INFORM ATION TO USERS

This dissertation was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document.
While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this
document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of
the original submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1.

The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the
missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with
adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and
duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2.

When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black
mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the
copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred
image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3.

When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method In
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the
upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from
left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary,
sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and
continuing on until complete.

4.

The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest
value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be
made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the
dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at
additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog
number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

University Microfilms
300 North Zeeb Rood
Ann Arbor, Michigan 481 OS
A Xerox Education Company

I

I
73-12,804
QUINN, Mary Ellen, 1929AN INVESTIGATION OF UNDERGRADUATE FIELD STUDY
EXPERIENCES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1972
Education, higher

University M icrofilm s, A XEROX. C om pany, A nn A rbor, M ichigan

AN INVESTIGATION OF
UNDERGRADUATE FIELD STUDY EXPERIENCES
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
By
Mary Ellen Quinn

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College of Education
1972

PLEASE NOTE:
Some pages may have
Indistinct

print.

Filmed as r e c e i v e d .

U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s , A Xerox Education Company

ABSTRACT

AN INVESTIGATION OF
UNDERGRADUATE FIELD STUDY EXPERIENCES
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
By
Mary Ellen Quinn
Problem
Although field study is not new, a recent upsurge of
interest in off-campus learning has prompted many colleges
and universities to initiate or expand their programs.

The

purpose of this work was to examine undergraduate field
studies at Michigan State University in an attempt to provide
guidelines for the further development and implementation of
such experiences in other universities or liberal arts col­
leges.
1.

Specifically this study attempts to investigate:
the extent to which field study is part of the
curricula in a large university;

2.

the extent to which such experiences are designed
and evaluated according to stated goals and objec­
tives ;

3.

those factors both within and outside of the institu­
tion which prove inhibiting to the development of
field studies;

Mary Ellen Quinn
4.

those situations students encounter which encoutage

j

or discourage them in their participation.

Design
Questionnaires were sent to all departments offering
undergraduate instruction to determine the extent to which
field study is offered for credit.

Second questionnaires

were sent to the forty-one departments reporting such field
studies, and follow-up interviews with faculty and students
I

were arranged for thirty-five of these departments— allj
i

except those whose field experiences prepare students for
traditional teaching or nursing careers.

These question ­

naires and interviews identified both the problems and the

promises of field study and showed the extent to which these
j

experiences were designed and evaluated according to stated

i
goals and objectives.

Findings
Questionnaires and interviews confirmed that problems
found in earlier studies persist today.

Opportunities jfor
j

field study, while increasing for students of average ability,
are still confined mostly to the junior and senior yeaifs.
j
Faculty time, institutional costs, limited field opportu­
nities, and costs to students inhibit departments from
offering field study and students from participating.

How­

ever, innovative approaches, student interest, and breadth

Mary Ell'en Quinn
of experiences encourage faculty to provide such opportu­
nities .
Although most departments had definite objectives,
the admitted weaknesses in evaluation indicated their failure
to express these objectives as attainable goals.
Field studies seemed to operate in departmental
environments which were sometimes supportive, sometimes tol­
erant, but seldom openly encouraging.

Faculty involved

found overload demanding, costs discouraging, time demands
excessive, interdepartmental cooperation limited, and campuswide communication lacking.
Students were highly enthusiastic about their experi­
ences , wanted opportunities extended to all students and
available earlier in their programs.

They seemed to seek out

the programs which most nearly complied with their interests
and purposes:

to be freed from traditional regulations, to

get vocational experience, to experience learning by doing,
or simply to escape from campus.

However, despite their

praise, students found communication faulty, faculty not
always supportive, and costs and transportation burdensome
and inequitable.
Guidelines
From these findings the following guidelines seem
justified.

Mary Ellen Quinn
1.

Field study objectives must be in harmony with insti­
tutional objectives and must state desired outcomes
in terms o£ achievable goals.

2.

Costs must be realistically appraised before com­
mitments to field study are made and then on-going
evaluation of the program and student performance
must follow up such commitments.

3.

Faculty must have sufficient time for planning,
advising, supervision, and evaluation in order to
give field studies adequate structure and students
adequate guidance.

4.

A supportive climate which encourages both faculty
and students and allows students to share in the
planning and design of field studies is essential
to a good program.

5.

Communication, cooperation, and coordination among
departments must be established and guidelines pro­
vided to ensure consistent policies.

6.

Contact agencies and outside organizations should be
involved in planning.
Further research is needed on:

the relationship

between credit granted and student time expended, appropriate
evaluation methods, new grading procedures, simulated learning
experiences, and mechanisms for involving more off-campus
personnel and organizations in this type of educational
venture.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge my sincere gratitude to
Dr. Margaret P. Lorimer for her constant support, valuable
direction and scholarly criticism during my work with her
prior to and during my research.

I am also very grateful to

Dr. Walter F. Johnson for his friendly guidance and helpful
advice during this research and throughout my graduate
studies.
My sincere appreciation to:
- Dr. Dorothy A. Arata for her interest in and
support of my study;
- The department chairmen, faculty, and students in
departments which I visited, for their gracious
cooperation;
- The members of the Field Study Committee for their
openness and sharing;
- The Sisters of Mercy, my religious community, for
their encouragement in this profitable endeavor.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I.

Page

THE P R O B L E M ................ . . . . . ' ...........
Introduction .....................
T h e o r y .............................
Purpose of S t u d y ..................

II.

REVIEW OF L I T E R A T U R E ................

1
1
4
8
12

Extent and Development of Field Study ........
Previous Research ............... . . . . . . .
S u m m a r y .............................

13
20
30

!

III.

METHODOLOGY.......................... !i...........

32
32
33

IV.

P o p u l a t i o n .........................
Selection of S a m p l e ................
Selection of Faculty and Students for
I n t e r v i e w s ..................... ,.j...........
Coordination of this Investigation with an
Ad Hoc Faculty Committee
..........
Definition of Field Study . . . . . J..........
Interview Technique ...............
i
QUESTIONNAIRE F I N D I N G S ..............
Departments Offering Field Study . ..........
Extent of Field S t u d y ..............
Objectives and Evaluations
..........
Inhibiting Factors
...............
Faculty Time
. . . . . .
Cost to Departments
. . . . . .
Sites
...........|...........
Cost to S t u d e n t ..................
Other P r o b l e m s .................. j ..........
S u m m a r y .............................

42
44
47
51
51
53
53
54
54
54

V.

36
38
38
40
42

58

INTERVIEW FINDINGS
Advantages and Disadvantages of Visitations . .
Descriptions and Extent of Field Study . . . .

iii

58
60

Page
Objectives of Field Study .....................
64
Clarification of Objectives .................
64
Selection of Experiences . . . . . . . . . .
73
Institutional Problems Related to Field Study .
78
Departmental and Institutional Climate . . .
78
83
Staffing and F i n a n c e ....................
E v a l u a t i o n ..............................
88
Cooperation, Coordination, and
Communication .............................
97
Field Study as Seen by Students . . . . . . . .
104
Valuable Aspects
...........................
104
P r o b l e m s .................................. 108
S u m m a r y ...................................... 113
VI.

CONCLUSION AND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S ............... 115
The P r o b l e m ..................................115
Findings and Conclusions
..................... 116
Recommended Guidelines . . . . . ............
118
Need for Further R e s e a r c h ................... 124

BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................. 125
APPENDICES
I.
II.

III.
IV.
V.

IDENTIFYING QUESTIONNAIRE . .........

. . . . . .

131

UNDERGRADUATE FIELD STUDY EXPERIENCE
QUESTIONNAIRE: CURRENT PRACTICES AT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY .....................

133

DEPARTMENTS OFFERING UNDERGRADUATE FIELD
STUDY EX P E R I E N C E S ......................

143

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR FACULTY .................

145

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR STUDENTS

148

...............

VI.

DEPARTMENTS NOT OFFERING UNDERGRADUATE FIELD
STUDY E X P E R I E NC E S........................... 151

VII.

TABULATED QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS NOT INCLUDED
IN T A B L E S ................................... 153

iv

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

1.

Availability of field s t u d y ...............

2.

Objectives and evaluations of field study

. ...

48

3.

Departmental objectives for field study—
tabulated, weighted, and ranked ..............

49

Inhibiting factors of field study— faculty,
................
institutions, placement sites

52

5.

Student problems as identified by faculty

. ...

55

6.

Selected questionnaire items .....................

66

4.

v

45

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Introduction

Field study experiences in colleges and universities
in the United States are not new.

In 1945 Lynd wrote, "A

growing number of colleges and universities have made use of
field work during the last few d e c a d e s . T w e n t y years later
McGrath and Meeth claimed:
An increasing number of colleges are requiring work
experience of their students as a regular part of the
student's college program. The trend here is . . .
toward the development of . . . plans that require or
encourage the student to spend . . . time in some kind
of work activity or field or other off-campus project.2
And yet in the book, Innovation in Liberal ArtB Colleges,
published by Brick and McGrath in 1969, field study experi­
ences are included as one of the "innovations"— still growing
in use and availability to a greater number of students.

3

1Helen Merrell Lynd, Field Work in College Education
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1945) t p. II'.
o
Earl J. McGrath and L. Richard Meeth, "Organizing
for Teaching and Learning: The Curriculum," in Higher Educa­
tion: Some Newer Developments, edited by Samuel Baskin
(New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1965), p. 42.
Michael Brick and Earl J. McGrath, Innovation in lib­
eral Arts Colleges (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969).
1

2

This apparent contradiction— a long-established curricular
practice and at the same time an innovation— reflects some­
thing about the vagueness that surrounds the current status
of college field study experiences.

In writing about inde­

pendent study under which she includes field study, Thompson
points out that few aspects of the curriculum have been so
little researched,^ yet Brick and McGrath claim that institu­
tions which have adopted field study experiences "are con­
vinced that they have great educational merit . . . that
5

off-campus study stimulates the entire campus."
Students across the country are demanding broad
changes in what they learn and how they learn it.

Some of

their criticisms seem to echo Brownell's censures— that
higher education is still treated not as life but only as a
preparation for life; that the student is placed in a social
vacuum, a "recess from life;" and that higher education is
almost completely divorced in the student's experience from
significant practice.6

Students today are clamoring for

relevance and meaningfulness.

Among others, Heist and Wilson

report that they complain about "the rigidity of curricula

^Mary Magdala Thompson, "A Study of Problems Impeding
the Growth of Independent Study in Institutions of Higher
Education in the United States," (unpublished doctoral disser­
tation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1971).
5
Brick and McGrath, op. cit., p. 47.
York:

6Baker Brownell, The College and the Community (New
Harper & Brothers, 1952), pp. 35-37.

3

and academic experiences" and the lack of "opportunity to
pursue their interests or to learn in ways most advantageous
7

to them."

The pressures building up within and pushing

beyond campus walls can be felt strongly.

Nesmith claims

that
They are signs of the times: part of the whole spectacle
of student unrest.
Students are uneasy, unhappy, rebel­
lious against conventional patterns of learning and
conventional institutions of learning because they feel
these are divorced from reality, too far removed from the
action. For whatever else the student rebellions mean,
they mean at least that students are fighting their way
out to what they consider vital, dynamic, important to
the world.8
Many colleges and universities are attempting to
respond to the demands and needs of students, and as a result
some are exploring or developing or expanding field study
experiences— experiences which Mayhew contends are the right
g

of every student:

In writing about such experiences Dressel

admits "the willingness of colleges and students to do this
implies that there is something lacking in the campus

Paul Heist and Robert Wilson, "Curricular Experi­
ences for the Creative," in The Creative College Student: An
Unmet Challenge, edited by Paul Heist (San Francisco: Jossey
Bass Inc., 1968), p. 192.
«

®James N. Nesmith, "Report of Inquiry into the Struc­
turing and Evaluating of Field Study as a Method of Improving
Teaching and Learning," (unpublished report to the Danforth
Foundation, Stephens College, Missouri, Fall, 1969).
9Lewis B. Mayhew and Patrick J. Ford, Changing the
Curriculum (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Inc., 1971),
pT 162.

4
community experience."10

However, in our highly complex

society this "something lacking" is not necessarily a fault,
for were colleges and universities to attempt to incorporate
all of the potential learning situations or opportunities,
they would be undertaking an impossible task.

Businesses,

hospitals, different cultural settings— these are but a few
of the sites to which students go for different kinds of
learning experiences.

Lynd defends off-campus learning:

For certain subjects field work is as essential as the
laboratory for natural science, the studio for painting,
the nursery school for child psychology. Field work may
also be of the utmost importance in developing relations
among different areas of knowledge and between college
and community life. To many students field work gives a
method of learning and a sense of significance and coher­
ence which is irreplaceable at certain points in their
education and which enriches subsequent study.11

Theory
In Lynd's statement are some basic assumptions about
learning which give support to the concept of field study.
First, learning need not be confined to the traditional
campus. Dearing, 12 Mayhew, 13 and more recently Gould and

10Paul L. Dressel, College and University Curriculum
(Berkeley: McCutchanPublishing Corporation, 1968), p. 8TI
11Lynd, op. cit., p. vii.
Bruce Dearing, "The Student on His Own: Independent
Study," in Higher Education:
Some Newer Developments, edited
by Samuel Baskin (New York: McGraw-Hill Book, Co., 1965).
13
Mayhew and Ford, op. cit.

5

Cross*** contend that the ivory towers must extend into the
community where others than professors contribute to the
educational process.

The student is then involved in what

he terms a "real world" situation.
A second belief in relation to field study is that
the testing of theory in practical situations adds a most
valuable contribution to the learning process.

Henderson

is only one who claims that "the interweaving of the theo­
retical and the practical should accelerate learning and
make it more lasting.

It should result in a higher degree
15
of competence in the individual."
The student develops a

most important aspect of learning— the ability to place
objects and events in new relationships.
When this application of theory directs itself out­
wardly— to the community, to the service of others, to
societal issues— another dimension is approached.

Dunivant

claims that the cue words of today's students are relevance,
meaningfulness, and action.16

Measured against these cri­

teria many college courses prove woefully lacking.

However,

Samuel D. Gould and K. Patricia Cross', (eds.)
Explorations in Non-Traditional Study (San Francisco: JosseyBass Inc., 1972).
16Algo D. Henderson, The Innovative Spirit (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1970), p. 18.
16Noel Dunivant, Jr., Bridging the Gap, the WinstonSalem Service-Learning Project in Community Resource Develop­
ment (Summer, 1969), p. 3.

6
the involvement demanded by some field study experiences
fulfills some of the needs implied by these terms.
[The student's] interaction with his environment can be
so structured as to enable him to gain awareness and
understanding of the world in a conscious, systematic
fashion, i.e., to learn; and simultaneously, to render
service to his community by helping to meet its needs
and solve its problems, i.e., to s e r v e . 17
Sanford, too, notes that if students are fully immersed in
the realities of a problem situation--are engaged with it
and concerned with bringing about some desirable changes-18
that situation can be very meaningful.
Another assumption, one so basic and yet at the same
time frequently disregarded, is that each individual is
unique and has different needs.

Aydelotte maintains that

"the best education for any individual is that which will
develop his powers to the utmost and best fit him to realize
19
his own ideal of the good life . . . ."
He wrote this
after pointing out that the greatest defect of education is
the regimentation of individuals.

Educational programs

should reflect the interests and capabilities of different
students and should provide opportunities for the students
to respond at the time, in the manner, and at the pace best
suited to the individual.

Many types of field studies are

17Ibid., p. 2.
18
Nevitt Sanford, Where Colleges Fail
Jossey-Bass Inc., 1967), p. 209.
19

(San Francisco:

Frank Aydelotte, Breaking the Academic Lockstep
(New York: Harper and Bros." 1944 ), p. 128.

7
structured in such a way that these goals may be achieved.
However, basic to an environment that allows this type of
growth is, according to Heist, a teacher-student relationship
that is supportive of the student.

20

Finally, there is evidence that individual develop­
ment, whether it be a greater sense of responsibility, selfreliance, self-direction, or independence, is fostered by
field study experiences.

That these are valid goals of

higher education is strongly stated in the Hazen Foundation
report.
The chief goal of the college and university is to train
and develop the human intellect, extending the power of
independent and balanced thought and deepening the powers
of discrimination and critical expression. But it is no
longer possible to take a narrow view of intelligence as
"academic knowledge," isolating cognitive growth from
moral growth and the general maturation of the person.
This view appears untenable not so much for reasons of
philosophy, but rather because our knowledge of the
nature of the human personality forces us to conclude
that cognitive growth which is separated from the devel­
opment of other aspects of the human personality is
illusory or distorted.21
Perhaps such personal growth is not realized through
all types of field studies, but it can be through those that
take the form of an independent study project.

20

Both Mayhew 22

Heist and Wilson, op. cit., p. 197.

21

The Student in Higher Education, Report of the
Commission on the Student in Higher Education, New Haven,
Connecticut: The Hazen Foundation (January, 1968) , p. 8.
22

Mayhew and Ford, op. cit.

8

and Dressel

include these goals in their discussion of

independent study.
These beliefs should challenge colleges and univer­
sities to consider more carefully the advantages of field
study experiences for their students.

Nevertheless, Dressel

points out that there are some disadvantages and problems:
n

planning, coordinating, and staffing.

J

Despite such warn­

ings many colleges and universities are embarking on field
study programs without sufficient preparation.

Literature

on the topic is limited and, as will be pointed out in the
review of literature, the little we have is more descriptive
than critical.

Promotion of field studies does not seem to

be based on solid research findings nor on evaluation.

Purpose of Study
All indications are that off-campus learning experi­
ences should remain the subject of continued study.

The

purpose of this investigation, therefore, is to examine some
undergraduate field study experiences at Michigan State
University in an attempt to provide guidelines and directions
for the further development and implementation of such experi­
ences in other universities and liberal arts colleges.

23

Dressel, op. cit.

24Ibid., pp. 78-83.

9
Specifically in this study there is an attempt to
investigate:
1.

the extent to which field study experiences are a
part of the curriculum,

2.

the extent to which field study experiences are
designed and evaluated according to stated goals and
objectives,

3.

those factors on the part of the institution and
faculty which prove inhibiting to the development
of field study experiences,

4.

those factors outside of the institution which prove
inhibiting to the development of field study experi­
ences,

5.

those problems students encounter which discourage
them in their participation in field study experi­
ences ,

6. those aspects of field study experiences which stu­
dents find stimulating and valuable.
The plan of the study was, first, to identify field
study experiences at Michigan State University by means of
brief questionnaires sent to each department chairman.
Following this investigation, more extensive questionnaires
were sent to faculty members involved in field study experi­
ences in order to gain insight into the current status and
practices in the various departments.

To clarify and to

expand the information contributed through the questionnaires,

10

interviews were requested of a sample of faculty and partici­
pating students.
This survey and analysis was undertaken to reveal
both strengths and weaknesses of college field study experi­
ences.

The extent to which unclear objectives, lack of

coordination, and various environmental factors pose problems
which work against the successful implementation of these
programs; the relationship between budgetary allocations and
planning for field experiences, between finances and the
actualization of such programs; and factors which encourage
the development or expansion of opportunities for students
to participate in valid field study experiences are examined
and analyzed.

Guidelines for the establishment or expansion

of field study experiences in liberal arts colleges and
universities are formulated from the analysis.
Dressel cautions that field experiences must fit into
a program with continuity and sequence.

"Structure," he

says, "need not be provided by traditional methods, but it
25
must be provided."
If the boundaries of campuses are
expanding through field experiences, and Mayhew says it can
be assumed that the forces or conditions demanding innovation
will not diminish in pressure,

26

then it seems imperative

that continuous research be undertaken in this area.
25 Dressel, op. cit. , p. 24.
26

Lewis B. Mayhew, Colleges Today and Tomorrow (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1969), p. 160.

11

This study begins with a review of past and present
practices in field study.

Then, following the plan or method

ology used, the findings from the questionnaires and the
information gained through the faculty and student interviews
are presented.

The study concludes with some guidelines and

recommendations for further research.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OP LITERATURE
In Explorations in Non-Traditional Study

27

Gould

refers to non-traditional study as a group of changing educa­
tional patterns caused by the changing needs and opportuni­
ties of society.

Much of itr he points out, is not new, but

it is being catapulted to the forefront of public attention.
Although the particular emphasis in his book is on nontraditional, external degree programs, the definition also
extends to other off-campus learning experiences.

Those

field experiences or activities that occur outside of the
conventional classroom setting but under the auspices of a
college or university— experiences such as work experiences,
service experiences, and cultural experiences— are among the
vast array of educational programs or study termed nontraditional.

These off-campus field experiences are the

subject of this study.
In the above-mentioned work, which has been acclaimed
the first careful, scholarly examination of non-traditional
study, the authors argue that learning can and does take
place in different ways for different people, but they also
27 Gould and Cross, op. cit.
12

13
point out the confusion that surrounds all aspects of nontraditional study today— confusion, among other things, about
what it is and what it is expected to do.

When the history

and development of field study experiences on campuses are
reviewed, it seems somewhat surprising to note that such
confusion exists, for one would think that the continued
expansion and increasing popularity of these experiences
would attest to the fact that field study has been well
researched.

With the exception of student teaching and

nursing experiences, areas not included in this study, such
is not the case.

Extent and Development of Field Study

Field study appears on campuses in many different
forms.

It includes field trips as well as extensive pro­

grams of foreign study, observations with minimal participa­
tion as well as intern programs, service projects, or even
work experiences.

Sometimes it is considered under the

broad umbrella of independent study and as such refers to
any number of types of programs.

And underlying all of

these is the belief that there is value in the interweaving
of theory and practice and/or that some experiences and
learning can best be achieved outside of the traditional
classroom.
It was in 1906 at the University of Cincinnati that
Herman Schneider inaugurated one form of field study, a

14
cooperative work-and-study program.

28

The plan called for

students to spend alternate periods at study in the College
of Engineering and at work on jobs.

They were to learn

through apprenticeships with industry as an extension of the
29
laboratories at the school.
In the 1920's Antioch
and then
later Northeastern University**0 allowed students to inter­
sperse formal academic studies with work experience.

Lynd

regarded Antioch College a pioneer in the movement of making
field work an essential part of the college program and
claimed, "For the majority of Antioch students, the work has
been at least as important a part of their college experience as academic study." 31 In the 1930's Bennington College,
which from the outset sought to provide experiences outside
the classroom, allowed students to spend as much as a year
32
away from campus on research, study, or work.
Gradually
the list grew and the experiences broadened.
By 1958 Wilson
33
and Lyons
found more than 60 colleges and universities
with such cooperative programs.

And in 1969 two other

28 Henderson, op. cit., p. 19.
29Ibid.
30
Mayhew and Ford, op. cit. , p. 98.
31Lynd, op. cit., p. 12.
32Mayhew and Ford, op. cit. , p. 153.
33
James W. Wilson and Edward H. Lyons, Work-Study
College Programs (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961).

15
reports indicate the continued growth of such field experi­
ences.

Dressel and DeLisle compiled results from a randomly

selected catalog survey of one-third of all four-year liberal
arts colleges and universities listed in the 1964 edition of
the American Council on Education American Universities and
Colleges and found 5.6 percent with work-study or cooperative
programs.3^

Brick and McGrath, however, polled by question­

naire all four-year institutions in the Unided States
offering a program of liberal arts.

They used the Education

Directory, Part 3, Higher Education, published by the United
States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1965-66.
Their findings indicate that 54.3 percent of the colleges
and universities reported actually having or planning to
introduce work-study programs as a part of the curriculum
35
or instruction.
Perhaps the great discrepancy appears
because of the inadequacy of catalog descriptions.
Field trips are another form of field study that has
undergone remarkable change.

Some faculties have long made

use of the field trip as a way of implementing and enriching
the curriculum.

At Stephens College the field trip has a

certain notoriety as far back as the 1920's and especially
during the 1930's, when whole trains were reserved for the

Paul L. Dressel and Frances H. DeLisle, Undergradu­
ate Curriculum Trends (Washington, D.C.: American Council on
Education, 19 69 ) r Taole 15, p. 39.
35
Brick and McGrath, op. cit., Table 2, p. 20.

16
entire student body and its faculty for travel to New York.

36

Now field trips range from excursions to museums or geologi­
cal sites to visits to different cities and even different
countries.

These latter have developed, in some instances,

to undergraduate study abroad.

Today the Junior Year Abroad

program is known by every faculty member in foreign languages.
Dressel and DeLisle found 46.9 percent of the colleges and
37
universities offering study abroad;
Brick and McGrath found
38
63.3 percent.
The rapid growth of this opportunity is
quite evident when it is noted that prior to 1950 only six
programs existed whereby undergraduates could earn credit
abroad during the academic year. 39
Somewhat related to the work experiences already
described are service-learning experiences or programs.

A

quarter of a century ago Earlham College in Indiana had a
program of Community Dynamics whereby students helped in
community efforts, and Brooklyn College in New York City has
40
had a community service program for a long time.
Goshen
College, Indiana, has a trimester plan with study and service;
the objective is to examine and experience the culture of
36 Nesmith, op. cit., p. 41.
37

Dressel and DeLisle’, op. c i t .

38

Brick and McGrath, op. cit.

39Ibid., p. 41.
^°Brick and McGrath, op. cit., p. 45.

17
another country and to give service to people in need.

41

At

the University of Wisconsin at Green Bay the faculty members
are expected to be involved in community outreach activities,
i n

preferably in conjunction with their students.

The list

could be extended, for other colleges and universities, too,
have established such programs.
Dressel and DeLisle report
43
44
4 percent;
Brick and McGrath report 70.3 percent;
but a
postcard survey conducted in 1968 by the Commission on
Academic Affairs of the American Council on Education and
the National Service Secretariat, found that only 13 percent
of the 2106 colleges and universities polled offer credit for
off-campus service activities.4^

Such differences in find­

ings, particularly those of Dressel and DeLisle as contrasted
with those of Brick and McGrath, may be attributed to methods
of research, different populations, and restrictions of
definition.
Some of the most interesting developments in servicelearning have taken place in the South.

In 1967 the Southern

41Ibid., p. 36.
4^Harry V. Scott, "American Higher Education: Some
Features of the Current Scene," The North Central Association
Quarterly, XLVI, No. 3 (Winter, 1972), 343.
43 Dressel and DeLisle, op. cit., p. 39.
44Brick and McGrath, op. cit., p. 20.
4^Donald J. Eberly, "Service Experience and Educa­
tional Growth," Educational Record, XLIX, No. 2 (Spring,
1968) 201.

18
Regional Education Board established a program to provide
students with internships off campus.^6

These internships

required students to accomplish a clearly defined independ­
ent project for a social or economic agency with assistance
from an agency supervisor and a faculty counselor.

Another

Southern project, the Winston-Salem Service-Learning Project
in Community Resource Development, was organized to "bridge
the gap" between academic institutions and the surrounding
community, between learning about the world vicariously and
47
consciously experiencing it firsthand.
What is different
about these two programs is that the push for their develop­
ment and expansion is coming from outside the institutions
of higher education.

In the first instance it is from the

federal Economic Development Administration; in the latter
case, from the State Department.
Perhaps the widest variety of field study experiences
falls under independent study.

Many of the early off-campus

experiences were direct outgrowths of the independent honors
programs such as the tutorials at Swarthmore or the independ­
ent programs at Sarah Lawrence.

Both of these institutions

adhered to the philosophy that students can assume a greater

46

William R. O'Connell, Jr., "Innovations in Under­
graduate Instruction:
Service-Learning as a Southern
Strategy," (address given at the American Association for
Higher Education Meeting, Chicago, March 7, 1972).
47
Dunivant, op. cit.

19
share of the responsibility for their own learning.
Bennington, Bard, Goddard, Sarah Lawrence, Swarthmore, Reed,
and Stephens are all some of the early pioneers who regarded
as valid the philosophy which fused academic and off-campus
or work experiences.^8
A relatively recent trend is revision of the academic
calendar in order to provide special opportunities for field
study.

Bard College in New York began a distinctive Winter

Field Period whereby for seven weeks students could explore
vocational, creative, or intellectual interests away from
campus and classroom. 49 Florida Presbyterian in 1960 and
Beloit College in 1964 were among the first to rearrange
their calendars so that each student could have an off-campus
experience of several months between fall and spring terms.80
St. Olaf College and Macalester College in Minnesota and
Colby College in Maine were leaders in developing winter
51
term programs,
but today there are too many such programs
to list.
From the above-mentioned reports it is evident that
field studies are indeed a part of higher education in the
United States today.

Difficulty in determining the extent

48Mayhew and Ford, op. cit., p. 136.
49 Brick and McGrath, o p . cit., p. 35.
50
Mayhew and Ford, op. cit., p. 99.
51Brick and McGrath, op. cit., p. 35.

20

results from the variety of experiences described as field
study.

Some of the newer programs, like the one at New

College at Sarasota, Florida, emphasize the notion of self52
pacing and self-determination,
but whatever the emphasis,
whether the programs are to prepare students vocationally
or professionally, to give them broader cultural experiences,
or to provide them with the opportunity of giving service
and perhaps responding to some of the ills of society, the
fact is that they are here.
Previous Research
Such enumerations and descriptions as have just been
pointed out do relatively little to enlighten one about the
goals, restrictions, problems, and values of field study.
Two surveys of honors courses, which category at that time
included such few independent field studies as were available
53
to students, were undertaken by Aydelotte in 1924
and in
1925.

In these he noted that the trend was to restrict

these experiences to “better students."

These surveys were

conducted by the Division of Educational Relations of the

52 Scott, op. cit., p. 346.
53Frank Aydelotte, "Honors Courses in American
Colleges and Universities," Bulletin of the National Research
Council, VII, Part 4, No. 40 (January, 1924).
54Ibid., X (April, 1925).

21

National Research Council, but it was not clear how the
colleges were selected.
In 1934 Taylor and Sinclair,

55

again not singling

out field studies but rather including some forms of it under
independent study, reported such experiences still being
limited to honors students.

The questionnaires, sent to col­

leges and universities accredited by the Association of
American Universities, revealed that one-third of those col­
leges offered independent study but that relatively few
students enrolled.

The direction or supervision of such work

was generally an extra load for faculty.
Still focusing on independent study, Umstattd in 1935
published further findings.

Cg

Greater freedom and latitude

and the pursuit of any subject by independent study were
reported by over one-half of the colleges and universities
with independent study programs, but most offerings were
still restricted to above-average students.

It is not known

how the colleges— more than 300--were selected for this
catalog survey.
Aydelotte continued his interest in honors work and
independent study and in 1944 published Breaking the Academic
C C

Mary Barbara Taylor and J. H. Sinclair, "Honors
Work in Institutions Accredited by the American Association of
Universities," School and Society, XXXIII (February 14, 1931).
G. Umstattd, "The Prevalence and Practice of
Independent Study," The Journal of Higher Education, VI
(October, 1935).

22

57
Lockstep,
a book which reported the results of his and
other Swarthmore faculty members' visits to a sampling of
colleges and universities on the approved list of the Associa­
tion of American Universities.

He reemphasized the trend to

limit such experiences to the superior student and like Taylor
and Sinclair he noted the added burden of independent study
on faculty.
In 1945 a report emerged that pertained specifically
58
to field study, Lynd’s Field Work in College Education.
Whereas the previously mentioned research endeavors included
field study under independent study, this work focused on
field study, but only one aspect or form of it— that termed
field work.
A grant from the General Education Board to Sarah
Lawrence College from 19 35-1940 initiated this widely pub­
licized study on field work.

The College, founded in 1928

for the purpose of seeing what could be done by giving
individual attention, had initiated field work for the same
reason, to provide for the uniqueness of each person.

The

study was undertaken in order to ascertain how the College
was proceeding in this area and to make its findings known.
Although Lynd called the study only an exploration and a

57
Frank Aydelotte, Breaking the Academic LockBtep
(New York: Harper & Bros., 1944).
58 Lynd, op. cit.

23
beginning and matintained there were no final results in any
single area, it was a contribution to the minimal body of
research on the development of field work.
After studying field work at Sarah Lawrence, Lynd
identified problem areas as transportation, evaluation, and
arrangements such as scheduling interviews, keeping appoint­
ments , and attending meetings.
pointed out:

Other concerns, too, were

providing for supervision, overtaxing the com­

munity, and most important of all, proper planning for the
studies.

Sarah Lawrence College also learned, as a result

of the study, to strive for a balance between structure and
casualness, not to limit experiences to the vocational, not
to limit them to the above-average student, and not to
restrict them to the junior and senior years.

Individual

differences must be considered.
Although the limitations of human time and energy
posed a conflict for the faculty, the general feeling at
Sarah Lawrence College about field work was expressed by
Lynd:
It remains true, however, that for many students field
work gives a kind of educational experience which they
can not acquire adequately in any other way. The kinds
of skills acquired in the process of getting ready for
an interview, of observing unlabeled material, of decid­
ing how to organize data, of developing appropriate
methods of statistical and of qualitative analysis can
scarcely be glimpsed in any brief summary. Furthermore,
some of the most important results of field work appear,
not in its direct bearing on the course in which it ie
done, but in the heightened perceptions it carries over

24
to other courses and in providing a natural method of
relating and deepening various areas of work within and
without the college.59
In 1957 Bonthius et al., with a grant from the Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, published results
of probably the most comprehensive survey and evaluation of
60
independent study yet made.
Again we must limit our view
of field study to those projects which fall in the independ­
ent study category.

Field study, however, was specifically

named as one of the forms of independent study investigated.
This work focused on the programs at Wooster College and
twenty other institutions with different types of independent
study plans •
Prior to this study Bonthius had conducted a catalog
survey of all four-year colleges and universities in the
United States which granted the bachelor's degree and had
found a general increase in the number of independent study
programs and a trend toward opening up such opportunities to
all undergraduate students.

However, he still found the

junior and senior years the preferred times for admission to
such projects.
In the Wooster study, general weaknesses were identi­
fied as inadequate advising and insufficient preparation for
eg

Lynd, op. cit., p. 113.

60Robert H, Bonthius, F. James Davis and J. Gerber
Drushel, The Independent Study Program in the United States
(New York! Columbia University Press, 1957).

25
the students.

The most frequently mentioned value was the

development of the ability to work resourcefully or creatively
oil one's own.

Also mentioned as values were "the opportunity

to probe intensively into an area of special interest, the
opportunity to learn research techniques, [and] the develop­
ment of the ability to organize and present material.
i

Drawbacks for students were listed as lack of suffii

cient guidance, the possibilities of procrastination, the
fieling that the program was not so demanding or rewarding as
course work, and the insufficient amount of time or credit.
Teachers'
drawbacks were almost all centered around the
I
heavy burden placed on their time and energy, and a drawback
from the administration viewpoint was the instructional
expense.
Bonthius felt his study raised more questions than
!

it suggested answers.
More adequate criteria are needed before final pronounce­
ments upon the claims and weaknesses of independent study
plans can be made. . . . It is the hope of the authors
that this study will stimulate further investigation of
an undergraduate method which has gained the approval of
so many of the students, faculty, and administrators who
have adopted it.°2
Another study on field work or cooperative education
was undertaken and published by Wilson and Lyons in 1961.

^Bonthius, Davis, and Drushel, op. cit., p. 214
62Ibid., p. 220.
63
Wilson and Lyons, op. cit.

63

26
It was promoted by the Fund for the Advancement of Education
because of a strong feeling on the part of some educators
that
There has been a glaring lack of basic research properly
documenting the philosophic advantages and disadvantages
of this approach as part of an educational process. In
addition, there is a remarkable paucity of information
regarding specific values, variety in curricula, tand]
contributions of industry to this type of education.64
Through studying a sampling of the 61 colleges whose programs
fit the

definition of cooperative education, it was sought

to illuminate a number of positive and negative claims about
work study.

After extensive research, the conclusion was

that the educational values of cooperative education are very
significant.

By theory and practice being more closely

related, students find greater meaning in their studies,
motivation is increased, and students develop a greater sense
of independence and of responsibility.
Planning and costs, as in other studies, were men­
tioned as problems and a new obstacle was identified.
Students are not always used in ways that best capitalize
upon their abilities and that provide them with the most
suitable educational experiences. The institutional
coordinators feel that some employers frequently use
cooperative students for menial and repetitive jobs
which do not offer them either the challenge or opportu­
nity to use effectively the knowledge and skills that they
have acquired on c a m p u s . 65

^ Ibid. , p. 4.
fi*5
Wilson and Lyons, op. cit., p. 149.

27
Nevertheless, Wilson concludes that cooperative education
programs have sufficient merit to warrant their development
and expansion.
Once again, in 1964, results of an institutional
survey on independent study were published by Fel d e r . ^

In

his contact of 520 four-year colleges and universities, he
found that 68 percent of the respondents offered independent
study and that almost two-thirds of these singled out field
study as one of the forms of independent study.

Although

Felder found that a greater percentage of the student's work
might now be in independent study projects, still fewer than
half of the colleges contacted allowed freshmen and sophomores
to enroll for such credit.
Several studies have been reviewed but none so far
have described or considered the broad, general area of
field study.

Finally, in 1969, such a study was released.

67

Just four years ago Stephens College at Columbia, Missouri,
a college long known for its devotion to the ideal of innova­
tion and experimentation, felt a sense of urgency about field
study and undertook the task of looking at it systematically.
Two questions about field education— how can it be structured
and how can it be evaluated— were of paramount importance in
their quest and so with funds from the Danforth Foundation,
^ D e l l Felder, "Independent-Study Practices in Col­
leges and Universities," The Journal of Higher Education,
XXV, No. 6 (June, 1964).
67
Nesmith, op. cit.

28
a Field Study Tetim accepted the charge of looking into field
studies at Stephens College.
The process of inquiry itself contributed to a
heightened interest in and enthusiasm for field study through
New courses were developed, new ways of
scheduling were implemented, faculty seminars were arranged,
operating procedures were reviewed, and new forms and guide|

lines were collected from other colleges.

These show results

but what was learned is of more importance.
The study at Stephens College indicated that the key
to successful field study is the instructor and his willing­
ness to give theitime needed for supervision.

A conclusion

drawn from this is that "no student should be sent into a
field setting unless there is a reliable, substantial, and
willing person w!lio . . . is more than happy, even enthusiastic, about the project and the student.

68

The importance of structure was the second most
useful finding,

The team decided that in delineating a

project both the instructor and the student must have clearcut objectives,

cnow how the student will reach these goals,

and know how the study will be evaluated.

If the student

has sufficient p reparation and if these other criteria are
realized, the faculty thought it would be difficult for a

68
Nesmitp 9 op. cit., p. 57.

29
student to go through an experience with supervision and not
realize substantial educational benefits.

69

Another opinion of the Stephens College Team was that
there should be some regular contact with the home campus,
even if only through a log.

Personal contact, too, was

emphasized in order to reassure the student and give her a
chance to sound off about problems or concerns.

This latter
70
should be done, they thought, even if only by phone.
At the conclusion of the study the Field Study Team
admitted that their work, or the work of anyone examining
field study in undergraduate colleges and universities, was
not complete.

In a report to the Danforth Foundation they

stated, "There is need for wider understanding of both the
promise and the problems of Field Study."

71

The Danforth Foundation has continued its interest
in field study.

During the summers of 1969 and 1970 it

sponsored institutes at Stephens College for a number of
developing colleges, and the message was loud and clear—
the colleges must respond more to the community and its
needs.

And field study is an important way of responding.

This present study at Michigan State University was prompted
by the interest aroused at those summer institutes.

69

Nesmith, op. cit., p. 58.

70Ibid., p. 59.
71Ibid., p. 61.

30
Summary
To describe field study and to trace its growth in
colleges and universities is a somewhat discouraging task
because of the many different meanings and definitions of
field study.

Nevertheless, by looking at the growth and

development of field trips, foreign study, service-learning
projects, work-study programs, and the many field studies
falling under the independent study category, it is evident
from surveys and reports that field study is subscribed to—
at least in theory— by many colleges and universities and
that such programs are expanding and growing in popularity.
To find evaluations of such programs and to make
comparisons is an even more discouraging task not only
because of the limited number of such research studies but
also because of the use of some broad categories such as
independent study and the narrow focus of others such as
work study.

Consequently comparisons of data are all but

impossible.

And even in studies using the same category,

there is such diversity in the selection of colleges and
universities and such a variety of methodologies used—
catalog surveys, questionnaires, interviews— that findings
do not readily lend themselves to such comparisons.
Certain trends, restrictions, problems and values,
however, did emerge.

The opportunity for field study as one

form of independent study has increased for the average
student but is still confined mostly to the junior and senior

31
years of study.

It has provided opportunities for learning

which cannot be duplicated on campus, and it has promoted
independence and responsibility.

The key to a successful

field study is the faculty member, and yet one of the most
frequently-mentioned problems is the extra burden or load
such study places on the faculty.

Evaluation and supervision

are closely related problem areas which were frequently
identified.
It is interesting to note that as each study was
completed, the researchers stressed that their findings were
limited and that there should be continued investigation of
both the problems and values of field study.

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This study, an attempt to identify and examine under­
graduate field study experiences at Michigan State University,
was undertaken in hopes that an investigation of the impor­
tant aspects of these experiences would help provide direction
for the further development and implementation of such experi­
ences in liberal arts colleges and universities.

Positive

and stimulating aspects of field study experiences as well
as inhibiting factors were included in the research.

Population
All of the colleges, departments, schools and other
units such as centers or programs which offer undergraduate
instruction at Michigan State University were selected for
♦

the study.

This grouping included seventy-four departments,

nine schools, and four other instructional units within
twelve of the colleges and three colleges which are not
organized along departmental lines.
numbered ninety different divisions.

The total selection
Units which were

excluded because of their exclusive concentration on graduate

32

33
education were five departments in human medicine and oste­
opathic medicine.

Selection of Sample
The initial questionnaire

(Appendix I) was a survey

instrument distributed to all deans, department chairmen,
or directors for the purpose of gaining information about the
extent of field study offerings.

Bach was asked to indicate

whether or not his department* offered some form of under­
graduate field experience for credit, to specify by course
number each particular offering providing opportunity for
such experiences, and to indicate whether these courses
were:
a.

a professional requirement,

b.

a departmental requirement, or

c.

optional courses or experiences.

The questionnaire indicated that field study would include
such experiences as observations, intern programs, work-study
programs, travel experiences, residence or study abroad,
cultural projects or opportunities, and other off-campus
experiences.

On-campus experiences were to be included pro­

vided they were comparable to off-campus field experiences;
i.e., they removed the student from the closely supervised

*For the rest of the study all of the units con­
tacted will be referred to as departments.

34
classroom or laboratory situation and provided him with the
opportunity to seek and make use of the resources of a field
of interest in a manner different from the usual independent
research project.
The respondent was then asked to name one or more
faculty members with whom further contact concerning field
study experiences might be made.

And finally, program

descriptions, outlines, or brochures describing these offer­
ings were requested.
Ninety percent (81) of the questionnaires were
returned promptly and after follow-up telephone calls and
one personal visit all ninety departments responded.

Although

only eighty-eight questionnaires were actually returned, the
two remaining responses were telephoned in to make a 100
percent return.
Of these departments forty-seven indicated that they
did offer undergraduate field experiences as identified in
the questionnaire; forty-three reported that they did not
offer such experiences.
A second questionnaire was designed after many of
the possible topics relating to the basic research questions
were reviewed through the literature, through faculty com­
mittee discussions, and through contact with faculty in
Institutional Research and in the Provost's Office.

After

being approved by the co-directors of the Btudy, this more
detailed questionnaire on field study experiences

35
(Appendix II) was sent to the eighty-eight faculty members
named in the initial questionnaire as contact persons.
Seventy of these responded, a few only after receiving a
follow-up telephone call or a personal visit.

The remaining

eighteen were members of departments where another faculty
member answered for the department.

The questionnaire had

indicated that departments could use the option of returning
only one questionnaire for the department or of having each
recipient answer and return a questionnaire.

In effect,

then, the responses were again 100 percent.
Of the forty-seven departments indicating that they
offered undergraduate field study experiences, 35 remained
in the study.

They were determined in the following manner.

After the seventy faculty members responded (sixty-four
returned the questionnaires, three answered by telephone,
and three sent letters or notes) six departments were dropped
or withdrew from the study because their program had been
discontinued (1 ), their field experiences were not offered
for credit (2), the experiences were provided but credit was
received through other departments

(1 ), or they had mis­

understood the term field in the original questionnaire
(2).

This revision left forty-one departments at Michigan

State University— almost half of the departments offering
undergraduate field study experiences for credit (Appendix'
III).

36
Two faoulty members returned blank questionnaires and
indicated that their courses had been dropped, but both were
members of departments where another faculty member responded
or reported for the department.
A further limitation, suggested in the initial
planning of the study, was then positively determined.

Two

areas, student nursing and student teaching, were excluded
from the present study.

Although these two areas are rapidly

changing, they have been thoroughly evaluated and are con­
tinually being evaluated.

Furthermore, each is so extensive

that it could and should be the subject of a special study.
Therefore, student teaching and student nursing and other
off-campus experiences which directly prepare one for a
teaching or nursing career (classroom or hospital observa­
tions, learning-laboratory experiences, school intern pro­
grams, etc.) were excluded from further investigation.

This

decision left forty-five faculty members representing thirtyfive departments in the study.
Selection of Faculty and Students
for Interviews'
The third step in gathering data for the study
involved setting up personal interviews with at least one
faculty member from most of the departments in the study.
Thirty-six such interviews were scheduled and completed;
these included faculty from twenty-nine departments and

37
three other offices where it was felt persons might contrib­
ute valuable information for the study.
Reasons for excluding the few departments which were
omitted were:
1.

Questionnaires returned did not meet the deadline
(4).

2.

Experiences were so limited (one very brief observa­
tion or interview per term) that the desired infor­
mation was contained in the questionnaire (2).
An attempt was then made to contact at least three

students from each of the thirty-five departments in the
study.

Eighty-eight students were interviewed.

With the

exception of two departments where all the participants had
been graduate students, two departments where the programs
were still in the planning stages, one department which did
not send in course numbers on time, and one class where
students participated in the field experience during their
final term and thus were gone, the goal was almost achieved.
In only two departments were the interviews limited to two
students; three were contacted in all the rest.

The students

were selected at random primarily from the class lists of
the previous complete term (Winter, 1972).

If the course

had not been offered that term, the list was used from the
last time it was offered.

The oldest class lists used were

from Summer, 1971; the most recent list was a Spring, 1972,
list for a course offered only once a year to seniors.

38
These students were enrolled in the field study at the time
of the interview.

Only one student described an on-campus

field study, but this isolated experience was not surprising
when one notes the few opportunities for such an experience
(Appendix VII, #31).
Coordination of this Investigation
"with an Ad Hoc Faculty Committee
At the same time this investigation was being planned
the Assistant Provost for Undergraduate Education invited
selected departments to send faculty members involved in
field study and cognizant of the problems encountered in
making them effective to meet for discussion and possible
plans for solution of their common problems.
The investigator was invited to attend these meetings,
was able to better understand the role of field study as
perceived by these people, and in turn to share her under­
standing of the problems gained from questionnaires and
interviews.
Definition of Field Study
In a report to the Danforth Foundation regarding
field studies at Stephens College, Nesmith explained why it
is not possible to define field study simply.
It is extremely difficult to talk about field study
because the term means so many different things; running
the gamut from "learning by doing" to engaging in a care­
fully planned and phased archeological dig. The meanings

39
range from observing birds or animals through a window
to making interviews or gathering statistical data about
people. One of the consequences of this imprecision and
ambiguity is great difficulty in making any discernible
progress in talking about field study p r o g r a m s . 72
Recognizing this problem but at the same time appreciating
the value of a broad definition which would encourage faculty
to describe some experiences which might otherwise be
excluded, the investigator defined field study in the ques­
tionnaire as follows:
Field studies in this survey will refer to under­
graduate, off-campus@ field experiences for which credit
is given. Field study may include such experiences as:
observations
intern programs
work-study programs
travel experiences
residence or study abroad#
cultural projects or opportunities
other off-campus experiences
Field study should not Include:
independent reading or study assignments
independent study groups
independent laboratory experiments
other similar projects
@On-campus experiences may be included provided they
are comparable to off-campus field experiences; i.e.,
they remove the student from the closely supervised
classroom or laboratory situation and provide him
with the opportunity to seek and make use of the
resources of a field of interest in a manner dif­
ferent from the usual independent research project.
#Credit must be more than that earned through formal
enrollment in a foreign institution (Appendices I
and II).

72

Nesmith, op. cit., p. 56.

40
As was previously mentioned, student teaching and
student nursing and related experiences were excluded from
the study after questionnaire returns were in.

Experiences

for which students received monetary stipends or salaries
were not excluded on that account.

Interview Technique
As was indicated earlier, the dean or department
chairman named the faculty member(s) with whom there might
be further contact.

Frequently he named himself.

After the

faculty member returned his questionnaire, he was called for
an interview appointment.

Where two or three faculty members

from the same department returned completed questionnaires,
those faculty members were called who seemed most involved
in field study work or who indicated by note they would like
further contact.

No one refused the request for an interview.

Although interview questions were prepared and
available (Appendix IV) these were not strictly adhered to.
It was found after the first two or three interviews that
faculty members were much more at ease and much more expres­
sive when they were allowed to talk freely about the
advantages and problems of their programs.

In most instances

they covered all or almost all of the questions listed; if
any were omitted, those specific questions were pointed out.
With the exception of o n e , all faculty members * interviews

41
were taped.

These conversations were later transcribed or

reviewed.
The student interviews were telephone interviews
which ranged from ten minutes to forty-five minutes in
length.

For these, interview questions were followed

(Appendix V) but the open-ended questions provided ample
opportunity for students to elaborate on their experiences.
These interviews, too, were taped and later replayed for
review or transcription.

CHAPTER IV
QUESTIONNAIRE FINDINGS
Departments Offering Field Study
Forty-one (45.6 percent) of the ninety departments
contacted reported that they offer field study experiences
for credit to undergraduate students (Appendix III).

The

other departments (Appendix VI) responded either that they
offer no field study experiences, that they offer field
studies but these are at the graduate level, or that they
offer and sometimes even require field study but no credit
is given.

However, one can assume that most of the depart­

ments with a sense of commitment to this type of learning
experience are among the forty-one contacted for further
information.
Of these forty-one departments, six— those whose
experiences prepare one directly for traditional teaching or
nursing careers— were excluded from the focus of the study.
The remaining thirty-five departments represent 85.4 percent
of the departments offering such field study as is being
reviewed and 38.9 percent of all the departments on campus.
The questionnaire returns submitted by forty-five
faculty members from the thirty-five departments under

42

43
consideration provided information directly related to five
of the basic research questions in the study:
1.

the extent to which field study experiences are a
part of the curriculum;

2.

the extent to which field study experiences are
designed and evaluated according to stated goals and
objectives;

3.

those factors on the part of the institution and
faculty which prove inhibiting to the development of
field study experiences;

4.

those factors outside of the institution which prove
inhibiting to the development of field study experi­
ences ; and

5.

those problems students encounter which discourage
them in their participation in field study experi­
ences .
When questionnaires were tabulated, responses showed

not only the overall status of field studies at Michigan
State University but also the manner in which answers dif­
fered according to the types of field study.
provide

Tables 1-5

some answers to the above questions according to the

following categories:

optional field studies which focus on

professional or technical preparation, optional field studies
with a liberal arts or cultural emphasis, departmentallyrequired field studies with a professional or technical
preparation emphasis, departmentally-required field studies

44
which have a cultural or liberal arts emphasis, and those
field studies which are a professional requirement.
Responses to questionnaire items that are not
included in Tables 1-5 are tabulated and reported in Appendix
VII.

These questionnaire items, although not directly

related to the basic research questions, give a clearer
picture of the field study experiences in this study and
provide interesting information and background material about
field study at Michigan State University.
Extent of Field Study
Field studies, although offered in thirty-five depart­
ments, are required experiences in fewer than half of these.
Table 1 indicates that only fifteen departments require a
field experience; the other departments offer these experi­
ences on an optional basis.

A further observation reveals

that only slightly more than one-third (37.1 percent) limit
such study to majors enrolled in the department and that
none of the required or optional field study experiences
with a liberal arts emphasis exclude non-majors.

Still,

however, twenty-five (71.4 percent) of the departments have
25 percent or fewer non-majors in their field study programs.
This enrollment pattern suggests that field studies may be
more open in theory than in practice.
In the review of literature it was noted that many
field study experiences in the past were limited to honors

Table 1.

Availability of field study.

a

b

c

d

(N - 14)

(N = 6)

(N = 3)

(N =* 2)

e

Total

Departments;
%

N

%

H

N

%

N

Limited to majors

6

(42.9)

0

—

0

Limited
to superior students
•

2

(14.3)

0

—

1

(33.3)

0

Available to seniors

12

(85.7)

6

(100.0)

2

(66.7)

2

Available to juniors

7

(50.0)

6

(100.0)

2

(66.7)

Available to sophomores

2

(14.3)

6

(100.0)

1

(33.3)

Available to freshmen

1

(7.1)

2

(33.3)

0

90% or more graduating seniors
have participated

0

10% or fewer graduating seniors
have more than one

6

(42.9)

2

(33.3)

0

—

0

90% or more graduating seniors
have more than one

1

(7.1)

1

(16.7)

0

—

0

10% or fewer graduating seniors
have more than one

8

(57.1)

1

(16.7)

3

(100.0)

1

10

(71.4)

1

(16.7)

3

(100.0)

2

25% or fewer non-majors have
participated

—

0

—

3

—

—
(100.0)

%

0

(N =• 10)
N

%

(N = 35)
N

%

7

(70.0)

13

(37.1)

1

(10.0)

4

(11.4)

(100.0)

9

(90.0)

32

(91.4)

2

(100.0)

8

(80.0)

25

(71.4)

1

150.0)

3

(30.0)

13

(37.1)

1

(50.0)

2

(20.0)

6

(17.1)

2

(100.0)

8

(80.0)

13

(37.1)

—

1

(10.0)

9

(25.7)

—

2

(20.0)

4

(11.4)

(50.0)

6

(60.0)

19

(54.4)

(100.0)

9

(90.0)

25

(71.4)

--

Type
optional field study, professional or technical emphasis; b, optional field study, liberal arts
or cultural emphasis; c, departmental requirement, professional or technical emphasis; d, departmental
requirement, liberal arts or cultural emphasis; e, professional requirement.

46
students and/or to juniors and seniors.

Data from Table 1

show that at Michigan State University the first of these
trends seems to have changed.

Only four (11.4 percent) of

the departments limit the field study experience to superior
students.

The second limitation, however, still holds.

Although thirty-two (91.4 percent) of the departments offer
such experiences to seniors and twenty-five (71.4 percent)
to juniors, only slightly more than one-third (37.1 percent)
provide the opportunity for field study to sophomores.

And

freshmen have an even more limited choice, for only six
(17.1 percent) of the departments allow field study experi­
ences at that level.

Again, those departments with a liberal

arts emphasis seem to be much more open than those with a
professional emphasis.
Only thirteen (37.1 percent) of the departments have
90 percent or more of the graduating seniors who have had
field study experiences.

As might be expected, these stu­

dents are from departments where field study is a required
part of the program.

In departments where the experience

is optional more than one-third (42.9 percent and 33.3 per­
cent) have fewer than 10 percent of the graduating seniors
who have participated in a field experience.

Two new programs

were not able to report but their field studies are at present
very limited in enrollment; another department was not able
to respond.

If these are included, each percentage rises

to 50 percent or more.

These figures suggest that at least

47
in optional programs field studies are not as extensive in
practice nor as popular as would at first be surmised.

One

is not surprised then that more than one-half (54.4 percent)
of the departments have 10 percent or fewer graduating seniors
who have had more than one field study experience.
Objectives and Evaluations
Only twenty-one (60.0 percent) of the departments
have formally stated objectives for their field studies
(Table 2).

Since all of the departments with liberal arts

or cultural field studies have formally stated goals, the
ones that do not are professionally oriented, both optional
and required.

In these types of programs the objectives may

seem to be more obvious and therefore departments may not
feel the urgency or need to put them in writing.
The objectives checked and ranked in the question­
naires indicate a definite pattern and definite goals
(Table 3).

The application of theory to practical situations

is the objective with the highest priority in four of the
five categories.

Only in those departments where the field

study is a professional requirement does this objective take
second place to professional preparation.

This latter

objective, as one might expect, ranks second for the other
professionally oriented field studies, but it also has a
high ranking— third place— for both categories which provide
liberal arts or cultural experiences.

Self-reliance and

Table 2.

Objectives and evaluations of field study.

Departments:

a
b
c
---------------------- ----------(N = 14)
(N = 6)
(N = 3)
N

%

d
e
Total
---------- ---------------------(N = 2 )
(N = 10)
(N = 35)

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

%

N

Formally stated objectives

7

(50.0)

6

(100.0)

1

(33.3)

2

(100.0)

5

(50.0) 21

(60.0)

Guidelines available for
approving field study

9

(64.3)

3

(50.0)

1

(33.3)

2

(100.0)

7

(70.0) 22

(62.9)

Never attempted evaluation of
field study program

7

(50.0)

4

(66.7)

1

(33.3)

1

(50.0)

4

(40.0) 17

(48.6)

Evaluated field study program
to department's satisfaction

4

(28.6)

4

(66.7)

1

(33.3)

0

4

(40.0) 13

(37.1)

12
7
6
8
5
3
6
2

(85.7)
(50.0)
(42.9)
(57.1)
(35.7)
(21.4)
(42.9)
(14.3)

6
6
1
3
2
2
4
4

(100.0)
(100.0)
(16.7)
(50.0)
(33.3)
(33.3)
(66.7)
(66.7)

3
2
0
0
1
1
1
1

(100.0)
(66.7)

1
1
2
1
0
2
0
0

(50.0)
(50.0)
(100.0)
(50.0)
—
(100.0)
—
—

10 (100.0) 32
8 (80.0) 24
7 (70.0) 16
7 (70.0) 19
5 (50.0) 13
5 (50.0) 13
3 (30.0) 14
3 (30.0) 9

(91.4)
(68.6)
(45.7)
(54.3)
(37.1)
(37.1)
(40.0)
(25.7)

10

(71.4)

3

(50.0)

0

2

(100.0)

1

(7.1)

1

(16.7)

2

2

(100.0)

Evaluation of students by:
Written reports
Oral reports
Agency or outside assessment
Interviews
Visitations and observations
Journals
Projects
Tests
Dissatisfaction with evaluation
techniques or tools
Use of P/N in final evaluation

—

—
(33.3)
(33.3)
(33.3)
(33.3)
—
(66.7)

—

7
1

(70.0) 14

(40.0)

(10.0)

(17.1)

6

Type £1, optional field study, professional or technical emphasis; b, optional field study, liberal arts
or cultural emphasis; c, departmental requirement, professional or technical emphasis; c2, departmental
requirement, liberal arts or cultural emphasis; e, professional requirement.

Table 3.

Departmental objectives for field study— tabulated, weighted, and ranked.

Departments:

a

b

c

d

e

Total

2

3

2

3

1

2

6-7

7

3

7

7

7

Self-reliance and self-direction

3

4

6

4

3

3

Knowledge of self (abilities, values, etc.)

5

2

3

4

4

5

6-7

5

7

4

5

6

Application of theory to practical
situations

1

1

1

1

2

1

Development of awareness of societal
issues

4

6

3

2

6

4

Professional preparation
Professional service

Understanding and acceptance of others

Type a, optional field study, professional or technical emphasis; Ja, optional field study, liberal arts
or cultural emphasis; £, departmental requirement, professional or technical emphasis; d, departmental
requirement, liberal arts or cultural emphasis; e, professional requirement.

50

self-direction, development of awareness of societal issues,
knowledge of self, and understanding and acceptance of others
are ranked in that order with some slight variations in range
among types of programs.

And ranking last in four of the

five types of field study offerings is professional service.
This close relationship of objectives among the various
categories suggests a consistency of goals one might not
ordinarily suspect between liberal arts and professional
programs.
Half (48.6 percent) of the departments have never
formally evaluated their field study programs to determine
whether the objectives are being met, and only thirteen
(37.1 percent) claim to have evaluated the program to their
department's satisfaction (Table 2).

This failure to evaluate

field study experiences may suggest any of several things:
a lack of interest, a shortage of personnel to carry out the
evaluation, a fear of having to acknowledge that objectives
are not being met, or, on the other hand, such confidence in
the field study program that one might feel an evaluation to
be a waste of time and energy because of what one feels to
be obvious values.
Evaluation of students, however, must necessarily
take place and the most frequently reported technique or tool
for this is some type of written report.

Thirty-two (91.4

percent) of the departments use a written report with thirteen
(37.1 percent) of these in the form of a journal.

The oral

51

report is the second most common evaluation technique; it is
used by twenty-four (68.6 percent) of the departments.

These

and the other evaluation methods indicated in Table 2 seem
to form no particular pattern by type of program.

What is

worthy of note is the fact that fourteen (40 percent) of the
departments indicate dissatisfaction with their own techni­
ques and tools.

This fact may suggest that new evaluation

materials and methods need to be developed for off-campus
learning experiences.
In reporting their ^valuation of students almost
all of the departments use number grades (4.0-0.0); only six
evaluate students by P/N (pass/no grade).

Here again is

evidence of the priority of traditional practices.

Inhibiting Factors
Faculty Time
Faculty members in all categories of departments
indicated that their greatest problem in offering field
studies is that of time (Table 4).

Comments on question­

naires revealed that field study experiences often demand
more advising time, that frequently the experiences them- '
selves absorb considerable faculty time, and that there is
no general policy for computing faculty load for advising
and supervising students on an independent study field experi­
ence.

As one faculty member wrote:

"Field work requires

more effort, planning, faith, hope, charity, etc., etc.,

Table 4.

Inhibiting factors of field study— -faculty, institutions, placement sites.
a

b

c

d

(N = 14)

u>
t)
z

(N = 3)

(N = 2)

e

Toted

Departments:
N

%

N

%

N

12
9
5

(85.7)
(64.3)
(35.7)

4
3
3

(66.7)
(50.0)
(50.0)

2
0
0

(66.7)
—

12

(85.7)

2

(33.3)

1

7
8
7
7
7

(50.0)
(57.1)
(50.0)
(50.0)
(50.0)

4
3
3
3
1

(66.7)
(50.0)
(50.0)
(50.0)
(16.7)

Limited placement sites

7

(50.0)

1

Agencies provide supervision

6

(42.9)

Agencies assist in evaluation

9

(64.3)

%

(N = 35)

(N * 10)
%

N

N

%

N

%

2
0
0

(100.0)
—
——

9
6
5

(90.0)
(60.0)
(50.0)

29
18
13

(82.9)
(51.4)
(37.1)

(33.3)

1

(50.0)

2

(20.0)

18

(51.4)

2
3
1
1
2

(66.7)
(100.0)
(33.3)
(33.3)
(66.7)

1
1
1
1
1

(50.0)
(50.0)
(50.0)
(50.0)
(50.0)

7
6
6
5
6

(70.0)
(60.0)
(60.0)
(50.0)
(60.0)

21
21
18
17
17

(60.0)
(60.0)
(51.4)
(48.6)
(48.6)

(16.7)

0

—

1

(50.0)

6

(60.0)

15

(42.9)

2

(33.3)

1

(33.3)

2

(100.0)

4

(40.0)

15

(42.9)

2

(33.3)

1

(33.3)

2

(100.0)

5

(50.0)

19

(54.3)

Faculty
Problems:
Time
Supervision
Coordination

—

Institution
Never studied cost
Increase in cost:
Faculty
Program direction
Supervision
Planning
Placement sites

Type <1 , optional field study, professional or technical emphasis; b, optional field study, liberal arts
or cultural emphasis; c, departmental requirement, professional or technical emphasis; d, departmental
requirement, liberal arts or cultural emphasis; e, professional requirement.

53

etc."

The time problem was mentioned in every category and

totaled to twenty-nine (82.9 percent) of the departments.

Cost to Departments
The cost of field study programs is a major consider­
ation in some departments.

Although eighteen (51.4 percent)

reported they had never studied the cost factor, twenty-one
(60 percent) reported that field study experiences lead to
an increase in cost.

This fact, that more departments indi­

cate an increase in cost than even admit of studying it,
suggests among other reasons the hesitancy that was expressed
by one faculty member with a successful program.

When asked

if his department had ever studied the cost, he stated, "I
fear to think of it."

The cost is high because of the need

for additional faculty, for program direction, supervising,
and planning.

This is true for all types of programs.

Sites
Having limited placement sites is another inhibiting
factor in setting up field studies.

Fifteen (42.9 percent)

of the departments, thirteen of which are in the professional
or technical areas, reported this problem.

More outside

agencies assist in evaluation (54.3 percent) than provide
supervision (42.9 percent), but both services are limited.
These problems all reflect the first problem mentioned, that
of faculty time, for coordinating and contacting for

54
placements, supervising, and evaluating all throw an extra
burden on faculty and can absorb much time.

Cost to StudentB
Table 5 reveals some problems which faculty members
think make field study experiences difficult for students
and which even inhibit some students from opting for them.
Transportation and cost are the two big items with seventeen
(48.6 percent) and sixteen (45.7 percent) of the departments
reporting these.

Such problems are not confined to one or

two types of field experience but are spread throughout the
categories.

Other Problems
Limited opportunities

(28.6 percent) and expectations

of outside agencies (17.1 percent) are other problems indi­
cated.

In general faculty do not think many students are

dissatisfied with the amount of credit they earn nor do they
think students are too bothered by red tape.

More informa­

tion on student problems will be indicated in the chapter on
interview findings where students' own discussions of their
problems will be presented.

Summary
In the thirty-five departments under investigation,
field study experiences, as indicated by questionnaire

Table 5.

Student problems as identified by faculty.

a

e

b

c

d

(N = 6)

(N = 3)

(N = 2)

Total

Departments:
(N = 14)

(N « 10)

(N =» 35)

N

%

N

(66.7)

2

(100.0)

3

(30.0)

16

(45.7)

0

—

1

(50.0)

1

(10.0)

5

(14.3)

(50.0)

2

(66.7)

0

—

6

(60.0)

17

(48.6)

1

(16.7)

0

—

0

—

1

(10.0)

6

(17.1)

(50.0)

2

(33.3)

0

—

0

—

1

(10.0)

10

(28.6)

5

(35.7)

1

(16.7)

0

—

0

—

1

(10.0)

7

(20.0)

Time

5

(35.7)

2

(33.3)

0

—

0

—

1

(10.0)

8

(22.9)

Insufficient credit

3

(21.4)

1

(16.7)

0

—

1

2

(20.0)

7

(20.0)

N

%

N

%

Cost

6

(42.9)

3

(50.0)

2

Red tape (arrangements)

1

(7.1)

2

(33.3)

Transportation

6

(42.9)

3

Expectations of outside agencies

4

(28.6)

Limited opportunities

7

Apathy

%

N

(50.0)

%

N

%

Type a, optional field study, professional or technical emphasis; b, optional field study, liberal arts
or cultural emphasis; £, departmental requirement, professional or technical emphasis; d, departmental
requirement, liberal arts or cultured, emphasis; e, professional requirement.

56
findings, are more frequently offered on an optional basis
(twenty departments) than as a requirement (fifteen depart­
ments) and are more often than not open to non-majors (63.9
percent).

No longer is it a general practice to limit such

learning experiences to superior students (four departments),
but most field study is still an upperclassman privilege.
Although 91.4 percent of these departments offer such experi­
ences to seniors and 71.4 percent to juniors, only 37.1
percent of the departments open up such opportunities to
sophomores and 17.1 percent to freshmen.

These limitations,

together with the facts that almost half of those departments
where the field study experience is optional have fewer than
10 percent of the graduating seniors who have participated
in field study experiences and more than one-half of the
departments have 10 percent or fewer graduating seniors who
have had more than one field study experience, suggest that
field study is not as common as might at first be expected.
Although only 21 (60 percent) of the departments
have formally stated objectives, there was general agreement
or similarity in the objectives checked and ranked in the
questionnaire.

Application of theory to practical situations

is the objective with the highest priority; professional
preparation ranks second.

The consistency of response across

categories suggests that there is more similarity than one
might expect between liberal arts and professional programs.

57
Faculty time, Institutional cost, limited opportu­
nities, student transportation, and costs to the student are
problems which inhibit both departments from offering or
expanding field study experiences and students from partici­
pating freely in such experiences.
The failure of many departments to evaluate either
their field study programs (48.6 percent) or the cost of
these programs (51.4 percent) may suggest a lack of interest,
a lack of personnel, a satisfaction with the status quo, or
an unquestioning acceptance or confidence in innovative
practices.

And from the acknowledgment of the dissatisfac­

tion which 40 percent of the departments express regarding
their tools and techniques for evaluating students, one
might conclude that evaluation is an area much in need of
attention.

Perhaps new methods, new tools, new techniques,

new ways of looking at learning experiences must be devel­
oped.

CHAPTER V
INTERVIEW FINDINGS
Advantages and Disadvantages of Visitations
Questionnaire responses indicated to some degree the
extent of and the opportunities for field study at Michigan
State University.

Some problems, too, were identified.

However, for a consideration of such a varied topic as field
study, a broader and more flexible approach seemed desirable.
In order, then, to gain a better understanding of field
studies— their extent, their objectives, their problems, and
their values— and a more comprehensive answer to each research
question, interviews were arranged.

Visiting with a suffi­

cient number of faculty members and students who were or had
been involved with field studies would take a considerable
amount of time, but it was felt that the insights that could
be gained by an open but somewhat structured discussion with
persons closely and recently involved in field study would
be invaluable.
In most instances the request for an interview was
graciously honored with both faculty and students giving much
more of their time than had been requested.

After discussing

field study for an hour, one faculty member decided to forego
58

59
his lunch hour break in order to have the opportunity to con­
tinue the discussion.

Another faculty member prolonged the

interview through the dinner hour even though she had an
evening class scheduled.

In both sessions the structured

questions had been covered, but the faculty members had more
to say about field study experiences.

Such interest was evi­

denced by many faculty members, among them several who asked
if they might be allowed to attend the Field Study Committee
meetings (only one student presented such a request).
dents, too, seemed eager to express themselves.

Stu­

One actually

asked, "Have you much time?" and then stated, "I could talk
all day."

Many other students were so eager to report that

it was rather difficult to terminate the interviews.
The open-ended questions provided an opportunity for
discussing views which both faculty and students seemed to
want to share.

In some instances pent-up frustrations were

released; in others, satisfactions were acknowledged.

There

was an obvious advantage to such frank and open discussions,
but problems are built into any research conducted this way.
It is difficult to present in an organized way such varied
responses, opinions, and ideas as these interviews generated.
And many new topics, too, were introduced--topics which
directly or indirectly related to various aspects of field
study.

To sift through this material— all of which was

recorded on tape and thus available for thorough analysis—
and to present only that which pertained to the research

60

questions was a challenge, but one more than compensated for
by the added dimension the interviews brought to the study.
In order to safeguard the anonymity of the depart­
ments in the study all problems and findings have been
discussed by topic rather than by department.

The great

diversity between departments and the unusual programs of
some made such a presentation at times rather difficult, but
the purpose of this study was not to single out the problems
or valuable aspects of any particular department, but rather
to look at the total field study program.
It is obvious that not all of the comments of faculty
and students could be included in this study.

The ones

selected were chosen as typical or as illustrative of a
particular point.

All conversations, however, were reviewed

and those general ideas which seemed pertinent to the topics
under discussion were presented.

Descriptions and Extent of Field Study
Field study experiences as described by the faculty
included a wide variety of new as well as more traditional
field studies.

A question about the actualization of these

field studies— Was experience really as varied as might be
suggested by the opportunities described?— was quickly
answered by the students.

Detailed descriptions of the many

studies showed beyond doubt that a great variety of experi­
ences were offered and enjoyed by students.

61
To understand better the many types of experiences
actually reported, to recognize that the field studies of
Michigan State University students parallel the numerous
categories mentioned, and to acknowledge that these field
studies "run the gamut," it seems appropriate to describe
or list very briefly some of the actual experiences which
were engaged in by the students contacted.
One student visited and lived in abandoned World
War II incarceration camps in California, interviewed former
inmates, and compiled his findings and reflections into a
book which will soon be published.

Another student lived,

worked, and studied for two months in a California desert—
a scientific research project.

A young woman spent a term

touring and acting with a West Coast theatre group; a young
man lived and observed the Amish as a means of getting back­
ground for the project he designed.

A newspaper for a

religious organization was established, edited, and published
by an enterprising young man (it is still being published),
and another prepared both radio and television broadcasts
for his field study.

One student went abroad with a friend

where together they gathered data for a comparative study
of the teaching techniques of British and American professors.
Another student arranged for interviews with a group of
London businessmen for his self-designed study.

One student

did research for a senator, another interned in an attorney
general's office, and still another spent time working and

62
studying in the Democratic offices in the State Capitol
Building.

Experiences included jobs in a CPA firm, in an

auditing department, with the Cooperative Service in Washing­
ton, in an office on campus, and with the foreign exchange
students in another university.

Some of the students

described field study experiences in probation courts, in
the police department, in reform schools, in juvenile homes,
and in welfare agencies.
Service-oriented experiences abounded.

Some of the

students worked with small inner-city businesses as manage­
ment consultants, planned and set up community recreation
programs and centers, interned in day-care centers, and
worked with the physically handicapped, the emotionally
disturbed, and the mentally retarded.
Other students were involved in encounter groups,
leadership studies, family counseling, summer camps, and
neighborhood surveys.

One student studied some social prob­

lems of the inner city of Detroit; another, the social
welfare system in Europe (he went abroad to do this).

One

investigated the deterioration of housing in a specific area
of a city; another worked at the socialization of former
mental patients.
All field studies, however, were not independent
study projects.

Several students were contacted who had

participated in field trips that took them away from campus
for two or three hours or even days at a time; other trips

63

lasted two or three weeks or even an entire summer.

Students

reported such group trips taking them to the Appalacian
Mountains for geological study, to the deep South for a study
of the park system, and to the East and South for forestry
study.

Many of the field trips were primarily observational

in nature with some discussion or presentation by experts or
professionals in the field? others were research oriented
and actively involved the students in such follow-up projects
as map making, soil analysis, or water study.

At times these

field trips were a preliminary experience to a more active
participation in a subsequent field study.
These are many but not all of the field studies
actually experienced by the students interviewed for this
study.

Although some of the most simple may have been the

best and some of the most elaborate or impressive-sounding
may not have been the most valid educational experiences,
one fact seems obvious— not all learning occurs on campus.
Although the availability of field studies was indi­
cated through the questionnaires and reported in the previous
chapter, interview findings showed a slight difference or
modification regarding one point.

Field study experiences,

it was reported, are available primarily to juniors and
seniors, sometimes to sophomores, and to a limited
extent to freshipen.

According to the numbers previ­

ously cited (Table 2), were students to take advantage of
the opportunities for field study when they are provided

64
them, the percentages of students enrolled in field study
would be as follows:

seniors, 42.1 percent; juniors, 32.9

percent; sophomores, 17.1 percent, and freshmen, 7.9 percent.
The actual grade levels of the students interviewed were as
follows:

seniors, 45.3 percent; juniors, 40 percent; soph­

omores, 10.5 percent; and freshmen, 2.1 percent (graduate
9

students accounted for the other 2.1 percent).

A comparison

of these figures suggests that freshmen and sophomores are
not so apt to enroll for field studies even though the
opportunity is available.

Whereas one would expect 25 per­

cent of the students to be freshmen or sophomores (Table 2),
only half that many in this study were at those grade levels.
Considering the fact that many upperclassmen expressed the
desire to have a field study experience earlier in their pro­
grams, one may assume either that upperclassmen are selected
for these experiences or that communication about such field
study opportunities is deficient.

Objectives of Field Study
Clarification of Objectives
It has already been reported that only 60 percent of
the departments offering field study claim to have clearly
stated objectives.

Yet conversations with faculty members

from those departments where objectives have not been
definitely set forth in writing, indicate that most

65
departments and faculty members offering field study experi­
ences to undergraduates seem to know why they are providing
such opportunities.

However, contrary to what might at first

be assumed from such an observation, the objectives and
rationale were not always developed in such a way that they
provided guidance for the selection or development of experi­
ences, nor were the goals always in harmony with institu­
tional goals.

Some were success-oriented and some reflected

the personal ambitions of the faculty members.

For example,

a few named such goals as job placement for students and
innovation opportunities for faculty.

One faculty member

even gave as his department's objective the creation of
opportunities for faculty to travel, but such objectives—
perhaps more aptly defined as reasons— were the exception
rather than the rule.

Most problems with objectives were

in developing and stating them as functional and attainable
goals.

In the discussion on evaluation this problem will

be more in evidence.
Departments were primarily concerned with the two
objectives having the highest rating on the questionnaires,
application of theory to practical situations and profes­
sional preparation, and with those objectives related to
various aspects of personal development.
objectives are summarized in Table 6.

These departmental

66
Table 6.

Selected questionnaire items.

An * indicates at least 3/4 of
the departments in the category
reporting that particular ques­
tionnaire item; an x, at least 1/2.
Objectives
Professional preparation
Professional service
Self-reliance and self-direction
Knowledge of self
Understanding and acceptance
of others
Application of theory to
practical situations
Development of awareness of
societal issues

b

c

d

N»14

N“6

N**3

N-2

N»10

X

X

*

*

X

X

X

X

*
X
X

t
*

*
*

X

X

X

X

*

X

X

X

*

*

*

X

X

*

X

X

*

Field study preparation experiences

X

Field study follow-up experiences

X

Guidelines for faculty

X

X

*

*
*

Evaluation techniques or tools
Written reports or journals
Oral reports
Agency assessment
Interviews
Visitations
Projects
Tests
Satisfaction with evaluation
techniques

X

Cost studies

X

*

X

*

X

*

*

*

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

4
X

X

X
X
X
X

Student problems
Transportation
Cost
Faculty problems
Time
Supervision
Coordination

e

a

X

X

X

X
X

★

X

*

X

X

X

*

*

X
X
X

X

X

*

Type a^, optional field studyr professional or technical emphasis; is,
optional field study, liberal arts or cultural emphasis; £, departmental
requirement, professional or technical emphasis; d, departmental require­
ment, liberal arts or cultural emphasis; e, professional requirement.

67
The objectives as expressed by students reflected
many of the same objectives given by faculty.

One student

stated his belief very simply:
You can only learn so much theory in books. You have to
get out into the practice of it to see what your field
is really going to be like and to learn all you should.
Both faculty and students, attesting to such a value being
realized through some field studies, reflected a commitment
to the theory proposed by Henderson and noted in Chapter I—
that the interweaving of the theoretical with the practical
stimulates learning.
Closely related to this discussion, in fact one
aspect of it, is the need for what one faculty member
expressed as a "necessary reality base."

In his discussion

of the students he said, "We tell them a lot of what should
be but they are naive about what is."

That many students

agree with this opinion is evidenced by their frequent use
of the terms "real world" and "real life" when contrasting
their field study with on-campus learning.

Warned one

faculty member:
They think that they've been in a sort of cocoon and
that we've been force feeding them all kinds of things
we tell them they'll need— and they aren't all that
sure.
Many departments, especially some of those quite
professionally oriented, claimed it would be almost impos­
sible to prepare students professionally, one of the objec­
tives of their educational programs, were they not able to

68
provide field experiences; others, that they would be limited
in the degree to which such an objective might be met without
field studies.
The on-the-scene exposure provided by many field
studies plays a dual function regarding professional prepara­
tion.

Not only does it expose the student to new approaches

and skills in his chosen profession but, if provided early
enough, fulfills a need existing today which one faculty
member pointed out did not exist some years ago when young
people grew up working side by side with their fathers.

The

student may find through the experience that he is better
able to make a career choice.

Two students expressed real

gratitude for this frequently overlooked value in field
experiences.

The first found that as a result of his off-

campus experience he now knows what kind of job he wants.
It was very valuable.
It gave me a chance to apply some
of the things that I 've been talking about for so long
and it also gave me a taste of something which I found
very interesting.
I really enjoyed it and it is actually
because of the field experience that I am now looking
for a job that will have some of the same experiences.
The second student realized just the opposite.
I found out I had been in the wrong field.
absolutely no interest in it whatsoever.

I have

Perhaps this student will embark on other field studies in
his search for a field he will find interesting.

Several

students expressed a desire for this option— to try alterna­
tives as they select their occupations and their life styles.

69

Not only were many faculty concerned about pro­
fessional preparation but also about developing some of those
qualities in the students without which professional skills
would be useless.

One stated it thus:

W e 're trying to develop in the student a sense that he
is very competent without damaging his humility. The
student knows we are trying to show him that there are
jobs to be done— that have to be done.
There are
things he can do and can do better than other people
can. Confidence1 We want to build up confidence through
field experience.
This emphasis on personal development, such as the
building of self-confidence, was a primary objective of some
of the departments offering field study.

Other qualities

such as independence, responsibility, self-knowledge, and
appreciation of others were values repeated over and over
again in both types of programs, those with a professional
and those with a liberal arts emphasis.

Little did one

faculty member realize how wrong he was when he apologized
for being "unusual" in his selection of objectives.
I'm not really very typical for your study because I
see objectives as personality growth, learning to take
interpersonal risks, learning to deal with oneself,
becoming aware. The particular content is less impor­
tant to me than what the person learns about how one
deals with life.
There are many supporters of the view that the
college has a responsibility for the development of the whole
personality.

A few comments from some of the faculty members

reveal this concern for other than cognitive goals.
Our field study lends itself to developing maturity.
It
lends itself to confidence building.
It allows students

70
to delve Into life as other than students. Many students
don't know who and what they are and field study helps
them determine this.
It gets the student to build and
create on his own.
*

*

★

These experiences provide the students with the chance
to assess their own values and the values of others.
They force them to reflect on what they want and to
incorporate in their lives, in terms of a life style,
the values most important to them.
*

*

*

We've asked students to set up their own programs because
planning and follow-through encourages independence, selfreliance, and ability to act according to his capabili­
ties.
Closely related to the above statement is another comment:
We ask them to state their own goals. Many have never
been on their own, never been asked to do that. Their
objectives were stated for them. Nobody ever told them,
"We want you to do something you want to do and to
decide why you want to do it." So we ask them to do
that.
Students see the importance of such activity and
incorporate these values into their own set of objectives.
We set up our own objectives. There are certain things
you want to learn. They hope you'll gain independence—
you'll become a seeker of information. It should put
into perspective the rest of your academic career.
*

*

*

You're given a chance to do your own learning. You're
not spoonfed by a professor and expected to regurgitate
this data which the professor has thrown on you during
the class. You more or less evaluate for yourself,
think for yourself, and learn for yourself.
This idea that content or the cognitive aspects of
the learning situation play a role secondary to that of
acquiring certain attitudes or values was the feeling

71
expressed by another faculty member.

His hopes were that

field experiences would thrust the students so forcefully
into reality that they would discover that learning is an
on-going process, something that takes place because they
make it take place and that need not be confined to any
particular place or time.
The most important thing is to know what learning is all
about, to realize learning is not a set* of abstract
things to be memorized or to be combined.
It is to be
engaged in ongoing social and natural life and at the
same time to be able to stand off from it and to inte­
grate, to be able to pull these things together, to
realize that it is a life-long process that is not just
related to formal structural learning situations but to
create an excitement of being able to interpret one's
own experiences every day in a framework that allows you
to both stand off as well as be involved.
It's a whole
mind set that if one should get the hang of it gives
you a richness of perspective and it makes you demand
things of yourself.
In the opening chapter the terms relevance, meaninqfulness, and action were used to describe another objective
which young people hope to reach through their educational
experiences.

An objective, last on the list but nevertheless

enunciated by both faculty and students from various depart­
ments and one that encompasses some of the already-mentioned
objectives, is professional service or service-learning.

In

the previously quoted Hazen Foundation report it is stated:
It is hard to understand why so few attempts have been
made to integrate the desire to serve with the educa­
tional experience, for it has long been taken for granted
that learning is most effective when it can be directly
tied in to some meaningful experience outside the class­
room. 73
73

The Student in Higher Education, op. cit., p. 47.

72
From conversations with both faculty and students it was
obvious that students' concerns become more humane and
realistic when they grow out of direct contact with people
who have problems.
Such definiteness of purpose as was expressed by many
departments may tend to overshadow the fact that not all
departments seemed to know exactly what they are about.
There was a vagueness about some responses which indicated
a feeling that the field experience may have some value but
the department or faculty members have some question about
just what that value really is.

One faculty member simply

stated:
We have not had explicitly stated objectives for the
field work course, but those who have offered the course
have, I think, shared the notion that it was a "good
thing" . . . to be able to supplement "book learning"
with practical experience.
Another faculty member commented,
•

I wish we had a better understanding of the objectives
of the program.
I think in any program like this it is
probably worthwhile to take some time to try to develop
some objectives even though anyone who's been in educa­
tion very long knows these won't necessarily be the
objectives that are achieved. But I think it's worth
the effort to try to develop some.
His next comment revealed to some extent the hesitancy and
the problems some faculty members face.
I've certainly never figured out how to develop meaning­
ful and measurable objectives.
This is partly the value
of the kinds of courses we teach where we aren't really
teaching technical material or technical skills.
If
anything, we do hope to change some attitudes, I guess,
but we're for the most part never very precise or

73
specific about this— either in developing the objectives
or in trying to measure them.
Such statements did not seem to reveal any ill-will
or lack of concern on the part of these and other faculty
or departments giving similar responses.

Rather they seemed

to indicate a willingness on the part of some to work harder
for that type of program which seemed a "good thing" even
though they were not very precise or explicit about what
that good thing was.

They indicated, too, a lack of

expertise, or perhaps time, to determine and specify such
achievable goals and objectives as would be valid for their
programs.

Selection of Experiences
"A precise statement of what the student must be able
to do clearly indicates what experiences are necessary to
provide practice in it."

So states Paul Dressel in College
*7

and University Curriculum.

A

Most departments are organized

in such a way that some form of curriculum committee func­
tions at least informally if not formally.

One might expect

such a committee to be responsible for such field studies
as are being offered, but such is not the case in more than
one-fourth of the departments.

In these latter departments

the field study is, as one faculty member put it, a "one-man
show."

The faculty member plans, organizes, and carries out
74

Dressel, op. cit., p. 209.

74

his ideas for off-campus learning with approval, or maybe
just lack of disapproval, from the department chairman.

In

these instances the faculty member develops his own goals
and objectives.

In the majority of cases, however, the

question of field studies, their objectives, their problems,
their cost, and sometimes their effectiveness are a depart­
mental concern and guidelines are set up for the appropriate
experiences.

But for approval of specific projects within

the general guidelines, rarely does a faculty committee need
to function.

It is true that the faculty member must fre­

quently have an endorsement or second approval of proposed
experiences, but in only one instance must a committee be
involved (Appendix VII, #18).
Such a procedure places a great deal of responsi­
bility on individual faculty members whose departments at
times must admit to errors in judgment.

Several departments

have forms to be filed where the objectives must be stated
and the experiences must be described.

This practice forces

a certain specificity and definiteness of purpose which
helps some faculty to be more thoughtful and objective in
their endorsements.
The departments which involve a faculty committee
or a group of faculty in studying off-campus learning see
great value in a pluralistic approach.

One man stated:

It 's good to bring faculty in. They get help in under­
standing the nature of the program.
It also brings
some new insights into the problem— about how best to

75
conduct these experiences.
So it's good we can spread
it around, but I feel bad about field study being an
overload.
Another saw the group approach as valuable because of indivi­
dual differences between faculty.
It varies greatly how much a faculty demands, how academ­
ically oriented he wants that program to be, whether he
expects the student to do some research while he's out
there, whether h e 's willing to accept the experience and
reflection on it as a basis for credit. So I think in
a lot of situations where the program is not entrusted
to a dedicated group of people, there is a lot of con­
cern about how you help faculty understand the nature
of the kind of experience it ought to be and what the
Credit ought to be given for.
Students, too, are involved in the planning of field
experiences, but this is usually on a one-to-one basis.

Many

students claimed that the freedom to plan was one of the most
advantageous aspects of field study.
Two points of view about the organization or struc­
ture of field study experiences determine further the mode
of operation which differs widely across campus.

Some experi­

ences are tightly structured with the student having few
options to function as independently as he might wish.

One

determined faculty member expressed his views as follows:
I am a firm believer in structure of field experiences.
I don't agree with the typical approach of sending a
student out and having him return ten weeks later with
a term paper showing what he has accomplished. We keep
pretty close tabs on what a student is doing.
There is
a need to structure these programs--to make sure they
are meaningful learning experiences.
This statement came from a faculty member whose students
were involved in independent projects which have as their

76
primary objective professional preparation.

There was a

series of group seminars prior to and weekly during the time
of the field study and also some follow-up sessions after
the term.
Although many faculty would agree that some struc­
ture is needed, not all would interpret structure so rigidly.
In fact another department which also has group seminars or
discussions prior to and following the field study professes
a philosophy which leaves the student completely on his own
during the field experience.

In this instance, however, the

absence of faculty supervisors or even the lack of contact
with campus in no way disavows the value nor the existence
of structure in the program.
From interviews with a few students it was obvious
that some programs have been set up with very little struc­
ture and even an indefiniteness of purpose.

A few faculty

admitted having a lack of structure but claimed that devel­
opment of independence or responsibility on the part of the
student would result.

One wonders what good can be accom­

plished when a student with no preparation seminars, with
no carefully developed objectives or plan, and with no
advising embarks on a field study experience.

Some students

not only survive but profit from the opportunity for self­
directed learning, but not all can.

One student who was

anxious for such an experience— to be on his own--admitted
his frustration when he floundered, realized he needed help,

77
but could not find it.

His project had been "too big" but

no one had helped him realize this.

Another in a similar

situation complained,
Faculty have experience.
They've directed a lot of
these. They should have told me I couldn't do every­
thing I planned.
This student had been working for six months on what he had
thought would take three months.
Lack of structure can take another form.

One stu­

dent, contacted about a field study completed during a
previous term, told about another project in which she was
then currently engaged.
was

She had enrolled for a field study,

halfway through the term, knew she would get approval

for her project, but revealed that the faculty sponsor had
not yet been informed of her particular project.
care what we do," was her comment.

"He doesn't

Such an experience was

unique among the eighty-eight students interviewed.
Areas of concern for some faculty members and for
some students, too, were pre- and post-field study experi­
ences.

Even some of the departments which offered the field

study as one of the final courses in a professional program
frequently bemoaned the fact that these previous courses
did not prepare the student sufficiently for the actual field
experience.

The interest in preparation programs or sessions,

some currently in the process of being developed, and the
concern for follow-up programs, discussions, or interviews
were another indication that faculty recognize the need for

78
some structure in the program.

One faculty statement sums

up the feeling of many.
Some kind of advance preparation is essential; some
feedback while the student is out is essential; some
follow-up of the student's experiences so he can really
see and learn is essential.
In summary, efforts are being put forth by many
individual faculty members and by department committees to
clarify field study objectives, to involve more people in
the determination of guidelines for field studies, and to
select, by themselves and with students, valid learning
experiences which will provide the student with opportunities
to realize these objectives, but such effort is by no means
universal.
Institutional Problems Related
to E*ield sfcudy
The problems related to field study are so inter­
twined that it is difficult to discuss one without moving
into a discussion of others.

Some overlapping, then, is

inevitable and is not intended to overemphasize certain
points but rather to clarify some problems.
Departmental and
Institutional Climate
Our department is blessed by being able to do pretty
much what they want and everybody's doing what he wants,
so if you decide that you want a new program you do it.

79

Such a laissez faire attitude as that described by the
faculty member who made this remark about his department's
approach toward field study serves to mitigate attempts at
a unified departmental approach.

An individual faculty

member may be very supportive of the learning principles
behind field study, but attempts at implementing a program
are frequently isolated efforts on the part of one person.
As in the case of the above-quoted faculty member, he is
free to go ahead on his own in an atmosphere of permissive­
ness, but he is the only man in his department involved in
off-campus study.
Other departments have forces at work which almost
stifle the efforts of individual faculty members who are
convinced that field study is a value worth striving for.
One man described his efforts of many years with a twinge
of bitterness.
We have some people here who would just love to do what
I'm doing but they have no way to do it. It has taken
me years.
I'm strictly independent.
I believe if you
want something you go out and get it yourself. Nobody
helped me so now I am very cold and callous.
I'll do
anything for a student, but the level of bureaucratic
development here is so intense that there is a restric­
tion almost against everything. There are so many things
that inhibit, restrict, and confront you.
This man was one of several faculty members who were con­
vinced that field study in their departments would be
discontinued were they to leave.
Students were disconcerted by such an attitude of
indifference and even at times hostility.

I guess they [faculty] are indifferent.
I would hope
they wouldn't be. It's funny but none of my professors
ever said anything about field study. I think they
should have.
★

*

*

Faculty are aware of it but they couldn't tell you what
is being done. They generally don't talk to you about
it, and there are some I wouldn't dare ask.
All departments are not like those just described
where the field study is developed and supported by only one
or two faculty members rather than through departmental
efforts and with departmental approval.

In some departments

the atmosphere is such that both faculty and students are
not only supported but encouraged in their field study
ventures.

One of the departments with an optional program

of field study and with an unusually large number of students
enrolled for field study projects indicated a total depart­
mental commitment to the program.
Our faculty here just assume it's a normal part of their
teaching. We don't have to persuade faculty in this
department to take independent study or field study
students.
They just do it as a part of their work.
It
would never occur to them to do anything else.
No one of the attitudes toward field study as were
just mentioned--a laissez faire attitude, a hostile attitude,
or a supportive attitude— can be considered the typical
attitude or approach at Michigan State University.

In fact,

not more than a few of the departments visited indicated
negative attitudes, but, on the other hand, very few had
total departmental involvement.

Most departments fell

81
somewhere in between with a number of the faculty involved
and with the department frequently supportive of but some­
times only tolerant of the program.
Concern by faculty for university-wide support of
field study was greater than that for departmental support.
Only a very few expressed the belief that their programs had
recognition or approval outside their departments.

This

feeling of a lack of recognition and a lack of appreciation,
a feeling which many seemed to have, was a factor which com­
pounded the problem of an open attitude.

However, at times

the lack of visibility regarding field study activities was
the result of a deliberate effort on the part of the depart­
ment.

Fearing negative reactions not only from the univer­

sity community but also from the outside community, one man
expressed the feelings in his department:
There are many elements in the University that still
regard learning as attending classes three hours a week
and reading your homework. Also there are many in the
legislature who do not think "running around town sup­
porting Joe Blow for Congress" has anything to do with
education. So we do not seek publicity. We just do it.
Students verified the existence of permissive, hos­
tile, indifferent, and encouraging attitudes in their
respective departments.

Their biggest complaint about the

environment, especially in departments where the experience
was an optional one, was that an atmosphere of indifference
prevailed to such an extent that they had difficulty even

82
finding out about the opportunities.

The following remarks

from students interviewed were not at all unusual.
I heard about it from a kid down the hall who had it
the year before, so I just took it.
*

*

*

I heard about it from a student instructor who helped
us. He mentioned it and said if we ever had a chance
for an elective, it was really great.
He said you
learn a lot and it's really an interesting experience,
so I decided to take it.
*

*

*

I would never have found out about it except for this
friend down the hall. More should know about this.
*

*

*

I was touring a department and saw this pamphlet.
I
asked about it and the professor said I could take it
and I signed up right then.
*

*

★

X read an announcement telling about it. That's the
only way I heard about it. No one said anything.
The students were about equally divided as to the
method by which they found out about field study experiences.
About one-third heard from faculty or through their depart­
ments; about one-third read about opportunities available
to them through handouts, news releases, bulletin board
announcements, or posters; and about one-third found out
from peers or "by chance."

The lack of open communication

about field study opportunities, except in those departments
where the program is firmly established, was a deterrent to
an environment supportive of field study.

83
On the other hand, once students were among those
whom one student termed the "privileged few" who had dis­
covered field studies, they generally felt the faculty to
be favorably disposed.

One student could not speak highly

enough of the encouragement he received.
If he had not been there to let me know it could be done,
I would never have tried it. Until three terms ago I
didn't even know you could do a field study, and it has
been the single most beneficial thing I have ever done
in college. I learned more in that one term, I think,
concerning my abilities and gaining confidence in my
abilities by actually putting accumulated theoretical
knowledge into practice and working on my own. But if
it had not been for him, I would never have done it.
He told me about it, he suggested I do it, he encouraged
me.
This student, as well as others, realized that
encouragement and support by the faculty was essential in
order to have the openness necessary for an atmosphere con­
ducive to field study.

There are many reasons for negative

or indifferent attitudes among faculty, attitudes that
inhibit the development of field study.

One of these,

faculty workload, is difficult to separate from staffing
and finance.
Staffing and Finance
Many faculty expressed concern about field study
problems related to staffing and finance.

Some of these

concerns were revealed in the following statements.
I am strongly in favor of field experiences if they are
taught intensively; that is, if the instructor takes
pains to see that the students are well prepared in
advance, the experience itself is carefully planned.

84
and the students have to go through a well-designed
evaluation. That takes time and many instructors will
not take the time needed.
*

*

*

Field instruction programs are one of the most expensive
and time-consuming aspects of the total curriculum.
Financial resources are inadequate to meet the instruc­
tional needs.
*

*

*

Field experience is a necessary and expensive part of
professional training. To develop it further we need
more money, released time, and more university support
and assistance.
*

*

*

There is too much overload time donated by the faculty.
*

*

*

Field study takes lots of time for placement and public
relations. This has to be a voluntary contribution of
time.
★

*

*

The most difficult problem we are faced with concerning
our field work experience is that of limited faculty.
We probably will be forced to reduce the field work
experience to only our majors.
*

*

*

In principle we are committed to providing the opportu­
nity for field study to every student in our department.
However staff limitations and fund limitations and larger
numbers of students make this increasingly difficult.
*

*

*

More faculty will be needed if we promote it. . . .
We need more faculty to supervise.
Such comments from faculty members in all types of
programs bear out the fact that work-load, staffing, and

85
finance are so interrelated that it is difficult to approach
one topic without touching upon or discussing the others.
Through the questionnaire survey it was revealed that the
biggest problem for faculty involved in field study is time.
Some field study projects involve faculty to a greater extent
than others, but rarely does any type of field study come
about without someone having to expend a large amount of
time in planning, in organizing, in supervising, in advising,
in pre-session work, in post-session work, in individual
conferences, or in any combination of these.
In some of the departments, particularly those with
programs which are a professional requirement, there seems
to be a greater tendency to recognize the time-consuming
aspects of the organization and supervision of field study
projects, and therefore there has been some attempt to provide
time for faculty to carry out these various functions.

How­

ever, an effort to improve programs and to provide more
supervision, coupled with the great surge in enrollment in
some of these departments without a corresponding increase
in faculty has compounded the problem.

One faculty member

expressed her feelings that the faculty are willing to work
hard, but even with extra work there are still problems.
I think any professional doesn’t mind putting in extra
time. I think this is part of the job.
I think the
problem is we're so heavily involved that most of us
feel that we're not doing a very adequate job of much
of what we're trying to do.
I mean we're doing it.
We're providing the experiences, we're providing the
supervision— not always in the way I think we would

86
like to provide it— but we lack personnel to handle
supervision, so this means that faculty members who
heavily involved in teaching courses, advising, and
serving on committees are putting in a lot of hours
and beyond the usual working day. They are willing
do this, but that still is not the answer.

the
are
over
to

Faculty in departments which do not have longestablished programs seem to be having the most difficulty
with time.

One hard-working young man, eager to promote

the field study program but obviously having trouble finding
time, said:
It's all
out what
that the
on their

pretty much extra.
It's very difficult to find
the reward system is in the University.
I feel
ones who do the work tend to get things piled
heads.
The problem is pretty severe.

It was unusual to come upon a faculty member with
the disposition one had:
I'm having a ball.
If I'm enjoying it, it must be
because I like it and I feel there is a degree of suc­
cess. My hobby and my work and my life are all the
same thing— field work.
Rather than such an attitude, more faculty seemed to be
sympathetic to such views as these:
I am opposed to overload.
I don't think it's right to
say if you like it you ought to do more.
*

*

*

As long as it's possible to put that time in, it's some­
thing I'd like to do, but if there is too much pressure
for teaching too much at the same time, no.
Too few faculty members seemed to be able to say what one
man did.
Our chairman understands but doesn't try to equate load.
When you're asked to take on a field study assignment,
you discuss what it is you'll have to give up in the
process.

87
Even though in general they expressed opposition to
overload, some faculty members, because they wanted to open
up opportunities to many students, overextended themselves
and agreed to supervise field studies when they really were
not in a position to do so*

Such observations came from

fellow faculty members who recognized that experiences with­
out proper planning or supervision could be actually harmful.
Time is obviously a problem and one as closely
related to staffing as staffing is to finance.

Many depart­

ments are not in a financial position to enlarge or expand
their staff, and some of these feel the field study program
must be limited until such expansion is feasible.
Increased faculty is only one of the costs enumerated
by some of the departments offering field study experiences.
Other costs incurred in arranging for, in supervising, and
in carrying out field study experiences included transporta­
tion and similar operating expenses.

Occasionally equipment

was mentioned.
About one-third of the departments denied any
increase in expense because of field study.

Such varied

policies exist that it is easy to see reasons for such dif­
ferences.

Some departments pay mileage and transportation

costs for faculty involved in arranging, supervising, or
participating in field study experiences; others do not and
the faculty member must absorb the cost.

Several departments

handle student transportation costs; most departments expect

88

the student to pay for his own transportation.

One faculty

member who has been very successful at getting outside fund­
ing to cover these operating costs claims it would be unjust
to charge students, but one wonders if he would be willing
to drop the program if outside funding ceased.
In summary, the greatest expense seems to be in
adequate staffing.

Some departments claim there is no added

expense, but often the faculty in these departments are
those who are burdened with overload.

And all of this

affects the attitude of the faculty toward field study.
Evaluation
The purpose of evaluation is to gather such data
about the object of evaluation that decisions may be made
about its worth and suggestions made about productive changes.
The question of field studies and how they are to be evalu­
ated is a question that must be answered if we are to deal
responsibly with the improvement of undergraduate teaching.
In this review of the evaluation of field studies the focus
will be first on the program, then the cost, and finally
student performance.
Program.--Although only slightly more than one-third
of the departments indicated on the questionnaire that their
programs had been evaluated to the department's satisfaction,
even some of these admitted during the interviews that they
would welcome more objective evaluations than those they

89
had completed.

Perhaps the greatest deterrents to an evalu­

ation of field study experiences are lack of well defined
objectives which describe achievable goals, lack of expertise
for the evaluation, lack of personnel who have the time to
evaluate, and the general feeling that evaluation is not
necessary.
Having objectives which define the desired student
behavior in such a way that it is identifiable and measurable
was a problem some departments did not recognize.

Such prob­

lems were particularly evident when objectives were directed
toward affective outcomes.

For example, one can easily

understand the possibility of problems in evaluating the
following objectives:
To gain appreciation of the helping process.
*

*

*

To begin to identify strengths in one's own personality
and knowledge which are important for success.
*

*

*

To act effectively in another culture.
★

*

*

To grow in independence and self-reliance.
* * *
To develop an attitude of active interest in learning
on o n e 's own.
*

*

*

To place a high value on the worth of persons, human
personality, and life.

90
A different type of objective— for example, one which
addresses itself to professional preparation*— is much easier
to define in terms of achievable goals.

Statements like the

following are more specific.
To identify and demonstrate the unusual problems associ­
ated with the establishment and operation of ___________ .
*

*

*

To identify clearly the role of the host institution or
agency in meeting particular needs of . . . special
groups.
*

*

*

To study a variety of
developments at first
hand and to discuss the problems involved.
Definite objectives, then, although they are written
or at least stated by most of the departments, must not only
define the student behavior but define it in terms of desired
outcomes.
In general faculty expressed the most difficulty,
the most reluctance, and the greatest need for assistance in
evaluating the affective outcomes of field study programs.
"We haven't come up with the research means to do this," said.
one faculty member who would like help.

Perhaps the same

insecurity accounts for such feelings as the following:
Some faculty are very reluctant to get involved in that
aspect and will only evaluate students on their reflec­
tions and the cognitive aspects of their experiences.
*

*

*

For some reason we're edgy about evaluating students on
personal growth, attitude change, and personality char­
acteristics like independence and broadmindedness.
I
think at least in this program it would be valid to do so.

91
The difficulty in evaluating experiences that are by nature
subjective was evident in many departments.

It is in this

area that many faculty seem to be waiting for new methods or
tools for evaluating their programs.
Other faculty did not want to evaluate because they
were satisfied that theirs was a good program.
"Yes, our objectives are being realized.
a systematic way.

We don't know in

It's more impressionistic."

was also confident about objectives being met.
instinctively," he claimed.

Said one,

And another
"I know

These faculty were not able to

be precise; they were only able to make general comments
about the development of some personal attributes.
A few faculty members gave other reasons for not
evaluating.

"I'm just not interested in the evaluation

aspect of the program," commented one.

And another,

I don't think anybody is going to ask me to do that
[evaluate] in any formal way. On the other hand in
coffee-room conversation it will come up, but it will
be very impressionistic. We don't plan any formal
evaluation.
Such unprofessional attitudes seem hard to justify.
On the other hand, some faculty members and depart­
ments were much involved in evaluating.

Being clear about

objectives, examining the process, and testing for both cog­
nitive and affective changes were steps outlined by several
departments.

One man expressed his views,

I have a feeling that people feel better about this kind
of program if you can demonstrate to somebody else that
something very valuable and exciting is happening to
students.

92

And several commented about the fact that evaluation is an
on-going process and that they are constantly undergoing
change as a result of their efforts.
Cost.— Cost is another area where faculty and depart­
ments have been reluctant to evaluate.

More than half of the

departments say they have never evaluated the cost, but more
than those who have attempted cost studies admitted that
theirs may be among the many field study programs that are
expensive ventures in education.

Recognizing the time prob­

lem previously mentioned and the additional faculty sometimes
needed for field studies makes it fairly easy to see the
added expense even without evaluating it.

Increased expense,

however, should not be the sole criterion in the decision to
add or omit field studies, for cost is a relative factor.
Laboratory experiences are costly in their use of faculty
time, equipment, and supplies, yet they are an established
part of the curriculum.

When changes are effected by cost

studies, they are really the reordering of priorities.

Field

studies, like other educational experiences, must be measured
against the things a department must give up in order to
afford them.

The question a cost study should answer is

should a department divert funds in support of field study.
One faculty member claimed that the results of field
studies seem to justify the expense, but another questioned
the expenditure of time, money, and energy.

93
It is an awfully expensive kind of educational experi­
ence when you consider the number of students you can
handle and the large amount of faculty time.
Another, too, was concerned about the limited number of stu­
dents being accommodated.
Our real hangup is— can we really justify that kind of
expenditure no matter how committed we are to the experi­
ence if we've got a large number of others who must have
an ordinary classroom experience?
Another criticism about the cost of field study
experiences was directed toward the added burden some of the
programs place on students.

Criticizing the entire educa­

tional system for limiting opportunities to those who could
afford them, one faculty member stated:
I'd say the major criticism of the field program is that
it is very inequitable.
It's pretty much the ability to
pay that determines the quality of the experience the
students have.
This statement came from a man whose department realized no
increase in cost as a result of the field study program but
whose participating students found field study quite expen­
sive.
Some departments did not experience an increase in
cost as a result of their field studies.

In two instances

the faculty analyzed the program in the planning stages and
were able to provide some of the same types of experiences
as other departments at no extra cost.

Scheduling and semi­

nars were involved in their cost-saving plans.

Currently

several departments are making efforts at studying ways of
providing better field studies without increasing the cost.

94
Little has been done in this area, however, and what growth
and expansion of field study programs has taken place seems
far removed from valid research into the cost of providing
these learning experiences.
Student Performance.— There are two aspects of evalu­
ation of students which must be considered— evaluation to
determine if students are meeting objectives, and grading
or the reporting process to the student.
criticized by students.

Both aspects were

They repeatedly stated that field

work made their academic work more meaningful but frequently—
too frequently according to the students— their experiences
were not evaluated so as to measure whether the objectives
set forth for the field study had been achieved.

Instead a

term paper or a report was the sole or major technique or
tool for determining achievement and growth toward objec­
tives.

Faculty members justified the paper by claiming it

forces the student to organize and reflect on and react to
what he has learned.
resented this.

Such may be the case, but some students

One student with the ability to express him­

self very eloquently explained that writing was his forte
and that he got a high grade on his paper when, for the same
experience, his friend who he thought performed more ade­
quately on the field experience but who could not write so
well received a much lower grade.

Other comments from stu­

dents revealed their dissatisfactions.

It was a matter of problem analysis and writing a report.
This might not be the best way for someone who might get
a lot out of a field experience but would have trouble
gathering it together in a report.
*

*

*

It [the written report] was a nuisance. A seminar type
of follow-up would have been better— where you could
share and have more participation.
The seminar follow-through was suggested by several
students as an appropriate technique for evaluation, for
they recognized not only the faculty member's opportunity
to question, listen, and observe but also their own opportun­
ity to continue learning by hearing about other students1
experiences, by organizing and reporting on their own experi­
ences, and by the continued reflection and thought generated
by both of these activities.
Another evaluation technique was highly praised by
students in one particular program.

Both the faculty member

and a graduate assistant observed the students, wrote out
their evaluations of the students' performances in each
phase of the field study experience, listed reasons for their
evaluations, and then compared their reactions before finally
sharing them with the students.

Although the evaluation was

very subjective, the students were satisfied.

However, most

departments do not have two persons available for evaluation
nor do they have the opportunity to observe students so
regularly on the field study experience.

96
Much more attention needs to be given to devising
tasks which will reflect student growth.

Some students

rejected all traditional methods of evaluation and asked to
be able to evaluate themselves.

As one student said,

I'd be more qualified to evaluate what I've been doing
than a professor and I always felt that if I only did a
half-good job I should get only half credit.
In general, the responses seemed to indicate a great need
for some innovative ways to help students self-evaluate their
experiences and to help faculty assess the growth in students
which such experiences made possible.
Grading was another problem area, but contrary to
general expectations, many students still preferred the more
traditional number grade than the newer pass/fail or credit/no
credit.

One faculty member recognized this.

Objectively it might be better to have pass/fail.
It
could perhaps be pass/fail/honors because I think there
should be incentive in this kind of thing . . . some­
thing where you can have a definite label that you did
outstanding work and were recognized for outstanding
work.
That would be an incentive to do your very best.
Students, at least

some of them, verified his belief.

I had the option of pass/fail or a number grade.
I
chose the number grade because I felt I could get a
good grade and I did.
*

*

*

I think the number grades are all right. You've got
to have a little bit of incentive to do better.
Other­
wise I think everyone might sit back and do it halfway.
*

*

*

I want a grade if it's good— for my GPA.

97
A few students were more objective about the learning
situation and the corresponding evaluation.
I don't think there should have been a grade involved.
I really don't.
I think everyone should have passed
who participated. For once it should have been some­
thing that got you away from school. You should have
been able to relax and let your mind absorb a lot of
things . . . but it wasn't.
*

*

*

I used to be real concerned about grades and grade points
until X realized they weren't indicative of very much.
Too often in field experiences professors don't really
know what you're doing. You're doing it for yourself
anyway.
*

*

*

The professor's hangup is that he insists on grading us,
but he's not grading us on the objectives.
That would
be impossible.
It should be pass/fail.
In summary, evaluation, whether of the programs, the
cost, or student performance, is an area which needs much
attention.

If planning for the future is to be done wisely,

it should be based on evaluation findings and research.

Cooperation, Coordination,
and Communication
Discussing field study experiences during visitations
of Michigan State University departments was almost like
visiting many small but separate colleges that exist near
each other but that seldom exchange ideas about their pro­
grams, their methods, or their concerns.
common ventures was extremely rare.

Cooperation in

98
Such Isolation regarding the development and imple­
mentation of field study experiences was keenly felt by many
faculty members who frequently expressed surprise at the
knowledge that any faculty in other departments felt as they
did.

Several viewed with interest the development of the

Field Study Committee and expressed the hope that through
this committee some common problems could be solved, some
policies clarified, and some expertise given to the many who
felt in need of assistance.

A few faculty indicated they

would like to be actively involved in committee activity or
at least have an opportunity to present their concerns to
the committee.

Frequently it was asked whether such a com­

mittee would eventually serve as a coordinating board or if
it would at least look into the feasibility of establishing
such an office or board.

In expressing their needs most

faculty members did not want nor desire to have a central
placement office for off-campus studies.

Rather they hoped

for some centralization on campus, some board, organization,
or office where information about possible placements could
be obtained or exchanged, where mutual problems could be
studied, and where cooperative ventures might be facilitated.
As one faculty member complained:
Our problem, a part of our cost, is that we don't even
know where to start.
There were several other suggestions regarding com­
munication on campus.

One faculty member requested a campus

99
symposium at which faculty members with more experience
could share their ideas with those newer in this endeavor.
Another suggested having a liaison person from each depart­
ment meet in sharing sessions.

And many asked if and how

they could get help and feedback from the already existing
committee which was addressing itself to some of the prob­
lems of field study.
Many problems were identified through interviews,
by means of questionnaires, and at discussions of the Field
Study Committee which met at the time the study was in
progress.

Such questions as the following were asked.

Is liability insurance the responsibility of the uni­
versity or the receiving agency?
If a field study experience is required, what obligation,
if any, does the university have to provide the student
with transportation?
Are agencies required to respond to more than one depart­
ment and thus expend their time and patience because of
a lack of interdepartmental cooperation on campus.
Can simulated experiences be substituted for some field
experiences?
Other problems, too, were identified by the faculty.
They need to know what is being done in departments other
than their own.
How much credit is or should be given for a field experi­
ence?
Should a student be allowed to earn credit for a salaried
position or field experience?
Do outside agencies provide board and room for interns?

100
One faculty member gave his reasons for faculty
wanting to share.
I think that part of the desire on the part of these
people is to find out what happens elsewhere on campus,
so they can go back to their departments and say, "This
is the way it's done in most departments and these are
the practices that are found to be helpful. Could we
institute these here?" I think that's part of the
desire people have— to get some leverage on their own
programs and to improve on the way in which their pro­
grams function.
Such sharing will not immediately solve all problems,
for there are many conflicting views about some of the prac­
tices surrounding field study.

For example, one of the

above-mentioned questions was about earning both pay and
credit through the same experience.

A few comments will

show the strong feelings for and against such a practice.
It is my understanding and the department's feeling that
if the student is getting paid for that experience, he
should not get credit.
*

*

★

We would not place students on internships without pay
because we think that is slave labor.
* * *
We don't permit students to accept pay. There are
mutually conflicting objectives— getting paid and
getting credit. But actually I'm not completely con­
vinced they are irreconcilable.
The real question is
whether it ifc enough of an educational experience to
justify credit.
*

*

*

The student realizes he's doing something worthwhile
when he gets paid.
You have to have some kind of
reward besides the grade.
* * *

101
I personally have a basic philosophical problem about
it.
Another problem about which there were conflicting
views and diverse practices is transportation.

Again faculty

revealed their personal opinions.
I would argue that students should not have to pay for
transportation.
They pay tuition and the university
should pick up the tab.
* * *
Students should pay for transportation. We have built
in a student activity fee to pay for field trips.
*

*

*

Sometimes there was no way to get students to their
destination unless I drove.
I felt responsible.
*

*

*

I'm not required to transport students and I don't.
*

*

*

I feel that for required field studies which are an
integral part of the program, the university should
to some degree subsidize the department for transporta­
tion.
Other questions and problems would also elicit many
different opinions and views in an open discussion, but the
faculty members want such an opportunity for sharing and
reaching common solutions.
Cooperation and communication with agencies, labor,
government, businesses, and other placement sites is another
problem to which many faculty thought attention should be
given.

Outside agencies or placement sites to which the

students frequently go are not ordinarily organizations that

102
have education of young people as their primary role.
Although there is collaboration between the university and
these agencies, many faculty members complained that failures
on the part of the agencies to respond to the challenges
before them were the fault of the university:
By and large agencies are misused. We do not first of
all sit down and help the agency define its resources
as an educational kind of thing.
If we did that, the
agencies would be able to make much more appropriate
choices and also we as a community of training people
would be going into the agencies and would have more
coordination there. . . . Agencies get caught up in the
pull. At some point extreme demands are made on them.
I think there is some place within the whole university
structure that someone or some group of people or some
rotating committee should have a primary job, at least
for the immediate future, to keep current what is avail­
able and to help agencies define their strengths as
training resources.
Occasionally faculty and students complained that
agencies stressed service to the detriment of the learning
experience.

For two weeks one student learned and from then

on he was given only routine, tedious tasks.
said, "a sheer waste of time."

"It was," he

Experiences such as this

seem to demand more responsibility on the part of the faculty
member to communicate with personnel involved, and some
faculty members did indicate that when situations similar
to this one occurred, they pulled the student out of the
field study.
Students do not mind giving service.

In fact if

service and learning can complement each other, the students
are very satisfied.

Many of their experiences were described

103
as such.

Again it was contact with, preparation for, and

involvement in the "real world."
Another aspect of the relationship between the uni­
versity and outside groups centered around placement.
were several problems:

Here

in some instances there were insuf­

ficient openings for students; in others, too many openings;
there were students contacting agencies; there were several
departments contacting the same agency; and there was a lack
of continuity in some placements.

From different faculty

came suggestions for alleviating some of these problems
and most frequently the suggestion was again for a coordi­
nating office or board on campus that could function as a
clearing house for some of these problems.
Another problem which several faculty members com­
plained about was the excessive amount of time spent in
making arrangements for field study term after term.

Some

departments are investigating contractual arrangements in
order to eliminate the duplication of time and effort on
the part of both the agency and university personnel.

In

this area, too, faculty members expressed the desire to know
about the practices and recommendations of other departments.
Thus coordination, cooperation, and communication
are important within as well as outside the campus walls.
They have a direct bearing on many factors that enhance or
inhibit good learning through field studies.

104
Field Study as Seen by Students
Valuable Aspects
It was by far the best class I have taken.
*

*

*

I can't speak highly enough about it.
* * ★
It was better than any of my classes on campus.
* ★ ★
It was a superb learning experience.
I feel that my
life is ascending and that was a high point.
I learned
a lot.
I enjoyed every day.
I loved it. I was doing
things I really wanted to do.
*

*

*

I can't think of any bad things about it.
glad I participated.

I'm really

Such expressions of praise for their field studies
came from the vast majority of students who had experienced
these.

There was no particular relationship between these

highly complimentary statements and the types of projects
undertaken.

Independent ventures, group projects, intern

or work type experiences--all had students who claimed that
their off-campus learning was, if not the very best, one of
the most valuable learning experiences they had had.

Several

students expressed a desire to see field study made a manda­
tory part of the curriculum and faculty members recognized
their intense interest.

One faculty member said,

I think it's going to grow in popularity as students
demand it. I don't think it's going to grow in popular­
ity because the legislature decides to appropriate funds

105
for it or even because central administration proclaims
it a great thing.
I think it's going to come because
students are going to demand it.
Lacking in the above-mentioned expressions of praise
were reasons for students' feeling field study to be so
valuable.

However, many students did tell why they found

the experiences meaningful.

Some saw the most important

value to be the touch with reality provided by the field
study.
You get out to see the real world situation. You can
read about it and look in a book. It's easy for profes­
sors to say how things go, but you see.
*

*

*

I wouldn't trade it for anything else.
I've gotten a
lot more useful things than I have ever gotten before
to prepare me for the "big world."
* * #
This was by far the best class I have had, and I wish
I could have spent more time than I did. On campus as
far as classes are concerned, it's a lot of theory and
I've had a lot of trouble relating it to the outside
environment. When I got in the outside environment I
could see why I needed all those classes I really didn't
want earlier.
*

*

*

We were dealing in the real world.
the project worthwhile.
Other students saw other values.

That's what made
Again their own

words tell best how they felt and what they thought were the
benefits of field study.

One stressed self-confidence.

I learned more in that one term.
It was mostly con­
cerning my own abilities and gaining confidence in my
abilities— by actually putting accumulated theoretical
knowledge into practice and digging on my own for my own
self.

106
Independence and responsibility were values seen by
another student.
It's a very realistic experience. It gives you a chance
to work completely unstructured. You see, I had a
responsibility, I got credit, but it was more.
Inde­
pendence!
It was completely up to me what I wanted to
do.
And the student who stated the following expressed
ideas that several others mentioned— the value of being in
a different environment, the value of learning at one's own
rate, and the value of self-determination.
The things I liked best about the whole situation were:
it got me away from the classroom, I got to go at the
pace I wanted, I got to study those things that I wanted
and felt I wanted to know more about, I designed and
carried out my own project.
Still another student expressed what he thought was
the value of doing things on one's own.
I knew there were other things to be done and I could
do them. Many feel trapped into rigid standards. They
feel they have to look for things in an academic fashion
rather than in just a curious fashion and I think that's
too bad, because curiosity is probably the greatest gift
of the intellect.
So many students feel that they have
to be curious and look into what will please the profes­
sors most.
One young man praised his professor for allowing him to
proceed independently.
He would sort of let you search what you wanted to get
out of a course and how you wanted to get it out. I
learned more in a much shorter time and retained more
than what I do on campus.
The enthusiasm for field experiences lay in the fact
that 1) students saw the relevance of their experiences and
their usefulness to them for the future, and 2) they opted

107
for these experiences.

Such enthusiasm should not be sur­

prising, for when learning experiences are freely chosen
they are more likely to reflect the personal preferences and
personalities of the students.

But this very fact makes

student evaluation biased and therefore only one element in
the evaluation of the worth of field study in relation to
all other learning methods.

Nevertheless, motivation was at

a high level, and student learning and memory are closely
tied to motivation.

What one student said was probably very

true.
I thought I'd learn quite a bit in a program set up by
myself— and I did.
There seemed to be another observation of a few
students with regard to their off-campus experiences.

Many

expressed the belief that the faculty sponsors, moderators,
supervisors, or advisers were among the most outstanding
faculty on campus.

Praise was generous:

Our professor really made it worthwhile so I guess it
depends on who you have.
In his case it was really
something.
It was just really astounding what he did
for us. He really worked.
I don't know other profs who
worked so hard.
This was said about an extended field trip.
type of program the comment was similar:

But for another

............... J

The professor really made the program.
Basically it
was his attitude. He was always there to help you if
you needed it.
Such high praise from so many students might suggest
that they experienced no problems with field studies.

Such

was not the case, and these problems will now be considered.

«

108
Problems
Although more than twice as many praised field study
experiences as criticized them most of the students had some
complaints, had experienced some problems, and offered some
suggestions for improvement.
Faculty members bore out the complaints of the stu­
dents when they indicated what they thought were the biggest
problems for students— transportation and cost (Table 5).
These problems were more frequently mentioned by students
then any other problems.

Such statements as, "Well, I am

fortunate, I have a car." frequently preceded expressions
of concern about acquaintances or friends who could not par­
ticipate in field studies because they had no transportation.
Many of the students contacted did not have cars but had
managed to arrange transportation with others or to use some
other means of reaching their destinations.

Some students

told of riding buses for three hours a day.

Others told

similar stories, because not many had faculty sponsors or
department chairmen who felt like the man who said, "If I
require a student to go out, I've got to get him out there.
Who else?"
In general students did not object to paying for
transportation; in fact, they expected to do that.

But they

did express the feeling that the university should investi­
gate transportation problems and try to provide some solution

109
to them.
burden.

As one student said, "It's not the extra financial
It's the hassle, the red tape.

The university

should try to alleviate this."
The cost of some of the experiences was another prob­
lem.

Some reported that they incurred only minimal expenses

by electing a field study experience, but some of the experi­
ences were very expensive and were therefore limited to those
who could afford them.

A few of the departments partly sub­

sidized some of the students because of the research they
were carrying out, and one department whose students rendered
services through their learning experiences used the money
received for the services to pay for transportation and other
costs.

Most of the more elaborate and creative experiences,

however, and all those which took the students abroad were
available only to those who could afford them.

And even

regarding these students, one student observed that "a lot
of kids were really hurting."
Faculty members did not realize or at least did not
suggest that a problem many students face is with the faculty
themselves.

Although many students have been quoted as

wanting independence and responsibility* there is no fixed
line of demarcation between independence and dependence.
Students may be likely to resent the teacher who directs
their activities too closely, but they are at the same time
likely to be anxious when given too much independence.

Some

110
told of times when they really needed more direction and
could not find it.
The only difficulty I encountered was getting the faculty
members to help me out, especially because they are quite
busy.
*

*

*

I don't think there was enough supervision. We were
just put in a situation and expected to carry on.
One student told of what he called his "hit and miss" con­
tact with his adviser.
complained.

"We missed a lot of times," he

Another said he felt uncomfortable when he

sought help, "I always had the feeling I was interrupting
him."
A few students said they had not been so much con­
cerned about getting help as much as finding a faculty member
who would approve the field study initially.

Statements

ranged from those which described faculty as being suppor­
tive and encouraging to those which indicated that the
student had great difficulty in finding a faculty member to
advise him.

One can understand the difficulty some students

faced when one realizes that attitudes such as the following
exist.

As one faculty member said, "It's a privilege, not

a right.
them.

Some students can't get a faculty member to sponsor

That's their problem."
Usually students did not attribute their difficulties

in this area to negative attitudes as much as they did to the
fact that the faculty involved in field studies were

Ill
frequently those who were so busy they did not always have
the time to take on more.

One student was so apprehensive

about the load on faculty that he did not want publicity
released on field studies for fear that his own chances of
taking more off-campus studies would be lessened.
Such an attitude, one of concern for one's own
interests, was just the opposite of what most students
expressed and considered another big problem on campus—
communication or publicity about field study opportunities.
One faculty member believed that
The word of mouth method of describing a course on this
campus I feel is much better than the written word.
The students tell other students. Here is your com­
munication system.
But students disagreed with that procedure or lack of pro­
cedure.

They felt that there should be greater efforts made

to let students know of the availability and values of these
field study experiences.

One student said she would be

willing to visit classes in order to tell other students
about "such a good thing."
Communication about field study would perhaps allevi­
ate another concern expressed by many students and already
briefly mentioned.

Students wanted the experiences earlier.

You should do it at an earlier stage.
That's what I
feel anyway. . . . Now I have confidence. I should
have had this happen to me earlier because if I had,
I am sure I would have been better motivated to do well
in other courses.

112
Those in professional programs admitted that a certain amount
of theory should be acquired before much exposure to the
field, but they did not think that for some of the experi­
ences they should have had to wait so long.
Insufficient preparation was another area of concern
for some students.

Many wanted to be on their own, it is

true, but they also wanted to know what to expect.
Some professors have a tendency of not preparing you
very well for what you're really supposed to do. They
tell you the basis behind the whole thing, but you
really don't know what you're doing sometimes.
*

*

*

I would really like to know what my professor expects
and he doesn't let me know at all.
*

*

*

They should be a little more realistic and really tell
students what it's all about and not just say, "You'll
get practical experience."
Such complaints were not too common, perhaps because many
students found the desired structure and assistance they
needed, but even these few expressions of concern revealed
that students want and need some guidelines within which to
operate.
Students' concerns about evaluation and grading have
already been discussed.

Here was a contradiction--students

asking for non-traditional ways of learning but still cling­
ing to the more traditional ways of grading.

Although many

students expressed real concern about having their experi­
ences evaluated by means of term papers or reports, there

113
were relatively few who petitioned for pass/fail or credit/no
credit options.
In summary, students are enthusiastic about field
experiences, seem willing to pay when they can, want these
experiences sooner, have transportation problems, think
opportunities should be publicized more, believe all students
should have the same opportunities, express contradictory
ideas about grading, would like to be more adeuqately pre­
pared, and would like the faculty to be more available but
not at the risk of curtailment of independence.
Summary
Because of the many and varied field study programs
and experiences offered through the different departments,
it is difficult to generalize about these.

We can, however,

make some observations.
Many departments have well-stated and well-formulated
objectives for their field studies, but a number of depart­
ments are vague or unclear in the determination and expres­
sion of their goals.

Yet efforts are being put forth by

many individual faculty members and by department committees
to clarify field study objectives and to involve more people
in the determination of guidelines for field studies.
There are certain institutional factors and problems
which inhibit or impede the realization of field studies.

114
Some of these are environmental factors; staffing and
finance; evaluation; and coordination, communication, and
cooperation.
The climate may perhaps best be described as some­
times supportive and sometimes tolerant of field study.
Open encouragement is generally lacking.
Staffing, workload, and finance are interrelated;
the greatest expense to the University seems to be in ade­
quate staffing.

Some departments claim there is no added

expense, but often the faculty in these departments are
those who are burdened with overload.
Evaluation, whether of the program, student per­
formance, or the cost, is an area which needs considerable
attention.

Growth has not seemed to be based on data gen­

erated from evaluation.
Cooperation, communication, and coordination are
also areas which, if improved, would alleviate some of the
problems departments on campus and agencies off campus are
experiencing.
Students, too, experience both positive and negative
feelings about their field studies.

The values which they

see in these experiences, however, far outnumber their crit­
icisms or complaints.

In general they would like more

opportunities for field study, would like these experiences
sooner, and would like all faculty to be more supportive
and encouraging toward field studies.

CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Problem
The purpose of this study has been to examine some
undergraduate field study experiences at Michigan State
University in an attempt to provide guidelines and directions
for the further development and implementation of such experi­
ences in liberal arts colleges and universities.
A review of literature indicates that such experi­
ences as field trips, foreign study, service-learning pro­
jects, work-study programs, and off-campus independent study
projects are expanding and growing in popularity.

To find

evaluations of such field study programs and to make com­
parisons was almost impossible not only because of the
limited number of such research studies but also because of
the use of broad categories such as independent study and
the narrow focus of others such as work study.

However, in

the studies which were reviewed some of the following trends,
restrictions, problems, and values emerged.
The opportunity for field study has increased for
the student of average ability but is still confined mostly
to the junior and senior years of study.

115

It has provided

116
opportunities for learning which cannot be duplicated on
campus, and it has promoted independence and responsibility.
Revealed, too, is the fact that the key to a successful
field study is the faculty member, and yet one of the most
frequently-mentioned problems is the extra burden or load
such study places on the faculty.

Evaluation and supervision

were also mentioned as problem areas.
Findings and Conclusions
The present study confirms the fact that such obser­
vations and problems found in earlier studies are still
persisting today.

From the thirty-five departments under

study, questionnaire returns indicated that faculty time,
institutional cost, limited opportunities, student transpor­
tation, and costs to the student are problems which inhibit
departments from offering or expanding field study experi­
ences and students from participating freely in such
experiences.

Also revealed through questionnaire returns

was the general agreement or similarity in the objectives
set forth by the departments.

Application of theory to

practical situations and professional preparation were objec­
tives with the highest priority and were named quite con­
sistently regardless of whether or not the programs had a
liberal arts or a professional emphasis.

Certain affective

outcomes and behavioral changes were also objectives which
reached across most departments.

However, the failure of

117
many departments to evaluate either their field study pro­
grams or the cost of these field studies and also the general
dissatisfaction with what evaluation has taken place suggests
problems with the statement of objectives in terms of attain­
able goals as well as with evaluation— both areas which need
considerable attention.
Faculty and student interviews uncovered other insti­
tutional factors or problems which inhibit or impede the
development of field studies.

The environment is sometimes

supportive and sometimes tolerant, but open encouragement
is generally lacking.

Staffing and finance are problems

which are interrelated.
in adequate staffing.

The greatest expense seems to be
Sometimes when funds are not readily

available, and this is frequently the case, the faculty
involved in field studies are burdened with overlaod and
excessive time demands.

Cooperation between departments,

communication on campus, and coordination with outside
agencies are other areas which, if improved, would alleviate
some of the problems.
Students involved in field studies felt they were a
privileged group and that opportunities for field study
should not only be extended to other students but should be
available to them sooner.

Nevertheless, despite all their

praise for their experiences and the professional and per­
sonal growth realized through them, students had some
criticisms.

They found communication faulty.

118
faculty— except for those faculty directly involved— not
always supportive, and costs and transportation burdensome
and inequitable.

Recommended Guidelines
If field study experiences are to be implemented in
liberal arts colleges and universities, there are certain
recommendations or guidelines which seem essential:
1.

Objectives for field study experiences must be in
harmony with Institutional objectives.

Some tasks

are appropriate for educational institutions; others
are not.

Although many field experiences have dual

purposes— service-learning experiences or work-study
experiences— learning must have priority in the
rationale for and in the performance of these experi­
ences .
2.

Objectives must be developed which state the desired
outcomes of field experiences in terms of achievable
goals and in such a wav as to provide direction and
guidance for the selection of appropriate experi­
ences.

Although some field study programs have been

set up with clearly defined objectives, too many
have been initiated with vague or unclear objectives
or with objectives that cannot be realized or meas­
ured.

Such field studies frustrate the faculty who

119
are not quite sure what they are about find the stu­
dents who are not quite sure what to expect.
3.

The process of evaluation must be on-going and must
include the program, the costs > and student perform­
ance.

The area of evaluation has proven one of the

most difficult areas related to field study experi­
ences and an area in which many faculty seek support
and assistance.

Some faculty have the feeling that

their program is a "good thing," but they have no
data by which to judge this.

Objectives must be

developed with evaluation in mind and objectives
must in turn be modified by what evaluation reveals.
New methods of evaluating student performance must
also be investigated.

Innovative ways of assessing

student growth should be directed toward student
self-evaluation as well as evaluation by faculty.
Students complain that too frequently evaluation is
not based on their participation or performance in
field studies but rather on their ability to write
a term paper.
4.

A supportive climate which encourages both faculty
and students in field studies must be generated.
Faculty feel isolated in their attempts to promote
field studies when theirs is a "one-man show" and
they do not have departmental support but merely
tolerance.

And students, when they must rely "on

120
chance" to discover appropriate field study opportu­
nities, feel a lack of faculty support and encourage­
ment— both of which are necessary for an environment
conducive to field studies.
5.

Field study experiences must have structure.

This

does not mean that such structure need be tightly
set up nor does it mean that the student is not
involved in the planning and design of the experi­
ence.

It does mean, however, that there should be

student preparation for the experience, that the
experience should be planned so that the objectives
are fully understood and serve as guides, and that
there will be some follow-up.

Where structure seems

to be lacking, students complain of their frustra­
tion in not knowing what is expected and not knowing
how to proceed in a way most beneficial to them.
For faculty, structure demands planning that extends
far beyond initial arrangements.

It includes guides

for student learning, procedures for selecting experi­
ences, and better evaluation instruments.

It must

not, however, be overly restrictive but should allow
for a maximum of freedom within a well-developed
framework.
6.

There must be a realistic approach to the cost of
some field study programs and some rational decisions
made about their support.

Such support should extend

121
to faculty providing the experiences and to students
opting to take them.

The study pointed out that the

cost of field study programs has been one of the most
inhibiting factors both for departments and for stu­
dents, but only limited attempts have been made to
study ways to reduce costs and even fewer attempts
have been made to provide some field experiences for
all and not just for those with the ability to pay.
Cost studies should be a part of the planning process,
ways to reduce costs must be considered, and valid
data derived from cost studies should be used in
making decisions about or in instituting changes in
field study programs.
7.

Faculty must be given time for planning, advising,
supervision, and evaluation.

One of the most diffi­

cult problems for faculty is the extra time or over­
load demand which they frequently experience when
attempting to provide field studies.

If field study

is deemed essential, faculty should be given support
and encouragement in their efforts; recognition of
loads is one way to accomplish this, and the result
will be more positive or favorable attitudes and a
better educational climate.
faculty who are available.

Students, too, need
Such availability also

contributes to a more favorable learning situation.

122
8.

Students should be allowed to participate in the
planning and design of some field studies.

Many

students are seeking greater responsibility.

Since

some field studies are set up in such a way that they
do provide opportunities for growth in independence,
self-reliance, and responsibility, and since these
are valid objectives, such participation, together
with faculty assistance, should be encouraged.
9.

Agencies and outside organizations should, whenever
possible, be involved in the planning of field study.
The primary function of these agencies is not usually
education.

Institutions of higher education should

understand this and assist the agencies in the iden­
tification of valid learning experiences and in
determining the extent of student involvement.

The

fact that the final responsibility for and control
of the learning situation must remain with the educa­
tional institution should be so thoroughly understood
that neither will the agency exploit the student by
demanding too much service or too much routine work
nor will the university exploit the agency by over­
taxing its resources or by denying needed support
and assistance.

By involving the agency from the

beginning or at an appropriate planning point, there
will be more assurance of a most profitable

123
university-agency relationship, one that will promote
real learning.
10.

Guidelines providing for consistency of policy must
be set up.

When contradictory policies are set

forth by different departments, confusion and frus­
tration result.

This confusion reaches students who

take courses from various departments, faculty who
observe their own restrictions critically, and
agencies that work with many different persons from
campus.

Depending upon the size of the institution,

a committee, a central planning board, or an office
should address itself to developing and evaluating
such guidelines.
11.

Ways must be established to provide communication
about the coordination of field study activities.
When students do not know about opportunities avail­
able to them and when faculty feel isolated in their
attempts to provide good experiences, there is much
wasted effort.

Lack of information hampers much

progress which could be gained by sharing.

A liaison

person or coordinator should be appointed from each
academic unit offering field studies to work with
the above-mentioned central planning board or office.
Duplication of efforts could thus be reduced; agen­
cies would be less frequently bothered; and inter­
departmental studies could be facilitated.

124
Need for Further Research
Even following such directives as are suggested by
these guidelines, institutions of higher education which
establish field study activities must continue to address
themselves to studying ways of improving these learning
experiences.

Further research is needed on:

the relation-*

ship between the granting of credit and the time spent in
the field study activity; appropriate methods for evaluation;
new ways of grading; simulated learning experiences; and
mechanisms for involving more off-campus personnel and
organizations in the educational venture.
The renewed interest in finding ways of adding depth
and relevance to the learning experience, the obvious advan­
tages of joining theory with practice, and the restiveness
of students who find the physically inactive lecturerecitation methods stultifying--all these are signs which
urge educators to sharpen up the effectiveness of field
studies, to bring them within reasonable cost, and to exhaust
all existing opportunities in the process of extending edu­
cation beyond the narrow boundaries of the campus into the
larger community.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aydelotte, Frank. Breaking the Academic Lockstep.
Harper & Bros., 1944.

New York:

________ . "Honors Courses in American Colleges and Univer­
sities." Bulletin of the National Research Council,
VII, Part 4, No. *0 (January, 1924), 9-18.
________ . "Honors Courses in American Colleges and Univer­
sities." Bulletin of the National Research Council,
X (April, 1925), 1-96.---------- -------------------Bonthius, Robert H . ; Davis, F. James; and Drushel, J. Gerber.
The Independent Study Program in the United States.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1957.
Brick, Michael, and McGrath, Earl J. Innovation in Liberal
Arts Colleges. New York: Columbia University Press,
1969.
Brownell, Baker. The College and the Community.
Harper & Bros., 1952.

New York:

Dearing, Bruce.
"The Student on His Own: Independent
Study." Higher Education: Some Newer Developments
Edited by Samuel Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co., 1965.
Dressel, Paul L. College and University Curriculum.
Berkeley: McCuuchan Publishing Corporation, 1968.
Dressel, Paul L . , and DeLisle, Frances H. Undergraduate
Curriculum Trends. Washington, D.cTl American
Council on Education, 1969.
Dunivant, Noel, Jr. Bridging the Gap. The Winston-Salem
Service-Learning Project in Community Resource
Development, 1969.
Eberly, Donald J.
"Service Experience and Educational
Growth." Educational Record, XLIX, No. 2 (Spring,
1968), 197-205.

125

126
Felder, Dell.
"Independent-Study Practices in Colleges and
Universities." The Journal of Higher Education,
XXV, No. 6 (June, 1964), 335-338.
Gould, Samuel B . , and Cross, K. Patricia, eds. Explorations
in Non-Traditional Study. San Franciscos Josseyhass, inc., 1972.
Heist, Paul, and Wilson, Robert.
"Curricular Experiences
for the Creative." The Creative College Student;
An Unmet Challenge. Edited by Paul Heist. San
Franciscos Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1968.
Henderson, Algo D. The Innovative Spirit.
Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970.

San Francisco:

Lynd, Helen Merrell. Field Work in College Education.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1945.
Mayhew, Lewis B. Colleges Today and Tomorrow.
Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1969.

San Francisco:

Mayhew, Lewis B . , and Ford, Patrick J. Changing the Curric­
ulum. San Francisoc: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1971.
McGrath, Earl J., and Meeth, L. Richard.
"Organizing for
Teaching and Learning: The Curriculum." Higher
Education: Some Newer Developments. Edited by
Samuel Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
1965.
Nesmith, James N.
"Report of Inquiry into the Structuring
and Evaluating of Field Study as a Method of Improving
Teaching and Learning." Unpublished report to The
Danforth Foundation, Stephens College, Missouri,
Fall, 1969.
O'Connell, William R., Jr.
"Innovations in Undergraduate
Instruction: Service-Learning as a Southern
Strategy." Address at American Association for
Higher Education Meeting, Chicago, March, 1972.
Sanford, Nevitt. Where Colleges Fail.
Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1967.

San Francisco:

Scott, Harry V.
"American Higher Education:
Some Features
of the Current Scene." The North Central Association Quarterly, XLVI, No. S (winter, 1'972J , 340-347.

127
The Student in Higher Education. Report of the Commission
on the student in Higher Education. New Haven,
Connecticut: The Hazen Foundation, 1968.
Taylor, Mary Barbara, and Sinclair, J. H.
"Honors Work in
Institutions Accredited by the American Association
of Universities.” School and Society, XXXIII,
No. 842 (February 14, 1931), 247-250.
Thompson, Mary Magdala.
"A Survey of Problems Impeding the
Growth of Independent Study in Institutions of
Higher Education in the United States." Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, 1971.
Umstattd, J. G.
"The Prevalence and Practice of Independent
Study." The Journal of Higher Education, VI
(October, 1935), 364-376.
Wilson, James W . , and Lyons, Edward H. Work-Study College
Programs. New York: Harper & Bros., 1961.

General References
Axelrod, Joseph; Freedman, Mervin; Hatch, Winslow; Katz,
Joseph; and Sanford, Nevitt.
Search for Relevance.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1969.
Baskin, Samuel.
"Independent Study Methods, Programs, and
For Whom?" Current Issues in Higher Education.
Edited by G. Kerry Smith. Washington, D.C.:
Association for Higher Education, 1962.
Berdie, Ralph F.
"The Study of University Students:
Analysis and Recommendations." The Journal of
College Student Personnel, XIII, No. I (January,
1972), 4 - 1 1 . ----------Bonthius, Robert H . ; Davis, F. James; and Drushel, J. Gerber.
"Independent-Study Programs." The Journal of Higher
Education, XXV, No. 8 (November, 1954), 411-416.
Bowen, Howard R., and Douglass, Gordon K. Efficiency in
Liberal Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,

TT7T.----------------

Brown, Robert D. "Evaluation of Experimental Colleges:
Some Questions That Need Asking." The Journal of
Higher Education, XLIII, No. 2 (February, 1972),
133-141.

128
Butz, Otto.
To Make a Difference.
1967.

New York:

Harper & Row,

Campbell, Vincent N. Self Direction and Programmed Instruc­
tion for Five Different Types of Learning objectives.
Washington, D.c.: Government Printing Office,
December, 1963.
The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Less Time,
More Options. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
1971.

-----

The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. New Students
and New Places. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,

rm r.-----

Coffin, William Sloane, Jr.
"Universities and Social Order."
Twenty-Five Years 1945-70. Edited by G. Kerry Smith.
San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970.
Cross, K. Patricia.
Beyond the Open Door.
Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1971.

San Francisco:

Dressel, Paul L . , and Associates.
Evaluation in Higher
Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961.
Dykes, Archie R.
"Innovation in Higher Education." School
and Society, XCIV, No. 2276 (April 2, 1966), 179-181.
Feldman, Kenneth A., and Newcomb, Theodore M. The Impact
of College on Students.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
Inc., 1969.
Garrison, Karl C. Faculty Roles in Service-Learning.
Raleigh, North Carolina:
Department ot Aclministration and Board of Higher Education, October, 1970.
Goff, Jerry G . , and Wilson, Robert C. "Faculty Values and
Improving Teaching." New Teaching, New Learning.
Edited by G. Kerry Smith.
San Francisco: JosseyBass, Inc., 1971.
Goldberg, Maxwell H.
"Design for Liberal Learning." School
and Society, C, No. 2340 (March, 1972), 178-180.
Gould, Samuel B.
"Is Nontraditionalism Becoming a Tradition?"
Today1s Education, LXI, No. 4 (April, 1972), 18-21.
________ . Today's Academic Condition.
Hill Book Co., 1970.

New York:

McGraw-

129
Gruber, Howard E. "The Uses and Abuses of Negative Results."
Learning and the Professors. Edited by Ohmer Milton
and Edward Joseph Shobenr Jr. Athens: Ohio Univer­
sity Press, 1968.
Haywood, Robert.
"Independent Study for Freshmen.” Improving
College and University Teaching, XVI, No. 4 (Autumn.
1968); 279-2807

---- 1---------

Hodgkinson, Harold L. Institutions in Transition.
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971.

New York:

Jencks, Christopher, and Riesman, David. The Academic
Revolution. Garden City, New York! Doubleday &
Company, Inc., 1968.
Karman, Thomas A.
"The Defiance College Winter Term."
Improving College and University Teaching, XIX,
No. '4 (AuEmnn, 1971), 309-513. --------Keppel, Francis. The Necessary Revolution in American
Education. New York: Harper & Row, 1966.
Knowles, Asa S. "Changes in the Traditional Concepts of
Higher Education." School and Society, XCIX,
No. 2336 (November, 1971) , 405-409.
Lee, Calvin B. T . , ed. Improving College Teaching.
Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education,
1967.
Mosteller, Robert P. Service-Learning: A Real World Search
for Truth. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina
internship Office, September, 1970.
Mayhew, Lewis B. "And Now the Future." Twenty-Five Years
1945-70. Edited by G. Kerry SmitE! San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970.
McKinnon, D. W.
"Educating for Creativity: A Modern Myth?"
The Creative College Student: An Unmet Challenge.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, inc., 1968.
Minter, W. John, ed. The Individual and the System.
Boulder: Western Interstate Commission for Higher
Education, 1967.
Minter, W. John, and Thompson, Ian M . , eds. Colleges and
Universities as Agents of Social Change. Boulder:
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education,
November, 1968.

130
Richardson, Elliot L. "Directions in Higher Education."
School and Society, C f No. 2342 (Summer, 1972),
295-297.
Roszak, Theodore, ed. The Dissenting Academy.
Penguin Books, 1967.

Middlesex:

Sanders, Irwin T.; Ward, Jennifer C . ; and Perkins, James R.
Bridges to Understanding. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co., 1970.
Sanford, Nevitt.
"The Goal of Individual Development."
Twenty-Five Years 1945-70. Edited by G. Kerry Smith.
San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970.
________ , ed. The American College.
& Sons, Inc., 1952.

New York:

John Wiley

Sigmon, Robert Lee. Service-Learning: An Educational Style.
Address at University of North Carolina at Charlotte,
July 16, 1970.
Smith, G. Kerry, ed. Agony and Promise.
Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1969.
, ed. Stress and Campus Response.
=
_
_"6 8 .
Jossey-Bass,
Inc.,
19

San Francisco:
San Francisco:

Stephens, E. Robert, and Stenges, Charles A.
"Commentary.11
The Journal of Higher Education, XLII, No. 4 (April,

1971), 363-307.

------------

Stumer, William F.
"Environmental Code: Creating a Sense
of Place on the College Campus." The Journal of
Higher Education, XLIII, No. 2 (February, 19 72),
97-109.
Tarcher, Martin.
"Learning Through Involvement." TwentyFive Years 1945-70. Edited by G. Kerry Smith.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970.
Taylor, Harold. The World as Teacher.
& Company, Inc., 1969.

New York:

Doubleday

Thompson, Mary Magdala, and Dressel, Paul L. "A Survey of
Independent Study Practices." Educational Record,
LI, No. 4 (Fall, 1970), 392-395.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I
IDENTIFYING QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX I
UNDERGRADUATE FIELD STUDY EXPERIENCES
IDENTIFYING QUESTIONNAIRE
1.

Does your department offer some form of undergraduate
field study experience*?
Yes
No _____

(If you checked no, please disregard the remaining questions,
sign, and return.)
2.

Are such experiences optional?
Yes
No
Pro­
fessional requirement?
Yes
No______ ' Departmental
requirement?
Yes
No_____

*Field studies in this survey will refer to undergrad­
uate, off-campus @ field experiences for which credit is
given. Field study may include such experiences as:
observations
intern programs
work-study programs
travel experiences
residence or study abroad#
cultural projects or opportunities
other off-campus experiences
Field study should not include:
independent reading or study assignments
independent study groups
independent laboratory experiments
other similar projects
@On-campus experiences may be included provided they are
comparable to off-campus field experiences; i.e., they
remove the student from the closely supervised classroom
or laboratory situation and provide him with the opportu­
nity to seek and make use of the resources of a field of
interest in a manner different from the usual independent
research project.
#Credit must be more them that earned through formal enroll­
ment in a foreign institution.
131

132
3.

Which are the specific courses within your department in
which undergraduates may be given credit for a field
study experience?

(Please indicate by course number.)
4*

Will you please name the faculty member(s) with whom
further contact concerning field study experiences may
be made?
Name

5.

Title

Will you please include general information (program
descriptions, brochures, etc.) concerning field study
experiences?
Yes

No_____

None available

Questionnaire has been completed by:
Name
Title
Department

Please return completed questionnaire to:
Mary Ellen Quinn, R.S.M.
325 Administration Building
Michigan State University

APPENDIX II
UNDERGRADUATE FIELD STUDY EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE
CURRENT PRACTICES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

APPENDIX II
UNDERGRADUATE FIELD STUDY EXPERIENCES*
CURRENT PRACTICES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT
FIELD STUDY COURSE (S)_________ ___________________
(Indicate by course number)

*Field studies in this survey will refer to undergrad­
uate, off-campus@ field experiences for which credit is
given. Field study may include such experiences as:
observations
intern programs
work-study programs
travel experiences
residence or study abroad#
cultural projects or opportunities
other off-campus experiences
Field study should not include:
independent reading or study assignments
independent study groups
independent laboratory experiments
other similar projects
@On-campus experiences may be included provided they are
comparable to off-campuB field experiences; i.e., they
remove the student from the closely supervised classroom
or laboratory situation and provide him with the opportu­
nity to seek and make use of the resources of a field of
interest in a manner different from the usual independent
research project.
#Credit must be more than that earned through formal enroll
ment in a foreign institution.
133

134
INSTRUCTIONS: Enter the NUMBERS or CHECKMARKS (X) indicating
your responses to the following items on the lines provided.
Respond to the questions only as they apply to the course(s)
you list above. Omit any questions which do not apply to
your offerings.
1.

Field study experiences as offered in the course (s)
indicated may be described as:
(Check all applicable)
Observations
Intern programs
Community service programs
Work-study programs
Trave1
Residence, study, or service abroad
Cultural experiences
Other ( S P E C I F Y ) _________________________

2.

These field study experiences provide:
applicable)

(Check all

Limited contact in or with the
field
Actual involvement
as alearner with limited
responsibilities and well understood goals
A ctual work or service experience without
pay
A ctual work or service experience with pay
3.

The field study experiences indicated are available to:
(Check all applicable)
Department majors only
Superior students only
_____Seniors
Juniors
Sophomores
Freshmen
(REMARKS)____________________________

135
4.

Such field study is required of:

(Check all applicable)

Department majors only
Seniors
Juniors
Sophomores
Freshmen
(REMARKS)_____________________________________

5.

Selection of participants for these field study experi­
ences is based upon:
(Check all applicable)
High school performance
_____ College grade-point average
Student1s desire to participate
Recommendation of faculty or staff
Other (SPECIFY)______________________________

6.

Optional field studies are generally chosen by:
all applicable)

(Check

Superior students
Average students
Students with low GPA's
Upperclassmen
(REMARKS)____________________________________

7.

Approximately what percentage of graduating seniors from
your department have participated in the field study
experiences indicated?
(Put percentage on line)

8.

The above percentage is based on:
Complete data
Systematic sampling
General estimate
(EXPLAIN IF NECESSARY)

9.

Approximately what percentage of students having parti­
cipated in these field study experiences are non-majors?

136
10.

These field study experiences are offered: ! (Check all
applicable)
Fall term
Winter term
_____ Spring term
Summer term
(REMARKS)___________________________________

11.

The ordinary duration of a field study experience is
Less than one term
One term
More than one term

12.

The field study experience is a
Full-time commitment
Part-time commitment (Student may be taking
other courses at the same time)
(REMARKS)___________________________________

13.

The objectives of the field study experiences have been
formally stated and published with rationale?
Yes
No
(REMARKS)____________________________________

14.

The objectives of the field study experiences indicated
are:
(RANK IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE. OMIT OR ADD ANY)
Professional preparation
Professional service
_____ Self-reliance and self-direction
_____ Knowledge of self (abilities, values, etc.)
_____ Understanding and acceptance of others
_____ Application of theory to practical situations
Development of awareness of societal issues
Other (SPECIFY AND RANK)

137
15.

Pre-field/study experiences which prepare a student
specifically for the field study include:
_____ Orientation seminar(s)
Faculty interview(s)
_____ Other (SPECIFY)__________________________

16.

Post-field/study experiences or follow-up programs
include:
Seminar(s)
Conferences
Group discussions
Other (SPECIFY)_________________________

17.

These field study experiences are usually
Student generated
Faculty generated
{REMARKS)______________________

18.

Proposed field studies are approved by:
Individual faculty member
Department chairman
Committee
Field study coordinator
Other (SPECIFY)_____________

19.

Guidelines are available to this person or persons for
the approval of field studies.
Yes
No
'(REMARKS)

138
20.

A student enrolled in a field study is evaluated by:
(Check all applicable)
Faculty member
Agency or outside personnel
Fellow students
Self
(REMARKS )_________________________________

21.

Techniques or tools used to evaluate students are:
(Check all applicable)
Written reports
Oral reports
Agency or outside assessments
Interviews
Visitations
Journals
Projects
Tests
Other (SPECIF*)________________________

22.

You are satisfied with your evaluation tools and
techniques?
Yes
No
(REMARKS)_____________________________

23.

Students completing a field study receive grades of
4, 3.5, 3, 2.5, etc.
_____ C/NC
P/N
Other (SPECIFY)__________________________

24,

Students seem satisfied with the grading practice?
Yes
No
(REMARKS)_______________________________

139
25.

Students are generally satisfied with the number of
credit hours received for the time spent on the field
study?
Yes
No
(REMARKS)__________________________________

26.

Funds are available to students for the field study?
Yes
No

No extra expense involved for the student
27.

When students refrain from selecting optional field
study experiences, the principal reasons seem to be;
(Check all applicable)
_____ Cost
Apathy
Fear of self-direction
_____ Red-tape (arrangements)
Limited opportunities
_____ Time
Transportation
Other (SPECIFY)___________________________

28.

Students required to participate in a field study seem
to experience problems with:
(Check all applicable)
_____ Cost
_____ Red-tape (arrangements)
_____ Transportation
Expectations of outside agency or placement
Other (SPECIFY)_____________________________

29.

Faculty attitudes toward field study are
_____ Favorable
_____ Unfavorable
(REMARKS)____________________

140
30.

Special problems for the faculty or department in rela­
tion to the field studies indicated a r e : (Check all
applicable)
Faculty time
Supervision
On-campus communication
Coordination
Limited placement sites
other (SPECIFY)______________________________

31.

Placements for field study experiences are:
On campus
Off-campus educational institutions
Other off-campus sites
BRIEFLY DESCRIBE EXPERIENCES

(Use back of page if necessary)
32.

Outside agencies or placements provide supervision?
_____Yes
No

(REMARKS)________________________________

33.

Outside agencies or placements cooperate in evaluation?
Yes
No
{REMARKS)______________________________

34.

Outside agencies or placements rely too much on service?
(Would they find it inconvenient to function without the
student?)
Yes
No
(REMARKS )_____________________________________

141
35.

The cost of offering these field experiences has been
studied?
_____ Yes
No

36.

Field study leads to
An increase in cost
A decrease in cost
Some increase and some decrease
No change

37.

An increase is found in the following areas:
all applicable)

(Check

Faculty
P lanning
Program direction
Supervision
Evaluation
Others (SPECIFY)__________________________

38.

A decrease is found in the following areas:
applicable)

(Check all

_____ Faculty
Equipment
Program direction
_____ Other (SPECIFY)______________________________

Answer the following questions as they pertain to all field
study offerings in your department.
39.

Students may participate in more than one field experi­
ence?
Yes
No
(IF YES, EXPLAIN)____________________________

40.

If yes, approximately what percentage of graduating
seniors from your department have more than one field
study experience?

142
41.

Concerning self-evaluation of the field study program,
the department has:
Never attempted a formal evaluation
Tried successfully to formally evaluate it
Evaluated it with limited success
Evaluated it to the department's satisfaction

42.

Reports or informal summaries of evaluation studies are
available and will be returned with this questionnaire?
Yes

No

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Use the space below to comment on
problems related to the design, administration, financing,
or other aspects of field study experiences to which this
questionnaire did not give you an opportunity to respond.

(Use back of page if necessary)
Questionnaire has been completed by:
Name
Title__________________________
Department____________________

Please return completed questionnaire to:
Mary Ellen Quinn
325 Administration Building
Michigan State University

APPENDIX III
DEPARTMENTS OFFERING UNDERGRADUATE
FIELD STUDY EXPERIENCES

APPENDIX III
DEPARTMENTS OFFERING UNDERGRADUATE
FIELD STUDY EXPERIENCES
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Agricultural Economics
Crop and Soil Sciences
Fisheries and Wildlife
Forestry
Packaging
Park and Recreation Resources
Resource Development
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND LETTERS
★Art
♦English
Music
German and Russian
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION
Accounting and Financial Administration
Business Law and Office Administration
Economics
Marketing and Transportation
COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION ARTS
Audiology and Speech Sciences
Communi cation
Journalism
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational
Psychology
♦Elementary and Special Education
Health, Physical Education, and Recreation
♦Secondary Education and Curriculum
143

144
COLLEGE OP ENGINEERING
Mechanical Engineering
COLLEGE OF HUMAN ECOLOGY
Family and Child Sciences
Family Ecology
Human Environment and Design
JAMES MADISON COLLEGE
JUSTIN MORRILL COLLEGE
COLLEGE OF NATURAL SCIENCE
Geology
♦Mathematics
♦Nursing
Science and Mathematics Teaching Center
COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE
Anthropology
Criminal Justice
Geography
Political Science
Psychology
Social Work
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
Humanities
Social Science
COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE
Medical Technology

Jointly shared departments are listed under only one college

♦Departments eliminated from the study.

See Chapter III.

APPENDIX IV
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR FACULTY

APPENDIX IV
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR FACULTY
1.

What kinds of field study experiences are included in
your department?

2.

How long has field study been offered through your
department?

3.

How extensive is the practice of field study?
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6

Available to all applicants?
Restricted by GPA's, grade levels, etc.?
Available each term?
Limited to certain faculty directors?
Restricted to a certain number of credit hours?
Increasing in popularity and demand?

4.

What types of students opt for field study?

5.

How are students informed about or introduced to the
concept of field study?
5.1
5.2
5.3

By chance?
Literature?
Other?

Have objectives been developed with rationale and are
they known to
6.1
6.2

Faculty?
Students?

What are the objectives?
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8

Professional preparation?
Professional service?
Self-reliance and self-direction?
Knowledge of self (abilities, values, etc.)?
Understanding and acceptance of others?
Application of theory to practical situations?
Development of awareness of societal issues?
Other?
145

146
How are faculty and students introduced to the objec­
tives and rationale for field study?
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
9.

Orientation meetings?
Literature?
Peers?
Other?

How are students evaluated?

10 . Do these methods of evaluation address themselves to
goals or objectives of the field study?
11 . Has your department ever evaluated your program of
field study?
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4

Never?
Tried unsuccessfully?
Limited success?
To your satisfaction?

12 . What was included in the evaluation?
12.1
12.2
12.3
12.4

Student testimony?
Test performance?
Post graduation activities?
Other?

13.

Did you evaluate the process as well as the outcomes?

14.

Have students ever evaluated the evaluation process?

15.

Are faculty members for the most part favorable toward
field study experiences?

16.

Is your program of field study known and appreciated
outside your college or department?
16.1
16.2
16.3

17.

By top administration?
By other universities?
By general public?

Have you found that field study leads to a change in
expense?
17.1
17.2

Increase?
Decrease?

147
18.

What are some field study problems related to:
18.1

Faculty?
18.11
18.12
18.13

18.2

Agencies or placements?
18.21
18.22
18.23
18.24

18.3

Too much emphasis on service?
Coordination?
Location?
Insufficient openings?

Students?
18.31
18.32
18.33

19.

Excessive time demands?
Coordination?
Other?

Apathy?
Expense?
Transportation?

What suggestions do you have for coping with these?
19.1
19.2
19.3
19.4

On the part of
On the part of
On the part of
Other?

the university?
the department?
the faculty?

20.

What problems do you anticipate in field studies and
how should the university respond to these?

21.

What do you see as the most important outcomes of field
study in your department?

22.

What do you see as the future of field study in your
department?

APPENDIX V
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR STUDENTS

APPENDIX V
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR STUDENTS
What field study experience(s) have you had?
only those for which credit was given.
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4

As
As
As
As

a
a
a
a

Include

freshman?
sophomore?
junior?
senior?

Describe your field study experience(s).
What kinds of field study experiences were available to
you and why did you choose the one(s) you did?
Was a field study optional or required in your program?
4.1
4.2

If optional, what made you choose it?
If required, would you have chosen it regardless
of the requirement?

How did you find out about the opportunity of enrolling
for a field study?
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5

Literature?
Faculty?
Peers?
By chance?
Other?

When did you find out about the opportunity of enrolling
for a field study?
6.1
6.2
6 .3

Prior to enrollment at M.S.U.?
First year at M.S.U.?
Other?

Did the following factors present problems for you in
choosing or in participating in your field study experi­
ence?
7.1
7.2

Cost?
Distance?

149
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9

Credit hours (too few for time expended) ?
Limited opportunities?
Red tape (arrangements, etc.)?
Time?
Expectations of faculty?
Expectations of outside agency or placement?
Insufficient preparation?

8 . Were you required to give service during your field
study?
8.1
8.2
8.3
9.

Service as a part of learning?
Too much service?
Service with pay?

How was your field study experience evaluated?
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
9.8
9.9

Journals?
Reports?
Assessments?
Discussions?
Interviews?
Projects?
Tests?
Observations?
Other?

10 . How was your field study experience graded?
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4

4, 3.5, 3, 2.5, etc.
C/NC
P/N
Other

11 . Were you satisfied with these procedures?
11.1
11.2

Evaluation techniques?
Grading system?

12 . Have the objectives and rationale of field study experi­
ences been clear to you?
13.

What are the objectives as you know them?
13.1
13.2
13.3
13.4
13.5
13.6
13.7
13.8

Professional preparation?
Professional service?
Self-reliance and self-direction?
Knowledge of self— abilities, values, etc.?
Understanding and acceptance of others?
Application of theory to practical situations?
Development of awareness of societal issues?
Other?

150
14.

How were you introduced to these objectives?
14.1

Orientation meetings?
14.11
14.12

15.

14.2

Literature?

14.3

Other?

How would you evaluate your field study as a learning
experience?
15.1
15.2
15.3

16.

With faculty?
With students?

Valuable?
Mediocre?
Inferior?

Are there any special advantages or disadvantages of
field study not already mentioned?
16.1
16.2

Advantages?
Disadvantages?

17.

Do you think that most students are aware of the pos­
sibility of enrolling for a field study experience?

18.

Do you think the environment here (faculty attitudes,
etc.) affects the practice of field study?
18.1
18.2

19.

Positively?
Negatively?

What do you think about the future possibilities of
field study in your department or college?

APPENDIX VI
DEPARTMENTS NOT OFFERING UNDERGRADUATE
FIELD STUDY EXPERIENCES

APPENDIX VI
DEPARTMENTS NOT OFFERING UNDERGRADUATE
FIELD STUDY EXPERIENCES
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Agricultural Engineering
Animal Husbandry
Biochemistry
Dairy Science
Food Science and Human Nutrition
Horticulture
Poultry Science
Natural Resources
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND LETTERS
History
Linguistics and Oriental and African Languages
Philosophy
Religion
Romance Languages
Theatre
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION
Management
Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Management
COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION ARTS
Advertising
Television and Radio
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Administration and Higher Education

151

152
COLLEGE OP ENGINEERING
Chemical Engineering
Civil and Sanitary Engineering
Computer Science
Electrical Engineering and Systems Science
Metallurgy, Mechanics, and Materials Science
Engineering Instructional Services
COLLEGE OF HUMAN MEDICINE
Obstetrics, Gyneocology, and Reproductive Biology
Surgery
LYMAN BRIGGS COLLEGE
COLLEGE OP NATURAL SCIENCE
Astronomy
Biophysics
Botany and Plant Pathology
Chemistry
Entomology
Physics
Statistics and Probability
Zoology
COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE
Sociology
Labor and Industrial Relations
Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture
Multidisciplinary Major Program
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
American Thought and Language
Natural Science
COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE
Anatomy
Microbiology and Public Health
Pathology
Pharmacology
Physiology
Large Animal Surgery and Medicine
Small Animal Surgery and Medicine

Jointly shared departments are listed under only one college

APPENDIX VII
TABULATED QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS
NOT INCLUDED IN TABLES

APPENDIX VII
TABULATED QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS
NOT INCLUDED IN TABLES
Responses from 45 faculty members representing 35 departments.
1.

Field study experiences as offered in the course(s)
indicated may be described as:
(Check all applicable)
20
11
14
10
5
9
7
6

2.

Observations
Intern programs
Community service programs
Work-study programs
Travel
Residence, study, or service abroad
Cultural experiences
Other (SPECIFY)_______ ________
Clinics, classrooms, etc."-participation in
activities.

These field study experiences provide:
applicable)

(Check all

17
27

Limited contact in or with the field
Actual involvement as a learner with limited
responsibilities and well understood goals
20 A ctual work or service experience without pay
8 A ctual work or service experience with pay
(Most responses indicated more than one
option.)
5.

Selection of participants for these field study experi­
ences is based upon:
(Check all applicable)'
High school performance
9 College grade-point average
28 Student's desire to participate
21 Recommendation of faculty or staff
Other (SPECIFY)
_______
4 Requirement of major or minor
2 Availability of space
(Sixteen responses included both the third and
fourth items. The college grade-point aver­
age was never used alone.)
153

154
6.

Optional field studies are generally chosen by:
all applicable)
16
8
JL
8
3

10.

3
Z
16
8
7

7

Less than one term
One term
M
’ore than one term

The field study experience is a
13
21
8

15.

Fall term
Winter term
Spring term
Summer term
(REMARKS)____________________________________
All terms____________ _______________________
Fall, winter, and spring
Other combinations of terms

The ordinary duration of a field study experience is
10
23

12.

Superior students
Average students
Students with low GPA's
Upperclassmen
No pattern

These field study experiences are offered (Check all
applicable)
4

11.

(Check

Full-time commitment
Part-time commitment (Student may be taking
other courses at the same time)
(REMARKS) ...... ..............................
Both possibilities

Pre-field/study experiences which prepare a student
specifically for the field study include:
21

Orientation seminar(s)*') 12 responses included
faculty interview(s)
i
both items.
Other (SPECIFY)______ _______________________
9 Other courses __
_______
4" Class discussions
5 Handouts and readlnqs
2 Visits to sites

“ T9

155
16.

Post-field/study experiences or follow-up programs
include:
11
14
11

Seminar(s)
Conferences
Group discussions
______________________
Other (SPECIFY)
6 Papers r reports^logs
'4 Classes (with or without presentations*)"
2 Evaluations

17.

These field study experiences are usually
5 Student generated
2T0 Faculty generated
(REMARKS)___ ___________________
9 Both possibilities

18.

Proposed field studies are approved by:
#1
#2
#3
#4

8
2
1
7
7
6
5

Individual faculty member
Department chairman
Committee
Field study coordinator
Other (SPECIFY)_______________
Items #1 and #2________________
Items #1 and #4
Other combinations

20.

A student enrolled in a field study is evaluated by:
(Check all applicable)
Combinations
#1
22 Faculty member
7
#1 and #2
#2
1 Agency or outside
2
#1 and #3
personnel
1
#1, #2, and #3
#3
Fellow students
"5
#1, #2, and #4
#4 T Self
T"
#1, #2, #3, and #4
{REMARKS)_____________ 5____ Other combinations

24.

Students seem satisfied with the grading practice?
38
1
2

Yes
No
(REMARKS)_______________________________
Don't know______________________________
New course

156
26*

Funds are available to students for the field study?
6 Yes
26 No
7 No extra expense involved for the student

29.

Faculty attitudes toward field study are
35

31.

Placements for field study experiences are:
#1
#2
#3

1 On campus
Off-campus educational institutions
23 Other off-campus sites
Br i e f l y d e s c r i b e e x p e r i e n c e s _________________
3 Items #1 and #3_______________________________
8 Items 42 and #3

T

34.

Items fi, #2, and #3

Outside
agencies or placementsrely too much onservice?
(Would they find it inconvenient to function without the
student?)
29

38.

Favorable
Unfavorable

Yes
No

A decrease is found in the following areas:
applicable)

(Check all

1

Faculty
Equipment
Decrease refers to cost.
Program direction
_____Other (SPECIFY)_______________________________
4

39.

Students may participate in more than one field study
experience?
35
5

Yes
No