u c a t i o n , XVII (January, 1946), 26-30. Cowley, W. H . , "The History of Student Residential Housing," School and S o c i e t y , XXXX (December land 8, 1934)* 7o£-l2;”758‘355: Crossen, Marion H . , "The Student Assistant in the Dormitory," Journal of the National Association of Deans of Women, X, (October, 1955), 27-29. Dirk, L. H . , "Operation of Dormitories," National Association of Deans and Advisors of Men 13th Annual Conference, T T 93T 7 T 1 2 S : ------------------------ --------------------- Felsted, Leona Wise, "Dormitory Counseling and Social Adjustment," College and U n i v e r s i t y , XXIV, (April, 1949), 378. Gardner, Donfred H . , "Coordination of Student Personnel Services," Educational Research Bull e t i n , XXVIII, (Fe b r u a r y , 1949)• 333 Gibbs, Elizabeth C., "Democratic Living in a College Residence Hall," Journal of Home Economics. XXXI (January, 1939), 365-68. ________» 1 1Cross-Educating the Residence Hall Staff," Journal of Home Economics, XXXIV (January, 19)4.2), 17-21, Grote, Catoline C., "Housing and Living Conditions of Women Students in the Western Illinois State Teachers College at Macomb," Teachers College Contribution to Education, no. 507 ( 1 9 3 2 T T 5 & “ Hayes, Harriet, "College Residence Halls and The Social Needs of Students," Journal of Home Economics, XXI (October, 1929), 756‘^ T Z James, E. J., "College Residence Halls," Journal of Home Economics, IX (March, 1917), 101-08. Jameson, Samuel Haig, "Adjustment Problems of University Girls In Collective Living," Social Forces, XVII (May, 1939), 502-508. Lind, Melva, "An Experiment in the Art of Living," Journal of Higher Education, XVII (November, I9I4 .6 ), 14-33-36. ________, "The College Dormitory as an Emerging Force in the New Education," Association of American Colleges Bulletin, XXXII (December, 1 ^ 6 ) , 529-38. Lipscomb, Mary Lee and Norman Fenton, "Using University Dormitories In Training Guidance Specialists," School and Society, LVII (February, 19X4 .2 ), 2I4.8-I4.9 , McHale, Kathryn, "Higher Education for Women Today," Bulletin of the Association of American Colleges, XXII (March, 1936)„ 113-17. Moulton, Etta Lee, "Dormitory Values for Students," School and Society, XXIX (March 16, 1929), 362-63. Newman, V. R. "Educational Objectives of Allen Residence Hall," Teacher Educational Journal, I (March, I9I4-O), Ohlsen, Merle M . , "Developments in Residence Hall Counsel­ ing, " Educational and Psychological Measurement, X (Autumn, 1950), I4.60-61 • ________, "An In-service Training Program for Dormitory Counselors," Occupations, XXIX (April, 1951), 531-3U. 33U ______ * ’'Evaluation of Dormitory C o u n s e l o r s Services," Educational and Psychological Measurement. XT (Autumn, 195T7Ti T9- 26. ------------------ ’ Peck, Margaret, "The Student Residence and the Pine Arts," Journal of the National Association of Deans of W o m e n , IV (October, 19I4.0T, 30-33. Peterson, Basil H., "The Scholarship of Students Housed in Various Living Quarters," S_chool and Society, LVII (February 20, 19^4-3)> 221, Plank, C. C., " I t ’s Not Alone for Knowledge," Journal of Higher E d u c a t i o n , VIII (May, 1937), 2^5-527"^ Reilly, Jean W, and Prances P. Robinson, "Studies of Popularity in College," Educational and Psychological Me a s u r e m e n t , VII (Spring, I 9I4.7 ), 67-72, ~ "Do Dormitory Arrangements Affect Popularity?" Educational and Psychological Measurement. VII TSummer, 19 ^77 7 327-30. Sifferd, C. A., "Dormitories Versus Residence Halls," College and University, XXVI (January, 195>1), 213-18. Sifferd, Calvin S., "Evaluating A Residence Hall Counseling Program," College and University, XXV (April, 19E>0), kh5-k7. Thompson, Florence M . , "The Use of Dormitories for Social Education," Educational and Psychological Measurement, VII, Part II (Autumn, 19142), 6lj.b-5l|-. ______ , "Developing Social Competence In Prospective Teachers Through the Residence Hall Program," Teachers College Journal, XXI (March, 1950), 103. Van Alstine, P. L., "Relation Between Housing and Scholar­ ship," Journal of Higher Education, XIII (March, 19li2), 158-59. Walker, Earnest T., "Student Housing and University Success," School and S o c i e t y , XL (October 26, 1935)# 575-77. Warren, Katherine, "Education by our Dormitories and Residence Halls," Journal of the National Association of Deans of Women, XII (January, 19^9)» 75-7^7 Wilson, Margaret, ”A Vital Opportunity for Education Residence Halls for W o m e n , ” Journal of the National Association of Deans of Women," X fdct obe r . 19)16 ). 34-36 . ________ , "Dynamics of a Residence Hall Program," Occupations, XXIX (November, 19$0), 116-122. Wriggley, L. A., ’’Modern College Dormitory and Educational E nterprise,” American School and University, (19U5)» 9k-l0l. C. UNPUBLISHED PiATERIALS Raines, Max R., "A Survey of Counseling and Activity Programs Within the M e n ’s Residence Halls of the Big Nine Universities.” Unpublished M a s t e r ’s Thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, I 9I4.9 * 398 pp Thompson, Samuel Earl, ”The Place of Housing in the Student Personnel Program for Institutions of Higher Learning.” Unpublished D o c t o r ’s Dissertation, The University of Illinois, Bloomington, Illinois, 191+8. 306 pp. D. PUBLICATIONS OP LEARNED ORGANIZATIONS Flanagan, John, Critical Requirements for Research Personnel Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: American Institute for Research, March 191+9• APPENDIX I. II. III. Instruction Sheet Questionnaire Summary of Responses 337 APPENDIX I INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTING THE QUESTIONNAIRE1 The questionnaires have been placed in envelopes with your name on them to facilitate handling them. The box also contains the materials that are needed for mailing them, (wrapping paper, paper tape, cord, self-addressed stickers, and stamps.) You are asked to distribute the questionnaires as follows: (1) FIVE QUESTIONNAIRES are to be given to five administrative officials in the university who are judged by you to be most influential in formulating the over-all policy for all of the residence halls in your university. (2) If more than one official functions at your administrative level with respect to your men's residence hall counseling program, please give a questionnaire to each of them and also please fill out the questionnaire yourself. (3) One questionnaire to each of those function­ aries (not in excess of t e n ) who assist you in effectuating the program by supervising the work of several part-time studentassistants. (Ij.) Distribute the remaining questionnaires to those part-time student-assistants who work at the level closest to the resident in the dormitory living unit. These remaining questionnaires are to be distributed as fol l o w s : (a) Place your finger on a name some­ where near the middle of the roster containing all of the names of your part-time student-assistants and record that name. 1 Copy of the instructions. 338 (b) Select every fourth name on each side of this original name until the remaining number of question­ naires have b e e n exhausted. Give a questionnaire to each of these men. In v i ew of the small sample being used it is highly important that an attempt be made to obtain a hundred per cent return. It Is hoped that the results of this study will be r eady before next Pall in order that they m a y be of use to you in your pre-school training program. I hope to have m y doctorate b y September and I will be working full time to meet that deadline. The results will be treated anonymously by the use of code numbers or letters. Your code number or letter will be released only to you personally. I A M SINCERELY INDEBTED TO YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PATIENCE. I HOPE THAT THE RESULTS WILL IN SOME MEASURE C OMPENSATE FOR A N Y INCONVENIENCE. APPENDIX II QUESTIONNAIRE REGARDING THE FUNCTIONS OF THE PART-TIME STUDENT-ASSISTANT IN THE MEN’S RESIDENCE HALLS OF THE BIG TEN CONFERENCE 1 PURPOSE This questionnaire has been constructed on the basis of a previous survey of the men’s residence halls in the Big Ten. Its purpose Is to determine the role of the part-time studentassistant who functions at the level closest to the resident and who is employed under the various titles of counselor, resident-counselor, resident-assistant, housefellow, staff assistant, floor counselor, etc. PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION You have been asked to participate in this study because of the particular position you hold in relation to your men* s residence hall program. Please check the university in which you are employed and the administrative level at which you primarily function with regard to your men’s residence halls. LEVEL I LEVEL II LEVEL III LEVEL IV Level of Policy Formation. This level includes those administrative officials who serve on the committee which formulates the over-all policy for the residence halls. Level of Planning and Initiation. This level includes the official or officials who are specifically responsible for planning and Initiating the counseling program of the men’s residence halls. Level of Implementation and Supervision. This level includes all those functionaries of the men* s residence hall counseling program who are responsible for assisting the official or officials at Level II by supervising the work of the part-time student-assistants who are employed in the program. Level of Execution. This level includes the part-tTme student-assistants who function at the level closest to the resident« 1 Copy of the questionnaire. 3H0 UNIVERSITY Illinois Indiana Iowa Michigan ___ Michigan St. Minnesota 'Northwest. Wisconsin Purdue Ohio St, GENERAL DIRECTIONS FOR RESPONDING Keys to the responses are provided at the top of each page. They are designed to elicit your judgment of the func­ tions of the part-time student-asslstant IV) as they Exist at the present time and to further ascertain your feeling as to what his functions should be. PLEASE DO NOT LET YOUR FEELING AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE INFLU­ ENCE YOtTFT"JUDGMENT OF HIS ACTUAL FUNCTIONS' IN' TOE PRESENT PROGRAM. DO NOF^YOYYOTO' M E ANY­ WHERE ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE. I II Un KEY TO THE RESPONSES is a function A should be a function is not a function B should not be a function undecided Un undecided PLEASE ENCIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE SYMBOLS RESPONSES I II Un — ----A B Un I II Un ---A B Un IE jjn ......... X B Un CUSTODIAL FUNCTIONS (l) To investigate and/or report cases of lost, damaged, or stolen propertybelonging to the management or to any resident living in his dormitory unit. (2) To prevent and/or report unauthorized personnel whoattempt to utilize without per­ mission any residence hall facility or equip­ ment • EXAMPLES: dining hall, sleeping accomodations, solicitation privileges, lounges, snackbars, etc. (3 ) To establish procedures for the effective utilization of all equipment assigned to his dormitory unit. EXAMPLES: recreational equipment, emergency equipment, auxiliary equipment. d 3ia I II Un KEY TO THE RESPONSES is a function A should bo a function is not a function B should not be a function undecided Un undecided PLEASE ENCIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSES RESPONSES I II CUSTODIAL FUNCTIONS (cont'd) Un (I4.) A B Un To maintain records of information concerning his residents which has been designated by the management as essential for efficient opera­ tion of the physical plant# EXAMPLES: Up-to-date roster, room assignment changes, meal ticket assignment* If you feel that any or all of these custodial functions are receiving more or less emphasis in your present program than they should V e , please express your opinion in this space* PLEASE USE THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE FOR ADDITIONAL COMMENT* RESPONSES I II SPECIAL STAFF FUNCTIONS Uh (5) A B Un I II Uh A B Un To actively participate in and contribute to staff meetings devoted to administration of the program and/ or to the in-service training of the staff members* (6 ) To assume special staff assignments and responsibilities that are not directly related to his functions in his own dormitory unit* EXAMPLES: week-end desk duty, dining hall duty, evaluation committees, administrative detail committees, etc* 31*2 LIAISON FUNCTION I II TJh --------A B Un (7) To obtain and/or disseminate through individual contact, written notice, general announcement, or bulletin board any informa­ tion designated by the residence hall admin­ istrators as necessary to meet special situ­ ations* PROCTORA.L FUNCTIONS The previous survey revealed that there are three basic types of misbehavior which must be controlled in the dormitory living unit* These three types are listed as follows: (a) Individual or group behavior which infringes on the rights, privileges, or welfare of other members of the living unit* (b) Individual or group behavior which abuses or mis-uses the property or facilities of the residence halls* (c) Individual or group behavior which violates the moral and ethical standards of the University or the policy of the residence halls* The role of the part-time student-assistant in relationship to these three types of mis­ behavior has been defined as follows: I II Uh ---— A B Un (8 ) To obtain all of the facts regarding all such mis-behavior and to affix penalties according to his own judgment* I — A (9 ) To obtain the facts and to affix penalties as designatedby other authorities* I II Un II Uh ----B Un is a function is not a function undecided KEY TO THE RESPONSES A should be a function B should not be a function Un undecided iHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHBKHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHKHHHKHHHHHHKH* RESPONSES I A II Uh B Uh PROCTORAL FUNCTIONS (cont»d) (10) To obtain the facts, to affix penalties for the minor Infractions, and to refer the more serious cases to designated authorities* 3h3 I A I II Un — B Un to obtain the facts, to refer cases of minor infraction to the student government, and to refer more serious cases to designated author­ ities* II U n --— ----A B Un I (11) A II Un -----B Un I II un -— — — — A B Un (12) To obtain the facts, and to refer all cases to the student government* (13) To obtain the facts, and to refer all cases to the designated authorities* (Uj.) To assume no responsibility whatsoever in cases of misbehavior unless they give evidence of a severe personality adjustment problems, in which event they are handled as a counsel­ ing case • If you feel that any of the functions (5> through llj.) are receiv­ ing more or less emphasis in your present program than they should be, please express your opinion in this space* PLEASE USE THE REVERSE SIDE OP THIS PAGE FOR ADDITIONAL COMMENT. COUNSELING FUNCTIONS The previous survey revealed that the parttime student-assistant was almost universally expected to recognize the symptoms of the counseling problems evidenced by his resi­ dents. (I.e* vocational, educational, aca­ demic, emotional, social, religious, and fam­ ily adjustments or conflicts*) His course of action once the symptoms were identified, was defined somewhat differently by the various programs. Items (l£ through 17) are state­ ments of these variations* I A II Uh b Un (l£) To counsel such residents at a level coraparable to that of a professional college counselor* 3Uh i ii m ----- — A B Un II m -- -— — A B Uh (16) To counsel those whose problems are judged to be less serious in their implications and to refer to the proper agency those whose pro­ blems appear to be more serious* (17) To refer all such students regardless of the apparent degree ofseriousness of the problem* (18) To Interview all of his residents as a means of establishing friendlyrelationships, iden­ tifying problems, imparting or obtaining information and answering questions* I I II A Uh B "Bn I is a function Is not a function undecided II Uh RESPONSES I II Uh A ---- — B Un I — A — II UN — B Uh I II Uh A B Un KEY TO THE RESPONSES A should be a function B should not be a function Un undecided COUNSELING FUNCTIONS (cont«d) (19) To maintain records of all Information conceraIng his designated counseling responsibilities* EXAMPLES: Interview records, referral records, anecdotal record, personal data sheets, cumu­ lative records, rating scales, etc# (20) To serve as a mediator, advisor, and if necessary as a referral agent for those residents who have verbal clashes or physical conflicts, etc. EXAMPLES: room-mate clash, etc* (21) To assist his residents who seek aid in developing better study habits* RESOURCE FUNCTIONS I II Un A B (22) I A Un II Uh B Uh To serve as a source of information for those residents who request informationregarding current activities on campus, red-tape of university departments, campus traditions, university policy, etc* (23) To serve as a source of information for those Individuals who request legitimate informa­ tion concerning his assigned residents* 3U5 EXAMPLES: administrative officials, pro­ fessors, university counselors, parents, potential employers, etc* I II Un --------A B Un (2i|.) To serve as an academic tutor in qualified areas for those residents who request such assistance* If you feel that any of the counseling or resource functions are receiving more or less emphasis in your present" "program’” than they should h e , please express your opinion in this space* PLEASE USE REVERSE SIDE OP THIS PAGE FOR ADDITIONAL COMMENT. GROUP GUIDANCE AND GROUP ADVISORY FUNCTIONS I II Uh — — -----A B Uh I — A II Uh — B Un I — A II Uh — — — B Uh I II Un (25) To study group structure or formation as a means of Identifying cliques, clique leaders , and marginal or outer-fringe residents in his living unit* EXAMPLES: directed observation, sociometrics, etc* (26) To serve as ex-officio advisor to the student government officers and committees elected or appointed by the residents with­ in his living unit* (27) To serve as an automatically elected officer in the student government of the resi­ dence halls or of his living unit by virtu® of his position* is a function is not a function undecided KEY TO THE RESPONSES A should be a function B should not be a function Uh undecided 31*6 RESPONSES i ii un --— A B I Uii A II Un ..... B Un I II A I (28) To assume initiative in organizing and maintaining special interest groups within the living unit or residence halls. (29) To assist student government (when asked) in effectuaTlng a special interest program* un — ...— B Un II I GROUP GUIDANCE AND GROUP ADVISORY FUNCTIONS (cont*d) (30) To assume initiative in engaging a program of outside speakers to discuss topics designated by the residence halls personnel officials. EXAMPLES: vocational topics, current event topics, general lectures. un (31) To assist student government (when requested) in engaging or suggesting a program of out­ side speakers. (32) To give group instruction or explanation to his residents of those topics designated by the residence hall staff or of those topics which he deems essential to effective oper­ ation of the living unit. EXAMPLES: Manners and courtesy; residence hall policy and procedure; requirements of effective group living; definition of his own role; study habits in general; etc. (33) II un ..— A B I II Un A B Un To authorize expenditure of student g o v e m ment funds in his living unit by signing appropriate requisitions. RESPONSES PUBLIC RELATIONS OR MORALE FUNCTIONS I Un 11 un ......... A B Un (3k) To serve as official host of the residence halls for thoseguests who visit his living unit or who attend social functions of the m e n 1s residence halls. 3U7 I II Un — — (35) A B Uh I II Uh — B Uh A To encourage activities which will produce greater unity among residents of his living unit and which will contribute to their sense of belonging. EXAMPLES: attending all activities of his living unit; recognizing Individual accom­ plishment; encouragement of development of scrapbooks for the unit; giving evidence of real enthusiasm for unit activities. (36) To cooperate with part-time student-assistants of thewomen* sresidence halls in the execu­ tion of a co-ordinated program of social activ­ ity and dating for the residents. iHHHHHHHHHKHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHKHHHHHHHHHHHHMHHKKHMWHHHHHHHHHf** If you feel that any of the items (2*> through 36) are receiv­ ing more or less emphasis in your present program than they shouTcTbe, please express your opinion in this space. PLEASE USE REVERSE SIDE OP THIS PAGE FOR ADDITIONAL COMMENT. ADDITIONAL FREE RESPONSE QUESTIONS DIRECTIONS: Please answer the following questions by placing your responses on the back page of this questionnaire and by numbering your response to coincide with the question you are answering* (1) If this questionnaire has filed to list functions which pertain to the student-assistant in your current pro­ gram or which would be a part of his role In the ideal program at your university, please explain what the functions are or would be* (2) If the present functions vary considerably from your concept of the Ideal program please indicate what differences, if any, in training, experience, education, and remuneration, etc., would be necessary to execute the Ideal program* (3) What do you consider the major factors which are preventing attainment of your concept of the ideal program if it varies considerably from present practice? UPON COMPLETION OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE PLEASE PLACE IT IN THE ENVELOPE— SEAL THE ENVELOPE — AND RETURN IT TO THE OFFICIAL IN CHARGE U F “THE COUNSELING PROGRAM. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND COOPERATION* 3k9 TABLE 51 A SUMMARY OP ALL RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE Item (1) Pro­ grams Function­ ing Levels Judgments ^ i ii Un .. Attitudes Total *1 1 1 6 16 9* 10* 0 1 1 2 10 13 2 2* 0 15 11* 3 0 1 15 k* 0 If 17* 0 0 3 20 1* 0 0 1 6* 0 16 10* 12* 0 1 0 0 10 13 I-II-III IV 2* 11* 0 0 0 I-II-III IV k* 18* 0 2 20 I-II-III IV 1* 7* I-II-III IV 7* E D k* 0 I-II-III IV M B T N k 0 0 0 Un jTotal 2 2 2 2 12* b 3 13* 6 0 2 I-II-III IV c a 1"' k 2 0 0 1 7 10* 2 1 0 0 9 11 5 10* 2 1 2 0 9 11 I-II-III IV 10* 12* 0 0 0 0 10 12 9* 9* 0 1 1 10 2 12 I-II-III IV 9* 11* 0 0 0 1 9 12 6* 0 0 3 9 12 0 12* 7 0 1 K e y to the response sym b o l s : (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus* 3£o TABLE $1 (CONTINUED) Item (2) Pro­ grams Function­ ing Levels Judgments 1 i ii Un Attitudes Total a Un Total h 1 2 6 16 b 1 * c I-II-III IV 3 10 3 6 0 0 6 16 0 I-II-III IV 10* 9* 0 3 0 1 10 13 9* 8 0 0 1 5 10 13 M I-II-III IV 2* 10* 0 3 0 2 2 15 2* 9 0 5 0 l 2 15 R I-II-III IV ll-* 19* 0 0 0 1 k 20 k* 0 17* 0 0 3 J420 TL - I-II-III IV 1* 7* 0 0 0 0 1 7 1* 6* 0 0 0 1 1 7 N I-II-III IV 7* 11* 1 0 1 0 9 11 6* 8* 1 0 2 3 9 11 E I-II-III IV 10* 11* 0 1 0 0 10 12 10* 10* 0 0 0 2 10 12 D I-II-III IV 9* 12* 0 0 0 0 9 12 6* 12* 0 0 3 0 12 — — . .. ., 2 10 3 9 1 Key to the response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function ;Tb) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 35L TABLE $1 (CONTINUED) Item (3) Pro­ grams Function­ ing Levels Judgments ^ i ii Un Attitudes Total a b 3 9 2 6 1 1 6 16 k U 5 5 1 £ 10 13 2* 0 0 10* 1 2 15 3* 11 l 2 20 0 1 1 7 Un Total • i .. I-II-III IV 3 8 3 8 0 0 6 16 a I-II-III IV 1+ 5 6 7 0 2 10 13 M v tl I-II-III IV 2 3 0 0 12* 0 2 15 R I-II-III IV 0 8 k* 11 0 1 20 k 0 7 T I-II-III IV 1* 0 1 1 7 1* 0 5* 0 1 5 l I-II-III IV 3 5 9 11 2 5 3 1 3 2 2 i}- 9 11 F I-II-III IV 8 1 1 7* 2 1 7 3 2 10 12 7 3 2 10 12 D I-II-III IV 3 J* 2 1* 2 1 6 12 5 3 c w k k 9 5 il- 9 12 * Key to the response symbols; (i) is a function; (ii) is not a Tunction; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a functionTTb) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. # Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 3!>2 TABLE $1 (CONTINUED) Item (I4.) Pro­ grams Function­ ing Levels Judgments 1 i ii Un Attitudes Total a b Un 0 1 1 I-II-III IV 5* 11* 1 5 0 0 16 *J* 11* 0 I-II-III IV 12* 5 5 0 0 1 10 13 10* ¥ I-II-III IV 2* 15* 0 0 0 0 2 15 2* 13* B I-II-III IV 3* 15* 1 U 0 1 2k0 I I-II-III IV 1* 6* 0 1 0 0 1 7 1* 5* N I-II-III IV 6* 10* 2 1 1 0 9 11 E I-II-III IV 9* 12* 0 0 1 0 I-II-III IV ..j 6* 7 2 1 0 C D — . !> 6 k k $ 0 Total 6 16 1 3 10 0 0 0 2 2 15 2 1 lij.* 3 1 3 20 0 1 0 1 1 7 7* 8* 1 1 1 2 9 11 10 12 9* 11* 0 0 1 1 10 12 9 12 5 8* 1 3 0 9 12 £ 13 1 Key to the response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function ;"Tb) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 353 TABLE 51 (CONTINUED) Item (5) Pro­ grams Function­ ing Levels Judgments 1 i ii Un Attitudes Total a b Un Total c I-II-III IV 6* 15* 0 1 0 0 6 16 5* 0 15* 0 1 1 6 16 0 I-II-III IV 9# 8 1 3 0 2 10 13 7* 1 8 0 2 5 10 13 M I-II-III IV 1 12* 0 3 1 0 2 15 1 0 12* 3 l 0 2 15 B I-II-III IV k* ik* 0 5 0 1 k 20 k* 0 ik* 0 0 6 k 20 I I-II-III IV l* 5* 0 2 0 0 1 7 l* 0 1 k 0 2 1 7 N I-II-III IV 8* k 0 5 1 2 9 11 7* 0 5 0 2 6 9 11 E I-II-III IV 10 n 0 0 0 1 10 12 10* 0 11* 0 0 1 10 12 D I-II-III IV 5 7 2 2 1 9 12 6* 0 11* 0 3 1 9 12 k to the response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a T'unetion; (On) un&ecided; (a) should be a function; Cb) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. i 3$a TABLE $1 (CONTINUED) Item Pro­ Function­ grams ing Levels (6) Judgments 1 i Attitudes ii Un Total 6 1^.# 11# b Un Total 1 1 c I-II-III IV 3 15* 0 I-II-III IV 1 0 XVI I-II-III IV 2# 12# 0 3 0 0 10 13 2 15 B I-II-III IV Ij.# 13* 0 7 0 0 20 k Ij.# 9 0 5 I I-II-III IV 0 0 1* 0 7* 0 1 7 N I-II-III IV ii 6 3 k 2 1 E I-II-III IV 10# 12* 0 0 n I-II-III IV ----- ..... - — — k k 3 1 0 0 a 16 1 6 k 16 6 2 9* k 0 0 0 k 10 13 2 15 0 6 20 0 1 1# 6 3 3 1 7 9 11 5 3 2 6 2 2 9 11 0 0 10 12 9# 8# 0 3 1 1 10 12 5 0 8# 0 9 12 k 5 1 6 9 12 8# 1 12# 1 2 0 2# 11* 1 k Key to the response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function! Cb) should not be a function; (Un) undecided* * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus, 355 TABLE 5l (CONTINUED) Item (7) Judgments ^ Attitudes i ii I-II-III IV 5* 16* 1 0 0 0 16 it* o I-II-III IV 10* 12* 0 1 0 0 10 13 M r/i I-II-III IV 2* 15* 0 0 0 0 o I-II-III IV If* 20* 0 0 0 0 T I-II-III IV 1* 7* 0 0 0 0 u 1M I-II-III IV 8* 10* 0 0 1 1 F I-II-III IV 10* 12* 0 0 D I-II-III IV * # 00 CM H Pro­ Functiongrams ing Levels 1 0 c — Un Total a Un Total b 6 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 11* 2 10 13 2 15 2* 13* 0 0 0 2 2 15 b k* 0 2 20 6 9* 16 b 20 18* 0 0 1 1* 6* 0 0 0 1 7 11 8* 8* 0 0 1 3 11 0 0 10 12 10* 11* 0 0 0 1 10 12 0 0 6 0 0 3 12 7 9 9 12 1 9 0 9 12 1 Key to the response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function ;Tb) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus 356 TABLE 51 (CONTINUED) Item Pro­ grams Function­ ing Levels (8) Judgmentsi 1 Attitudes i ii Un Total I-II-III IV 0 2 6* 13* 0 1 6 16 0 2 5* 13* 1 1 16 0 I-II-III IV 0 1 10* 10* 0 2 10 13 0 1 9* 10* 1 2 10 13 M I-II-III IV 1 0 0 13* 1 2 2 15 1 1 0 13* 1 1 2 15 B I-II-III IV 0 2 k* 16* 0 2 k 20 0 2 k* ik* 0 5 k 20 I I-II-III IV 0 0 1* 6* 0 1 1 7 0 1 1* 3 0 3 1 7 N I-II-III IV 0 0 8* 11* 1 0 9 11 0 0 8* 9* 1 2 9 11 E I-II-III IV 0 3 7* 7 3 2 10 12 1 2 7* 6 2 k 10 12 D I-II-III IV 0 1 8* 9* 1 2 9 12 0 1 6* 9* 3 2 9 12 C a b Un Total 6 .... 1 to the response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a functionfTb) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. TABLE £l (CONTINUED) Item Pro­ grams Function­ ing Levels (9) Judgments i ii UnJ 1 Attitudes Total a b Un Total p Is I-II-III IV 0 2 6* iij.* 0 0 6 16 0 1 2 lit* 1 6 16 o I-II-III IV if 0 1 10 13 if If 6 8 3 7 2 3 10 13 M I-II-III IV 0 U 2* 11* 0 0 2* 0 2 15 if 11* 0 1 2 15 B I-II-III IV 0 3 1l* Ilf* 0 3 20 0 1 llf* 0 5 20 T I-II-III IV 0 5* 1* 2 0 0 1 7 0 5* 1* 0 0 2 1 7 I-II-III IV l 9 11 7* 8* 1 1 0 2 7* 2 if 2 5 9 11 Ei C I-II-III IV 2 6 2 2 6 6 0 10 12 if 6 6 2 2 10 12 D I-II-III IV 2 3 6* 8* 1 1 9 12 1 3 3 5 9 8* 1 12 N if * * Key to the response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is~nSt a Junction; (l7n) undecided; (a) should be a function*f"Tb) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 358 TABLE 51 (CONTINUED) Item Pro­ grams Judgments Function­ ing Levels i ii Un (10) 1 Attitudes Total a b Un Total I c I-II-III IV 0 1 6* 0 15* 0 6 16 0 2 14* 1 0 6 16 0 I-II-III IV 2 1 8* 10* 0 2 10 13 2 2 7* 7 1 k 10 13 ¥ I-II-III IV 0 2 12* 13* 0 0 2 15 0 3 2* 0 11* 1 2 15 B I-II-III IV 3* 13* 1 6 0 1 20 3* 9 1 7 I I-II-III IV 1* 6* 0 1 7 0 1 l 0 0 6 0 N I-II-III IV 1 3 7* 8* 1 0 9 11 E I-II-III IV 6 8# 3 3 1 1 D I-II-III IV k 5 7 0 1 Iv * --- ...... kr £* k 0 ij. 20 0 1 1 7 0 3 7* 2 3 5 9 11 10 12 6 6 2 2 2 10 12 9 12 3 5 2 Y 1* 0 9 12 1 Key to the response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a Tunction; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a f u n c t i o n ; T b ) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 359 TABLE 51 (CONTINUED) Item Pro­ Function­ grams ing Levels (11) Judgments i C I-II-III IV 3 8 0 I-II-III IV k M I-II-III IV 1 k B I-II-III IV ?* ifr* I I-II-III IV N 5 Attitudes ii Un Total 41 3 7 0 1 6 0 k k 1 0 11* 0 a b Un Total 2 9 3 6 1 1 6 16 10 13 k 5 1 3 10 13 2 15 2* 0 7 6 0 2 2 15 4 0 6 16 6 0 1 20 3* 1 10 6 1* ii20 0 0 l* 0 7* 0 1 7 l* 0 0 ll 0 3 1 7 I-II-III IV 0 2 8* 1 9* 0 9 11 k k 3 3 2 £ 9 11 E I-II-III IV 5 k 1 8* 2 10 12 6 5 2 2 2 3 10 12 D I-II-III 7* 9* 1 0 9 12 ii 9 12 IV ___________ 1 5 1 3 ll- k 1 11* 1 0 * Key to the response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a functionTTb) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 360 TABLE 51 (CONTINUED) Item Pro­ grams (12 ) Judgments ^ Function­ ing Levels i ii Un Attitudes Total a b Un t 1 I-II-III IV 1 1 5* 13* 0 2 16 0 3 I-II-III IV 7* 5 2* 15* 1 10 1 . 13 1 6 6 I-II-III IV 2 7 0 0 0 0 2 15 0 1 2# I-II-III IV 0 0 if* 17* 0 3 k 20 0 2 I-II-III IV 0 0 1* 7* 0 0 1 7 0 0 1* 5* I-II-III IV 0 0 7* 11* 2 0 9 11 1 1 E I-II-III IV 0 0 7* 10* 3 0 2 12 D I-II-III IV 1 2 7# 9* 1 1 9 C 0 M B I N MM 6 10 12 Total 1 1 6 16 3 2 10 13 13* 0 1 2 15 k 0 13 5 20 0 2 1 7 k 6 k k 9 11 7* 3 2 h 3 k 8* 5 # 12* 5 1 10* 1 0 if 10 12 9 12 ------------- 1 Key to the response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a f u n c t i o n ; T b ) should not be a function; (Un) undecided, -:c- Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. TAELE 51 (CONTINUED) Item Pro­ grams (13) Judgments 1 Function­ ing Levels i I-II-III IV 2 0 0 I-II-III IV M ii Un Attitudes Total i b » Un Total 16 1 2 4* 1 15# 0 1 0 6 16 3 3 6 10* 1 0 , 10 13 3 2 6 9* 1 2 10 13 I-II-III IV 2* 9 0 6 0 0 2 15 0 6 1 1 2 B * I-II-III IV 0 0 4* 17* 0 3 20 0 0 17# 3 20 I I-II-III IV 0 2 1* k 0 1 1 7 0 2 1* 3 0 2 1 7 N I-II-III IV 7* 1 1 9 11 6* 8* 1 2 k 1 2 2 5 9 11 E I-II-III IV 2 1 6 9* 2 2 10 12 1 2 7 9 2 1 10 12 D I-II-III IV 3 3 4 8 2 1 9 12 0 5 7 5 0 9 12 C . 4 6 a 8 1 4# 0 15 k K eY to the response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a functionjTb) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 362 TABLE 51 (CONTINUED) Item Pro­ grams 04) Judgments Function­ ing Levels ii 2 Attitudes Total a 1 6 4 2 0 7 7 2 16 6 4 11* 1 10 13 0 2 0 I-II-III IV 3 8 6 2 16 -i i - i i i 0 1 6 1+ 9* 3 10 13 0 1 0 0 1 2 15 0 2 2* 11* 4 0 4* 20 2 o i M I-II-III IV 2 2* 12* B I-II-III IV 0 1 4* o 18* 1 I-II-III IV 0 IV 2 15 4 20 0 1 1 7 0 1 5 4 7 3 9 11 10 12 0 8* 8* 2 2 10 9 12 1 5 10* 3 2 9 12 0 1 0 0 1 7 0 I-II-III IV 0 6* 9 0 11* 3 0 11 E I-II-III IV 1 0 8* 1 D I-II-III IV 0 0 8* 1 11* 1 10* 2 it* 4 6 1* 6* 1* 6* N Un Total Un 2 0 12 Kev to the response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is“ not~a function; furi) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided* * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. TABLE 51 (CONTINUED) Item Pro­ grams Function­ ing Levels (15) Judgments *■ Attitudes i ii Un I-II-III IV 0 0 5* 16* 1 1 6 16 0 0 o I-II-III IV 0 0 10* 11* 0 2 10 13 M I-II-III IV 0 1 2* ll|.* 0 0 I-II-III IV 1 1 3* 19* 0 0 I I-II-III IV 0 0 1* 7* N I-II-III IV 0 0 E I-II-III IV D I-II-III IV c — ... . i Total a b Un Total 15* 1 1 6 16 0 0 9* 10* 1 3 10 13 2 15 0 2 2* 13* 0 0 2 15 k 20 1 2 3* 16* 0 2 20 0 0 1 7 0 1 1* 5* 0 1 1 7 8* 11* 1 0 9 11 0 0 8* 9* 1 2 9 11 2 0 6 11* 2 1 10 12 2 0 5 10 3 2 10 12 0 1 9* 11* 0 0 9 12 0 0 5 n* i 9 12 k 1 Key to the response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a functionjTb) should not be a function; (Un) undecided* * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 36k TABLE 51 (CONTINUED) Item (16 ) Judgments ^ Pro- j Functiongrams j ing Levels ii On k* lo* 2 0 0 6 0 16 k* 15* i 0 i 1 6 16 9* 12* 1 0 0 1 10 13 8* 12* 1 0 1 1 10 13 I-II-III IV 2* 15* 0 0 0 0 2 2* 15* 0 0 o o 2 15 I-II-III IV k* 20* o o k k* 0 0 20 18* 0 0 0 2 1*. 20 T - f I-II-III j IV 1* 5* 0 0 1 0 1 7 1 0 2 1 1 1* k N ! I-II-III IV 3 5 1 9 10* 1 11 2 8* 6* 1 1 2 11 E 10* I-II-III I IV » . . 10* 0 0 0 2 10 12 10* 10* 0 0 0 2 10 12 D 8* | I-II-III 11* t IV t i. ........- - 1 0 0 1 9 6* 11* 0 3 9 0 1 12 ------ t £------ c ! I-II-III 1 IV 0 I-II-III 1 IV V B f j I 1 * i i Attitudes 0 Total 15 12 a t b i On Total 1 7 9 1 M l to the response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a Function; (On) undecided; (a) should be a function ; T b ) should not be a function; (On) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 365 TABLE 51 (CONTINUED) Item Pro­ grams Function­ ing Levels (17 ) Judgments i ii Attitudes Un Total i *' a b Un Total 0 1 6 16 1 1 lj.* 15* 1 1 6 16 10 1 1 7* 10* 2 2 10 11* 0 1 0 0 2* 15* 0 0 2 0 0 2* 15* 0 0 I-II-III IV 0 0 lj.* 18* 0 2 lj.* 17* 0 20 0 0 3 20 I-II-III IV 0 1* ]>* 0 1 1m 0 1 1 7 0 1 k z 7 N I-II-III IV 3 1 h 9 11 k 3 2 8* 2 2 1 6* k 9 11 E I-II-III IV 0 0 9* 1 10* 2 10 12 0 0 9* 9* 1 3 10 12 I-II-III IV 0 0 9* 0 1 9 0 0 6* 11* 3 c I-II-III IV 1 0 0 I-II-III IV 1 1 ¥ I-II-III IV B I D 1 15* 9* 11* 13 15 h 12 1 13 2 15 k 9 12 * K ey to the response s y m b o l s : (i) is a function; (ii) is n o t a f u n c t i o n ; (tfn) u n d e c i d e d ; (a) should be a f u n c t i o n j T b ) should not be a function; (TJn) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 366 TABLE £l (CONTINUED) Item Pro­ grams (18) Judgments ^ Function­ ing Levels i ii Un Attitudes Total a b Un Total c I-II-III IV 5* 14* 1 2 0 0 6 lo ?* 34* 0 1 1 1 16 0 I-II-III IV 10* 11* 0 1 0 1 10 13 9* 11* 0 0 1 2 10 13 M I-II-III IV 2* 9 0 6 0 0 2 15 2* 12* 0 2 0 1 2 15 n I-II-III IV k* 20* 0 0 0 0 k 20 k* 18* 0 0 0 2 20 T I-II-III IV 1* 6* 0 1 0 0 1 7 1* 6* 0 1 0 0 1 7 IN I-II-III IV 6 8 1 3 2 0 9 11 7* 5 0 4 2 2 9 11 F I-II-III IV 10* 11* 0 0 0 1 10 12 10* 10* 0 0 0 2 10 12 D I-II-III IV ' ■ 8* 10* 1 1 0 1 9 12 5 10 0 1 1 9 12 ■ 6 k 1 Key to the response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (On) undecided; (a) should be a functionTTb) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. TABLE 51 (CONTINUED) Item Pro­ grams C 0 M n (19) Judgments ^ Function­ ing Levels i 6-a­ ll* I-II-III IV Attitudes ii Un 0 5 0 0 6 16 10 5 10 6 6 k Total a b Un 5* 0 1 1 6 16 3 3 10 2 1 Total I-II-III IV k 6 5 7 1 0 I-II-III IV 2* 12* 0 2 0 1 2 12 0 15 2 0 1 I-II-III IV 1 3* 0 2 k 1 2 1 20 13* 3 0 1 1 1* 0 2 0 0 1 7 1 2 11 9 6* 8* 2 1 1 2 11 2 13 5 0 13 2 13 k 20 I-II-III IV 1* 2 N I-II-III IV k 3* k k 1 E I-II-III IV 8* 12* 2 0 0 0 10 12 8* 11* 0 0 l 10 12 D I-II-III IV .. . 1 7* 8* 0 2 1 9 6* 0 2 3 l 12 I ■ 3 12 9-5* 7 9 9 ^ Key to the response symbols; (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; fUn) undecided; (a) should be a function;Tb) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 368 TABLE 5l (CONTINUED) Item Pro­ grams Function­ ing Levels (20) Judgments 1 Attitudes i ii Un I-II-III IV 5* 15* 1 1 0 0 16 o I-II-III IV 9* 10* 1 3 0 0 M I-II-III IV 2* 13* 0 1 B I-II-III IV t* 19* I I-II-III IV N Total a b Un __________ 6 Total it* 0 1 1 1 16 10 13 8* 10* 1 3 1 0 10 13 0 1 2 15 2* 13* 0 1 0 1 2 15 0 1 0 0 k* 20 18* 0 0 0 2 t 20 1* 7* 0 0 0 0 1 7 1* 6* 0 0 0 1 1 7 I-II-III IV 6* 10* 2 0 1 1 9 11 6* 9* 2 0 1 2 9 11 E I-II-III IV 10* 12* 0 0 0 0 10 12 10* 11* 0 0 0 1 10 12 D I-II-III IV 7* 12* 0 0 2 0 9 12 5 11* 0 1 k 0 9 12 C — k 6 to the response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a functipn; (Un> undecided; (a) should be a function; fb) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 369 TABLE £l (CONTINUED) Item (21 ) Pro­ grams Function­ ing Levels Judgmental i ii Un ... Total a *i J Attitudes b Un Total C I-II-III IV 15 # 0 1 0 0 6 16 5* 34 # 0 1 1 1 6 16 0 I-II-III IV 8* 12# 0 1 2 0 10 7# 9# 0 0 3 4 10 M I-II-III IV 2# 13# 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 15 2# 15# 15 B I-II-III IV k* 20# 0 0 0 0 k# 20 18# 0 0 0 2 20 I-II-III IV 1# 7# 0 0 0 0 1 1# 6# 0 0 0 1 7 I-II-III IV 8# 10# 0 1 1 0 9 11 8# 9# 0 0 1 2 11 I-II-III IV 10# 12# 0 0 0 0 10 12 10# 11* 0 0 0 1 10 12 9# I-II-III D IV 12# . ■.. ______ ...— 0 0 0 0 9 6* 12* 0 0 3 9 12 0 12 I N E 6* 13 k 7 13 k 1 9 1 Key to the response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a f u n c t i o n T T b ) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 370 TABLE 5l (CONTINUED) Item Pro­ grams Function­ ing Levels (22) Judgments 1 i ii Un Attitudes Total a b k K# Total it-* 0 1 1 1 6 16 8* 11* 0 0 2 10 2 13 2 2* 15 0 0 0 2 2 13* 15 0 0 t20 lj.* 18* 0 1 0 1 20 0 1 0 0 1 1* 5* 0 1 0 1 7 8* 11* 0 0 1 0 11 8* 9* 0 0 1 2 11 I-II-III IV 10* 12* 0 0 0 0 10 12 10* 11* 0 0 0 1 10 12 I-II-III 8* 11* 1 0 0 1 9 6* 11* 0 0 3 9 12 1 12 I-II-III IV 6* 15* 0 1 0 0 6 16 0 I-II-III IV 9# 0 0 1 1 10 12* M I-II-III IV 2* 15* 0 0 0 0 B I-II-III IV 1|.* 20* 0 0 I I-II-III IV 1* 6* N I-II-III IV E D c Un A I Y _ _ .. 13 7 9 k 1 9 Key to the response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; Ct?n) undecided; (a) should be a function; (b) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 371 TABLE 51 (CONTINUED) Item (23) Pro­ grams Function­ ing Levels Judgments 1 i ii Un 1 c 0 • Attitudes Total 111 3 5* 11* 0 2 3 2 11* 1 0 10 2 k 2 8 2 13 1 13* 1 1 0 1 15 0 17* 0 0 1* 5* 0 1 0 1 0 I-II-III IV 7 0 13 0 0 i£ B I-II-III IV Ii* 19* 0 0 0 1 k 20 I I-II-III IV 1* 6* 0 1 0 1 0 7 I-II-III IV k 2 9 5 3 3 3 E I-II-III IV 10* 12* 0 0 0 0 D I-II-III IV 6* 2 0 1 9* ~J Total 6 16 6* 11* 1 1 ............ tUn 0 2 I-II-III IV lij.* N b * I-II-III IV M a 3 2 3 1 7* 2 11 6 1 10 12 10* U* 0 0 9 6* 11* 0 0 12 1 6 16 10 3 k 0 1 3 1 2 *1 20 1 7 9 11 10 12 9 12 Key to the response symbols t (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a functionTTb) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. TABLE $1 (CONTINUED) Item Pro­ grams Function­ ing Levels (2lf.) Judgments 1 i ii Un Attitudes Total a i I-II-III IV 11* 0 1 6 16 5 I-II-III IV 0 10* 2 11* 0 0 10 I-II-III IV 2* b 0 1 15 I-II-III IV 2 2 8 10 0 2 20 I-II-III IV 1* 0 1 6* 0 0 1 N I-II-III IV 1 2 7* 8* 1 1 E I-II-III IV 2 0 11* 3 1 10 12 D I-II-III IV b 0 2 12 C 0 M B x ........................... ............ 3 b 8* 3 0 10* 2 2 b Un {Total . .i 3 1 1 6 16 0 7* . _13 3 8 3 2 13 2 l 1 9 0 2 2 10 3 20 1 ij- 7 9 11 9 1 Key to the response symbols: b 2 7 10 0 10 2 15 1* 0 0 5* 0 2 1 1 7* 1 6 b 11 2 3 9* 3 1 10 12 2 b 2 12 3 7 3 7 9 9 (i) is a function; (ii) is not a I'unction; (fin) undecided; (a) should be a function ;Tb) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 373 TABLE 51 (CONTINUED) Item Pro­ grams Function­ ing Levels Judgments 1 i ii Un 1 6 1 3 Total 6 16 1 2 8* 1 10 k 13 2 it 2 3 9 10 7 3 I-II-III IV 2* 8 0 0 2 2 0 3 0 1 2 15 2* 11* I-II-III IV 1 it 20 1 11* 0 3 3* 6 1 1* 5* 0 1 0 1 3 2 9 £ 11 it 2 2 7 11 0 1 10 12 10* 8* 0 1 0 3 10 12 2 2 9 3 3 8* 1 3 3 12 9 n I-II-III IV D b 7 2 Fi C a k* k N Un Total . *i 6 16 I-II-III IV I Attitudes 0 0 c R (25 ) I-II-III IV 7 5 2 10 1 3 5* 1* 2 0 0 7 I-II-III IV 1 2 5 5 3 9 I-II-III IV 9* 7 l k 3 k I-II-III IV J.... — I --- 0 £ 5 12 7 13 15 it 20 1 7 9 ^ Key to the response symbolst (i) is a function; (ii) is~not“ a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a functxonfTb) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 37i* TABLE 51 (CONTINUED) Item Pro- . Function­ grams ing Levels (26) Judgments ^ i ii Un .. I-II-III IV 6* 12* 0 I-II-III IV 2 7 M I-II-III IV B I *1 Attitudes Total a b Un Total 1 6 16 0 1 6 16 5* 11* 0 2 10 k 3 6 1 2 8 2 3 3 2* 15* 0 0 0 0 2 15 2* ll|.* 0 0 0 1 15 I-II-III IV 20* 0 0 0 0 20 M 0 0 0 2 ii 20 I-II-III IV 1 6 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 N I-II-III IV k z 3 5 2 0 0 E I-II-III IV 9* 12* 1 0 I-II-III IV 8* 12* 1 0 C D . 0 3 7* 13 k 18* 3 10 13 2 1 1* 7 k 0 1 9 11 7* 7 2 1 3 11 0 0 10 12 9# 11* 1 0 0 1 10 12 0 0 9 6* 10* 0 0 3 12 0 7 9 9 12 . * K eY to the response s y m b o l s : (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a f u n c t i o n ; T b ) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 375 TABLE $1 (CONTINUED) Item Pro­ grams (27) Judgments ^ Function­ ing Levels i ii Un I-II-III IV 0 1 6* 15* 0 0 I-II-III IV 7* 8 3 2 I-II-III IV 0 0 2* I-II-III IV Attitudes a b 16 0 2 ill* 1 0 0 10 2 3 13 5 5 s 3 1* 2 15* 0 0 15 0 0 2* ll|.* 0 1 0 2 ij.* 18 * 0 0 i|.* 0 20 0 1 I-II-III IV 0 1* 1 0 3 k 0 0 7 N I-II-III IV $ 2 E I-II-III IV c 0 M B I D I-II-III IV ............ Total 6 Un 17* Total 6 16 3 0 2 9 11 3 3 6* i 0 13 2 15 2 1* 2 10 1* 20 1 7 6 0 0 5 2 0 8* 10* 2 2 10 12 0 1 7* 10 * 3 1 10 12 0 1 8* 11 * 1 0 9 12 0 1 5 n* il0 9 12 Ij. 9 11 ^ K e y to the response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a Junction; (tin) undecided; (a) should be a function;Tb) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 376 TABLE $1 (CONTINUED) (28 ) Item Pro­ grams Function­ ing Levels Attitudes Judgments ^ i ii Un Un Total 2 7 1 k 6 16 k k 3 5 3 k 10 13 1 9 1 6 0 0 2 15 k 2 6 1 9 1 5 20 0 3 1* 3 0 1 1 7 2 1 1 9 6 11 10 12 Total b a « % I-II-III IV 1 8 7 0 1 n V I-II-III IV 0 3 8# 6 2 If 10 JVt I-II-III IV 1 8 1 6 0 1 2 XRj I-II-III IV 3* 10 1 6 0 k T ± I-II-III IV 0 0 0 1 3 1* k w I-II-III IV k 8# k 2 1 1 9 11 6* k lit I-II-III IV 8* 7 1 k 1 1 10 12 7* 7 2 2 1 3 I-II-III IV k 7 3 5 0 0 9 5 1 3 12 7 c n u — — ...... 6 16 13 15 20 7 3 5 5 0 k 9 12 Kev to the response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) isTiot~a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a function! fb) should not be a function; (Un) undecided* Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 377 TABLE 51 (CONTINUED) Item Pro­ grams (29) Judgments Function­ ing Levels Un Attitudes Total Un Total I-II-III IV 10 10 20 20 I-II-III IV I-II-III IV I-II-III iv 8* I-II-III IV I-II-III IV I-II-III IV 11 11 10 12 10 12 12 12 8* 11# ^ K e y to the response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a f u n c t i o n ; T b ) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. # Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 378 TABLE 51 (CONTINUED) Item Pro­ grams (30) Judgments Function­ ing Levels i ii I-II-III IV 1 1 5* 13* 0 2 I-II-III IV 2 2 10* 11* 0 0 M I-II-III IV 0 0 2* 15* B I-II-III IV k* 10 I I-II-III IV N Un 1 Attitudes Total a b 6 16 1 2 k* 12* 1 2 6 16 10 1 7* 10 13 2 9* 2 2 0 2 1 15 3 0 2 2 0 1 10* 15 0 0 3 3* 7 0 7 1*. 20 9 1 k k 20 0 0 l* 6* 0 1 1* 0 0 1 7 0 £ 3 7 I-II-III IV 0 1 8* 10 1 0 11 2 1 6 2 k 11 E I-II-III IV 3 l 5 9 2 2 10 12 5 3 3 7 D I-II-III IV 5 3 2 6 2 9 1 3 9 3 12 5 5 5 2 12 C 0 — 1 9 ^ K e y to the response s y m b o l s : 1 Un Total 13 9 10 12 2 2 (i) is a function; (ii) is not a functi o n ; (U n ) undecided ; (a) should be a f unctionTTb) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 379 TABLE 5l (CONTINUED) Item (31 ) Pro­ grams c 0 ¥ u ■E> T Function­ ing Levels P ii Un 0 1 k 3 Attitudes Total a b Un 6 16 5* 11* 0 2 1 3 10 9* 13 11* 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 15 20 Total »1 £* I-II-III IV 9* 1 11* 1 0 1 2* 9 0 6 0 0 15 2* 13* ij.* 17* 0 2 0 1 *120 3* 17* 0 2 1 1 1* 1 0 6* 0 0 1 1* 7 3 0 2 0 2 3 k 2 9 6* 1 2 9 7* 3 11 5 3 3 11 8* 10 * 1 1 1 1 10 12 9* 0 10 10* 1 0 2 12 7* 9* 2 0 9 6* 11* 0 3 1 0 I-II-III IV I-II-III IV ------ ------- I-II-III I-II-III IV I-II-III IV r> i 1 I-II-III IV IV Iff Judgments I-II-III IV 1— -- - - - - - 1- - - - — 1 3 0 12 6 16 10 13 2 k 1 7 9 12 ^ Key to the response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is“not“a function; Yun) undecided; (a) should be a functionfTb) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 380 TABLE 51 (CONTINUED) Item Pro­ grams Function­ ing Levels (32 ) Judgments 1 1 ii I-II-III IV 2 11* k* 0 — I-II-III IV k k M I-II-III IV 2* B Un Attitudes Total a b Un 1 0 1 6 16 k* 12* 1 1 10 5 2 0 k ? 1 9 0 6 0 0 15 2* 11* I-II-III IV 2 20* 2 0 0 0 k 2 20 T I-II-III IV 1* 6* 0 1 0 0 1 N I-II-III IV 5 3 9 10* 1 1 0 11 E I-II-III IV 9* 0 2 1 0 10 12 D I-II-III IV 1 2 1 9 k 12 C ...............- -i .. 8 10* 7# 6 k 13 2 7 3 0 Total 3 6 16 3 3 13 10 3 0 l 2 15 19* 1 0 i l 20 1* 6* 0 0 0 l 6* 7* 2 0 l 9 k 11 9# 10* 0 1 l l 10 12 6* 9* 0 1 3 9 2 12 k 1 7 1 K e y to the response s y m b o l s : (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a f u n c t i o n ; T b ) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus^ 381 TABLE Si (CONTINUED) Item Pro­ grams Function­ ing L evels (33 ) Attitudes Judgments i ii Un Total a c I-II-III IV 0 0 6* 16* 0 0 6 16 0 0 0 I - I I-III IV 3 1 1 10 3 0 6* 12* m I -II-III IV 0 0 2* 15* 0 0 2 B I-II-III IV 0 3* 5 lh* 1 1 20 T X I-II-III IV 0 1 l* 1 5* 0 1 W I-II-III IV 0 0 8* 11* 1 0 11 E I-II-III IV 5 k 11* 1 1 1 10 12 2 0 6* 1 9 u r> I-II-III IV ,1.... ,... - .......— 10* 2 b 15* Un Total 1 1 6 16 2 10 3 13 . 15 1 5 9* 15 0 1 13* 0 1 k 0 3 {<•* lij.* 3 20 0 1* 0 1 7 2 3 2 7 9 0 1 8* 7* 1 5 13 12 10* 2 0 2* 0 .. 2 k 9 3 11 h i 1 1 10 12 k 3 10* 2 9 12 1 K e y to the response s y m b o l s ; (i) is a function; (ii) is n o t “a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a functi o n ' f T b ) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus, 382 TAELE $1 (CONTINUED) Item Pro­ grams (3U-) Attitudes Judgments^- Function­ ing Levels i ii Un Total Total a b Un 3 1 7 2 5 16 2 5 10 13 ( ... .11 6 2 10 0 3 6 16 1 10 13 7* if 2 2 7 1 1 5 2 8 0 2 2 15 1 6 1 5 0 if 2 15 I-II-III IV 2 15* 2 2 0 3 If 20 1 111.* 2 1 l 5 If 20 T X I-II-III IV i# 0 2 0 0 1 7 1* 0 1 0 l 1 7 N I-II-III IV 5 7 2 3 2 1 9 11 7* 5 2 3 0 3 9 11 E I-II-III IV 7* 7 3 3 0 2 10 12 6 9* If 1 0 2 10 12 n I-II-III IV 8# 11* 1 1 0 0 9 12 6* 11* 0 1 3 0 9 12 I-II-III IV Ii 3 I-II-III IV 7* 7 I-II-III IV 0 Xj c 0 M lVi ........... k — 1 K e v to the response symbols: (i) is a function; (ii) is~not~"a function; TUn) undecided; (a) should be a f u n c t i o n f T b ) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 383 TABLE 51 (CONTINUED) Item Pro­ grams (35 ) Judgments^- Function­ ing Levels i ii Un Attitudes Total fcl a b Un Total I-II-III IV 5* 15* 1 0 0 1 6 16 5* 15* 0 0 1 1 16 0 I-II-III IV 8# 12 * 0 0 2 1 10 9* 10 13 0 0 1 10 * 3 13 M I-II-III IV 2* 0 1 0 0 2 2* ill.* 0 0 0 1 2 15 0 0 0 0 lj.* 0 19* 0 0 1 20 C lij.* k* 15 k R I-II-III IV 20 * I I-II-III IV 7* 0 0 0 0 1 N I-II-III IV 5 9* 2 0 2 2 11 E I-II-III IV 10 * 12 * 0 0 0 0 D I-II-III IV 9* 0 0 0 1 .. .. 1* . . .. 11 * 20 6 k 7 1* 6* 0 0 0 1 9 9* 0 8* 0 0 3 11 10 12 10 * 11 * 0 0 0 1 10 12 9 6* 11 * 0 0 3 9 1 12 12 1 7 9 1 to the response sym b o l s ; (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a f u n c t i o n T T b ) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus. 381i TABLE £l (CONTINUED) Item (36) Pro­ grams Judgments I Function­ ing Levels I ii Un Attitudes b Un Tota^ Total a C I-II-III IV k* 2 5 1 9 0 2 6 16 5* 11* 0 I-II-III IV 6 2 1 10 6 5 13 7 M I-II-III IV 2* 11* 0 b 0 0 0 11 0 3 2 2* 15 1! 13* 3* b 20 12* 0 0 0 3 B I-II-III IV k I I-II-III IV 1* 2 N I-II-III IV 6* 3 E I-II-III IV D --------- ------- I-II-III IV ... — - ........ 0 . £* 0 5 1 0 6 16 3 2 2 b 10 13 0 1 0 1 15 0 5 1 3 20 1 1* 0 0 1 7 2 0 7 9 1 3 11 1 2 10 12 2 12 ■ 3 2 11 8* 0 6* 2 7 b 2 1 8* 0 10 12 9* 9* 0 1 3 5 2 9 12 4 0 0 6 b 2 i+ 3 7 3 b 9 9 K e y to the response s y m b o l s ; (i) is a function; (ii) is not a function; (Un) undecided; (a) should be a f u n c t i o n r T b ) should not be a function; (Un) undecided. * Denotes attainment of at least a two-thirds consensus.