( 70-20,467 HENSEN, Richard Elwyn, 1935A STUDY OF THE ACADEMIC SUCCESS OF TRANSFER STUDENTS TO MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FROM SELECTED MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGES. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1970 Education, administration University Microfilms, A XEROXC om pany, A nn Arbor, M ichigan STUDY OF THE ACADEMIC SUCCESS OF TRANSFER STUDENTS TO MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FROM SELECTED MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGES By i Richard E. Hensen A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1970 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE ACADEMIC SUCCESS OF TRANSFER STUDENTS TO MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FROM SELECTED MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGES By Richard E. Hensen Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to investigate the academic achievement of transfer students from selected Michigan community colleges entering Michigan State Univer­ sity to determine* (1) If the academic quality of transfer students has been improving, and (2) If there was academic improvement, how did it compare with the academic improve­ ment for students who began at a four-year institution as freshmen. Procedures There were two populations included in this study. One consisted of 1,234 students who transferred to Michigan State University from five Michigan public community col­ leges. They were admitted for enrollment in the Fall's of 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968. The second population consisted of 11,897 Michigan State University juniors that had been in attendance at Michigan State University since they were freshmen. Richard E. Hensen Twenty-six students were selected from each commu­ nity college for each year through standard random sampling procedures so that equal probability for selection was assured. Each community college sample was divided into male and female groups for each Fall term then also sepa­ rated by MSU college of major. The MSU population was then divided into male and female groups on the basis of college of major for each of the four terms of the study. A table of random numbers was used to select a number in each category equal to the number of transfer students in the same category from each commu­ nity college for each year. This sampling method resulted in groups of MSU native juniors equal in size (26) to the groups from each community college for each year and each community college group was matched to the corresponding MSU group with respect to the number in each sex and college of major classification. A "three-way" fixed effects analysis of variance was used to test the statistical hypotheses. This analysis of variance model was applied to the data for the community college transfer students and matched MSU native juniors over the four years covered by the study. This same anal­ ysis of variance model was applied to the data for the community college transfer students and MSU native juniors with MSU college of major and sex being the independent variables. The .05 level of confidence was chosen as the Richard G. Hensen level at which differences were considered resulting from factors other than chance. Major Findings of the Study The findings of this study justified the following conclusions: 1. The academic achievement of community college trans­ fers to Michigan State University has not improved in recent years. For each Fall term 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968 the students who began at Michigan State University as freshmen earned higher G.P.A.s than the community college transfer students and the amount of difference between the two groups did not change significantly from year to year. 2. The academic achievement was greater for transfers from some community colleges than from others. 3. The academic achievement was greater for community college transfers with certain Michigan State Uni­ versity colleges of major than others. 4. The difference in academic achievement between the community college transfers and the students who started at Michigan State University as freshmen was not affected by a comparison between the two groups on the basis of sex. However, there was a signifi­ cant difference for the overall main effect of sex as the female transfer students received higher grades than the males. The same finding was true for the students who started at Michigan State University as freshmen. On the other hand, the MSU native males received higher G.P.A.s than the female transfer students. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation to Dr. V. C. Johnson, Chairman of his Guidance Committee, who provided constant encouragement, much inspiration and many helpful suggestions. In addition, he desires to express appreciation to Dr. Robert Craig for his wise direction and time given to read the rough draft. Grateful acknowledgment is also due to Dr. John Fuzak, Dr. Peter Manning and Dr. Max Raines who rendered valuable advice, whole-hearted cooperation and time from their busy schedules. The final acknowledgment, is as full of appreciation for their consideration as I have love for them, goes to my family— Lynn, Deb and Mark. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. II. III. Page THE P R O B L E M ................................... 1 N e e d ....................................... Purpose .................................. T h e o r y .................................... H y p o t h e s e s ......................... Overview .................................. 1 4 4 6 7 A REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ................... Literature Related to the Community College and Their Students ............. Literature Related to Articulation and Transfer Follow-Up Studies ............. C o n c l u s i o n s .............................. 15 27 D E S I G N ......................................... 29 S a m p l e .................................... M e t h o d o l o g y .............................. Statistical Hypotheses..................... A n a l y s i s .................................. S u m m a r y .................................. IV. V. 8 ANALYSIS OF R E S U L T S .......................... 8 29 32 33 35 36 37 Analysis of D a t a .......................... Discussion of Results ................... S u m m a r y .................................. 37 52 54 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE R E S E A R C H ............................ 56 Summary of Problem and Methods of Investigation .......................... Findings and Conclusions ................. D i s c u s s i o n ................................ Implications for FutureR e s e a r c h .......... 56 59 61 64 Page B I B L I O G R A P H Y.......................................... 66 APPENDIX A.I. A Summary of Sample Characteristics . . . . 70 B.l. Community College and MSU Groups Means and Standard Deviations ................. 71 Means and Standard Deviations for the CC Groups and the Corresponding MSU Groups by College of Major and Year 72 C.l. D.l. Means and Standard Deviations for the CC Group and the Corresponding MSU Group by Sex and Y e a r .............. ... 74 LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. 4.7. Page A Summary of Community College Transfer and Michigan State University Native S a m p l e ......................................... 31 A Summary of the Number of Males and Females for the Community College Transfer Sample .............................. 33 A Summary of the MSU Majors for the Community College Transfer Sample .......... 34 Means and Standard Deviations for the Overall Community College and MSU Groups . . . 38 Means and Standard Deviations for the Community College Group and the Corresponding MSU Group by Y e a r s ............ 39 Academic Difference Between the Community College and Michigan State University Groups . 41 Change Over Time When Comparing the Relationship Between the Community College and Michigan State University Groups ......... 42 Means and Standard Deviations for Each Community College and Michigan State University Corresponding Group ............... 44 Means and Standard Deviations for the Community College Groups and the Corre­ sponding Michigan State University Groups by College of M a j o r .......................... 47 College of Major Differences Between the Community College and Michigan State University Groups ............................ 49 v Table Page 4.8. Means and Standard Deviations for the Community College Group and the Corresponding Michigan State University Group by S e x ........................................ 50 4.9. Sex Differences Between the Community College and Michigan State University G r o u p s ............... 4.10. Summary ofR e s u l t s .............................. 52 55 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Plot of Means for the Community College and the Corresponding Michigan State University Group by Y e a r ..................... 40 2. Plot of Means for Each Community College and Michigan State University Corresponding G r o u p ......................... .. ........... 45 3. Plot of Means for the Community College Group and the Corresponding Michigan State University Groups by College of Major . . . . 48 4. Plot of Means for the Community College and the Corresponding Michigan State University Group by S e x .................................. 51 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM This chapter contains a general introduction to the study and includes need, purpose, theory, research hypothe­ ses, and an overview of the dissertation. Need Although the community college is a significant positive force in higher education, many people have a nega­ tive concept of its worth. Knoell and Medsker (22) have concluded the following: The general public (including the parents of high school students) still tends to undervalue the contribution of the junior college to higher education and to view it as a kind of refuge for the "cannots," academically, and the "have nots," financially. Counselors, teachers, and parents are all prone to use the junior college as a kind of threat when college-bound students are not achieving as well as they should in high school (22:87). Campbell (9) reports evidence indicating that this image is complimented by a similar perception held by the student. He determined that community college students view their institution as being less academically and intellectu­ ally oriented when compared with the perceptions of students attending four-year institutions. 1 2 Other writers find that significant differences also exist between the personal characteristics of the community college student and the four-year institution student 30). However, (6, 10, little research has been conducted to estab­ lish whether in fact the community college is actually as the above comments might indicate, academically and intel­ lectually inferior to the four-year institutions. Perhaps the community colleges are doing as "good" a job of educat­ ing their students. It may be that this negative image exists because of the differences in the admission policies between a community college and four-year institution. Most community colleges have an "open-door" admissions policy. They admit a student if he has graduated from high school. The four-year institutions usually have a more selective admissions policy. Many admit students from the upper half of the high school graduating class only. Some even require the top ten percent of the high school graduating class. Or, negative impressions may be based on comparisons of the transfer students' grade point average before and after transferring. Many of these comparisons are not statisti­ cally sound and may be giving the four-year institutions a false image of superiority. An investigation of the community college transfer students' improvement over a period of time compared with students that began as freshmen ("natives") at a four-year institution could contribute additional knowledge and better understanding of the community college as well as its 3 students. Research in this area may suggest program changes, new instructional techniques and personnel, educational and vocational advising for the students involved. This infor­ mation could be advantageously utilized by both the community college and the four-year institution. Most four-year institutions do follow-up and articu­ lation studies on their entering students, transfer students. including the The results of these studies may or may not be shared with the community colleges. Some community colleges also conduct their own follow-up studies concerning their former students based upon the information given to them by the four-year institutions (31). generally sought by these studies are; Two purposes (1) whether the admissions standards for transfer students at the four-year institutions are high enough to maintain the academic repu­ tation of the four-year institution; yet, not so low as to falsely encourage the transfer student, possibly to the point, of not being able to successfully complete his degree; (2) The community colleges are interested in finding whether or not their students are "successful" after transferring to the four-year institution. An underlining theory of these studies is that the institution involved may learn whether they are doing their appropriate tasks "acceptably." If the community college is doing as good a job, educationally speaking, as the four-year institution, then this study may offer a meaningful evaluation. This study, which measures the improvement of the academic quality of the transfer 4 students and how this improvement compares to native stu­ dents, may provide some of the following information: (1) How the community college is preparing its transfer students, (2) What factors should the four-year institutions use for acceptance of the community college transfer student and (3) Does the public have the correct image of the community college. Research on this subject may stimulate some inspection of curriculum differences as well as differences among community colleges. Purpose This study will investigate transfer students from selected Michigan Community Colleges entering Michigan State University during the Fall terms of 1965, 1968 to determine: 1966, 1967 and (1) is the academic quality of the transfer students improving and (2) If there is academic improvement for transfer students, how does it compare with academic improvement for students who began at Michigan State University as freshmen. Theory Two assumptions about the improvement of the academic caliber of transfer students from community colleges to a four-year institution are: (1) The community college trans­ fer student improves academically from class to class; and (2) These students are improving as much as the native four- year institutions' students. One may infer from these state­ ments that transfer students have not been improving or that 5 they have not improved as much as university students. It is because this inference has not been validated or evalu­ ated that this study is being conducted. Blocker, Plummer, and Richardson in their'work entitled, The Two-Year college« A Social Synthesis, (6) offer the theory that the mission of the public two-year college is to educate all individuals of post-high school age or achievement level to the limits of their ability. Their theory is predicated upon the assumption that educa­ tional programs appropriate for changing societal needs and a heterogeneous student body can be formulated. They develop this theory further when they talk about the "open door" admissions policy having to be fully developed qualitatively as well as quantitatively, i.e., "the community college must fulfill many responsibilities already assigned to it by society and it cannot also be the custodian of the unfit and the incompetent." They suggest that one of the ways to con­ tinue to improve the academic quality of the community college student (not just the transferring student) is to have selective admission of students to specific curricula. This procedure requires that students hot be admitted to a particular curriculum unless they meet certain minimal requirements. This procedure has already been effectively used in the community colleges in programs such as nursing (6:270). 6 Another theory usually mentioned by advocates of the community college is best summarized by Medsker: "Community college transfer students at the end of the baccalaureate degree program at the university are doing as we 1*1 or better than the native students, based upon grade point average" (27:129). In the context of the Blocker group's theory and information put forth by Medsker, this research study has been designed to investigate the academic improvement of community college transfer students as well as to study how any improvement might compare with that of a comparable group of native university students. Curriculum and sex have been introduced to give broader possible control. This additional control adds evidence concerning these areas as well as the difference in institutions, thus the horizon of possible implications is lengthened. Hypotheses 1. in recent years the academic achievement of community college students who have trans­ ferred to Michigan State University as juniors has improved relative to the achievement of Michigan State University juniors, who began at Michigan State as freshmen. 2. The difference between the academic achieve­ ment of Michigan State University juniors who were and were not transfers from community colleges is greater for transfers from some community colleges than from others. 3. The difference between the academic achieve­ ment of Michigan State University juniors who were and were not transfers from community colleges is greater for students with certain MSU colleges of major than for others. 7 4. The difference between the academic achieve­ ment of Michigan State University juniors who were and were not transfers from community colleges is different for male and female students. * Overview Chapter II contains a review of research pertinent to the community colleges and their students, articulation between community colleges and four-year institutions, and transfer follow-up studies. In Chapter III a report of the research design is given through a presentation describing the sample, methodology, statistical hypotheses, and analy­ sis. chapter IV contains the analysis of the results through statements of hypotheses testing and a discussion of the findings. Chapter V will serve as a summary, with conclusions and implications for future research. The contents of the next section are particularly germane to Chapter I because the material in it was used to formulate the problem of this study. CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This study required reviews of research pertinent to the community college and their students, articulation between community colleges and four-year institutions, and transfer follow-up studies. A discussion of the community college and their students is contained in this chapter along with a presentation of representative articulation studies which investigate the performance of community college students at four-year institutions. Most of these articulation studies have been in the form of follow-up studies. Literature Related to the Community College and Their Students In recent years the two-year college has received much attention. Blocker, Plummer and Richardson (6) have suggested that although these educational institutions may appear to be new and unique, the two-year college has a long history in higher education. As early as 1939, Charles M. Davis (12), conducted a survey of transfer admissions to colleges and universities. Davis used 27 institutions throughout the country and studied 8 9 where their transfers came from, why they were coming to these institutions and some factors involved in the admit­ tance of the students. He stated, The public junior college, which had slowly been gaining standards and students in the past decade, have come to be important parts in the scheme of higher education. They form perfect instruments for students who wish to acquire the first two years of a four-year program while living at home. His results indicated that, whether by design or not, many small four-year institutions are being used as junior colleges. He found a majority of the transferring students came from within the state or from an adjoining state. institutions Pew (except some on the Pacific coast or in the Southwest) drew many students from beyond the limits of their "halos" (reputation). Claims (made on the return questionnaires) that some of these institutions drew stu­ dents from all parts of the country was true to the same extent that a piece of cloth composed of 5 percent wool and 95 percent cotton can be said to be, "part wool." The aca­ demic reputation of any major institution, while undoubtedly the stated reason for transfer, appeared to be secondary to the factor of geographic location. Students indicated they transferred to the state colleges and universities for the prestige of the degree or for certain special instruction not available to them in their first institutions. But Davis indicated that in such transfers, the fine difference between the facilities and reputations of the various major 10 institutions were not determining factors. His results indicated that students transfer to the nearest institution rather than the best, provided it offers the instruction or the social atmosphere at a price they can afford to pay. In other words, the results of his study indicated the distribution of transfers has little to do with the academic reputation of the receiving institution. He did stipulate, however, that if students are financially able to transfer anywhere, factors including those of academic reputation may be very important in the choice of an institution. As his study concerned transfers from junior colleges as well as four-year institutions, he separated the two in his analy­ sis. Junior college admissions from outside the state (or immediate area) was even less significant than the general pattern of the total study. The other results were basi­ cally the same for the junior college transfers as for the total study. This brings us to the point of laying a foundation for the problem being dealt with in this study. Accepting the fact that the community colleges have been here for sometime and that they, according to Davis, are serving a purpose, several questions arise: community colleges today, (1) Where are the (2) Are the community colleges receiving acceptance, and (3) What is a community college student like? statement. Blocker, Plummer and Richardson made this "That although the weaknesses of these 11 institutions are hidden by indefinite roles, the two-year college holds excellent promise for the future of higher education" (6:286). Hunter (21) believed that a lack of general accep­ tance for the two-year college had a profound influence on the ease of the student's matriculation from the community college to the four-year institution. Both of the above references implied that the com­ munity college and its' students were having difficulties. Implicit certainly in Hunter's statement was a feeling of difference that existed between the transfer student and the four-year institution native. It is therefore necessary, to bring this problem more into focus, to review the results of research and literature about the community college student. Who goes to the community college? Why do they go there? These studies have focused on the personal and academic characteristics of the community college student body and student attitudes towards the college as well as attitudes of "significant others" in some cases. Cross purposes: (11) conducted a survey guided by two basic (1) To synthesize the findings of past research and (2) To identify areas in which further research is needed. Her report, although not written in a technical language, attempted to present a generalized picture that might serve as a framework against which further research could be generated. She divided her results into six areas. Before listing her six conclusions, it is first necessary to 12 emphasize the fact that these are generalized statements and must be handled as such. Her conclusions were: (1) Academic Characteristics. The community college population tends to come from the middle and lower third of a tested population of a high school graduation ranking (11:47-48). (2) Socio-Economic Background. Community col­ lege students tend to have fathers with less educational background, lower family incomes and with a smaller number of the parents being in professional or managerial positions than the typical student going into the four-year institution. The community college student also receives less encouragement from the father to continue their education beyond high school than does the entering freshman at a four-year institution (11:48-49) . (3) Finances. Although there seems to be a general difference between the socio-economic levels of students that go to the community colleges and four-year institutions, it [finances] leaves much to be desired as a predictor. There was a general response from community college students that cost was a prime factor in selection of the community college, yet on the other hand, few indicated they had any major financial worries. This would raise the question whether the cost factor alone was a factor in the student's selection of a college (11:49). (4) Self-Concepts. The community college student is more apt to be attracted to the twoyear college for practical reasons and not see himself in an academic or intellectual atmosphere. They also are more uncertain about their educa­ tional and vocational goals. Part of this seems to stem from the types of programs in which they were channeled into in high school. There is also a clear difference between community college and four-year groups in their occupational aspi­ rations. It is noted that 65 percent of the junior college students come from the homes of unskilled, skilled and semi-professional workers, yet, nearly two-thirds of them aspire to manage­ rial occupations (11:49-50). 13 (5) Interest and Personality Characteristics. The general interpretation that the community college student has a more practical orientation to college and life than do their more intellec­ tual orientated peers at the four-year institu­ tion is again substantiated in this area. The community college student certainly is more * interested in applied curricula as well as future financial success and not nearly as prone to humanitarian pursuits as are their four-year college peers. From a personality point of view they seem to be less venturesome and flexible in their thinking and therefore, are much more likely to be cautious and controlled. Or, perhaps more basically, it could be summarized by saying the community college student tends to be unsure of himself (11:51). (6) Special Abilities. A community college student does not generally feel as well prepared for college as a four-year college student— they are less confident of their academic abilities, they are frequently critical of their secondary school courses and teachers, and generally feel that their high school teachers would not rate them as good or excellent students (as compared to the number of four-year students that felt the same w a y ) . About the only areas in which a junior college student would express confidence in greater proportions than the four-year col­ lege student would be in non-academic abilities such as manual skills, sports and the like (11:51-52). Richards and Braskamp (31) did a study on Who Goes Where to Junior Colleges? In their study, they computed correlations between an "objective” description of two-year college environments and a comprehensive set of information about the entering classes of a sample of two-year colleges. A second study used multiple correlation techniques to estimate scores on six factors for 581 accredited four-year colleges. The six factors were: (1) Private Control, (2) 14 Cost, (3) Conventionalism, (5) Size, and (4) Technological Specialization, (6) Transfer Emphasis. Richards and Braskamp's data was obtained from the American College Testing ACT assessment. (ACT) Program and its 1966 National The two samples were then compared by computing means and standard deviations for the factors. They (Richards and Braskamp) found that students at two-year colleges tended to be academically less able than their peers in four-year institutions, both as measured by the ACT test and high school Grade Point Average. However, two-year college students varied more in academic talent than did students at four-year colleges as the two-year students had a wider range of ACT scores. Richards and Braskamp further found that students entering two-year colleges were influ­ enced more by practical considerations (i.e., costs and geographic location) and less by intellectual or social emphasis in choosing their college. There also was a trend showing that the student attending a two-year college was likely to be the first in his family to attend college and that for him, college was primarily an instrument of social mobility. This latter trend was true only in a broad sense, however, for most of the correlations were moderate to low. Richards and Braskamp summarized that even though the mean ACT results were lower for community college students than their counterparts at the four-year institutions, there were a number of students with high enough scores to indicate 15 that many of the students may have been "underachievers" (they had high test scores but low high school grades). Literature Related to Articulation and Transfer Follow-Up Studies In addition to reviewing any uniqueness or differ­ ence between the community college student and their fouryear college peers, it was essential to review the research and literature concerning the community college student after he transferred to the four-year college. A study by Willingham and Findikyan was conducted in 1967. The data was obtained as part of a national study by Educational Testing Service and published by the College Entrance Examination Board. Willingham and Findikyan reviewed (by questionnaire) transfer and first time admis­ sion statistics for 1961 and 1966, institutional practices and policies regarding admission of transfers, and the respondence judgment regarding several critical aspects of the admission procedure. The 146 baccalaureate degree- granting institutions in the study included both public and private institutions and were divided according to geographic regions of the country— Northeast, Midwest, South and West. The colleges also were divided into groups according to affluence. The sampling was comprised of 430,000 students that filled out applications and 230,000 that actually matriculated at one of the institutions. Willingham and Findikyan's study showed that the community college was working well with respect to transfer admissions. Community 16 college transfers seemed to enjoy favorable acceptance rates in four-year institutions and suffered less credit loss than other transfers from four-year colleges and were well repre­ sented in all types of senior institutions. Willingham and Findikyan also noted that these were encouraging signs but that the results were not uniform throughout the country because of differences based upon geographic location. The Northeast quadrant of the country had the most inertia to overcome because their evidence indicated that opportunity to transfer freely was limited in this region of the country. Part of the difficulty was closely related to the lack of adequate public higher education in some of these Northeast­ ern states. Other studies, besides that of Willingham and Findikyan, have been designed to investigate the problem of articulation from the two-year college to the four-year col­ lege but most of this type of research has been in the form of follow-up studies. These studies examined the academic performance of the community college transfer students after arriving at baccalaureate degree-granting institutions. The most recent research has strongly suggested that these trans­ fer students do as well or better at the baccalaureate insti­ tution as they did at the community college, after an adjust­ ment period. Knoell and Medsker (22) reviewed the earlier studies in this area and concluded that: 17 (1) Community college transfers usually attain lower grade point averages, below their previous accumulative average, after the first term of enrollment at the four-year institution. H o w ­ ever, these students experienced improved grade performance in succeeding terms. (2) Community college transfers grade point averages were lower than native students, but this differential decreased with continued enrollment. (3) The attrition rate of community college transfers was usually higher than for native students. (4) The length of time required to complete the baccalaureate degree tended to be longer from the community college transfer than for the native student (22:6-7). The above review of literature by Knoell and Medsker was conducted in preparation for their study. Their (Knoell and Medsker) study is the largest major study of its kind at the national level concerning the transfer of community college students to baccalaureate institutions. The study included 7,243 junior college students who transferred in 1960 to 43 four-year colleges and universities in ten states. The first part of the study attempted to: what junior college students are like, (1) Determine (2) To compare their academic records at the junior college and after they trans­ ferred, and, (3) To compare their records with native students (4) To analyze other characteristics, traits, achieve­ ments, i.e., programs, size of institutions, attrition and articulation. The second part of the study was a further analysis of the data that had been gathered during the first study period. In addition to the further analysis of the 18 original data, they conducted a follow-up of the transfer students to the point of graduation or dropping out. Although the results of both parts of these studies have been reported in two publications, the second publicized the results and the conclusions for the entire study: Conclusions from the first study were deferred until the completion of the second, in order to make a more final and complete assessment of the findings concerning transfer student performance. The conclusions deal with the nature of the stu­ dents who begin their baccalaureate degree pro­ grams in two-year colleges; with conditions, policies, services, programs, and other aspects of the two- and four-year colleges; and with cooperation and coordination among the various colleges. However, one cannot make judgments concerning the performance of the students independent of the context of the colleges in which they are enrolled and of the state systems (however loosely conceived) of which they are a part. The conclusions are in effect assessments or judgments based on the totality of the find­ ings from primarily the point of view that society benefits from both studies. They undoubtedly reflect certain values, primarily the point of view that society benefits from having its citizenry education to its highest potential and that the junior college could be a powerful force in developing a much better educated citizenry. Somewhat different conclusions might be drawn from the findings by others with differ­ ent points of view (23:103). Conclusions: (1) Junior colleges are making it possible for increasing numbers of high school graduates to begin work for baccalaureate degrees who would not otherwise be able to do so for reasons of academic or economic deficiency, or for lack of family encouragement. (2) The general public (including the parents of high school students) still tends to under-value the contribution of the junior college to higher education and to view it as a kind of refuge for the "cannots," academically, and the "have nots, " financially. 19 (3) In attempting to expand opportunity at the lower level and to strengthen education at the graduate level, master planners tend to assume that adequate educational opportunity between these two levels will be offered without any attention on their part to coordinated planning. (4) The door should be kept open to allow capable junior college students who are attracted into terminal occupational programs to transfer, if circumstances are favorable to their doing so. (5) All or most junior college students could be successful in achieving their degree goals after transfer L£_ they would select four-year institutions and major fields which are appro­ priate to their ability and prior achievement. (6) A number of the major state universities are now admitting transfer students somewhat indiscriminately on the basis of barely satisfactory junior college grades, on the grounds that all such students must be given an opportunity to attempt programs of their own choosing. (7) The effects of diversity in higher educa­ tion— in the quality of the entering students, level of instruction, types of programs, climate for learning, and pursuits of the faculty— all are reflected in the findings concerning the differential performance of the transfer stu­ dents. No single meaningful conclusion can really be drawn about the quality of transfer student performance because of the vast dif­ ferences which were found among the 41 four-year institutions which participated in the study, among the five types of such institutions, and among the 10 states. (8) The C grade and the C grade point average earned in junior college are relatively meaning­ less as global indicators of a student's likeli­ hood of success in four-year institutions. (9) Junior colleges are doing a more effective job in educating their good students, i.e., those who have aptitude for college work and good high school grades, than in preparing stu­ dents with serious high school deficiencies for transfer to four-year institutions. 20 (10) There is so much overlap in the distri­ bution of academic aptitudes of the transfer students who graduate and those who drop out that test scores do not distinguish very efficiently among the successes and failures. (11) The average ability level of graduates * who were freshmen in the major universities is higher than that of their counterparts who began their baccalaureate degree programs in two-year colleges, although there is considerable overlap in the ability of the students in the two types of institutions. (12) Grade point differentials are one of the realities of university life which transfer students to these institutions should be pre­ pared to accept, at least during their first year after transfer. (13) New junior colleges are offering educa­ tional opportunity to thousands of high school graduates of average ability who have inadequate financial resources to attend a four-year col­ lege outside their home communities (or to pay tuition at local four-year institutions to which they might be admitted). (14) Counseling about college attendance and career choice needs to be greatly improved at all levels— high school, junior college and in the four-year institutions. (15) In many four-year institutions, transfer students are being overlooked in the planning of orientation programs, in offering counseling services to new students, in inviting their participation in social and extra-curricular activities, and, above all, in obtaining appropriate advisement at the time of their first registration. (16) The good performance of the students after transfer is consistent with the student's appraisal of the quality of instruction they receive in the junior college. (17) There is no reason why junior college trans­ fer students should require more time and units to complete their degree programs than native students if the two- and four-year colleges work together on problems of articulation of their courses and curricula. 21 (18) Attrition after transfer, for all causes, is higher than it ought to be and could probably be reduced through joint efforts on the part of the two- and four-year colleges. (19) Present articulation machinery in many states and in many institutions is quite in-' adequate to solve the problems which will be brought on by an increasing volume of transfer students (23;103-111). Dorothy M. Knoell in an address before the Illinois Statewide Articulation Conference for Two-Year and Four-Year Colleges (2 9) in 1966 made some observations concerning articulation based upon the Knoell and Medsker studies. comments were based on findings which she and Medsker had not stressed in the report and from which they drew no conclusions in the report: We must point out that articulation involves at least three distinct procedures, any one of which can spell success or failure for the transfer student. The three which are most critical in their effect on student performance are (1) The good matching of transfer student and institution through counseling, information, and admission procedures, (2) The provision of appropriate personnel services including orien­ tation, financial aids, and counseling, and (3) The articulation of curriculum offerings and requirements in the two-and four-year colleges in such a way that the student is able to pro­ gress through his degree program without undue loss of time and credit. Both states and institutions were found to vary markedly in their success in each of these three phases. A rather curious finding which we did not stress in the report, and from which we drew no conclu­ sions, in that there was no relationship in the 1960’s between the quality or complexity of articulation of the state level and the record made by the transfer students in particular states. Michigan was an example of this phenom­ ena. Michigan which was second in our rating of states on the basis of success experienced by transfer students, had no formal statewide machinery for either articulation or coordination Her 22 in the early 1960's. However, articulation practiced by the individual state universities was exemplery. There obviously is (and has been) an awareness of a need to attend to the problems of articulation in Michigan which we found lacking in some of the other states. . . . Michigan is also on the move, in ways which are a little difficult to fathom from the outside, but it seems certain that state­ wide effort towards articulation is taking place now, at least in part as a result of our study. In addition to the address by Knoell at the Illinois Statewide Articulation Conference in 1966, 12 areas were identified as major problems in the entire area of articula­ tion (29:19). One of these areas was the need for statistics and research. The following is an exerpt from the recorder's report of this conference: In addition to impressions, opinions, and per­ sonal experiences with transfer problems, there is a critical need for both routine enrollment and performance statistics in research on spe­ cial problems as they come to the attention of interested parties. The very least amount of information we need is the nature and volume of the flow of transfer students from junior to senior colleges. We should also know class level at the time of transfer (their amount of credits transferred), major, and reason for transfer. Special studies of student's perfor­ mance are desperately needed from time to time to supplement the routine feedback of grades— which we are assuming has already taken place. We need facts concerning persistance, probation# time required to get the degree, grade point differential and the like. Evaluation of the appropriateness of the particular problem for consideration by an articulation group often evolves some estimate of the magnitude of the problem, i.e., how many students are affected and how many institutions (29:25). 23 The reviews to this point have dealt with national or at least large geographic samples. To further narrow the scope and bring into better focus the foundation for this study the rest of the reviews in this section dea'l with studies related to community college transfers to MSU. In the summer of 1967 Lorimer (25) conducted a study of 2,560 graduating seniors at Michigan State University. She used a statistical method of sampling and then analyzed transcripts by department and major. interested in investigating were: ing the undergraduate years and Two areas that she was (1) Changes of major dur­ (2) Number of terms needed to obtain a Bachelor's degree for those that began at MSU and for those who transferred. Lorimer found that about 80 percent who began their college work elsewhere trans­ ferred directly into the MSU college from which they were eventually graduated. This compared with only slightly more than 33 percent who began their work at MSU ("natives") and graduated in the major they first preferred as freshmen. She further noted that about 75 percent of all the graduates completed their degree in the equivalent of 13 terms. The 25 percent that needed more than 13 terms to complete their degree included a large number of students who had trans­ ferred to the university. Luker (26) found results similar to the Knoell- Medsker studies when studying the academic performance of Michigan community college students who transferred to 24 Michigan State University. Some variation in academic performance was reported and academic achievement of the transfer student differed according to the type of insti­ tution. The higher attrition rate of transfer students was attributed to the same factors that these students gave as decisive criteria for attending the two-year institutions unsatisfactory grades, financial instability, and insuffi­ cient interest or motivation (22;100). Hennessy (18) conducted a study of the communityjunior college transfer students and regularly enrolled students at Michigan State University. The primary objec­ tive was to determine how these two groups of students compared with regard to selective academic and personal characteristics. The sample consisted of 173 community college transfer students and a similar number of regularly enrolled MSU students. He discovered that these two groups of students were similar in many respects but significantly different with regard to some of the variables: (1) Commu­ nity college transfer students achieved G.P.A.s which were slightly lower than those achieved by the regularly enrolled students, (2) Female community college transfer students expressed severe "grade point losses" during their first term at MSU, (3) A significantly greater number of community college transfer students than non-transfer students failed to maintain passing (2.0) grade point averages, (4) A sig­ nificantly greater number of the community college transfer students than the non-transfer students were married and/or 25 veterans, and (5) The best single predictor of academic success at Michigan State University for community college transfer students was found to be the grade point average earned previously at the community college. Hennessy also suggested in his findings the importance of investigating the possible influence of orientation programs upon the early adjustment of two-year college transfer students in their new academic environment. There is a great need for additional research con­ cerning the community college student and their transition to four-year colleges. There is need for research in all areas of the community college. This need is demonstrated in the concluding reviews. Roueche and Boggs (3 2) conducted a survey which they entitled, Junior College Institutional Research: of the A r t . The State Their report was actually a collection of other surveys, studies and research obtained by the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) which is a part of the United States Office of Education. One of the 18 different ERIC systems is a clearing house for junior college informa­ tion which was the source used for their study. It examined junior college institutional research practices, presented examples of research produced in junior colleges, and made recommendations for organizing the support of research activities. The additional need for institutional research was documented, and the uses to which it can be put were highlighted. In order to understand current institutional 26 research studies, a new survey of junior college institu­ tional research was conducted by these authors from January through March of 1968. A stratified random sampling tech­ nique was used to select 10 percent of the 837 institutions listed in the 1967 Junior College Directory. The institu­ tions were classified on the basis of control (public or private) and enrollment size. By means of a stratified interview technique via long-distance telephone, together with a free response questionnaire, information was obtained from the presidents, deans and research coordinators of 70 of the sampled institutions. They obtained the following results. The area most frequently studied was the student body while at the commu­ nity college and the least frequently studied was the student after leaving the college. When junior college administra­ tors were asked what area they would like most to research, the most frequent response was a "follow-up" of former stu­ dents to find out what and how they were doing. Recognizing the importance of the follow-up process as a means of evaluating the impact of college experiences on students, the American Association of Junior Colleges funded the development of a guide to the philosophy, plan­ ning, procedures and use of follow-up studies. O'Connor (28), the editor and major author, developed the guide entitled, Follow-Up Studies in Junior Colleges; Institutional Improvement. A Tool for The American Association of 27 Junior Colleges funded this project in an endeavor to encourage more two-year colleges to collect necessary data and apply them towards improvement of their programs. Conclus ions The following general conclusions were based on the survey of significant literature pertaining to the community college and their students, articulation between community colleges and four-year institutions, and transfer follow-up studies. (1) The research which has been conducted to investi­ gate the matriculation of community college students to fouryear institutions has primarily focused upon the transfer student's academic performance. It would appear that most community college students obtain a lower grade point aver­ age after the first term of enrollment at the four-year institution compared to their accumulative grade point aver­ age at the two-year institutions. Their first term grade- point average tends to be significantly lower than the native students' average. After approximately two terms of attendance at the four-year institutions, the community col­ lege transfer student raised his grade performance to a level which was similar to the native student's achievement. (2) Community college students tended to be academ­ ically less able than their peers in four-year institutions on an average, but, had a wider range of abilities than was normally demonstrated in four-year institutions. 28 (3) Comparisons of community college students' needs and personal characteristics to those of native students at four-year institutions suggested that the community college student had a different set of attitudes, values ‘ and motiva­ tion for higher education. (4) Community Colleges seemed to have a less favor­ able image than did four-year institutions. (5) The review of literature supported the conclu­ sion that there had been a deficiency of research in the area of academic improvement of transfer students and how this academic improvement might compare with academic improvement of native four-year institution students. CHAPTER III DESIGN This chapter contains a description of the sample, methodology, and procedures for analysis of the data. The testable hypotheses are also restated in null form. Sample* There were two populations included in this study. One consisted of 1,234 students who transferred to Michigan State University from five Michigan public community col­ leges. They were admitted for enrollment in the Fall's of 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968. These transfer students were all Michigan residents, admitted to degree programs, and had at least 60 quarter hours of credit accepted in transfer. They transferred from community colleges which had at least one graduating class by the Spring of 1964. These five commu­ nity colleges contributed the largest number of transfer students to Michigan State University, when compared to the other 24 public community colleges in the state. *For the general information of the reader— the author of this thesis was the Associate Director of Admis­ sions and Scholarships at MSU during the period of time when the community college students, who became the sample, were admitted. 29 30 The second population consisted of 11,897 Michigan State University juniors that had been in attendance at Michigan State University since they were freshmen. These juniors were on degree programs, as was the case with the transfer population. A listing of the community college transfer students was obtained from the MSU's Registrar's Office for each term used in this study. The names appeared in alphabetical order with a number assigned to each name. Twenty-six stu­ dents were selected from each community college for each year through standard random sampling procedures so that equal probability for selection was assured (14). Each community college sample was divided into male and female groups for each Fall term then also separated by MSU college of major. The MSU population was then divided into male and female groups on the basis of college of major for each of the four terms of the study. The MSU students within each sex and major category were then listed from highest to the lowest grade point average on the registrar's listings. The students on the list within each category were numbered consecutively and a table of random numbers was used to select a number in each category equal to the number of transfer students in the same category from each community college for each year (14). This sampling method resulted in groups of MSU native juniors equal in size (13:25-26) to the groups from each community college for each year and 31 each community college group was matched to the correspond­ ing MSU group with respect to the number in each sex and college of major classification. In summary, the sample consisted of 26 transfer students for each of five community colleges for each of four years. Three hundred thirty-eight males and one hundred eighty-two females were used in both the transfer and native sample. The groups were also matched on the basis of MSU college of major. Table 3.1 is a summary of the community college transfer and MSU native sample. For a complete summary of the selective subjects, see Appendix A. TABLE 3.1 A SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRANSFER AND MSU NATIVE SAMPLES Year Community College (N) MSU (N) 1965 130 130 1966 130 13 0 1967 130 130 1968 130 130 TOTAL 520 520 32 Methodology The design for this study included sample groups for five community colleges for four years and matched sample groups of native MSU juniors. The grade point average each student in both samples. (G.P.A.) was computed for This G.P.A. was based upon the hours attempted, grades earned, and honor points received for only the Fall terms because t'-'is was the first term at Michigan State University for the transfer group. The native student G.P.A.s did not include any hours, grades, or honor points earned prior to the Fall terms. Means and standard deviations were computed for each community college and native MSU sample by year. These means and standard deviations are presented in Appendix B. The samples were grouped by three different methods: (1) By individual community college for each of the four years with a corresponding MSU group which matched each of the community college groups for each year on sex and col­ lege of major, (2) By year and sex for the total community college group (all five community colleges) with matching MSU groups arranged in the same manner (Table 3.2 is a summary of the community college transfer sample by sex) and, (3) By year and MSU college of major for the total com­ munity college sample with MSU groups again matched on the same basis. were: The ten MSU degree-granting colleges of major (1) Agriculture and Natural Resources, (2) Business, 33 TABLE 3 .2 A SUMMARY OF THE NUMBER OF MALES AND FEMALES FOR THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRANSFER SAMPLE* Year Males Females 1965 78 52 1966 79 51 1967 89 41 1968 92 38 338 182 TOTALS *The native MSU Junior sample matches the Community College male-female sample with respect to the number in each year by sex category. (3) Engineering, (6) (4) Home Economics, Veterinary Medicine and Surgery, Communication Arts, Sciences. (5) Natural Sciences, (7) Education, (8) (9) Arts & Letters, and (10) Social Table 3.3 is a summary of the MSU college of major of the students in the community college transfer sample. Statistical Hypotheses The research hypotheses for this study were stated in Chapter I. To facilitate statistical testing, these statements were transformed into the null or operational form. Two null hypotheses were formulated for statistical 34 TABLE 3.3 A SUMMARY OF THE MSU MAJORS FOR THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRANSFER SAMPLE* Home Economics Natural Science Education Communicati Arts Arts and Letters Social Science 3 26 9 3 19 2 20 6 23 19 1966 6 25 13 5 17 2 23 6 15 18 1967 10 27 14 2 12 1 18 7 12 27 1968 8 15 11 3 29 1 15 4 15 29 27 93 47 13 77 6 76 23 65 93 TOTAL Veterinary Medicine Business 1965 Years Engineering Agriculture B *The native MSU Juniors sample was the same as the Community College MSU college major sample with respect to frequency by year and major. tests to give evidence related to the first research hypoth­ esis. These were: la. Community college students transferring to Michigan State University as juniors do not differ from other M.S.U. juniors with respect to mean grade-point-average at the end of the first term of their junior year. lb. There is no interaction between the variable of transferring or not transferring from a community college to Michigan State University and the year of transfer from 1965 to 1968. 35 Null hypotheses in operational form for each of the other research hypotheses follow and are numbered to corre­ spond to the research hypotheses: 2. There is no interaction between the varia'bles of transfer and non-transfer on the one hand and the community college attended by the transfer students on the other. 3. There is no interaction between the variables of transfer and non-transfer on the one hand and the college of major of the transfer stu­ dents on the other. 4. There is no interact ion between the variables of transfer and non-transfer on the one hand and the sex of the transfer students on the other. Analysis Two procedures were to have been utilized in the analysis of the data: (1) A "three-way" fixed effects analysis of variance* as presented in Edwards Bryant (15), and (7), was used to test Hypotheses la and lb. This model was applied to the data for the community college transfer students and the matched MSU native juniors over the four years covered by the study. The .05 level of confidence was selected as the criterion for testing the hypotheses. The "three-way" fixed effects analysis of variance, as presented in Edwards eses 2, 3 and 4. (15), was also used to test Hypoth­ This model was applied to the data for the community college transfer students and the MSU native juniors with MSU college of major the independent variable. 36 The same model was again applied to the two groups (commu­ nity college transfers and MSU native juniors) with sex the independent variable. The .05 level of confidence was selected as the criterion for testing the hypotheses. The MSU Control Data Corporation 3600 digital computer, with an Analysis of Variance program, was utilized in the analysis. Scheffe’s post-hoc comparisons were not utilized as there wasn't a significant overall difference for the inde­ pendent variable of time. The significant relationships found were so small that they offered little help for predictive purposes. Therefore, further statistical analysis was determined to be impractical and the statistical analysis was terminated. Summary Samples were drawn from two populations in this study. One sample consisted of 520 randomly selected stu­ dents from all those who had transferred to MSU from five Michigan community colleges for the years 1965 to 1968. The second sample consisted of the same number of native MSU juniors and was matched with the first sample on the basis of year of admission, sex and MSU college of major. The "three-way" fixed effects analysis of variance was used to test the hypotheses. The .05 level of confi­ dence was chosen as the level at which differences were considered as a result of factors other than by chance. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS In this chapter a report of the analysis of the data and a discussion of the results are presented. For the analysis of the data statistical hypotheses corresponding to each research hypothesis (Chapter I) were formulated in null form and operational terms. Analysis of Data Statistical Hypotheses la and lb.— These hypotheses were formulated to obtain evidence on the first research hypothesis (Chapter I) which stated that in recent years the community college transfers to Michigan State University have had improved academic achievement relative to the achievement of native Michigan State University students. The grade-point-average of community college students trans­ ferring to Michigan State University was compared with the grade-point-average of juniors who had been at Michigan State University since they were freshmen to determine if there was any change in the relationship over time between the two groups (community college and Michigan State Univer­ sity) being compared. In Chapter I a change over time was 37 38 hypothesized and the corresponding null hypotheses tested here were: la. Community college students transferring to Michigan State university as juniors do not differ from other M.S.U. juniors with respect to mean grade-point-average at the end of the first term of their junior year. lb. There is no interaction between the variable of transferring or not transferring from a community college to Michigan State Univer­ sity and the year of transfer from 1965 to 1968. The means and standard deviations were computed for the overall community college and MSU groups. The results of these computations showed a difference between the two groups with the mean of the community college group being lower than the MSU group. the standard deviation. There was little difference for The results are presented in Table 4.1. TABLE 4.1 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE OVERALL CC AND MSU GROUPS GROUP S.D N MEAN CC 520 2. 127 0.7247 MSU 520 2.382 0.7225 ALL 104 0 2.254 0.8492 39 The means and standard deviations were computed for the community college group by year and the corresponding MSU group by year. The results of those computations showed a difference between each community college and the corre­ sponding MSU group for each year, with the MSU means being higher. There was little difference for the standard deviations between the groups over time. presented in Table 4.2. The results are The interaction is plotted in Figure 1. TABLE 4.2 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE CC GROUP AND THE CORRESPONDING MSU GROUP BY YEARS YEAR N CC MEAN 1965 130 2.081 0.8029 130 2.262 0.8912 1966 130 2. 075 0.7842 130 2.430 0.7500 1967 130 2. 215 0.9298 130 2.368 0.9378 1968 130 2. 138 0.8693 130 2.467 0.8091 ALL 1040 2.254 0.8492 S.D. N MSU MEAN S.D. 40 3 - MSU Mean GPAs CC 1965 1966 1967 1968 Years FIGURE 1. PLOT OF MEANS FOR THE CC AND THE CORRESPONDING MSU GROUP BY YEAR. The analysis of variafice summary for the testing of null Hypotheses la and lb are presented in Tables 4.3 and 4.4. The F-values for Hypothesis la (Table 4.3) were significant at the .01 level of confidence but that for Hypothesis lb (Table 4.4) was not. in other words, there was a difference between transfer students and native stu­ dents but this difference did not change significantly with the years. TABLE 4.3 ACADEMIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CC AND MSU GROUPS SOURCE S.S. D.F. M.S. F-VALUE SIGNIFICANT LEVEL TOTAL CC & MSU 16.822 1 16.822454 23.300 .01 CC & MSU Groups Interaction 10.879 4 2.719705 3.768 .01 7.592 4 1.898068 2.629 .05 721.883 1000 0.721883 CC-MSU Blocks Error TABLE 4.4 CHANGE OVER TIME WHEN COMPARING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CC AND MSU GROUPS SOURCE S.S. D.F. M.S. F-VALUE SIFNIFICANT level* Year 2.744 3 0.914610 1.267 NS CC & MSU by Year Interaction 2.044 3 0.681388 0.094 NS CC & MSU by Year by Blocks Interaction 5.489 12 0.467386 0.063 NS Blocks by Year Interaction 7.045 12 0.587089 0.081 NS 721.883 1000 0.721883 Error *NS— Designated Not Significant at or beyond .05 level of confidence. 43 Statistical Hypothesis 2.— The grade point averages of community college students transferring to Michigan State University and of juniors who had been at MSU since they were freshmen were compared to determine if there was any difference for transfers from some community colleges than from others. This evidence was needed for research Hypoth­ esis 2 (Chapter I) which stated that the difference would vary from community college to community college. The null hypothesis tested to obtain evidence relative to this hypothesis was: 2. There is no interaction between the variables of transfer and non-transfer on the one hand and the community college attended by the transfer students on the other. The means and standard deviations were computed for each community college and the corresponding MSU group. The results of those computations showed a difference between each community college group and the corresponding MSU group with the MSU means being higher. On the other hand, there seemed to be no clear pattern of differences for the standard deviations. These range from 0.6602 to 1.0235, with the MSU groups being the most variable in three of the five compari­ sons. The results are presented in Table 4.5. action is plotted in Figure 2. The inter­ 44 TABLE 4.5 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATION FOR EACH CC AND MSU CORRESPONDING GROUP N MEAN S.D. MSU N MEAN S.D. A 13 0 1.8539 1.0235 A 130 2.4200 0.9264 B 130 2.2727 0.6727 B 130 2.3283 0.8681 C 130 2.24 70 0.8171 C 130 2.4769 0.8985 D 130 1.9829 0.8621 D 130 2.3976 0.6602 E 130 2.2797 0.8254 E 130 2.2853 0.8545 1040 2.2540 0.8492 CC ALL The analysis of variance summary for the testing of null Hypothesis 2 was presented in Table 4.3 (see page 41). The F-value for Hypothesis 2 (Table 4.3) was significant at the .01 level of confidence. In addition to the significant level of interaction between the community college and MSU groups, there was an F-value of significance at the .05 level of confidence for just the community college-MSU blocks. The community college-MSU blocks were comprised of a single community college and the corresponding MSU group being combined. of the study. The combined group covered the four years The comparison was between one combined com­ munity college-MSU block and the other combined community college-MSU blocks. (see page 41). This result is presented in Table 4.3 There was no hypothesis for this latter test. 45 4 3 MSU 2 CC 1 A FIGURE 2. B C Group D E PLOT OF MEANS FOR EACH CC AND MSU CORRESPONDING GROUP. 46 Statistical Hypothesis 3.— The grade point averages of community college students transferring to MSU and of juniors who had been at MSU since they were freshmen were compared to determine if there was any difference between transfers and non-transfers related to the college of major for the transfers. The null hypothesis tested to obtain evidence relative to this hypothesis and the corresponding research hypothesis was: 3. There is no interaction between the variables of transfer and non-transfer on the one hand and the college of major of the transfer stu­ dents on the other. The means and standard deviations were computed for the community college group and the corresponding MSU group by college of major for the transfer students. The results of these computations showed a difference between the two groups with the means of the community college transfer groups being lower than the corresponding MSU group, except for Veterinary Medicine and Social Science. On the other hand, there seemed to be no clear pattern of differences for the standard deviations. These range from 0.6128 to 0.9902, with the MSU groups being the most variable in six of the ten comparisons. The results are presented in Table 4.6. The interaction is plotted in Figure 3. 47 TABLE 4.6 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE CC GROUPS AND THE CORRESPONDING MSU GROUPS BY COLLEGE OF MAJOR CC Groups N Agriculture MEAN S.D. N MEAN • Q« CO COLLEGE OF MAJOR MSU Groups 27 2.2085 0.9108 27 2.4578 0.7444 Business 93 1.9812 0.8517 93 2.2702 0.7935 Engineering 47 2.1047 0.8810 47 2.3266 0.6851 Home Economics 13 2.3577 0.5219 13 2.6523 0.5616 Natural Science 77 1.7578 0.9219 77 2.3826 0.9902 6 2.6733 0.9457 6 2.2117 0.6128 Education 76 2.2407 0.6935 76 2.4459 0.8408 Communication Arts 23 2.2974 0.7232 23 2.3170 0.8248 Arts and Letters 65 2.0829 0.8368 65 2.5766 0.8610 Social Science 93 2.3640 0.8987 93 2.2820 0.9362 1040 2.2540 0.8492 Veterinary Medicine ALL 48 *1 2 3 4 - Agriculture - Business - Engineering - Home Economics Natural Science 6 7 8 9 10 Veterinary Medicine Education Communication Arts Arts and Letters Social Science 4 3 MSU Mean GPAs 2 CC 1 1 FIGURE 3. 2 3 6 5 7 4 ♦College of Major 8 9 10 PLOT OF MEANS FOR THE CC GROUP AND THE CORRESPOND­ ING MSU GROUPS BY COLLEGE OF MAJOR 49 The analysis of variance summary for the testing of null Hypothesis 3 is presented in Table 4.7. The F-value for Hypothesis 3 (Table 4.7) were significant at the .05 level of confidence. Null Hypothesis 3, relative*to trans­ fer students' MSU college of major effect, was rejected. TABLE 4.7 COLLEGE OF MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CC AND MSU GROUPS SOURCE M.S. D.F. F-VALUE SIGNIFICANT LEVEL* 1.6597 9 2.3586 .05 College Main Effect 1.3839 9 1.9666 in o College by Years 0.7266 27 1.0326 NS Year Main Effect 0.8341 3 1.1853 NS Error 0.7037 960 • CC & MSU by College *NS— Designated Not Significant at or beyond .05 level of confidence. Statistical Hypothesis 4 . — Here the grade point average of community college students transferring to MSU and of juniors who had been at MSU since they were freshmen were compared to determine if any difference between trans­ fers and non-transfers were related to the sex of the trans­ fers. The null hypothesis tested to obtain evidence relative 50 to this hypothesis and the corresponding research hypothesis was: 4. There is no interaction between the variable of transfer and non-transfer on the one hand and the sex of the transfer students on the other. The means and standard deviations were computed for the community college group and the corresponding MSU group by sex of the transfer student. The results of those computations showed a differ­ ence between the community college group and the correspond­ ing MSU group for both males and females. were higher for both males and females. The MSU means Within both the community college and MSU group the female means were higher than those for the males. However, the MSU male means were still higher than the community college female means. was little difference for the standard deviations. There The results are presented in Table 4.8. TABLE 4.8 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE CC GROUP AND THE CORRESPONDING MSU GROUP BY SEX* CC N MEAN S.D. Males 338 2.0906 0.8937 Fema le s 162 2.1954 0.7990 1040 2.2540 0.8492 ALL N MEAN S.D. Ma le s 338 2.3031 0.8257 Females 182 2.5274 0.8667 MSU *An additional summary is presented in Appendix D. 51 The interaction is plotted in Figure 4. The analysis of variance summary for the testing of null Hypothesis 4 is presented in Table 4.9. Hypothesis 4 (Table 4.9) was not significant. The F-value for However, the overall sex main effect was significant at the .01 level of confidence. This result is presented in Table 4.9. There was no hypothesis for this latter test. 4 3 MSU 2 CC 1 Males Females Sex FIGURE 4. PLOT OF MEANS FOR THE CC AND THE CORRESPOND­ ING MSU GROUP BY SEX. 52 TABLE 4.9 SEX DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CC AND MSU GROUPS SOURCE M.S. D.F. F-VALUE SIGNIFICANT LEVEL* CC and MSU by Sex 0.8240 1 1.1378 NS Sex Main Effect 7.1166 1 9.8271 .01 Sex by Years 1.2103 3 1.6713 NS Year Main Effect 0.7627 3 1.0532 NS Error 0.7242 1024 *NS— Designated Not Significant at or beyond .05 level of confidence. Discussion of Results The results of testing statistical Hypotheses la and lb indicated that there was a significant academic differ­ ence between the transfer students from the community col­ leges entering Michigan State university and native MSU juniors. The MSU natives definitely receive higher grade point averages. However, the results showed that the dif­ ference between the community college transfer students and native MSU juniors did not change with time. This result held true for all other tests which involved time. Time did not effect any difference within the sub-groups whether it was the total transfer group by year or each community col­ lege by year. The same results were found within the MSU sub-groups when tested by year. Also, time was not a factor 53 in any differences when using the transfer students' sex or MSU college of major as independent variables. The analysis of data pertaining to null Hypothesis 2, with respect to academic differences based on community col­ lege attended, showed significant differences between each community college and the MSU native juniors. The MSU natives received higher grade point averages in all cases. There was some variation in the amount of difference depend­ ing on which community college had been attended. However, as the differences were so small, the amount of difference was not significant. For a complete summary of means and standard deviations, see Appendix B. The results of testing null Hypothesis 3 showed there was significant differences between the two groups (community college transfers and MSU natives) on the basis of transfer students' MSU college of major. The MSU natives received higher grade point averages in all but two cases. The community college transfers received higher grade point averages for the colleges of Veterinary Medicine and Social Science. There was some variation in the amount of differ­ ence depending on which college of major the students were enrolled. The greatest variation was in the college of Natural Science. point average The MSU natives were over a half a grade (.62) higher than the community college group. The smallest variation was in the college of Communication Arts. The MSU natives were only .02 of a grade point average 54 higher. For a complete summary of means and standard devi­ ations, see Appendix C. The results of testing null Hypothesis 4 indicated that the academic difference between the transfer students from the community colleges entering MSU and native MSU juniors didn't change significantly when comparing the groups on the basis of the sex of the transfers. On the other hand there were differences within the groups as the females had higher grade point averages than the males for both groups. The results indicated that there was a sig­ nificant difference for the overall effect of sex. For a complete summary of means and standard deviations, see Appendix D. Summary The following table {Table 4.10) is presented as a summary of the analysis of results. For each hypotheses test, an F-value, the significance level and a statement of rejection or non-rejection is given. In Chapter V the results obtained in test of the statistical hypotheses will be systematically related to the research hypotheses. TABLE 4.10 SUMMARY OF RESULTS NULL HYPOTHESES STATEMENT OF REJECTION OR NON-REJECTION .01 0.094 NS 3.768 .01 Rejection 2.359 Rejection NS Non-Rejection 1.138 • 23.300 in o la. Community college students transferring to Michigan State University as juniors do not differ from other M.S.U. juniors with respect to mean grade-point-average at the end of the first term of their junior year. lb. There is no interaction between the variable of transferring or not trans­ ferring from a community college to Michigan State University and the year of transfer from 1965 to 1968. 2. There is no interaction between the variables of transfer and non-transfer on the one hand and the community col­ lege attended by the transfer students on the other. 3. There is no interaction between the variables of transfer and non-transfer on the one hand and the college of major of the transfer students on the other. 4. There is no interaction between the variables of transfer and non-transfer on the one hand and the sex of the transfer students on the other. F-VALUE SIGNIFICANT LEVEL* Rejection Non-Rejection *NS— Designated Not Significant at or beyond .05 level of confidence. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH This chapter contains a summary of the study, presentation of the conclusions, a discussion of the find­ ings, and implications for future research. Summary of the Problem and Methods of Investigation The purpose of this study was to investigate the academic achievement of transfer students from selected Michigan community colleges entering Michigan State Univer­ sity to determine: (1) If the academic quality of transfer students has been improving, and (2) If there was academic improvement, how did it compare with the academic improve­ ment for students who began at a four-year institution as freshmen. Previous research indicated that the community college student differed from the four-year institutions native student with respect to needs, values and attitudes (11 and 31). Previous research and literature indicated that community colleges seemed to have a less favorable image than did four-year institutions (6 and 22). 56 57 It has also been determined that two-year college transfer students have received a significantly lower grade point average, during their first term as transfers at a four-year institution, than their accumulative grade point average at the community college (22). These grade point averages which the community college transfers received the first term, were significantly lower than the comparable native student's grade point average for the same term. In addition to the community college students being academically less able than their peers in four-year insti­ tutions, previous research indicated that community college students had a wider range of abilities than was normally demonstrated by students in four-year institutions (31). Recent research has attempted to isolate factors which might effect the academic achievement of community college students as well as investigate how these factors might influence differences between the community college student and the native four-year institution student. Although the community college student has exhibited differences from their four-year institution peers, little attention has been given to any change in these differences. Research results have not been found to check the possi­ bility of an improvement in the academic achievement of community college transfer students or to show how this improvement, if any, compares with that of native four-year institution students. 58 There were two populations included in this study. One consisted of 1,234 students who transferred to Michigan State University from five Michigan public community col­ leges. They were admitted for enrollment in the Tail's of 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968. The second population consisted of 11,897 Michigan State University juniors that had been in attendance at Michigan State University since they were freshmen. Twenty-six students were selected from each commu­ nity college for each year through standard random sampling procedures so that equal probability for selection was assured. Each community college sample was divided into male and female groups for each Fall term then also sepa­ rated by MSU college of major. The MSU population was then divided into male and female groups on the basis of college of major for each of the four terms of the study. A table of random numbers was used to select a number in each category equal to the number of transfer students in the same category from each commu­ nity college for each year. This sampling method resulted in groups of MSU native juniors equal in size (26) to the groups from each community college for each year and each community college group was matched to the corresponding MSU group with respect to the number in each sex and college of major classification. 59 A "three-way" fixed affects analysis of variance, as presented in Edwards tical hypotheses. (15), was used to test the statis­ This analysis of variance model was applied to the data for the community college transfer students and matched MSU native juniors over the four years covered by the study. This same analysis of variance model was applied to the data for the community college transfer students and MSU native juniors with MSU college of major and sex being the independent variables. The .05 level of confidence was chosen as the level at which differences were considered resulting from factors other than chance. Findings and Conclusions The findings of this study justified the following conclusions: 1. The academic achievement of community college transfers to Michigan State University has not improved in recent years. This conclusion was in direct contradiction to the primary research hypothesis of this study. The evidence for this conclusion was obtained when the related null hypothesis concerning the effect of the year on the transfer's grade point average was not rejected. Fall term 1965, For each 1966, 1967 and 1968 the students who began at Michigan State University as freshmen earned higher G.P.A.s than the community college transfer students and the amount of difference between the two groups did not change 60 significantly from year to year. Therefore, it was con­ cluded that research Hypothesis 1 (Chapter I) was untenable. 2. The academic achievement was greater for trans­ fersfrom some community colleges than from others. This conclusion supported the second research hypothesis of this study. Evidence for this conclusion was obtained when the related null hypothesis concerning the effect of which com­ munity college the transfer students attended had on the transfers' G.P.A. was rejected. There was a significant difference between community colleges attended and the G.P.A.s earned by transfer students from those community colleges. It was therefore concluded that research Hypoth­ esis 2 (Chapter I) was tenable. 3. The academic achievement was greater for com­ munity college transfers with certain Michigan State Univer­ sity colleges of major than for others. This conclusion supported the third research hypothesis of this study. Evidence for this conclusion was obtained when the related null hypothesis concerning the effect of the transfer stu­ dents' Michigan State University college of major on the transfers' G.P.A. was rejected. Significant difference was found between the Michigan State University colleges of major for transfer students and their G.P.A.s. It was therefore concluded that research Hypothesis 3 (Chapter I) was tenable. 4. The difference in academic achievement between the community college transfers and the students who started 61 at Michigan State University as freshmen was not affected by a comparison between the two groups on the basis of sex. This conclusion was in direct contradiction to the fourth research hypothesis of this study. Evidence for'this con­ clusion was obtained when the related null hypothesis con­ cerning the effect of sex on the difference between the transfers' grade point average and MSU natives' grade point average was not rejected. research Hypothesis 4 Therefore, it was concluded that (Chapter I) was untenable. However, there was a significant difference for the overall main effect of sex as the female transfer students received higher grades than the male transfers. The same finding was true for the students who started at Michigan State Univer­ sity as freshmen. on the other hand, the MSU native males received higher G.P.A.s than the female transfer students. Discussion Because this study has been exploratory in nature, there were some results that warrant further discussion. In the context of the Blocker group's theory (6) that the mission of the public two-year colleges was to educate all individuals of post high school age or achievement level to the limits of their ability, the findings have indicated that: (1) The "open door" admissions policy, for the com­ munity colleges included in this study, has not yet been fully developed qualitatively (academically) as well as it has been developed quantitatively (number of students 62 admitted). This type of "open door" admission policy (qualitatively as well as quantitatively) was one of the assumptions of the Blocker theory; and (2) Educational pro­ grams appropriate for changing societal needs and*a hetero­ geneous student body apparently have not been created yet by the community colleges included in this study, if one equates these programs with academic improvement by the community college transfers. Blocker's theory said that these types of programs can and should be developed to improve academic achievement to the limits of the students' abilities. There was evidence that there were differences between curricula, or at least college of the transfer stu­ dents' majors, as community college transfer students with MSU college majors of Veterinary Medicine and Social Science earned higher G.P.A.s than did the corresponding MSU native groups. The students who started at MSU as freshmen had higher G.P.A.s for the rest of the colleges of major with the largest difference MSU group) (between the community college and in the college of Natural Science and the small­ est difference in the college of Communication Arts. This would lend credence to support the Blocker group's suggestion that the community colleges should have selective admissions for specific curricula. The result of the difference in majors or curricula selection indicates that a more forceful role in the student personnel services may be important for the community colleges. This would include more direct advisement and 63 counseling in the following areas: (transfer versus non-transfer), (1) Program selection (2) Curriculum selection in the transfer programs (social science versus business, elementary education versus engineering, etc.), and (3) Selection of the institution to which the student is plan­ ning on transferring (large versus small, public versus private) but most important, institutions where their stu­ dents have had better success versus those where their stu­ dents have had more difficulty. This more forceful counsel­ ing role, using further evidence in the area of curricula selection, might help community college transfer students to have greater academic achievement after transferring to four-year institutions. The community colleges were not doing as "good" a job of educating their students as the four-year institution as long as one assumes that a "good job" means improving academic achievement. With this demonstrated lack of aca­ demic improvement in recent years by the community college transfer students, there would appear to be some basis for the literature indicating that the general public has a "negative" image of the community college when compared to four-year institutions. Indeed, the findings of this study have suggested that the transfer student was not improving academically. However, the result of this study can not be generalized to broader populations or geographic areas. The findings of 64 this study suggest the need for additional investigation before broad, generalized conclusions and statements can be made. No attempt was made to determine the reasons or possible influences causing the transfer students to come to Michigan State University. If one accepts the theory that the community college can offer enough curricula to meet a heterogeneous population and that they can improve the curriculum by restricting enrollment to it, then, it would seem advantageous to investigate the relationship between the curriculum chosen and the reasons for the selection of the four-year institution. It would also seem appropriate to investigate further the relationship between the choice of curriculum and the possibility of academic success after transferring. been empirically derived, Once such a relationship has it may be possible to counsel or advise students for more effective and optimal curriculum choice— from the point of view offutureacademic at the four-year institution. This would success aid inaccomplish­ ing one of the community college's goals— improving the success of their former students. Implications for Future Research The following research needs became apparent during this study. 1. Replicated research should be conducted at othe four-year institutions. Such studies would indicate if the 65 results of these findings were peculiar only to Michigan State University. 2. Replicated research should also be conducted at other four-year institutions in different geographic loca­ tions, using a sample larger than five community colleges. Such studies would provide an indication as to whether or not the findings of the study were isolated or whether in fact they reflected a general condition. 3. Research should be conducted using college of major as the predominant variable of the study. perhaps be refined to individual curricula. This should Such a study would provide additional information as to the curricula in which the transfer students are having the greatest amount of academic success or difficulty. 4. There should be additional research of community college transfer students on the basis of stratification by community college grade-point-average. information to help answer the question: This could add Is there more variance in community college transfer students' academic achievement at a four-year institution if they had a "C" or "B" cumulative grade point average at the community college. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, Herman R. Open Door to Learning. University of Illinois Press, 1963. Urbana: Arkin, Herbert, and Raymond R. Colton. Tables for Statisticians. New Yorki Barnes, and Noble, Inc., 1956. Astin, A. W. The College Environment. Washington, D.C.: The American Council on Education, 1968. Astin, A. W. Who Goes Where to College? Science Research Associates, 1965. Chicago: Beezer, Robert H., and Howard F. Hjelm. Factors Related to College Attendance. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: Office of Education, 1963. Bocker, Clyde E., Robert H. Plummer, and Richard C. Richardson, Jr. The Two-Year College: A Social Synthesis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall, Inc., 1965. Bryant, Edward C. Fundamentals of Statistical Analysis. St. Louis: John S. Swift Company, Inc., 1963. Bush, Edward, Ralph W. Banfield, and Donald Newport. Follow-Up Conference on Improving Articulation Between Two-Year and Four-Year Colleges. Unpublished Report, University of Michigan, 1965. Campbell, Paul S. Personality Needs of Community College and University Students and Their Perceptions of the Press of Their Institutions: An Experimental Inves­ tigation. Unpublished Doctorial thesis, Michigan State University, 1964. College Students Profiles: Norms for the ACT Assessment. Iowa City: American College Testing Program, 1966. Cross, K. Patricia. The Junior College Student; A Research Description. New jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1968. 67 12. Davis, Charles M. A Survey of Transfer Admissions in Colleges and Universities. University of Michigan: Administrative Studies, 1939, Vol. 1, No. 5. 13. Doebler, Charles H. Who Gets Into College— and W h y ? New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1965. r a 14. Downie, N. M . , and R. W. Heath. Basic Statistical Methods. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1965. 15. Edwards, Allen L. Experimental Design in Psychological Research. New York; Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968. 16. Fields, Ralph R. The Community College Movement. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962. 17. Guidelines for improving Articulation Between Junior and Senior Colleges. Joint Committee on Junior and Senior Colleges. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1965. 18. Hennessy, Francis J. A Comparison of Selected Academic and Personal Characteristics of Regularly Enrolled and Community-Junior College Transfer Students at Michigan State University. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Michigan State University, 1960. 19. Hill, Tyrus. The American Two-Year College. Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1958. 20. Hills, John R. Transfer Shock: The Academic Perfor­ mance of the Junior College Transfer. Office of Testing and Guidance. University System of Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia, 1964. 21 . New York: Hunter, Pauline R. "Problems influencing Articulation Between Two and Four-Year Colleges," Buffalo Studies— Administering the Community College in a Changing World. Edited by S. V. Mortotana and Pauline F. Hunter, vol. 11, No. 1. Buffalo, New York: State University of New York, June, 1966, pp. 173-180. 22. Knoell, Dorothy M., and Leland L. Medsker. From Junior to Senior College: A National Study of the Transfer Student. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1965. 68 23. Knoell, Dorothy M., and Leland L. Medsker. Articulation Between Two-Year and Four—Year Colleges. University of California: Center for the Study of Higher Education, 1964. 24. Lehmann, Irvin J., and Paul L. Dressel. Changes in Critical Thinking Ability. Attitudes, and Values Associated With College Attendance. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1963. 25. Lorimer, Margaret P. An Analysis of the Transcripts of a Sample of Seniors Graduated from Michigan State University. June. 1967. Part One: A Summary of Information. Office of institutional Research. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1968. 26. Luker, Leonard J. Mimeographed Papers: The Transfer Student at M S U . Office of Institutional Research, Michigan State University, 1962. 27. Medsker, Leland L. The Junior College: Progress and Prospect. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960. 28. O'Connor, Thomas J. Follow-Up Studies in Junior Colleges: Tool for Institutional Improvement. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1965. 29. Proceedings of the Illinois Statewide Articulation Conference for Two-Year and Four-Year Colleges. Illinois Conference on Higher Education, Chicago, 1966. 30. Reynolds, James W. The Junior College. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1965. 31. Richards, James M., Jr., and Larry A. Braskamp. Who Goes Where to Junior College. ACT Research Reports. Iowa City: American College Testing Program, July, 1967 32. , Roueche, John E., and John R. Boggs. Junior College Institutional Research: The State of the Art. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1968. 69 33. Russell, John D. The Survey of Higher Education in Michigan. Lansing, Michigan; State Legislature, 1958. 34. Willingham, Warren W . , and Nurhan Findikyan. Patterns of Admission for Transfer Students. New Jersey: College Entrance Examination Board, 1969’. 35. Wilson7 Logan. Emerging Patterns in American Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1965. APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF SAMPUS CHARACTERISTICS APPENDIX A.l A SUMMARY OF SAKPLE CHARACTERISTICS 1965 HSU COL cc HAJ 1 2 J 4 5 6 D 7 S 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 1 2 3 4 2 5 6 7 8 9 lo 1966 1967 | 1968 HSU HSU HSU HSU HSU MSU SEX COL SEX 1 COL SEX COL SEX 1 COL SEX COL SEX COL _SiDC H F HSU HAJ H F CC HAJ H F HSU HAJ H F CC HAJ H F HSU HAJ H F CC HAJ H F HSU 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 2 7 0 2 1 2 1 2 7 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 4 0 2 0 10 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 4 0 1 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 1 3 2 5 5 4 1 5 4 2 5 4 2 3 1 5 3 2 5 4 1 A 0 o 6 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 l^ 6 0 0 o 0 7 1 2 1 2 7 0 6 7 0 6 7 0 3 0 3 7 7 1 1 8 1 0 2 0 8 8 2 0 8 1 0 8 1 0 8 1 0 1 0 9 9 0 2 2 0 2 0 9 9 2 1 9 9 0 2 2 1 2 2 7 1 10 7 1 10 2 1 10 2 1 10 6 0 10 10 6 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 7 0 2 7 0 3 0 3 0 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 i3 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 3 0 0 4 0 2 0 2 4 2 4 0 2 4 0 2 4 4 0 2 0 1 1 2 5 0 1 2 1 0 5 1 5 5 2 1 5 2 1 5 2 1 B B 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 6 6 1 0 0 0 6 6 6 "o 0 B 0 0 0 3 7 0 3 7 14 7 14 7 04 7 7 04 0 2 1 0 1 0 8 8 8 0 2 2 8 8 2 0 2 0 8 1 0 4 3 4 3 9 9 9 2 3 2 3 9 9 24 24 9 14 3 0 10 3 0 3 10 10 1 3 1 10 4 2 10 4 2 7 1 10 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 "3 0 3 0 2 3 0 3 1 3 1 2 7 0 2 2 2 7 0 2 2 0 6 0 3 6 0 3 3 5 0 5 0 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 4 0 1 0 1 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 3 0 5 3 0 5 2 1 0 0 2 1 5 5 5 0 0 6 4 5 C 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 1 0 C 04 7 04 7 06 7 7 0 6 0 1 7 7 0 1 0 0 8 2 0 2 0 8 0 1 0 1 8 1 1 8 8 1 1 8 1 0 14 9 14 1 1 9 1 1 9 9 0 1 0 1 9 9 1 0 10 1 2 x 2 1 10 10 2 1 10 6 3 10 2 6 3 10 l4 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 1 4 0 1 0 1 7 2 2 7 2 2 1 8 2 8 1 2 6 1 2 6 i 2 5 0 i 0 3 1 0 3 3 2 0 2 0 3 3 0 3 3 0 3 T 0 0 o 4 0 4 4 0 0 1 1 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 2 5 4 2 5 5 2 1 2 1 5 2 0 5 2 0 5 s D 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 6 1 0 6 6 0 1 0 1 6 0 TT D 7 3 0 3 7 1 7 1 7 1 1 1 7 2 1 2 7 0 0 7 1 1 8 1 1 8 0 0 8 0 0 8 1 0 8 1 0 8 0 0 1 3 1 3 9 9 3 2 3 2 9 9 1 1 9 1 1 1 0 9 1 0 10 1 0 “10 ' 2 1 10 2 1 1 10 10 2 1 2 2 10 I T 0 T T 0 1 ■2 0 1 T 0 i 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 3 1 2 3 1 2 l 1 1 1 2 2 2 8 0 8 2 1 1 3 1 3 3 5 5 3 :4 0 3 4 3 5 4 4 1 4 1 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 1 1 2 5 1 1 5 2 T 3 5 2 s 0 1 1 5 0 5 4 1 2 s £ E E 6 0 2 0 2 6 0 6 0 0 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 4i 7 i6 7 4 7 16 7 4 _0_ 8 8 1E 1 0 8 8 l 8 1 8 4 9 4 1 9 9 9 9 0 9 3 jp T T To T T 5 (T 10 5 1 2 T 2 14 1 6 6 % 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 01 10 0 10 00 00 0 00 10 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 10 1 10 HSU COL SEX 1 HAJ m F 1 0 0 2 4 0 3 2 0 4 0 1 3 1 5 0 0 6 1 1 7 8 1 0 9 2 2 10 8 0 1 3 0 3 0 2 3 0 0 4 0 1 5 2 1 6 0 0 7 0 2 8 1 0 9 14 10 7 1 1 10 2 2 0 3 3 0 4 0 1 5 6 4 1 0 6 0 0 7 1 0 8 9 1 0 10 4 0 1 0 1 5 0 2 3 1 0 4 0 0 4 3 5 0 0 6 7 0 7 a 0 0 1 0 9 To - 2 2 I T 0 1 . 2 ~3"1 5 4 0 0 4 1 5 6 0 0 7 00 04 3 1 T 1 a 10 9 10 APPENDIX B COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND MSU GROUP MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS APPENDIX B.l COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND MSU GROUP MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS CC A B C D E YEAR N MEAN S.D. 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 26 26 26 26 104 26 26 26 26 104 26 26 26 26 104 26 26 26 26 104 26 26 26 26 104 2.0085 1.7385 1.6708 1.9981 1.8539 2.2419 2.2450 2.3588 2.2450 2.2727 2.1288 2.1800 2.3519 2.3273 2.2470 1.8904 2.0269 2.1312 1.8831 1.9829 2.1346 2.1827 2.5642 2.2373 2.2797 0.9616 0.7412 1.2420 1.0972 1.0235 0.5870 0.7765 0.5646 0.7666 0.6727 0.7701 0.7647 0.9572 0.7869 0.8171 0.8769 0.6851 0.9253 0.9608 0.8621 0.7704 0.9320 0.8848 0.6664 0.8254 104 0 2.254 0 0.8492 GRAND MEAN MSU A B C D E YEAR N MEAN S.D. 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 26 26 26 26 104 26 26 26 26 104 26 26 26 26 104 26 26 26 26 104 26 26 26 26 104 2.3238 2.4135 2.4619 2.4808 2.4200 2.1881 2.5373 2.2488 2.3388 2.3283 2.2200 2.6362 2.4673 2.5842 2.4769 2.4938 2.4050 2.4042 2.2873 2.3976 2.1446 2.1908 2.2638 2.5419 2.2853 0. 955 0 0.7711 1.1408 0.8443 0.9264 0.9729 0.5760 0.9868 0.8831 0.8681 0.9022 0.8480 0.9381 0.8976 0.8985 0.4723 0.6630 0.7562 0.7342 0.6602 1.0373 0.8530 •0.8185 0.6601 0.8545 APPENDIX C MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE CC GROUPS AND THE CORRESPONDING MSU GROUPS BY COLLEGE OF MAJOR AND YEAR APPENDIX C.l MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE CC GROUPS AND THE CORRESPONDING MSU GROUPS BY COLLEGE OF MAJOR AND YEAR CC GROUP Agr iculture Business Engineering Horae Economics waturax C 4 belence XTa^n v a 1 vs a . MSU GROUP YEAR N MEAN S.D. YEAR N MEAN S.D. 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 3 6 10 3 27 26 25 26 15 92 8 13 15 11 47 3 5 2 3 13 19 21 12 25 77 1.8600 2.4183 2.3090 2.0563 2.2085 2.0969 1.8456 2.0115 2.0860 1.9812 1.8075 2.2815 2.2666 1.8909 2.1047 2.2367 2.6100 2.2100 2.1567 2.3577 1.7063 1.7848 1.1758 2.0536 1.7578 0.5534 0.4422 1.1045 1.0747 0.9108 0.8209 0.8839 0.8256 0.8097 0.8517 0.5610 0.9160 1.0341 0.8030 0.8810 0.2065 0.7063 0.4667 0.4708 0.5219 0.6427 0.8729 1.1689 0.9259 0.9219 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 3 6 10 8 27 26 25 26 15 92 8 13 15 11 47 3 5 2 3 13 19 21 12 25 77 3.0567 2.6517 2.1200 2.5100 2.4578 2.3623 2.4500 2.2996 1.9113 2.2702 2.2063 1.9400 2.7540 2.2881 2.3266 2.4667 2.5740 2.5700 3.0233 2.6523 2.5358 2.2824 2.2133 2.4110 2.3826 0.8348 0.3317 0.8839 0.6511 0.7444 0.5533 0.8054 0.8875 0.7007 0.7935 0.9263 0.4185 0.6178 0.5766 0.6851 0.3166 0.7365 0.3111 0.6152 .0.5616 0.8278 0.8755 1.3544 1.0134 0.9902 APPENDIX C. 1— Continued CC GROUP Veterinary Medicine Education Communication Arts Arts and Letters Social Science GRAND MEAN MSU GROUP YEAR N MEAN S.D. YEAR N MEAN S.D. 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 2 2 1 1 6 16 23 18 19 76 6 6 7 4 23 23 15 12 15 65 19 18 27 29 93 2.0100 2.2850 3.6700 3.7800 2.6733 2.3963 2.1039 2.2967 2.2221 2.2407 1.8083 2.3717 2.5800 2.4250 2.2974 2.2039 1.9073 2.3308 1.8747 2.0829 2.2121 2.2772 2.5570 2.3376 2.3640 0.9899 0.3041 0.0000 0.0000 0.9457 0.6420 0.5774 0.8471 0.7257 0.6935 0.6349 0.6120 0.9187 0.3926 0.7282 0.7927 0.9034 0.8095 0.8523 0.8368 1.0265 0.6692 0.8580 0.9819 0.8987 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 2 2 1 1 6 16 23 18 19 76 6 6 7 4 23 23 15 12 15 65 19 18 27 29 93 2.4000 1.6000 3.0700 2.2000 2.2116 2.1145 2.7339 2.4400 2.4533 2.4459 2.3133 2.4517 2.1214 2.4625 2.3170 2.3409 2.5580 2.6675 2.8840 2.5766 1.8684 2.4189 2.2278 2.5186 2.2820 0.5657 0.0424 0.0000 0.0000 0.6128 1.0451 0.6166 0.8614 0.7163 0.8408 0.7149 0.8954 0.9615 0.8932 0.8248 1.0738 0.7450 0.7479 0.6185 0.8610 .0.9679 0.8671 1.0465 0.7841 0.9362 1040 2.2540 0.8492 APPENDIX D MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE CC GROUP AND THE CORRESPONDING MSU GROUP BY SEX AND YEAR APPENDIX D.l MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE CC GROUP AND THE CORRESPONDING MSU GROUP BY SEX AND YEAR YEAR N MEAN S.D. Males 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 78 79 89 92 338 2.0645 1.9668 2.1347 2.1762 2.0906 0.7873 0.8305 1.0110 0.9114 0.8937 Females 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 52 51 41 38 182 2.1054 2.2416 2.3905 2.0461 2.1954 0.8251 0.7084 0.8763 0.7728 0.7990 1040 2.2540 0.8492 CC GRAND MEAN MSU YEAR N MEAN S.D. Males 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 78 79 89 92 338 2.2000 2.3249 2.2598 2.4137 2.3031 0.8849 0.7282 0.9448 0.7565 0.8257 Females 1965 1966 1967 1968 TOTAL 52 51 41 38 182 2.3852 2.6094 2.6068 2.5263 2.5274 0.9357 0.7663 0.8539 0.9173 0.8667