71-2128 MOORE, Hobert Charles, 1940REPORTED AND PROJECTED ATTENDANCE AT HALL PROGRAMS IN GRADUATE HOUSING AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1970 Education, higher University Microfilms, A XEROXC om pany. A nn Arbor, M ichigan REPORTED AND PROJECTED ATTENDANCE AT HALL PROGRAMS IN GRADUATE HOUSING AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By Hobert Charles Moore A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1970 ABSTRACT REPORTED AND PROJECTED ATTENDANCE AT HALL PROGRAMS IN GRADUATE HOUSING AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By Hobert Charles Moore This study was an investigation of graduate students* social and cultural program attendance as measured by major college of study. More specifically, the relationship be­ tween graduate students according to major college of study and their reported as well as projected attendance at grad­ uate residence hall social and cultural programs was studied. The entire respondent group was considered in terms of re­ ported and projected attendance items, also. That literature was investigated treating related areas of study, such as personality factors, vocational choice factors, specialization, student characteristics, and special populations of students. It was felt that because several studies differentiated between selected groups of people on social, occupational, personality, and psychological character­ istics, a differentiation might be observable between colleges of study on the basis of program attendance. During the last week of Spring Term, 1968, a question­ naire was administered to all graduate students in residence at Owen Graduate Center, Michigan State University. At the time, 890 graduate students were in residence, and of those, 572 (64.3%) returned usable questionnaires. Part I of the questionnaire requested independent variable data, including identification of each respondent's college of study. Part II listed programs that had taken place in Owen during the year, and respondents marked those attended. In Part III, respondents marked a five-part rating scale to indicate likelihood of attendance at possible future hall programs. Two statistical methods were employed in the analysis of data: 1) a one-way analysis of variance, and 2) simple correlational analysis. Post-hoc Scheffe tests were com­ pleted, also. An item analysis was undertaken, considering all re­ spondents, to attempt some classification of programs accord­ ing to greatest appeal. At the .05 level of significance, no difference could be found on the reported attendance variable between colleges of study. A statistical difference was indicated between colleges on the projected attendance variable, but post-hoc tests failed to locate the difference. Correlational analysis showed a positive correlation between reported and projected attendance within each college of study. The item analysis approached reported and projected attendance items for all students according to those receiving high, middle, and low score response. Some types of programs were attended in greater numbers than others, and some types of projected programs received higher score response than others. Dedicated to the patience, love, and understanding of my family, especially Julie, Christina, and John, who waited. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To Dr. Van C. Johnson, advisor, friend, and chairman of my doctoral guidance committee. To the other members of the doctoral guidance commi'ttee, Dr. Richard Featherstone, chairman of the department; Dr. Russell Nye; and Mr. James Denison. To Dr. Donald V. Adams, Director of Residence Hall Programs at the time of this study. To the Educational Development Program, Michigan State University, for permission to quote from "Student Attendance at Co-Curricular Activities." To Lois Jean Fiedler, Assistant Head Advisor, the other graduate advisors, and graduate students in residence at Owen Graduate Center at the time of this study. To the Office of Research Consultation, College of Education, and David J. Wright for statistical assistance. To Mr. George Van Buren and Owen Hall Management. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page Dedication i Acknowledgments Table of Contents iii List of Tables v List of Figures I. The Problem: viii The Unstudied Graduate Student . 1 Purpose of the S t u d y .......................... 2 Importance of the Problem ........... 3 The F a c i l i t y ................................. 3 The P o p u l a t i o n ............................... 4 Organization of Owen Hall S o c i e t y ......... 7 Characteristics of Owen H a l l ............... 9 Theory Underlying the Problem ............. . 1 1 The H y p o t h e s i s .................................... 13 Organization of the S t u d y ...................... 14 II. Review of L i t e r a t u r e ............................. 15 Student and Other Group Characteristics ... 15 S u m m a r y .......................................... 28 III. Design of the S t u d y ............................. 30 Sample S e l e c t i o n ..................................30 M e a s u r e s .......................................... 30 College of S t u d y ............................... 30 Reported Attendance ........................ 33 Projected Attendance ........................ 33 R e l i a b i l i t y ...................................... 33 Analysis Procedures .......................... 33 One-way Analysis of Variance ............... 35 Simple Correlation Analysis ............... 35 Post hoc C o m p a r i s o n s ........................... 35 D e s i g n ............................................ 35 .......................... 35 Testable Hypotheses S u m m a r y .......... 36 IV. Statistical Analysis ........................... Differences Between Colleges of Study For Reported Attendance . Differences Between Colleges of Study For Projected Attendance . . . iii 37 37 40 Chapter Page Correlation Between Reported and Projected Attendance . . . Post-hoc Comparisons ........................ Descriptive Item Analysis - Reported Attendance . . . Descriptive Item Analysis - Projected Attendance . . . D i s c u s s i o n ................................... S u m m a r y ................... V. Summary and Conclusions 40 40 44 52 63 64 .............. 67 S u m m a r y ....................................... C o n c l u s i o n s ................................... D i s c u s s i o n ................................... Implications for Future Research ........... 67 69 71 79 Bibliography 82 Appendix A 88 Appendix B 95 LIST OF TABLES Degree—Candidacy, 1967—68, of 937 Residents Owen Graduate Center 5 Degree—Candidacy, 1967— 68, as Dichotomous Levels on 937 Residents 5 Major Activities By Committee in Owen H a l l , 1967-1968 8 Summary Description of Career Development Theories and Theorists 20 Independent Variable and Demographic Data From Part I of Questionnaire 31 Summary of Hoyt's Reliability Estimates for the Research Questionnaire 34 Statistics for Each of Ten Colleges Showing Attendance at Hall Programs 38 Analysis of Variance Table For Ten Colleges and Attendance at Hall Programs 39 Statistics for Each of Ten Colleges Showing Projected Attendance at Future Hall Programs 41 Analysis of Variance Table for Ten Colleges and Projected Attendance at Future Hall Pro­ grams 42 Correlation Coefficients for All Colleges in Descending Order 43 First Five-Item Group Out of Eighteen Items Showing Number and Percentage of Attendance 45 Second Five-Item Group Out of Eighteen Items Showing Number and Percentage of Attendance 46 Third Five-Item Group Out of Eighteen Items Showing Number and Percentage of Attendance 47 Last Group of Three Items Out of Eighteen Showing Number and Percentage of Attendance 48 First Five-Item Group Out of Forty-Three Items Showing Number and Percentage of Pro­ jected Attendance 53 v Page Table 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 Second Five-Item Group of Forty-Three Items Showing Number and Percentage of Projected Attendance 54 Third Five-Item Group Out of Forty-Three Items Showing Number and Percentage of Projected Attendance 55 Fourth Five-Item Group Out of Forty-Three Items Showing Number and Percentage of Pro­ jected Attendance 56 Fifth Five-Item Group Out of Forty-Three Items Showing Number and Percentage of Projected Attendance 57 Sixth Five-Item Group Out of Forty-Three Items Showing Number and Percentage of Projected Attendance 58 Seventh Five-Item Group Out of Forty-Three Items Showing Number and Percentage of Pro­ jected Attendance 59 Eighth Five-Item Group Out of Forty-Three Items Showing Number and Percentage of Pro­ jected Attendance 60 Last Group, Three Items Out of Forty-Three Items Showing Number and Percentage of Projected Attendance 61 Range in Per Cent for Five-Item Table of Reported and Projected Attendance 65 APPENDIX B I II III IV V VI Men and Women by Marital Status 96 Men and Women by College of Study 96 Women Holding Assistantships by College 96 Foreign Men by Major College 96 Questionnaire Item Response - Part I I , Showing Attendance at Hall Programs 97 Questionnaire Item (Rating Scale) Response Part III, Showing Projected Attendance at Future Hall Programs 98 vi Page Table VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI Statistics for Correlation Between Reported and Projected Attendance for the College of Agriculture 100 Statistics for Correlation Between Reported and Projected Attendance for the College of Veterinary Medicine 101 Statistics for Correlation Between Reported and Projected Attendance for the College of Communication Arts 102 Statistics for Correlation Between Reported and Projected Attendance for the College of Business 103 Statistics for Correlation Between Reported and Projected Attendance for the College of Engineering 104 Statistics for Correlation Between Reported and Projected Attendance for the College of Education 105 Statistics for Correlation Between Reported and Projected Attendance for the College of Home Economics 106 Statistics for Correlation Between Reported and Projected Attendance for the College Arts and Letters 107 Statistics for Correlation Between Reported and Projected Attendance for the College of Natural Science 108 Statistics for Correlation Between Reported and Projected Attendance for the College of Social Sciences 109 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 A Comparison of Population Age-Range in Undergraduate Residence Halls and Owen Residence Hall viii 6 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM: THE UNSTUDIED GRADUATE STUDENT A great amount of literature is extant centering upon the many aspects of undergraduate student characteristics, including the academic and non-academic similarities and differences among groups of students. Little exists in writ­ ing, however, treating graduate students along similar lines of inquiry during a decade when enrollments are expected to reach the near-million mark (Beach, 1965). It is true that some rather general problem areas germane to graduate educa­ tion have been identified, including for example, problems of personal finance, course-depth, student-facuity ratio, and length of training (Braley, 1960), but also true is that little else is known about graduate students (Freedman, 1965). Few statistical studies exist, and at a time when the appar­ ent differences between graduate and undergraduate education are being made more complex by increased enrollments, it would appear necessary to know more about graduate education and the students who specialize in departmental and college level activities. It seems reasonable to assume that the graduate student is preoccupied in degree with concerns similar to those of his younger brother, the undergraduate. One study (The Student in Higher Education, 1968:7) notes the tendency of the undergraduate student to become increasingly practical, more "worldly" and inclined to compromise ideals with harsh necessity as the completion of the degree is approached. What is here recognized of the undergraduate is perhaps truer of the graduate. Earl McGrath (1959) has discussed graduate students in terms of specialization. Graduate education, he reports, limits the breadth of educational exposure in order to meet the necessity for depth in a specialized area of endeavor: ...specialization commonly occurs in the other infinite divisions of modern learn­ ing. This pyramiding of education usually results in a corresponding shrinkage of intellectual interests....Specialization obviously limits the student*s education for the more inclusive aspects of civil and personal life. (McGrath, 1959:35) Viewed in terms of McGrath*s comment, graduate education can be characterized as education splintered into distinct units of semi-autonomy, or what might be termed 'educational sub-groups.' Ultimately, several questions arise. For instance, what does specialization do to the graduate stu­ dent as an individual? What does specialization do to o n e 's total concept of more general learning and experience? And, how much responsibility is the graduate student willing to take for other areas of learning and experience? Studies undertaken by a number of educators indicate kinds of differences among groups of students classified according to several factors, notably major field of study. Differences among groups of graduate students on several variables should be observable. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study is to investigate the rela­ tionship between graduate students according to major college of study and their reported and projected attendance at graduate residence hall social and cultural programs. Consideration will be made also of the graduate residents as a whole in terms of reported and projected attendance. Cor­ relation of data is employed to examine some of the relation­ ships statistically. Investigation of literature treating related areas of study, including student behavior as scaled to personality factors, vocational choice, and area of specialization and the available literature on graduate residence halls and graduate hall programs will amplify the study for additional comparison and conclusions. IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM » The questionnaire used in this study was administered to graduate students in residence at Owen Graduate Center (hereafter cited as Owen Hall) only. The study makes no attempt to account for all graduate students at Michigan State University and must consider the special characteris­ tics and purposes of Owen Hall. The Facility Physically, Owen Hall consists of two wings of seven and one-half stories each, joined by ground- and basementlevel common areas containing lobbies, a cafeteria-dining room, offices and recreational-social facilities. The base­ ment section contains the latter, which consists of rooms provided for music, small-group dining, table tennis, infor­ mal reading and browsing, color television, and laundry. The half corridors in the far reaches of each wing — connected to the central basement area — not contain additional television and recreational space. Rooms in the wings consist mainly of single rooms and a few doubles; together, these rooms, when filled, house a total of 992 students. Study lounges with ironing facilities are located on each corridor; those lounges above the base­ ment level have outside balconies, also. The purpose of Owen Hall is to provide a residence for a portion of the graduate students at Michigan State University. The Population During the registration week of Fall Term of the aca­ demic year, 1967-1968, returned resident registration cards collected by Owen Hall Advisory Staff indicated a total of 617 men, or 66% of cards collected, and 320 women, or 34% of cards collected, for a total of 937 students who returned cards. This figure (937) represents 94.7% of the possible 992 spaces available in Owen. Table 1.1 provides further details on demographic data on residents. Resident registration cards put the mean age of Owen Hall residents at 26 years, the median age at 24 years, and the modal interval at 22-24 years. These computations are represented graphically in comparison to the estimated pop­ ulation of age range in undergraduate residence halls in Figure 1.1. Foreign students accounted for 22% of the resident population during Fall Term (Moore, 1968). 5 Table 1.1(a) Degree-Candidacy, 1967-68, of 937 Residents In Owen Graduate Center According to Resident Registration Cards Men Women 177 64 24l Table 1.1(b) Total Students " 9'3T Men Women to Men Women 375 iU Totals 601 D. Vet. 00 M.A.________Ph.D. 10 M.D._______Non-Peg. Men Women Men Women “ 31 l'fi 6 1 49 7 Underg. Men Women 20 9 29 Degree-Candidacy, 1967-68, as Dichotomus Levels of 937 Residents Total M.A., Non-Peg., Underg. 67$ Total Ph.D. " m -- ' * From the files in the office of the Owen Hall Head Advisor Men 617 Total Women 326' 6 A COMPARISON OF POPULATION AGE-RANGE IN UNDERGRADUATE RESIDENCE HALLS AND OWEN RESIDENCE HALL Figure 1 Frequency At Capacity Owen Hall: Mean Age Median Modal Interval 26 years 24 years 22-24 years Undergraduate Halls Graduate Hall Age in Years * From the files in the office of the Head Advisor, Owen Graduate Center, Michigan State University. 7 Organization of Owen Hall Society Owen society is formally divided along functional lines into three units: the Owen Graduate Association (OGA), Management, and the Advisory Staff. . The OGA consists of all dues-paying ($1.00 per term mandatory) graduate residents of Owen Hall. Elected annually in the Fall, an Executive Committee, consisting of six mem­ bers, plans Hall activities for the year. During the 1967- 1968 year, the Executive Committee loosely coordinated the budget, plans, and schedules of five committees: House, Publications, Education, and Recreation. Social, These com­ mittees continued to plan and implement activities through­ out the year. A breakdown of major activities sponsored by these committees can be found in Table 1.2. Under the Owen Hall Manager are two service units con­ sisting of the Food Manager's staff and the Building Super­ visor's staff. There is also a housing clerk and a secretar­ ial and reception staff. In 1967-1968, the Owen Hall Advisory Staff consisted of a Head Advisor, Assistant Head Advisor, and seven Graduate Advisors, all in residence. The Assistant Head Advisor and the Graduate Resident Advisors in Owen reside in single rooms spaced at regular intervals throughout the building. The role of an advisor in Owen can be defined broadly as that of assisting "...student groups and individual students in resi­ dence to fulfill their potential as mature human beings." (Moore, 1968) Functionally, this means advising and 8 Table 1.2 Major Activities By Committee in Owen Hall* 1967-1968 Committee I. SOCIAL II. HOUSE III. PUBLICATIONS IV. EDUCATION V. RECREATION * (Moore, 1968) Description 1. Several orientation and post-football game mixers in lobby. Fall Term. 2. A few movies. 3. A Valentine's Dance; a Halloween Dance with b a n d s . 4. Several Folksings. 5. Three informal record dances and parties. 6. International Night. 7. A Pumpkin-carving contest at Halloween, 8. Floor parties on the women's corridors 9. The MSU Folksinger's program. 10. Several Musical programs. 1. Installation of a coffee-machine, East Wing. 2. Acquisition of a copier for the Browsing Room. 3. Building of a wall map in the main lobby. 4. A proposal for additional open house hours - approved. 5. Study of the Owen Hall Cafeteria management. 6. Maintenance and purchase of club (OGA) equipment, and Suggestion Box. 1. Publication of an improved Owen Hall newsletter. 2. Posters to advertise activities held by other committees. 1. Added resources to the Browsing Room. 2. Production of a number of panel dis­ cussions . 1. All-University IM softball title "Zookeepers." 2. The Independent Men's Tennis title. 3. The Women's IM Table Tennis title. 4. A skating party; swimming party; skiing party. 5. An in-hall table tennis tournament. 6. An Owen Hall basketball team. 7. Other informal hall sports and recre­ ation. orientation with student individuals and groups throughout the year. At least one advisor was assigned to each OGA committee during 1967—68, while the Head Advisor and the Assistant Head Advisor acted in an advisory capacity to the OGA Executive Committee. As the extension of the Michigan State University Dean of Students Staff through the Office of Residence Hall Programs, the Owen Hall Advisory Staff is in an ideal position to react to the wishes, needs, and con­ cerns of students and coordinate these with the means and purposes of management, other students, campus groups, and University agencies. Characteristics of Owen Hall Table 1.2 illustrates a wide variety of informal Owen Hall social programs and other activities primarily social in nature. These programs varied greatly in the ability to draw participants. It is equally true that different pro­ grams appear to attract different people, and while no study of possible reasons for this reality has been undertaken by Owen Hall Advisory Staff, there seems to be a number of hall characteristics which may contribute (Moore, 1967? 1968): 1. There is a considerable turnover among Owen Hall residents. Graduate students finish their programs at irregular times during the year. 2. The population is by-and-large taskoriented. Major emphasis is placed upon a graduate student's department and the completion of d e g r e e . As a result, there is little time taken for organized social activity by graduate residents. Organized, potentially time-consuming commitments are avoided. 10 3. The population is one of diversity. It is international, of wide age-range, and representative of numerous disci­ plines . 4. There is some attendance at some Owen Hall programs. 5. The graduate resident appears to form just a few meaningful personal relationships with other residents, and these usually carry through the year. 6. Most programs are planned and implemented by the same minority, often supplemented by the hall advisors. 7. Attempts of advisors to stimulate greater social interaction among residents are thwarted, in degree, by an advisor-student ratio of 1:110. A factor leading to difficulty in planning any kind of event within Owen Hall is the lack of common interests among residents. The dominant population characteristic, in fact, appears to be the presence of highly diversified and spe­ cialized interests. In the face of sparse attendance at a number of Owen Hall programs, some have termed this apathy; vet. this is probably a misnomer. The graduate student is concerned about program and departmental requirements, and this is a specialized interest. (Moore, 1968). Circumstances make it difficult to give attention to the advantages which might arise from the context of experience around him. A reasoned inquiry into a more exact description of such diversity and lack of commonality as relating to attendance at social programs must attempt to discover at what points or on what programs these diversified interests might sud­ denly converge, or failing that, what programs might be of 11 sufficient interest to a diversified minority of students to warrant planning and implementation. Demonstration of differences in attendance at Owen Hall programs among residents should provide a means for more adequate definition of hall population and interests. THEORY UNDERLYING THE PROBLEM The problem identified in this chapter appears primar­ ily social because focus is upon attendance or non-attendance at social programs as related to major area of study. How­ ever , the study does build upon that research suggesting a number of factors which may have a bearing upon an individ­ ual's selection of a group (or groups) (Osipow, 1968). to which to belong Once a member of a group — study in this case — major college of an individual may exhibit characteris­ tics of the group as distinguished from characteristics values) of other groups. (and These characteristics may be evi­ dent in areas other than the purely academic— i.e., in social program attendance. A significant amount of study has been completed inves­ tigating functions of group-, field-, and career-membership. Bereiter and Freedman (1962) have shown that there may be differences in personality on the basis of mental health (defined broadly) by area of specialization. Garbin (1967) tentatively concluded that attitudes about jobs could be predicted on the basis of a prestige scale. A number of studies attempt demonstration of a relation­ ship between personality characteristics and individual needs 12 and career choice. Gillis (1964) investigated the person­ ality needs of aspirant teachers. Research by Becker and Carper (1956) and Pease (1963) investigated graduate stu­ dent participation and socialization within field of study. Osipow (1968) offers the most recent summary of the literature treating the functions of career choice* grouping all theories and theorists under four model headings: 1) trait-factor theories, 2) sociology and career choice, 3) self-concept theory, and 4) vocational choice and person­ ality theories. All of the foregoing suggest differences between career groups and graduate student career groups. It might be reasonable to expect that study will demonstrate differences among graduate students classified according to college of study on the basis of the choices to be or not to be parti­ cipants at specified graduate hall programs. Demographic data may unveil differences among graduate students when con­ sidered according to other classifications. An attempt will be made to discover whether reported attendance at graduate residence hall programs correlates with projected attendance at possible future programs. Also, reported and projected attendance items, considered in terms of the total Owen Hall population, may indicate preferred programs among residents. Hence, the study has an applied dimension, that of suggesting future directions for hall program planning. The study might also suggest a rudimentary 13 instrument which may lend itself upon refinement as a usable tool for planning social programs on a campus where similar groups are represented. THE HYPOTHESIS It is expected that just as differences occur among groups classified according to traits listed in studies referred to in this and the next chapter, there are differ­ ences in graduate student participation (attendance) at grad­ uate hall programs when graduate students are grouped by major college of study. Furthermore, reported attendance by major college of study has a positive relationship to pro­ jected attendance at future hall programs. It is expected, too, that reported and projected attend­ ance will identify programs of interest to the Owen Hall pop­ ulation considered as a whole. On this b a s i s , the following hypotheses are formulated for the graduate residence hall population: : The amount of reported attendance of graduate students at graduate resi­ dence hall programs differs according to major college of study. H_ : The amount of graduate student pro­ jected attendance at future graduate residence hall programs differs according to major college of study. H There is a positive relationship be­ tween reported attendance and pro­ jected attendance at graduate resi­ dence hall programs within college of study. : 14 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY This study is founded upon research literature treating the differences between career groups according to several definitions. This literature demonstrates the extent to which differences exist and how they may suggest what additional and descriptive differences might be expected in the Owen Hall population. The literature is reviewed in detail in Chapter II. Also used is a questionnaire which was distributed to all residents of Owen Hall in May, 1968. The questionnaire is divided into three parts, including independent variable data, reported attendance at hall programs over a one-year period, and projected attendance at possible future graduate residence hall programs. The questionnaire, explanation of the research design, methodology, and statistical analysis are subjects taken up in Chapters III and IV. Finally, Chapter V includes a summary of the study and a discussion of findings with recommendations. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE: STUDENT AND OTHER GROUP CHARACTERISTICS Review of the literature related to differences between student groups considered by college of study reveals a num­ ber of studies which touch upon the subject. Few studies exist which treat differences between groups of graduate stu dents classified by college of study in terms of a social scale or index. Related literature is drawn from four gen­ eral areas, which can be labeled as studies of specializa­ tion, social psychology, student personnel, and career and personality theory. The existence of specialization in the educational set­ ting is viewed differently by investigators. Friedman (1964:2-7) illustrates that specialization is necessary within academic disciplines simply because there is too much detailed knowledge for any one person to master. The crea­ tive person, according to Friedman, is one needing autonomy and the freedom to pursue specialized goals. Tannenbaum (1965:4), conversely, stresses a need for more communication between groups, specifically between the faculty in differ­ ent disciplines.* Cooper (1967:249) managed to show the dichotomy between specialized and generalized needs and how they might best * Much of the literature consists of studies of groups other than major area or college of study; yet because studies cited here treat group characteristics or differences be ­ tween groups, the terms "group," "specialization," "major area of study," and "college of study" are at some points used interchangeably. 15 16 be served. For Cooper, the student seeks totality in life at a time when the pressure is on the educational institu­ tion from various publics for specialized interests. The literature of social psychology contains evidence supportive of differences between groups. "Socialization,” as used here, stems from definitions given by Child (1954:655) and Pease (1963:1-5) and may be expressed as that behavior acquired as the result of several influences by which an indi­ vidual is led to adopt the ways, norms, attitudes, and roleexpectations of a particular group. Groups may be viewed, also, according to their potential for action and participation. Some groups are structured around a concept of action and participation. It is reason­ able to assume that based upon the overall objectives and pur­ poses of a group, some groups will demand more visible action and participation than others. An individual who is a member of more than one group may easily be expected to exhibit dif­ fering degrees of participation, dependent upon the group in question (Shibutani, 1961:33, 34). Another study (Gottlieb, 1961:237) indicates that the individual seeking entrance to a group may exhibit an expected or aspirant behavior in preparation to being accepted fully by the group in question. Erbe (1962:502-504) shows that "gregariousness," defined by number of social contacts, is likely related to leader­ ship. Erbe's study showed that group leaders had more con­ tacts outside the immediate group; this finding was not true 17 for average group members. While this study centers upon individual behavior, it also raises a question of whether or not different groups might not exhibit varying degrees of gregariousness. Pease (1963) studied the professionalization of the graduate student, contending that the faculty represented for the graduate student a "significant other," with a re­ sultant heavy influence upon the student's behavior. Pease concluded that faculty influence graduate student participa­ tion in field activities and that there is a relationship between faculty encouragement to participate in an activity and actual student participation. Findings in the literature of student personnel bear resemblances to those in the studies of socialization. differences are ones of emphasis. The Jacob (1957:99-115), pri­ marily interested in the change of student values during the college years, discovered that certain colleges have distinc­ tive differences or personalities. The degree to which these differing personalities, ascribable to particular institu­ tions, can influence student behavior is noted by Ford (1965: 83), who emphasizes the importance of situational context from campus to campus and professor to professor. Recognition of the importance social context can play in influencing student values has led to carefully struc­ tured student personnel programs in educational institutions across the United States. Implementation of personnel pro­ grams can be a liberalizing process or a restrictive one, 18 depending upon institutional context and other factors, but wherever there is a student personnel program, there is a purpose, perhaps even an ideology (Friedenberg, 1963:181), centered upon the student and utilizing the socialization process in extracurricular activities. Rudolph (1965:464) traced the development of extracur­ ricular activities in American colleges and universities, concluding that the growth of such activity was the result of an effort of young people to learn values and behaviors appropriate to success in life and in relationships with other people. Recognized importance of the extracurriculum led to structured and shared student group activities, emphasizing student responsibility, aiming at desirable behavioral changes, and utilizing an atmosphere such that the educa­ tional material is interaction among group members (Mueller, 1961:257). Johnson (1965:6) had the purpose of describing student attendance and activities structure of campus programs at Michigan State :University. For analysis, findings were grouped into a cultural, athletic, musical or social cate­ gory. Johnson, in comparing graduates and undergraduates, found that graduate students "...do not report high attend­ ance at any events and very low attendance at athletic and social events." (1965:8) Also, grade point average of stu­ dents attending cultural and musical programs is higher than those attending athletic and social programs; social and 19 athletic programs are not likely to be attended by honors college students who attend cultural and musical programs (1965:8; 13, 14). Of all campus events, the highest pex<~ centage of attendance occurs in social living groups (1965: 3) . Since the arrival of the college residence hall building boom (Wise, 1958), attention upon student groups in residen­ tial settings has increased. Studies investigating group characteristics and differ­ ences come from the literature treating trait-factor, per­ sonality, other theories related to career development, and the literature consisting of the studies of the differences between groups, whether strictly occupational, occupationalpreparatory, or academic specialization areas. A current review of career-choice and factors affecting career-choice is Samuel Osipow's Theories of Career Develop­ ment (1968), which considers the available research in terms of its import for counseling. In Table 2,1, a summary of theories of career-choice factors, there is some indication that several kinds of differences between groups might be reasonably expected. For the present study, a useful theory of those lifted in Table 2.1 is that of Personality and Career (No. 6), especially those studies attempting to establish traits of particular occupational and career groups. The objection has been raised (Osipow, 1968:221) that trait-factor theory does more describing than explaining. Elsewhere, Osipow 20 Table 2.1 Summary Description of Career Development Theories and Theorists Theorist, Theory Description 1. Anne Roe (1957) Uses scheme based upon childhood ex­ periences and needs, showing the im­ pact of "cold" and "warm" childhood environments upon later vocational choice. 2. J. L. Holland (1959) The individual is the result of in­ teraction of a number of factors, in­ cluding the hereditary, cultural, personal and environmental. From this, the individual creates for him­ self a "hierarchy of habitual or pre­ ferred methods for dealing with en­ vironmental tasks." (1959:35) 3. Ginzberg, et al. (1951) Occupational choice is developmental, in stages or periods. As process, it is irreversible and marked by the in­ dividual's compromise between wishes and necessity. 4. Psychoanalytical Conception Based upon basic principles of psycoanalysis, one of the chief exponents of this view in the area of careerchoice is Brill (19 49). This view stresses the unconscious motives in vocational choice. 5. Super (1957) Combines aspects of self-concept theory and developmental psychology. Career-choice under this heading be­ comes a self-expression. Choices correspond to life-stages marked by change and other developmental as­ pects . 6. Personality and Career (Osipow, 1968:152-199) Stresses the relationship between personality and career-choice. Sub-groups under this heading include trait-factor theories, psychological needs, occupational values, personality style, and psycopathology and careers. 21 Table 2.1 7. Social Systems (cont.) (Osipow, 1968:200-219) Emphasis is placed upon those factors beyond in­ dividual control which influence ca­ reer decisions. This view vitiates a liberal concept of freedom of choice. The world of occupations and society offer opportunity according to chance and class membership. 22 (1968: 192-194) notes the following shortcomings for Per­ sonality and Career theories generally: 1. Pew replications of trait-factor studies have been made. 2. Measures of personality used in many studies have limitations. 3. Some inventories made from completed personality inventories are question­ able . 4. Many of the samples used are limited. 5. The student groups used in many studies are not as "pure" as the personality types to be found in actual career sit­ uations . 6. There is a temptation to predict for the individual on the basis of group findings. Osipow also notes (1968:193) that personality tests are often based upon abnormal populations and often do not do a good job of differentiating between normal and maladjusted people. At sunother point Osipow (1968:194) objects to the traitfactor approach chiefly on the basis that though it is pos­ sible to determine differences between groups, it is unwise to predict individual membership in a group on the basis of observed traits. This study takes the position that attendance at social programs may be related to characteristics which are peculiar to major colleges of study. groups, not individuals. As such, the focus is upon The shortcomings noted by Osipow are worthy of consideration, yet they have only incidental bearing upon this study. The instrument being used here 23 measures reported activity and projected activity, and the study is primarily descriptive. While it might be claimed that the study is limited because its subjects consist of graduate students, there may be an advantage in the fact that the subjects are closer to a career-commitment than most student samples used in other studies. The difference between the kind of research being undertaken here and the kind presented in Osipow*s format can be described another way on a practical level. Osipow's work (1968) is an at­ tempt to arrive at workable theories by which counselors can work with individuals; emphasis here is upon the understand­ ing of actions necessary to work with groups, in this case at Owen Hall, Michigan State University. For the remainder of Chapter I I , therefore, attention is centered upon the more significant studies supporting the case for differences be ­ tween career-groups and the nature of these differences. A number of studies have been conducted which suggest that a great many factors can be considered as functions of career-choice. Relationships have been attempted between career-choice and individually-held stereotypes (Grunes, 1956); genetics, experience, and environment (Roe, 1957); security (Blum, 1961); psychological and adjustment (Bereiter and Freedman, 1962); psychological needs (Garrison and Scott, 1961; Gray, 1963; Gillis, 1964; Kuhlen, 1963; Suziedelis, 1963); freedom of expression and artistic inter­ est (Thumin, 1965); self-concept (Super, 1957; Riegal, 1966); and prestige (Garbin, 1967). Two other general studies 24 support the case for occupational group differences (Inkeles and Levinson, 1954; Garrison and Scott, 1961). Studies of particular vocational and career groups have unearthed traits predominantly characteristic of those groups. Some of these studies may be of interest when pres­ ent results are summarized. Using the Rorschach, Roe (1946) found outstanding art- i ists to be nonagressive, self-disciplined, passive, sensi­ tive, and superior intellectually. Spiaggia (1950) reviewed stereotypes commonly held about artists and found art stu­ dents to be higher on certain deviant characteristics than non-art students. All of the findings for art students fell within the 'normal' behavioral range, however. Sternberg (1955) , investigating differences in person­ ality between students enrolled by major field, found sig­ nificant differences in mean factor scores on three person­ ality inventories (1955:2). into four broad groups: Findings were then gathered Aesthetics, including English and music; Social Sciences, including history, political science, and economics; Human Science, including psychology, biochem­ istry, and pre-medical; and Natural Science and Math, con­ sisting of chemistry and mathematics. er differences. Grouping showed broad­ Sternberg's study might be considered espe­ cially relevant to this study, although his groupings might be criticized. There may be, for instance, a considerable difference or similarity in characteristics ascribable to chemistry and biochemistry, which Sternberg places in 25 separate groups. The results do support, however, the evi­ dence for differences between career-groups. Becker and Carper (1956:296) suggested that graduate student participation is affected by student peer group, the learning relationship with faculty, and formal academic structure. In an investigation of Physiologists, Engineers, and Philosophers, they (Becker and Carper, 1965:291-294) found significant behavioral differences. Physiologists tended to model behavior after the professors *, to see them­ selves as 'lab-centered,' and to rely heavily on faculty for job-placement. Engineers tended to see themselves as logi­ cal thinkers and were interested in material pursuits, being highly interested in what benefits and skills education could provide. Philosophers avoided specialization, had friends in many disciplines, and viewed themselves as intel­ lectuals . Using the Edwards Personality Preference Scale, Izard (I960) found differences between engineering and liberal arts students. Findings tend to verify those of Becker and Carper in that engineers were found to express more response to objects and materials than non-engineering students. Engineering students scored highest on achievement, order, endurance, and dominance. They scored low on affiliation, nurturance, intraception, abasement, and heterosexuality. Ronald Taft (1961) employed a personality inventory, an intelligence test, and biographical material in an in­ vestigation of actors. Taft found that actors scored low 26 on social responsibility, ego-strength, leadership potential, role-playing, and lying. They scored high on depression, validity, femininity, schizophrenia, neuroticism, anxiety, feminine masochism, and self-control. Segal (1961) investigated accountants and creative writ­ ers, using psychoanalytic theory suppositions in the form of testable hypotheses. Segal found creative writers to exhibit greater hostile emotion than accountants. Accountants, on the other hand, showed signs of fearful and firm identifi­ cation. Accountants made greater attempts at emotional con­ trol. Gray (1963) studied accountants, mechanical engineers and teachers. On the Edwards Personality Preferance Scale, teachers were significantly high on needs affiliation, defer­ ence, abasement, nurturance, and intraception; accountants were high on dominance, exhibition, endurance, and achieve­ ment. On the Miller Occupational Inventory, differences were in evidence for all three occupational gro u p s . Com­ pared to accountants, teachers scored higher on social re­ wards, accountants on prestige and career-satisfaction. In comparison to higher social reward scores for teachers, mechanical engineers posted high scores for prestige and career-satisfaction. Accountants scored higher than mechan­ ical engineers on the prestige variable. Gillis (1964) measured the needs of teacher trainees on Stern's Activities Index. Undergraduate students, 701 subjects and a control group of 1,080, were used. Compared 27 to the control group, teacher trainees were found to have lower intellectual and stronger dependency needs. Male trainees were found to have stronger intellectual needs than the women trainees, who had stronger dependency needs than the men. Suziedelis and Steimel (1963) studied the relationship between the individual's need hierarchies and inventoried interests. Results on the Edwards Personality Preference Scale proved an empirical relationship of from anywhere b e ­ tween one to seven needs for each of seven groups of people actively engaged in careers. Groups included the biological sciences, physical sciences, technical, social service, business detail, business contact, and literary. An investigation of the relationship between occupa­ tional requirements and personality tendencies by Levine (1963) hypothesized that "...those occupations which require a high degree of social interaction will tend to be occupied by persons who p o s s e s s . h u m a n orientation, i.e., persons who tend to work through people in the solution of daily problems. On the other hand, those occupations which re­ quire a low degree of social interaction will tend to be occupied by persons who possess a low degree of human ori­ entation. ... " (1963:603). On a human orientation scale, em­ pirical differences were found between salesmen and all other reported occupations and between salaried accountants and all other reported occupations. 28 SUMMARY In this chapter, studies were cited which treated the nature and effects of specialization and socialization upon individuals. Specialization and socialization are terms defined in reference to groups, which may be career-groups, consisting of people actively engaged in a salary-earning activity or student preparatory-groups, consisting of stu­ dents preparing to enter a career activity. Studies from student personnel literature presented some evidence for distinctive institutional atmosphere and context (Jacob, 1957) and the value of group activities to attain desirable behavioral changes (Mueller, 1961) . Wise (1958) indicated the importance of residence halls as a be­ havioral setting. Johnson indicated low attendance of grad­ uate students at campus programs; also, most attendance at programs occurs in social living groups (Johnson, 1965) . Particular group characteristics and differences were investigated. Studies based upon literature treating differ­ ences between occupational-, major field-, or specializationgroups were presented along with studies on personality the­ ory and other theories related to career-development. The major objections to the use of personality theories (Osipow, 1968:193) were described. It was noted that Osipow's criticisms were based upon the lack of validity for many findings in the studies for individual prediction of career-choice. As the purpose of this study is to in­ vestigate differences between graduate students on a social 29 index (attendance at Owen Hall programs) according to their major college of study, Osipow's objections may not be sig­ nificant. Many of the studies presented investigate functions of career-choice and choice of specialization — ality, environment, heredity, and prestige. i.e., person­ Few studies attempt to investigate social actions of people associated in some way with a career field. An index of social actions may separate graduate students by major area of study. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY The design of this study can be described under four headings: 1) Sample Selection, 2) Measures, 3) Reliabil­ ity, and 4) Analysis Procedures. Sample Selection During the last week of Spring Term, 1968, a question­ naire was administered to all graduate students living in Owen Hall, the graduate residence hall at Michigan State Uni versity. dence. At the time, 890 graduate students were in resi­ Of these, 572 (64.3% returned usable questionnaires. Measures The questionnaire requested three types of data from each student, including 1) independent variable data, 2) re­ ported attendance at Owen Hall programs for the 1967-1968 academic year, and 3) projected attendance at possible fu­ ture Owen Hall programs. A copy of the questionnaire is in­ cluded in Appendix A; responses to Part II and Part III of the questionnaire are included in Appendix B . College of Study Computer cards were machine-run from questionnaire an­ swer sheets. Preliminary data-processing grouped the cards to report demographic data for the first part of the ques­ tionnaire. The demographic data, including 15 independent variable items and results for college of study are summa­ rized for all 572 returns in Table 3.1. graphic data can be found in Appendix B. 30 Additional demo­ 31 Table 3.1 Independent Variable and Demographic Data From Part I of Questionnaire N = 572 Question Number* Number of Subjects by Category 1. Degree Seeking Bach « 26 Mast. 331 2. Citizenship U.S. 437 Foreign 135 Rejected 0 3. Sex Male 350 Female 221 Rejected 1 4. Age 20 & Below I 6 5. No. Terms at M.S.U. 1 29 2 3 32! 259 4 . 38 5 24 6 58 7 40 8 12 9 16 10 & Over 63 Rejected 1 6. No. Terms at Owen 1 59 2 3 48I 272 4 47 5 18 6 55 7 30 8 7 9 8 10 & Over 25 Rejected 3 7. Lived in Residence Hall Before Yes 382 No 188 Rejected 2 8. Military Experience Yes 57 No 512 Rejected 3 Ed.D. 6 21-25 357 Ph.D. 179 MD 5 26-35 165 Vet Med 10 36-45 31 Ed.Sp. 6 46 & Above 12 Other 9 Rejected 0 Rejected 1 32 Table 3.1 (cont.) Number of Subjects by Category Question Number* 9. Marital Status Single 514 Married 41 10. Bef. Ret. Not Enrolled for at Least One Year Yes 206 No 352 Rejected 14 11. Hold Assistantship Yes 247 No 321 Rejected-14 12. Former Full Time Job Holder Yes 270 No 296 Rejected 6 13. Current Full Time Job Holder Yes 31 No 536 Rejected 5 14. Major College of Study AgNs 39 15. VetMed 11 CmArts 33 Bus 92 Once Married 16 Engin 22 Rejected 2 * See questionnaire in Appendix A. 1 Category improperly completed on computer card. Ed HmEc 108 25 Rejected 1 HumMed 2 Arts 62 NSci 112 SocSci 64 33 Reported Attendance Reported attendance at Owen Hall programs (Part I I , items 16-33) was indicated on the part of residents by a "yes" or "no" response on the questionnaire. Projected Attendance Projected attendance (Part III, items 34— 76) items had been constructed on the basis of an open-ended questionnaire and ten taped interviews. Items were isolated from the tapes and refined into a questionnaire in consultation with the office of Research Consultation early during Spring Term, 1968. On the instrument questionnaire, Owen residents were requested to respond to the Projected Attendance section by marking a five-point rating scale according to likelihood of attendance. Reliability Only two subjects were reported under the College of Human Medicine. As such a low response could have affected reliability, the College of Human Medicine was not included in the statistical analysis. For the 572 subjects, a Hoyt reliability estimate was obtained on reported and projected attendance using a re­ ciprocal averages (RAVE) program and the Michigan State Uni­ versity 3600 computer. The reliability estimates are summa­ rized in Table 3.2. Analysis Procedures Two statistical methods were employed in the analysis of data: 1) a one-way analysis of variance, and 2) simple 34 Table 3.2 Summary of Hoyt's Reliability Estimates for the Research Questionnaire Scale N-l Reported Attendance1 571 00 r»» • 571 .95 Projected Attendance 9 Reliability Estimate 1 Based upon 18 items for all respondents. 2 Based upon 43 items for all respondents. 35 correlation analysis. Post hoc comparisons using Scheffe tests (Hays:484) were completed, also. were run on the 3600 computer. incomplete data. All calculations Twenty-three cards contained For one-way analysis of variance and cor­ relation, N = 549, or 61.7% of total respondents. One-Way Analysis of Variance The F statistic was used to test difference in reported attendance and projected attendance by major area of study. Simple Correlation Analysis Simple correlation coefficients were determined for each major college of study between reported attendance and projected attendance to test for a positive relationship. Post hoc Comparisons Scheffe post hoc comparisons were made to determine where differences were to be found in the event of indicated difference by one-way analysis of variance. Design The confidence interval for the one-way analysis of variance was set at the .05 level. were made. Scheffe post hoc tests In addition, a descriptive item analysis was made of total responses on the questionnaire. Testable Hypotheses The hypotheses can be restated in null form as follows: HO.: The amount of reported attendance of graduate students at graduate resi­ dence hall programs will not differ according to major college of study. HO : The amount of graduate student pro­ jected attendance at future graduate 36 residence hall programs will not differ according to major college of study. HO.: There is no positive relationship between reported attendance and projected attendance at graduate residence hall programs within major college of study. SUMMARY A study was made of 61.7% of the graduate students in Owen Graduate Center during Spring Term, 1968, to determine whether or not colleges of study differed from one another on attendance at hall programs and whether or not within a given college there was a correlation between reported and projected attendance. A one-way analysis of variance and simple correlations were employed. Subsequent tests in­ volved post hoc Scheffe comparisons and item analysis. For item analysis, 64.3% of the graduate students were repre­ sented by the data. CHAPTER IV STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Chapter IV presents results of 1) the one-way analysis of variance to investigate (a) differences by major college of study in the amount of reported attendance of graduate students at graduate residence hall programs, and (b) differ­ ence by major college of study in the amount of graduate student projected attendance at future graduate residence hall programs; 2) the correlation analysis to test a positive relationship between reported attendance and projected attendance at'graduate residence hall programs within major college of study; 3) post-hoc comparisons to investigate the location of differences uncovered by the one-way analysis of variance; and 4) a descriptive analysis of questionnaire re­ sponses. Difference Between Colleges of Study for Reported Attendance The first null hypothesis stated: Ho. The amount of reported attendance of graduate students at graduate residence hall programs will not differ according to major area of study. At the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis could not be rejected. Group means and the overall mean for groups are presented in Table 4.1. An F ratio of 1.6 39 resulted from the analysis of variance, which was not signif­ icant at the .05 level. Results of the analysis of variance are presented in Table 4.2. 37 Table 4,1 Statistics for Each of Ten Colleges* Showing Attendance at Hall Programs N = 549 College Category 1. Agriculture Sum of Scores ("yes" re­ sponses) FreX quency Mean Increment 188 ........ 37 45 11 4.090 -1.762 3. Communication Arts 201 29 6.931 4. Business 569 87 5. Engineering 115 6. Education Sum of Squares "-6.77T .. 1388.000 Standard Devia­ tion Sum of Squared Deviations From the Means ' W 2.757- 333.000 3.858 148.909 1.079 1747.000 3.555 353.862 6.540 0.688 4699.000 3.372 977.609 22 5.227 -0.625 833.000 3.323 231.864 635 104 6.106 0.253 5327.000 3.752 1449.837 7. Home Economics 143 25 5.720 -0.133 1043.000 3.062 225.040 8. Arts & Letters 366 61 6.000 0.148 2628.000 2.683 432.000 9. Natural Science 595 110 5.409 -0.443 4483.000 3.406 1264.591 10. Social Science 356 63 5.651 -0.202 The College of Human Medicine was not included + All figures rounded off to three places 2790.000 3.543 778.318 2. Veterinary Medicine 00 o• in 37467 39 Table 4.2 Analysis of Variance Table For Ten Colleges and Attendance at Hall Programs Source of Variance Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Sta­ tistic 172.263 9 19.140 1.639 Within Categories 6294.786 539 11.679 6467.049 548 Between Categories Total Approximate Signifi­ cance of F Statistic 0.101 40 Differences Between Colleges of Study for Projected Attend­ ance The second null hypothesis stated: H0 2 The amount of graduate student pro­ jected attendance at future graduate hall programs will not differ accord­ ing to major area of study. At the .05 level of significance, the null hypothesis was rejected; an F ratio of 2.093 was significant at the .05 level. Statistics are presented in Table 4.3, and the analysis of variance in Table 4.4. Correlation Between Reported and Projected Attendance The third null hypothesis stated: Ho 3 There is no positive relationship between reported attendance and pro­ jected attendance at graduate resi­ dence hall programs within major area of study. The correlations obtained ranged from .297 for the Col­ lege of Business to .664 for the College of Veterinary Medi­ cine. Table 4.5 presents the correlation coefficients for 10 colleges. The null hypothesis of no positive relation­ ship between reported and projected attendance was rejected. As can be seen from the Table 4.5, large values on the re­ ported attendance scale tend to be associated with large values on the projected attendance scale within college of study. Statistics for the individual correlations within college of study can be found in Appendix B. Post-hoc Comparisons Scheffe post-hoc c o m p a r i s o n s were made in an attempt to locate the differences indicated by rejection of the sec­ ond null hypothesis — i.e., the amount of graduate student 41 Table 4,3 Statistics for Each of Ten Colleges* Showing Projected Attendance at Future Hall Programs N * 549 College Category Sum of Scores ("yes" re­ sponses) Freguency X Mean Increment Sum of Squares Standard Deviation Sum of Squared Devi­ ations from the Means 42223.730+ 1. Agriculture 3578 37 96.703 -0.137 388226 34.247 2. Veterinary Medicine 1041 11 94.636 -2.203 103747 22.870 5230.546 3. Communication Arts 2938 29 101.310 4.471 314756 24.717 17106.207 4, Business 8302 87 95.425 -1.414 864072 28.905 71851.264 5. Engineering 2050 22 93.181 -3.658 215678 34.265 24655.273 104 104.635 7.795 1211876 26.666 73242.115 8.320 287705 21.640 11239.360 6, Education 10882 7. Home Economics 2629 25 105.160 8, Arts & Letters 5831 61 95.590 -1.250 599425 26.470 42038.754 9. Natural Science 9785 110 88.955 -7.885 983685 32.236 113264.773 10. Social Science 6129 93165 bverall 63 54$ 97.286 96.946 656003 5625173 31.041 29.494 59738.857 476689.894 0.446 1i + A a A + All figures rounded off to three places Table 4.4 Analysis of Variance Table For Ten Colleges and Projected Attendance at Future Hall Programs Source of Variance Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Between Categories 16099.016 9 Within Categories460590.879 539 Total 548 476689.894 Mean Square 1788.780 854.529 F Sta- Approximate tistic Signifi­ cance of F Statistic 2.093 0.028 Table 4.5 Correlation Coefficients for All Colleges in Descending Order -r r College N Veterinary Medicine 11 .664 Engineering 22 .610 110 .521 61 .519 104 .490 Communication Arts 29 .490 Social Science 63 .417 Agriculture 37 .393 Home Economics 25 .384 Business 87 .297 Natural Science Arts and Letters Education 44 projected attendance at future graduate hall programs will not differ according to major area of study. used is outlined and explained in Hays The approach (1966: 483-487) and allows the investigator to make any comparisons on given data to locate differences. All desirable comparisons on the data were calculated. No significant differences were found, indicating that the differences, wherever they lie, are incidental to this study. Descriptive Item Analysis - Reported Attendance At this point, the purpose is to reveal those programs in Owen Hall that were most heavily attended. Tables V and VI in Appendix B show the responses to all items in Parts II and III on the questionnaire. In Tables 4.6 - 4.9, reported attendance is reported for convenience in groups of five, showing those programs attended by the greatest number of respondents in descending order. As mentioned in Chapter I , part of the importance of this study is discovery of that information useful for pro­ gramming in Owen Hall. It is important to remember that while a high percentage of attendance at hall programs is desirable, yet there are programs structured for small groups in which heavy attendance would be undesirable. For this, among other reasons, to be examined in the next chapter, it is necessary to look at results descriptively. Table 4.6 shows those five programs most heavily attended by those responding. Of those, the first three show a majority attending programs. Questionnaire item 18 45 Table 4.6 First Five-Item Group Out of Eighteen Items Showing Number and Percentage of Attendance Quest. Item No. Item 18 At least one mixer in the lobby 32 Yes 411 %Yes No %No 72 161 28 Some part of International 394 Night 69 178 31 17 At least one open house 377 66 195 34 23 The Halloween party or dance 277 48 295 52 31 At least one movie 266 47 306 53 46 Table 4.7 Second Five-Item Group Out of Eighteen Items Showing Number and Percentage of Attendance Quest. Item No. Item Yes %Yes 22 At least one guest speaker’s talk 236 41 336 59 24 A general Association meeting 213 37 359 63 25 The Valentine•s Day Dahce 192 33 380 67 19 A folk sing 183 32 389 68 30 At least one use of the suggestion box 148 26 424 74 No %No 47 Table 4.8 Third Five-Item Group Out of Eighteen Items Showing Number and Percentage of Attendance Quest. Item No. Item Yes %Yes 26 At least one of the three "Odd Time" parties 143 25 429 75 27 At least one panel discus­ 135 sion 24 437 76 20 A mixer on my floor or corridor 22* 443 *78* 33 Some phase (even though limited) of Association committee work 88 15 484 85 21 The ping-pong tournament 46 8 526 92 129* No * Formal mixers were held in the women's wing only. %No 48 Table 4.9 Last Group of Three Items Out of Eighteen Showing Number and Percentage of Attendance Quest. Item No. Item 29 Hall-sponsored IM sports 45 31 At least one debate in the Tournament of Champions 28 The ice-skating party Yes %Yes No %No 8 527 92 41 7 531 93 19 3 553 97 49 requested the number attending social mixers. The mixers were designed for implementation in the lobby area and in­ cluded the serving of coffee, punch, cookies, and doughnuts. A number of these mixers were scheduled to take place after football games, although several were scheduled for other times, including one at the beginning of each term for ori­ entation purposes. More mixers were held during Fall Term them during the remainder of the year. Of the respondents, 72% indicated attendance at at least one mixer. International Night the respondents. (Item 32) was attended by 69% of The program included an international menu for dinner, appropriate decorations and costumes, entertain­ ment during the meal, and acts and skits performed by for­ eign student groups following the dinner. The high per­ centage of attendance can be attributed partially to a cap­ tive audience — i.e., the residents who would have come for dinner regardless. On the other hand, this was a one occurrence program, whereas there were a number of mixers and open houses. The open houses, attended by 66% of the respondents (Item 17), were in reality a visitation policy implemented in an expanded form during the year. Under this policy, men and women could visit each other's rooms during specified weekend periods. The Halloween party and dance were structured along the lines of International Night. During and after the meal, there was a pumpkin-carving contest. The meal was followed 50 by the dance. As shown in Table 4.6, 48% of the respond­ ents attended. Item 31 on the questionnaire sought the number attend­ ing movies scheduled by the Social Committee. Forty-seven (47%) per cent of the respondents indicated attending at least one movie. Because movies were scheduled for Fall Term as part of the active social program but not during the remainder of the year, this figure may be a deceptive indicator of the popularity of movies among residents. Table 4.7 is a tabulation of the second group of five programs most heavily attended. Whereas Table 4.6 shows attendance at programs almost wholly social in nature, it is interesting to note that two items (22 and 30) and possibly a third (24) record attendance at programs not primarily social in nature. Of the programs listed in Table 4.6, all except Item 17 were implemented by the Social Committee (Table 1.2). The open houses (Item 17) resulted from study and implementation of a new policy on the part of the House Committee; however, the social aspects of this policy are obvious. Of the items listed in Table 4.7, on the other hand, only two (25 and 19) were implemented by the Social Committee. Item 22 recorded an attendance of 41% for at least one guest speaker's talk. Records of the Owen Hall Education Committee show moderate attendance for individual talks (20 to 30 people); hence, this figure indicates a vari­ ety among the people in attendance. The Association meetings (Item 24), with the exception of the first meeting held 51 at Pall Term opening, were principally work sessions, though social aspects of these meetings cannot be vitiated entirely. Table 4.8 lists the third group of five programs accord­ ing to heaviest attendance. from 8 to 25%. In this group, attendance ranges Programs listed are primarily social. ever, several distinctions should be noted. How­ Item 20 applies to women only, as these mixers were scheduled for the women's wing during Fall Term; therefore, this figure is probably low, even though some men may have responded to this item. Of the total 572 respondents, 221 were female Item 3). (Table 3.1, If all respondents in I t e m .20 (Table 4.8) were women, the attendance factor would be 129 over 221, or 58%. The lower percentage attendance items in Table 4.8 are recorded for Items 33 and 21. It is interesting to note that by their inherent structure, these activities call for a more scheduled kind of involvement than any of the previous activities. In spite of open membership on the part of Owen Hall committees, only 15% of the respondents indicated par­ ticipation. Table 4.9 shows the last three programs, those attended by the fewest number of respondents. It is interesting to note that all of these activities demand scheduled- partici­ pation or preparation. skating party Sign-up sheets were used for the ice- (Item 28) as with IM sports the debate. Tournament of Champions (Item 29). While (Item 31), was neither planned nor implemented by sun Owen Hall committee, it did take place in Owen Hall in floor lounges throughout the 52 building. Schedules for the debates were posted; attendance by respondents was 41 or 7%. Descriptive Item Analysis - Projected Attendance Table VI in Appendix B contains the tabulated results for the projected attendance rating scale. the categories were collapsed. For analysis, In Tables 4.10 through 4.18, the Positive Response column and the Negative Response col­ umn consisted of combined figures for the questionnaire cate­ gories, "Would Attend," "Probably Would Attend," and "Prob­ ably Not Attend," "Would Not Attend." Tables 4.10 through 4.18 are ordered tabulations of projected attendance at possible hall programs and show the percentages of response for 572 respondents in each category. Each table shows five line items for discussion purposes. Table 4.10 is a tabulation of projected attendance and non-attendance. Questionnaire Item 42.received the highest positive response; 80% of the respondents indicated a degree of willingness to attend first-run movies. Items 44 and 47 were included in the questionnaire on the basis of the taped interviews. The range of positive response in Table 4.10 is from 62 to 80%. Table 4.11 shows positive response ranging from 54 to 61%; in two instances is above 25%. (Items 41 and 54), negative response Item 72 is of interest (60% positive response) because it is an indicator of interest in meeting other peo­ ple. Most of the programs receiving positive response above the 50% level in Tables 4,10, 4.11, and 4.12 are of a type 53 Table 4.10 First Five-Item Group Out of Forty-Three Items Showing Number and Percentage of Projected Attendance Quest. Item No. Item Positive Neutral Negative Response Response Response % % % No. No. No. 42 First run movies 457 80 79 14 36 6 44 Swimming, if Owen had 453 a swimming pool 79 60 11 59 10 58 Programs involving Speakers of recog­ nized quality 420 73 102 18 50 9 47 More socializing, if Owen had a bar in the basement 387 68 63 11 122 21 46 Art displays 357 62 113 20 102 18 54 Table 4.11 Second Five-Item Group Out of Forty-Three Items Showing Number and Percentage of Projected Attendance I Quest. Item No. Item Positive Neutral Negative Response Response Response No. % No. % No. % 48 Musical programs 351 61 137 24 84 15 72 Programs that allow 341 me to become acquainted with other people 60 155 27 76 13 43 Programs on contro­ versial topics 317 55 163 29 92 16 41 Informal dances and mixers with a live band 314 55 92 16 166 29 54 G o l f , tennis, or swimming lessons 311 54 107 19 154 27 55 Table 4.12 Third Five-Item Group Out of Forty-Three Items Showing Number and Percentage of Projected Attendance Quest. Item Item No. Positive Neutral Negative Response Response Response No. % No. % No. % 52 Films and slides of other countries 299 52 141 25 132 23 62 A program on cultural 284 differences 50 152 26 136 24 49 Well-organized recre­ 277 ational programs 49 156 27 139 24 61 An ice-cream social 273 47 164 29 135 24 57 Programs in which American and foreign students participate together 271 47 201 35 100 18 56 Table 4.13 Fourth Five-Item Group Out of Forty-Three Items Showing Number and Percentage of Projected Attendance Quest. Item Item No. Positive Neutral Negative Response Response Response No. % No. % No. % 45 Panel discussions, lectures, and semi­ nars involving faculty members 267 47 179 31 126 22 51 A program on how to pass prelims and comprehensives 260 46 139 24 173 30 75 A program on extra­ sensory perception 259 45 154 27 159 28 36 Programs that are novel or bizarre 257 45 184 32 131 23 59 A program on jobseeking procedures 255 45 139 24 178 31 57 Table 4.14 Fifth Five-Item Group Out of Forty-Three Items Showing Number and Percentage of Projected Attendance Quest. Item Item No. Positive Neutral Negative Response Response Response No. % No. % No. % 63 A talent show 254 44 149 26 169 30 56 An orientation lecture 252 given by the dean of your college at the be­ ginning of the year 44 109 19 211 37 74 Primarily recrea­ tional activities 248 43 199 35 125 22 73 Primarily cultural and educational programs 245 43 204 36 123 21 37 A program on social implications of a scientific discipline 236 41 143 25 193 34 58 Table 4.15 Sixth Five-Item Group Out of Forty-Three Items Showing Number and Percentage of Projected Attendance Quest. Item No. Item Positive Neutral Negative Response Response Response No. % No. % No. % 55 Hall tours of places of social or educa­ tional interest in Michigan 234 41 134 23 204 36 65 A program on the uses of sensitivity training 231 41 162 28 179 31 66 A program on the psychology of advertising 228 40 159 28 185 32 64 A program on extraterrestial life 226 40 173 30 173 30 71 A program on overpopulation 226 39 158 28 188 33 59 Table 4.16 Seventh Five-Item Group Out of Forty-Three Items Showing Number and Percentage of Projected Attendance Quest. Item Item No. Positive Neutral Negative Response Response Response No. % No. % No. % 35 A program on innovations in technology 221 39 110 19 241 42 69 Primarily 216 38 210 37 146 25 68 A program on flying saucers 214 37 141 25 217 38 53 Discussions and seminars, if there were a kiva at Owen 37 228 40 133 23 38 A program on developments in the arts 156 27 207 36 social programs 211 209 37 60 Table 4.17 Eighth Five-Item Group Out of Forty-Three Items ShowingNumber andPercentage of Projected Attendance Quest. Item No. Item Positive Neutral Negative Response Response Response No. % No. % No. % 70 A program on the role of the university in social protest 206 36 156 27 210 37 34 Panel discussions, lectures, and seminars not involving faculty members 200 35 172 30 200 35 50 Programs built around hobbies 193 34 194 34 185 32 40 Programs held on weekends 189 33 181 32 202 35 67 A square dance 184 32 115 20 273 48 61 Table 4.18 Last Group, Three Items Out of Forty-Three Items Showing Number and Percentage of Projected Attendance Positive Neutral Negative Response Response Response No. % No. % No. % Quest. Item Item No. 60 A program on the plight the dollar 76 Smal1-group programs on floor lounges 39 Hall lectures sponsored the Provost's Office of by 166 29 168 29 238 42 162 28 200 35 210 37 118 21 197 34 257 45 62 conducive to interaction of individuals. Table 4.12 is of additional interest because Items 52, 62, and 57 fall into the same category of positive response (52%, 50%, and 47%, respectively), indicating a relatively consistent level of interest in foreign cultures and other people. Tables 4.13 through 4.15 are tabulations of the middle levels of positive response to questionnaire items. In Table 4.13, the interest level is quite high (45-47%), even though below the 50% level. Programs listed in Table 4.13 are quite general in nature; programs listed in Table 4.15 along with Item 37 in Table 4.14 tend to pinpoint rather specific topical programs. In Table 4.14, response for Items 74 and 73 is almost identical; in each case, positive response is 43%. When looking at the first three tables (4.10-4.12) as against the next four tables ances can be made. (4.13-4.16), several observ­ While interest in controversial topics is relatively high (55% of the respondents were favorable to the question. Table 4.11, item 43), interest in particular kinds of controversial programs appears lower. Items 75 and 36 (Ta&le 4.13) each show 45% positive response; items 65 and 64 show respectively 41% and 40% (Table 4.15); and item 68 shows 37% (Ta&le 4.16). Item 53 in Table 4.16 is of particular interest because the number of neutral responses is higher than all others in the same category. Of the respondents, 40% (228) indicated 63 indifference, perhaps due to the condition of a kiva being attached to the question of discussions and seminars. In Table 4.17, positive and negative response percent­ ages are almost equal with the exception of item 67, where negative response is significantly higher than positive response. Item 34 (Table 4.17) item 45 (Table 4.13). is of interest when compared to The questions differ only by the inclusion or non-inclusion of faculty members in panel dis­ cussions, lectures, and seminars. additional 11% Of the respondents, an (47% versus 36%) indicated willingness to attend such programs when faculty members are present as opposed to the same kinds of programs when faculty members are not present. Table 4.17 also contains the item registering the great­ est number of negative response. Item number 67 projected square dance attendance, and 273 or 48% indicated negative response. Table 4.18 contains those items which received fewest positive responses. Discussion The section of this chapter treating item analysis needs a few additional comments. In comparing the reported attendance tables with the projected attendance (4.6-4.9) (4.10-4.18), positive response percentages held at a consistently higher level for projec­ ted attendance items than the Yes response percentages for 64 reported attendance items. In Table 4.6, the highest Yes response is 72% and the lowest is 47%. In Table 4.10, the highest Positive Response is 80% and the lowest is 62%. Twelve items in the projected attendance tables received responses above the 50% level (Tables 4.10, 4.11, and 4.12). Only three items in the reported attendance tables 4.6) received Yes responses above the 50% level. (Table In all, there were 18 reported attendance items and 43 projected attendance items on the questionnaire. Table 4.19 shows the range in percentages for the reported and projected attendance tables. Summary Chapter IV was a presentation of the findings of the study in narrative and tabular form. The first null hypothesis — (Ho^ = 0) was not rejected i.e., statistical analysis showed no difference between colleges of study in attendance at hall programs in Owen Hall. An F statistic of 1.639 was obtained which was not significant at the .05 level of significance. Results were presented in Table 4.2. The second hypothesis (Ho2 = 0) was rejected at the .05 level of significance and an F statistic of 2.093. The hypothesis that there is a difference between attendance at projected programs according to major college of study was accepted. However, subsequent post-hoc comparisons failed to show any significant differences between comparisons of interest. The statistical differences indicated are between 65 Table 4.19 Range in Per Cent for Five-Item Tables of Reported and Projected Attendance Range of % 4.6 25 4.10 18 4.7 15 4.11 7 17 4.12 5 4.13 2 4.14 3 4.15 2 4.16 2 4.17 4 4.18 8* 4.9 * Range of % Projected Attendance Table No. • 00 Reported Attendance Table No. 5* Range for 3-item group. 66 a grouping of colleges. Correlational analysis between individual reported and projected attendance within college of study indicated posi­ tive correlation. Of the ten colleges used for analysis (Table 4.5), four had correlations above .500; seven were above .400; and the lowest correlation was .297 (College of Business). The detailed item analysis has shown which particular programs were attended most heavily. The item analysis also presented those projected programs which elicited the heavi­ est response. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In this chapter, previous chapters are summarized, con­ clusions are listed, discussion of the research is presented, and the implications for future research are stated. Summary In Chapter I , questions and assumptions pertaining to graduate education were examined. The specialization of graduate education was viewed as arising from specialized interests, personality factors, field of interest and voca­ tional choice. The Owen Hall facility and population were defined on the basis of available records. The Owen popu­ lation was shown to consist of several different sub-clas­ sifications as summarized in Table 1.1 and Fig. 1. Manage­ ment, student personnel, and OGA (Owen Graduate Association) responsibilities and functions were defined. The roles of the student personnel advisory staff and OGA officers were defined in terms of hall programs. The study's importance was built upon a need for general experiences at a time when emphasis upon specialized interests is heavy. The theory emphasized that because graduate students tend to special­ ize, there could be a tendency for specialization to show up between colleges of study scaled to attendance at re­ ported and projected hall programs. In addition, reported and projected attendance might indicate preferences of grad­ uate students for types of programs. Correlation between reported and projected attendance might indicate differences 67 68 in consistency levels between colleges of study. The fol­ lowing hypotheses were formulated. H, : The amount of reported attendance of graduate students at graduate resi­ dence hall programs differs accord­ ing to major college of study. H2 : The amount of graduate student pro­ jected attendance at future graduate residence hall programs differs ac­ cording to major college of study. H3 : There is a positive relationship be­ tween reported attendance and pro­ jected attendance at graduate residence hall programs within college of study. Chapter II is a review of the literature in which stud­ ies treating effects of specialization and socialization upon individuals and groups were presented. in the student personnel field were cited. Research sources Also, particular group characteristics and differences were investigated. Studies based upon literature treating differences between occupational-, major field-, or specialization-groups were presented along with studies on personality theory and other theories related to career development. The pos sible rela­ tionship between graduate college groups and differing social attendance factors was established on the basis of studies discussed. Chapters III and IV outlined and presented the research design and analysis. The design consisted of a 3-part ques­ tionnaire, containing independent varied)le data (college of study) and dependent variable data (reported attendance and projected attendance). Returned questionnaires accounted for 64.3% of the graduate students residing in Owen at the 69 time of distribution during Spring Term, 1968. A one-way analysis of variance was employed to determine whether or not colleges of study differed from one another on reported attendance and on projected attendance. Subsequent tests involved Scheffe comparisons and item analysis. Findings resulted in failure to reject the first null hypothesis and rejection of the second and third null hypo­ theses. In null form, the hypotheses are stated: Ho_: The amount of reported attendance of graduate students at graduate resi­ dence hall programs will not differ according to major college of study. Ho_: The amount of graduate student pro­ jected attendance at future hall programs will not differ according to major college of study. Ho_: There is no positive relationship between reported attendance and pro­ jected attendance at graduate resi­ dence hall programs within major college of study. For the one-way analysis of variance, the alpha level was set at .05. Statistical findings were presented in tab­ ular form and analyzed in Chapter IV. Item analysis focused attention upon programs attended and projected attendance according to heaviest response (Tables 4.6 - 4.9; 4.10 - 4.18). Conclusions This study has led to several conclusions based upon the theory presented in the first chapter: 1. No statistical differences were found to exist between colleges of study on the reported attendance variable. 70 2. A statistical difference (or statisti­ cal differences) was (were) indicated between colleges of study on the pro­ jected attendance variable. Post hoc Scheffe tests, however, failed to reveal differences of interest. 3. Correlational analysis substantiated the hypothesis that within college of study there would be a positive correlation between reported and projected attend­ ance . 4. The item analysis recorded scores for reported and projected attendance at graduate residence hall programs for all students according to a rating scale. Some types of programs were more heavily attended than others. Some types of projected programs re­ ceived higher score response than others. Graduate students do not demonstrate specialized in­ terest on a reported program attendance scale according to college of study. As the importance of this study stressed a need for more general experiences during the specialized period of graduate education, it may be that social pro­ grams provide this experience. However, statistical one­ way analysis of variance indicated difference between col­ leges on projected attendance at possible future hall pro­ grams. Although it was not possible through use of Scheffe post hoc comparisons to place this difference between any two colleges of study, there is a difference ences) between some combination of colleges. (or differ­ No compari­ son of interest yielded a significant difference. The rejection of the third null hypothesis resulted in positive correlation for all colleges of study between reported and projected attendance. Correlations ranged 71 from .297 to .664. In the discussion following, these points are expanded, and the chapter ends with implications for application and future research. Discussion In Chapters I and II, the argument was presented for possible differences between groups. This study established that there is no difference between groups (colleges of study) according to attendance at hall programs. In addi­ tion, differences between groups of colleges of study appear to be slight. Use of a different study instrument might yet suggest such social differences do exist. If, as Gottlieb suggests (1961:237) , a student exhibits an aspirant behavior in preparation to being accepted by a group, it is also possible that such aspirant behavior would not be exhibited in activities other than those associated with the group to which he aspires. In other w o r d s , there may be a difference between his aspirations professionally and his social aspirations. In this study, other groupings could have been uti­ lized, and these might bear looking into with a revised instrument. Such groupings were not used in the present study because colleges of study seemed to be the most tan­ gible way of breaking down the Owen Hall population, and this study stressed differences by colleges of study, not degree-level, sex, country of origin, or other variables. It may be that differences would show up between groups on 72 attendance as scaled to age level. Of obvious interest is the range in correlations con­ nected with the third hypothesis (Table 4.5). There is positive correlation within college of study between re­ ported and projected attendance at hall programs. The two highest correlations were for the College of Veterinary Medicine (r = .664; N = 11) and the College of Engineering (r = .610; N - 22). for Business Correlation coefficients were lowest (r = .297; N = 87) and Home Economics .384; N = 25). (r = It may be that studies on the basis of cor­ relation may reveal differences between the way attendance is reported and projected for each of the colleges. In this study, within groups, individuals who reported high attendance tended to report high projected attendance, and individuals who reported low attendance tended to report low projected attendance at hall programs. However, this consistency was higher in same colleges than within o the r s . An improved instrument might provide the means of predict­ ing college of study membership on the basis of the indi­ viduals' correlation between reported and projected program attendance. This may be seen to be more relevant in light of the fact that the first null hypothesis could not be rejected but the second null hypothesis was. It seems log­ ical to assume that further study might show that graduate students may project attendance differently. As mentioned in Chapter I I , implementation of person­ nel programs can be a liberalizing process or a restrictive 73 one, and where there is a student personnel program there is a purpose, perhaps even an ideology (Friedenberg, 1964: 181) centered upon the student and utilizing the sociali­ zation process in extracurricular activities. This study's findings do indicate what might be termed an ideology, arising from the graduate students themselves, as a group considered totally. The item analysis (Tables 4.6 and 4.10) appears to indicate interest in casual programs of good quality — i.e., "first-run" movies, swimming, open house, speakers of "recognized" quality — scheduling is not a prime factor. where exacting personal There may be another fac­ tor working in this connection, too. High interest in swim­ ming was indicated; however, there are swimming pools on the Michigan State campus. No attempt was made to discover what use was made of the campus swimming pools. Perhaps because of the necessity of scheduling out more time, use of those facilities would be less than for a pool located in Owen. Chapter I included a discussion of the presence of highly diversified interests among the resident graduate population. Although these interests do not show up by college in differences in actual attendance, it should be remembered that the graduate residents did attend some pro­ grams in large numbers. Most programs were attended by less than % of the respondents. The percentages for pro­ jected attendance at future hall programs seem generally higher than the percentages for reported attendances and may indicate a desire to attend programs when they do not 74 conflict with specialized interests. In his study, Johnson (1965:6) showed that graduate students do not attend any events in large numbers. In the present study, reported attendance figures do not demon­ strate attendance in large numbers except in a few in­ stances, especially when location and availability were con­ sidered. Of the reported attendance items, the most sig­ nificant attendance was registered for International Night, as this was a one occurrence program, whereas more than one mixer and more than one open house took place. After those three items, the attendance figures fall below 50%. In Table 4.7, they drop from 41% to 26% across five items. The interest in programs tends to substantiate in part the research of Rudolph (1965:464) and Mueller (1961:257), as the interest indicated is in programs which are somewhat social. Of the items listed in Table 4.6, all can be con­ sidered social in the sense of entertainment and the oppor­ tunity of meeting other people. However, some of these items could be termed cultural and educational, as well. On the projected attendance items, 60% of the respondents indicated an interest in programs that would allow becoming acquainted with other people (Table 4.11) . Becker and Carper's findings (1965:296) may suggest a significant research direction in the importance of stu­ dent peer group. While difference in reported attendance by colleges was not significant and difference in projected attendance by college was of questionable significance, it 75 may be that differences exist on indices other than social ones. Such a statement is substantiated by the work of the researchers listed in Table 2.1. ation in Owen Hall — The total peer group situ­ i.e., the graduate student status -- may have been more significant than sub-group or trait factor differences. The social environmental context may cut across group lines. r The demographic data listed in Table 3.1, and in Appen­ dix B, Table I-IV, show some of the sub-groups making up the Owen Hall population. In Table 3.1, eight different degree levels were recorded with the greatest number of degreeseekers falling into the M.A. and Ph.D. categories. Five respondents reported themselves seeking the M.D. degree, but only two respondents reported falling within the College of Human Medicine. For statistical analysis, the College of Human Medicine was not included, as the poor response in that category might have affected reliability of results. Other aspects of the demographic data illustrate further the diverse nature of the population. Of the 572 respondents listed in Table 3.1, 135 (23.8%) were foreign students; 221 (38.6%) were women; 57 (10%) indicated having had military experience; 57 (10%) indicated being or once having been mar­ ried; 206 (36%) had been out of school for at least one year before coming to Owen Hall; 270 (45.5%) indicated having held formerly a full-time job; 31 (5.3%) held a full-time job at the time the questionnaire was completed; and 247 (43.2%) held an assistantship. 76 With respect to residency, 188 (32.9%) reported never having lived in a residence hall before; 272 cated having lived in Owen for 3 terms; 499 (47.6%) (87.2%) indi­ cated living in Owen for 6 terms or less and 70 7 terms or more; 259 indi­ (12.2%) for (45.3%) indicated being at M.S.U. for three terms or less; and 440 for 6 terms or less and (76.9%) indicated being at M.S.U. 131 (22.9%) for 7 terms or more. Regarding age level, 357 (62.4%) respondents fell into the 21-25 age interval and 165 (28.9%) age interval. This accounted fell into the 26-35 (both intervals) for 522 (91.3%) of the respondents. The additional splits on the demographic data groupings in Appendix B, Tables I-IV, serve only to illustrate further how varied the composition of certain groups might be. For instance, there are no foreign men enrolled in Home Economics, Veterinary Medicine, or Human Medicine; only 2 are enrolled in Arts and Letters. It is apparent from the demographic data that the major­ ity of graduate students fell within the 21-25 and 26-35 age intervals. A study utilizing shorter intervals might reveal some differences in attendance patterns by age level. The data point out many kinds and types of sub-groups within the Owen Hall population and indicate that there may be a number of different interests represented. A factor possibly significant but not investigated in this study is grade point. Johnson (1965:8; 13, 14) found that grade point average of students attending cultural and 77 musical programs was higher than those attending athletic and social programs; social and athletic programs were not likely to be attended by honors college students who attended cultural and musical programs. Generally speaking, graduate students* grade points are high, and it would not be surpris­ ing to find Johnson's findings applicable to a graduate pop­ ulation. In the present study. International Night was the most heavily attended single occurrence program and could be classified as cultural as well as social. Of the four pro­ grams attended least, three programs were athletic in kind (Tables 4.8 and 4.9). Responses to items in Part III of the questionnaire (projected attendance) Johnson, also. seem to substantiate the findings of Table 4.10 contains five items, three of which can be classified as cultural in kind. The other two items (44 and 47) may have received high responses due par­ tially to novelty appeal. The highest item in the next list (Table 4.11} of projected programs is musical programs. The item analysis of Part II (reported attendance) illustrated that programs of a general nature appeared to attract larger numbers than programs related to specific topics. This may be due in part to the fact that some pro­ grams were recurrent — i.e., mixers, open houses, movies. Some single occurrence items, however, received relatively high attendance — i.e.. International Night, the Halloween Party, the Valentine's Dance. On the other hand, Table 1.2 shows a great number of recreational programs, yet Table 4.8 78 and 4.9 show that only 8% participated in the ping-pong tour­ nament; only 8% participated in hall-sponsored IM sports; and only 3% attended the skating party. The implication appears to be that there was a small group of graduate students who participated heavily in hall recreational activities. The three most heavily attended single occurence pro­ grams were all held in conjunction with and/or following the evening dinner period. The most heavily attended recurrent programs were held either during an evening period or on a weekend. The mixers, for instance, were held evenings or following Saturday foot­ ball games. Open houses (visitation) took place weekend evenings and afternoons. evenings, as Movies were scheduled for weekday were guest speaker's talks, Association meet­ ings, and folk sings. On Part III items (projected attendance), movies received the highest projected attendance scores. This is not too sur­ prising on the basis of attendance reported in Table 4.6. The leading position of this item on projected attendance may in­ dicate that quality is a variable to be investigated with respect to attendance at graduate hall programs. Other programs having immediate application to program planning in Owen Hall are those specifically identified, par­ ticularly in Tables 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12. A well-rounded program offering would take into account the small group proigram, also. It seems apparent that a small percentage of residents may sustain an active interest in programs that 79 involve little by way of mass appeal, as appears to be the case with athletic programs. Implications for Future Research Research studies discussed in Chapter II might suggest other scales by which attendance could possibly be measured. This study attempted to demonstrate difference in attendance at hall programs by college of study for reported and pro­ jected attendance. However, future research might attempt to classify colleges of study according to programs scaled to an inventory such as Sternberg's (1955) or to specific traits such as those identified in other studies cited. A very likely possibility is that extracurricular acti­ vity is a secondary interest and that significant differences between colleges of study will occur only on a primary inter­ est basis. Instead of social programs, a future study might concentrate upon an inventory of interests. Related to this is the fact that the present study made no attempt to inves­ tigate the students according to the type of program attended. A third possibility indicating future directions for study is that graduate students are so preoccupied with pri­ mary specialized interests that the natural attendance pat­ tern of each college group was subverted and no meaningful differences were uncovered. This seems unlikely; however, it may be that a greater number of programs of greater diversity should have been used in the projected attendance section of the questionnaire. When the college of study groups were compared on the 80 basis of correlation within each college (between reported and projected attendance) there was a range in correlation coefficients. Future research might investigate the hypoth­ esis that some college of study groups are more realistic in projecting future attendance on the basis of reported attendance than are other college of study groups. A fifth possibility is that the Owen Hall environment may have affected differences between graduate students classified by colleges of study. The Owen Hall population represented only a fraction of the graduate population at Michigan State University in 1968. It may be that the Hall environment attracted students of similar inclinations, breaking down possible differences between larger samples of the colleges studied. It might be interesting, for that matter, to study the differences between Owen Hall graduate students and graduate students in general. This study emphasized hall programs. The research of Johnson (1965:6) investigated campus-wide programs. Both studies indicated low attendance except for a few instances. New studies might build a scale of attendance based upon off-campus social activities, too. The implications of this study for programming in Owen Hall are of some interest and are to some degree self-evident. It would appear from the item analysis and discussion that programs of good quality, scheduled around, in conjunction with, and/or after the dinner hour stand the best chances of success. Generally, programs attended heaviest were of this 81 kind. Programs that call for planning ahead or elaborate scheduling on the part of the graduate resident did not draw large numbers, as indicated by the programs listed in Tables 4.8 and 4.9. This is not a reason for doing away with such programs; it is a reason for not over-emphasizing them. It may be, as suggested by projected attendance items, that consideration of a swimming pool be given by Owen Hall Management and Advisory Staff. Such a facility might get considerable use and offer a release for the graduate resident. Such a facility might be shared with an adjoin­ ing hall. Art displays and musical programs were not attempted on a quality basis during the year covered by this study. Indications of the study seem to be that such programs would be worth trying. The present study offers Owen Hall Advisory Staff an opportunity to test quality as a goal for all programs but especially in the cases of those where indications are that attendance should be heavy. BIBLIOGRAPHY Axelrod, Joseph (ed.). Graduate Study for Future College Teachers, Washington, D.C.: American Council on Edu­ cation, 1959 . Beach, Leonard B. "The Graduate Student," Graduate Education Today, e d . Everett Walters. Washington, D . C .: American Council on Education, 1965. Becker and Carper. "The Development of Identification Within an Occupation," American Journal of Sociology, LXI, 4 (1956) , 289-298. Abstract of an unpublished manuscript. Bereiter, Carl and Freedman, Mervin B. "Fields of Study and the People in Them," The American College, ed. Nevitt Sanford. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. pp. 563-596. Berg, Paul S. D. "Neurotic and Psychopathic Criminals: Some Measures of Ego Syntonicity, Impulse Socialization, and Perceptual Consistency," Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963. Blum, Stuart H. "The Desire for Security: an Element in the Vocational Choice of College Men," Journal of Educa­ tional Psychology, L, 6(1961), 317-321. Braley, Ian. "View From the Underside," Liberal Education, X L V I , 4 (December, 1960), 499-503. Brown, Robert D. "Manipulation of the Environmental Press in a College Residence Hall," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLVI (February, 1968)7 555-560. Campbell, William G. Form and Style in Thesis Writing, 3rd e d . , Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1969. Child, Irvin L. "Socialization," Handbook of Social Psychol­ ogy , ed. Gardner Lindzey. Ill Cambridge: Addison Wesley, 1954. pp. 655-692. Cooper, Russell M. "The Need for Educational Change," Edu­ cational Record, XLVIII, 3 (Summer, 1967), 248-259. Davis, James A. Great Aspirations: the Graduate School Plans of America's College Seniors, Chicago, 1964. Edwards, Allen L. Experimental Design in Psychological Research, rev., Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 19*47 82 83 ________________. Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences , New York : Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 15*62. Ehlers, Henry and Lee, Gordon C. (ed.). Crucial Issues in Education, 3rd e d . , New York: Holt, Rinehart and winston, 1965. Erbe, William. "Gregariousness, Group Membership, and the Flow of Information," American Journal of Sociology, LXVIII, 5(1962), 502-5Hr; Fitzpatrick, Patricia. University Guide to the Preparation of Thesis. East Lansing: Michigan State University,1968. Ford, Donald H. "Group and Individual Counseling in Modify­ ing Behavior," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XL (May, 1962), 770-773. Ford, Donald H. and Urban, Hugh B. "College Dropouts: Successes or Failures," Educational Record, XLVI (Spring, 1965), 77-92. Freedman, Mervin B. "Pressures on Students," Current Issues in Higher Education, Washington, D.C.: AAHEr, 1965. pp. 1W-151. -------Friedenberg, Edgar 2. Coming of Age in America: Growth and Acquiescence, New York: Random House, 1963. Friedman, Albert B. (ed.). Creativity in Graduate Education: Milton S. Eisenhower, Louis T. Benezet, Robert R. Sears (Inauguration of Dr. Benezet, Claremont Graduate School and University Center, March 19, 1964). Claremont, California, 1964. Garbin, A. P. "Occupational Choice and the Multi-dimensional Rankings of Occupations," The Vocational Guidance Quarterly, XVI, 1 (September^ 1567) , 17-25. Garrison, Karl C. and Scott, Mary H. "A Comparison of the Personal Needs of College Students Preparing to Teach in Different Teaching Areas," Educational and Psycho­ logical Measurement, XXI, 4(1961) . Gillis, John. "Personality Needs of Future Teachers," Educational and Psychological Measurement, XXIV 3(1964), 589-600. Ginzberg, E., Ginsburg, S. W., Axelrod, S. and Henna, J.L. Occupational Choice: an Approach to a General Theory, New York: Columbia University Press, 1951. 84 Gottlieb, David. "American Graduate Students: Some Char­ acteristics of Aspiring Teachers and Researchers," Journal of Educational Psychology/ L I I , 5(1961), 236240. Gray, James T. "Needs and Values in Three Occupations," Personnel and Guidance Journal, LXII, (Nov., 1963), 238-244.-----------------------Grigg, Charles M. Graduate Education. New York: for Applied Research in Education, 1965. Center Grunes, Willa F. "On Perception of Occupations," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XXXIV (January, 1956) , 276-279. Hays, William L. Statistics for Psychologists, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968. Holland, John L. "A Theory of Vocational Choice," Journal of Counseling Psychology, VI, 1(1959), 35-45. Holtzman, Abraham. Interest Groups and Lobbying, New York: Macmillan, 19 66. Inkeles, Alex and Levinson, Daniel J. "National Character: the Study of Modal Personality and Sociocultural Sys­ tems," Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. Gardner Lindzey~ i r r “5amErT3ge7”~T?T5Tr-pp’7 ? 7 7 - 1 0 2 0 . Izard, Carroll E. "Personality Characteristics of Engineers as Measured by the Edwards Personal Preference Sched­ ule," Journal of Applied Psychology, XLIV, 5(1960), 332-335*1 Jacob, Philip E. Changing Values in College, New York: Edvrard W . Hazen Foundation, 1957, the Johnson, F. Craig. "Student Attendance at Co-Curricular Activities," Project Report No. 501, (East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University, Educational Devel­ opment Program), December, 1965. Kuhlen, Raymond G. "Needs, Perceived Need Satisfaction Opportunities, and Satisfaction with Occupation," Journal of Applied Psychology, XLV I 1 , 1(1963) , 56-64. Levine, Sol. "Occupation and Personality: Relationship Between the Social Factors of the Job and Human Ori­ entation," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLI (March, 1963) , 602-55TI Lindzey, Gardner (ed.). Handbook of Social Psychology, II. Cambridge: Addison Wesley, 1954. 85 McGrath, Earl J. The Graduate School and the Decline of Liberal Education. Columbia University, 1959. Moore, H. Charles. "1966—1967 Annual Report of the Owen Graduate Center Advisory Staff," (East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University), 1967. (mimeograph). "1967-1968 Annual Report of the Owen Graduate Center Advisory Staff," (East Lansing, Mich­ igan, Michigan State University), 1968 (mimeograph). Mueller, Kate H. Student Personnel Work in Higher Education. Bos ton: Houghton Mifflin C o . , 1961. Osipow, Samuel H. Theories of Career Development, New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 19^81 Pease, John. "Faculty Influence and Professional Participa­ tion of Doctoral Students," M.A. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1963. Riegel, Paul S. "Counseling for Graduate Study," Journal of College Student Personnel, VII, 2 (March, 1966) , sr-^Tn — -------------- --------------------------------------------------- Roe,* Anne. "Early Determinants of Vocational Choice," Journal of Counseling Psychology, IV, 3(1957), 212-217. ____________________ "The Personality of Artists," Educational and Psychological Measurement, VI (1946) , 401-410 . The Psychology of Occupations, New York: Wiley, 1956. Rosenhaupt, Hans and Chinlund, Thomas J. Graduate Students: Experience at Columbia University, 1940-1956, New York • Columbia U.F.', ------------Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and University, a History, New York: Vintage Books, 1965. Sanford, Nevitt (ed.). Wiley, 1962. The American College, New York: Segal, Stanley J. "A Psychoanalytical Analysis of Person­ ality Factors in Vocational Choice," Journal of Coun­ seling Psychology, VIII, 3(1961), 202-510. Shibutani, Tarootsu, Society and Personality, an Interactionist Approach to Social Psychology, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1961. Smigel, Erwin. "Occupational Sociology," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XXXII (1954), 536-5351 86 Sommers, Vita S. "Vocational Choice as an Expression of Conflict in Identification," American Journal of Psychotherapy. X (1956), 520-535. Spiaggia, Martin. "An Investigation of the Personality Traits of Art Students," Educational and Psychological Measurement, X (1950), 285-333. Sternberg, Carl. "Personality Trait Patterns of College Students Majoring in Different Fields," Psychological Monographs, LXIX, 18(1955). Student in Higher Education, t h e . The Hazen Foundation: Committee on the Student in Higher Education, New H a v e n , 1968. Super, Donald E. The Psychology of Careers; an Introduction to Vocational Development, Evans t o n : Harper and Row, t t 5t ;---------- ----------- ------- Suziedelis, Antanas and Steimel, Raymond J. "The Relation­ ship of Need Hierarchies to Inventoried Interests," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLII, 4 (December, 1963), 393-336. -------------------------------Taft, Ronald. "A Psychological Assessment of Professional Actors and Related Professions," Genetic Psychology Monographs, LXIV (1961), 309-383. Tannenbaum, Frank (ed.). 1965. A Community of Scholars, New York. Tebbel, John. "People and Jobs," Saturday Review 30, 1967), 8-12;42. (December Thumin, Frederick J. "Personality Characteristics of Diverse Occupational Groups," Personnel and Guidance Journal, III, 5(January, 1965), 466-47tf. Walker, Helen M. and Lev, Joseph. E lementary Statistical Methods, r e v ., New Y o r k : Henry Holt ana C o ., 1938. Walters, Everett (ed.). Graduate Education T o d a y , Washing­ ton, D . C . : the American Council on Education, 1965. Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York! McGraw-Hill Book C o . , Inc., 1962. Winick, Charles. "Personality Characteristics of Embalmers," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XL, 3 (Nov. 1964) 262Wise, W. Max. "Residence Halls and Higher Learning," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XXXVI, 6 (Feb., 1958), m - T T L i -------------------------------- 87 Wright, David J. and Porter, Andrew C. "An Adaption of Frank D. Baker's Test Analysis Package for Use on the Michigan State University CDC 3600 Computer," (East Lansing, Michigan State University, College of Educa­ tion, Office of Research Consultation), Occasional Paper No. 1, January, 1968. APPENDIX A THE QUESTIONNAIRE 89 Appendix A THE QUESTIONNAIRE The questionnaire consists of three parts: Part I provides independent variable data. Part II reports participation in hall programs this year, and Part III asks you to respond to possible future programs and activities that you feel you might attend. Part I: PLEASE MARK RESPONSES ON THE ANSWER SHEET PROVIDED 1 2 Mast. 1. Degree Seeking: Bach. 2. Citizenship: U.S. 3 EdD 4 PhD 3 26-35 4 36-45 5 MD .7 EdSp 6 VetMd 8 Other 1 1 3. Sex: Male 1 Foreign 2 Female 2 4. Age: 20 & below 5. No. terms at M.S.U.: 3 4 8 9 10 & over 6. No. terms at Owen: ] 4 8 9 10 & over 7. Have lived in a residence hall before: 8. Military Exp.: 21-25 5 46 & above 2 1 Yes No 1 Yes 2 No 90 Appendix A (continued) 9. Marital Status: Single 2 3 Married Once Married 10. Before returning to school, not enrolled for at least one year: 1 Yes 2 No 11. Hold Assistantship: 1 Yes 2 No 12. Former full time job-holder: 1 Yes 2 No 13. Currently hold full time job: 1 Yes 2 No 14. Major College of Study: (Use two rows on the answer sheet to answer this question) 1 Ag&NS 15. 1 VetMd 2 CmArts 3 Bus 4 Engin 5 Ed 6 HmEc 7 HmMd 8 ArtsL 9 10 NSci SocSci 91 APPENDIX A PART II: (continued) PLEASE MARK THE SPACE ON THE ANSWER SHEET CORRE­ SPONDING TO YES OR NO. 1 = YES 2 = NO WHILE LIVING IN OWEN HALL THIS YEAR, I ATTENDED OR PARTICI PATED IN THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES: 16. At least one movie 17. At least one open house 18. At least one mixer in the lobby 19. A folk sing 20. A mixer on my floor or corridor 21. The ping pong tournament 22. At least one guest speaker's talk 23. The Halloween Party or Dance 24. A general Association meeting 25. The Valentine's Day Dance 26. At least one of the three "Odd T i m e ” parties 27. At least one panel discussion 28. The ice-skating party 29. Hall-sponsored IM sports 30. At least one usage of the suggestion box 31. At least one debate in The Tournament: of Champions 32. Some part of International Night 33. Some (even though limited) phase of Association com­ mittee work 92 APPENDIX A (continued) PART III: PLEASE MARK RESPONSES ON THE ANSWER SHEET PRO­ VIDED PLEASE RATE PROGRAMS ATTENDING THEM: 1 2 3 4 5 AND ACTIVITIES BY YOUR LIKELIHOOD OF = = = = WOULD ATTEND PROBABLY WOULD ATTEND NEUTRAL PROBABLY NOT ATTEND WOULD NOT ATTEND 34. Panel discussions, lectures, and seminars not involv­ ing faculty members 35. A program on innovations in technology 36. Programs that are novel or bizarre 37. A program on social implications of a scientific discipline 38. A program on developments in the arts 39. Hall lectures sponsored by the Provost's office 40. Programs held on weekends 41. Informal dances and mixers with a live band 42. First-run movies 43. Programs on controversial topics 44. Swimming, if Owen had a swimming pool 45. Panel discussions, lectures, and seminars involving faculty members 46. Art displays 47. More socializing if^ Owen had a bar in the basement 48. Musical programs 49. Well-organized recreational programs 50. Programs built around hobbies 51. A program on how to pass prelims and comprehensives 52. Films and slides of other countries(PLEASE TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE) 93 APPENDIX A (continued) PLEASE RATE PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES BY YOUR LIKELIHOOD OF ATTENDING THEM: 1 2 1 4 5 a » a a a WOULD ATTEND PROBABLY WOULD ATTEND NEUTRAL PROBABLY NOT ATTEND WOULD NOT ATTEND 53. Discussions and seminars, i£ there were a kiva at Owen 54. Golf, tannis, or swimming lessons 55. Hall tours of places of social or educational interest in Michigan 56. An orientation lecture by the dean of your College at the beginning of the year 57. Prograam in which American and foreign students parti­ cipate together 58. Programs involving speakers of recognized quality 59. A program on jab-seeking procedures 60. A program on the plight of the dollar 61. An ice-cream social 62. A program on cultural differences 63. A talent show 64. A program on extra-terrestrial life 65. A program on the uses of sensitivity training 66. A program on the psychology of advertising 67. A square dance 68. A program on flying saucers 69. Primarily social programs 70. A program on the role of the University in social protest 71. A program on overpopulation (PLEASE TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE) 94 APPENDIX A (continued) PLEASE RATE PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES BY YOUR LIKELIHOOD OF ATTENDING THEM: 1 2 3 4 5 = = a * a WOULD ATTEND PROBABLY WOULD ATTEND NEUTRAL PROBABLY NOT ATTEND WOULD NOT ATTEND 72. Programs that allow me to become acquainted with other people 73. Primarily cultural and educational programs 74. Primarily recreational activities 75. A program on extra-sensory perception 76. Small group programs in floor lounges APPENDIX B Tables Showing Additional Demographic Data# Total Attendance Scores# and Statistics for Correlation 96 APPENDIX B Regroupings of Demographic Data From Part I of Questionnaire Table I Man and Woman by Marital Status 312 201 Men Women Once Married Married single 8 8 30 11 Table II > iQ S3 to Men and Woman by College of Study Men Women QuAria Bus Ingin Ed HomeEc HmMed Arts&L NSci 29 10 79 12 16 17 21 1 0 25 47 61 1 1 28 35 82 30 SocSci VetMed Men Women 37 27 10 1 Table III Woman Holding Assistantships by College AgNs CmArts Bua Bngln JE& famEc HmMed Arts&L NSci SocSci VMed 7 10 3 0 14 13 0 20 23 12 0 Table IV Foreign Men by Major College AgNs CmArts Bua Engin Ed HaEc HmMed Arts&L NSci SocSci VMed 12 4 24 10 8 0 0 2 14 7 0 APPENDIX B (continued) Table V Questionnaire Iteai Response - Part II, Showing Attendance at Hall Programs N - 572 No. Quest. Item No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 8. 9. 10. 11. 23 24 25 26 12. 13. 14. 15. 27 28 29 30 16. 31 17. 18. 32 33 iteai A t least one movie At least one open house At least one mixer in the lobby A folk sing A mixer cm my floor or corridor The ping-pong tournament A t least one guest speaker's talk Hie Halloween Party or Dance A general Association meeting The Valentine's Day dance At least one of the three "Odd Time" parties At least one panel discussion Hie ice-skating party Hall-sponsored IM sports At least one use of the Suggest­ ion box A t least one debate in the Tour­ nament of Champions Same part of International Night Some phase (even though limited) of Association Committee work Response Yes No 266 377 411 183 129 46 306 195 161 389 443 526 236 277 213 192 336 295 359 380 143 135 19 45 429 437 553 527 148 424 41 394 531 178 88 484 98 Appendix B (continued) Table VI Questionnaire Item (Rating Scale) Response - Part III, Showing Projected Attendance at Future Hall Programs N * 572 HO. Quest. Item HO. 19 34 20 21 22 35 36 37 23 24 38 39 25 26 27 28 29 30 40 41 42 43 44 45 31 32 46 47 33 34 35 36 48 49 50 51 Item Panel discussions, lectures, and seminars not involving faculty members A program on innovations in technology Programs that are novel or bizarre A program on social implications of a sci­ entific discipline A program on developments in the arts Hall lectures sponsored by the Provost's office Programs held on weekends Informal dances and mixers with a live band First run movies Programs on controversial topics Swimming, if Owen had a swimming pool Panel discussions, lectures, and seminars involving faculty members Art displays More socializing, if Owen had a bar in the basement Musical programs Well-organized recreational programs Programs built around hobbies A program on how to pass prelims and com­ prehensive s Prob. Hot Att. Heutral Prob. Hot Att. Would Hot Att. 61 74 93 139 147 164 172 110 184 129 135 76 71 106 55 73 58 163 151 143 156 113 123 80 84 27 44 159 252 81 334 91 145 155 205 236 119 197 181 92 79 163 60 142 115 90 15 54 28 115 87 76 21 38 31 65 164 202 193 179 113 74 54 52 48 264 121 107 58 123 230 170 135 63 137 156 194 50 55 92 119 72 29 47 66 130 130 139 76 97 would Att. 99 Appendix B (continued) 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 56 57 71 72 58 59 60 61 73 74 75 76 Filins and slides of other countries Discussions and seminars, if there were a kiva at Owen Golf, tennis, or swimming lessons Hall tours of places of social or educational interest in Michigan An orientation lecture given by the dean of your college at the beginning of the year Programs in which lamrican and foreign stu­ dents participate together Programs involving speakers of recognised quality A program on job-seeking procedures A program on the plight of the dollar An ice-cream social A program on cultural differences A talent show A program on extra-terrestrial life A program on the uses of sensitivity training A program on the psychology of advertising A square dance A program on flying saucers Primarily social programs A program on the role of the University in social protest A program on overpopulation Programs that allow me to become acquainted with other people Primarily cultural and educational programs Primarily recreational activities A program on extra-sensory perception Small-group programs on floor lounges 119 180 141 79 53 59 154 152 157 228 107 82 69 51 85 95 139 134 101 103 138 114 109 93 118 91 180 201 51 49 147 89 47 117 103 95 89 94 83 72 85 68 273 166 119 156 181 159 137 137 145 112 129 148 102 139 168 164 152 149 173 162 159 115 141 210 27 90 121 64 72 85 88 100 80 102 92 80 23 88 117 71 64 84 85 79 105 171 125 66 61 68 145 158 156 158 106 98 104 90 123 60 66 107 50 218 185 182 152 112 155 204 199 154 200 35 79 74 80 116 41 44 51 79 94 100 Appendix B (continued) Table Vll Statistics for Correlation Between Reported and Projected Attendance for the College of Agriculture N - 37 Variable Sum of Scores Mean Sum of Squares Standard Deviation Siam of Squared Deviations From Mean Reported Attendance 188 5.081 1388 3.467 432.757 Projected Attendance 3578 96.703 388226 34.247 42223.730 Simple Correlation Reported Attendance Projected Attendance Projected Attendance 0.393 1.000 Reported Attendance 1.000 Variable 101 Appendix B (continued) Table VIII Statistics for Correlation Between Reported and Projected Attendance for the College of Veterinary Medicine N = 11 Variable Sum of Scores Reported Attendance 45 Projected Attendance 1041 Mean Sum of Squares Standard Deviation Sum of Squared Deviations From Mean 333 3.859 148.909 94.636 103747 22.870 5230.546 4.091 Simple Correlation Variable Reported Attendance Projected Attendance 0.644 Reported Attendance 1.000 Projected Attendance 1.000 102 Appendix B (continued) Table IX Statistics for Correlation Between Reported and Projected Attendance for the College of Communication Arts N * 29 Variable Sum of Scores Reported Attendance 201 Projected Attendance 2938 Mean Sum of Squares Sum of Squared Deviations from Naan 1747 3.555 353.862 101.310 314756 24.717 17106.207 6.931 Simple Correlation Variable Standard Deviation Reported Attendance Projected Attendance 0.490 Reported Attendance 1.000 Projected Attendance 1.000 103 Appendix B (continued) Table X Statistics for Correlation Between Reported and Projected Attendance for the College of Business N » 87 Variable Sue of Scores Reported Attendance 569 Projected Attendance 8302 Standard Deviation Sun of Squared Deviations from Mean 4699 3.372 977.609 95.425 864072 28.905 71851.264 Mean 6.540 Sun of Squares Simple Correlation Variable Reported Attendance Projected Attendance 0.297 Reported Attendance 1.000 Projected Attendance 1.000 104 Appendix B (continued) Table XI Statistics for Correlation Between Reported and Projected Attendance for the College of Engineering N o 22 Variable Sum of Scores Reported Attendance 115 Projected Attendance 2050 Mean Sum of Squares Sum of Squared Deviations From Mean 833 3.323 231.864 93.182 215678 34.265 24655.273 5.227 Simple Correlation Reported Attendance Projected Attendance Projected Attendance 0.610 1.000 Reported Attendance 1.000 Variable Standard Deviation 105 Appendix B (continued) Table XII Statistics for Correlation Between Reported and Projected Attendance for the College of Education N = 104 Variable Reported Attendance Sum of Scores Mean Sum of Squares Standard Deviation Sum of Squared Deviations from Mean 635 6.106 5327 3.752 1448.837 Projected Attendance 10882 104.635 1211876 26.666 73242.115 Simple Correlation Variable Reported Attendance Projected Attendance 0.490 Reported Attendance 1.000 Projected Attendance 1.000 106 Appendix B (continued) Table XIII Statistics for Correlation Between Reported and Projected Attendance for the College of Home Economics N « 25 Variable Sum of Scores Mean Sum of Squares Standard Deviation Sum of Squared Deviations From Mean Reported Attendance 143 5.720 1043 3.062 225.040 Projected Attendance 2629 105.160 287705 21.640 11239.360 Simple Correlation Variable Reported Attendance Projected Attendance Projected Attendance 0.384 1.000 Reported Attendance 1.000 107 Appendix B (continued) Table XIV Statistics for Correlation Between Reported and Projected Attendance for the College of Arts and Letters N a 61 Variable Sum of Scores Mean Sum of Squares Standard Deviation Sum of Squared Deviations From Mean Reported Attendance 336 6.000 2628 2.683 432.000 Projected Attendance 5831 95.590 599425 26.470 42038.754 Simple Correlation Reported Attendance Projected Attendance Projected Attendance 0.519 1.000 Reported Attendance 1.000 Variable 108 Appendix B (continued) Table xv Statistics for Correlation Between Reported and Projected Attendance for the College of Natural Science N = 110 Variable Sum of Scores Reported Attendance 595 Projected Attendance 9785 Mean Sum of Squares Standard Deviation 4483 3.406 1264.591 88.955 983685 32.236 113264.773 5.409 Simple Correlation Reported Attendance Projected Attendance Projected Attendance 0.521 1.000 Reported Attendance 1.000 Variable Sum of Squared Deviations From Mean 109 Appendix B (continued) Table XVI Statistics for Correlation Between Reported and Projected Attendance for the College of Social Science N - 63 Variable Sum of Scores Mean Sum of Squares Standard Deviation Sum of Squared Deviations From Mean Reported Attendance 356 5.651 2790 3.543 778.318 Projected Attendance 6129 97.286 656003 31.041 59738.857 Simple Correlation Variable Reported Attendance Projected Attendance Projected Attendance 0.417 1.000 Reported Attendance 1.000